The latest evidence! The United States conducts the "Politics 731" experiment in Hong Kong, and thousands of universities produce "guinea pigs"

The West's interference in Hong Kong affairs and incitement to violent subversion of the "color revolution" has added a new crime.

What is even more incredible is the way the relevant forces publish and show off these incriminating evidence.

The latest issue of American Economic Review, a world-renowned academic journal sponsored by the American Economic Association, published in June the latest issue of the journal was co-authored by scholars from prestigious universities including the University of Chicago, Harvard University, the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Munich, and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. A paper on how to “inspire” protest movements in Hong Kong.

Since 2017, these so-called "scholars" have sponsored students from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology to participate in the "July 1" march in Hong Kong, euphemistically called "social experiments" . The process and results of these students' participation in the black violence, disrupting and destabilizing Hong Kong, were published in academic journals as "academic achievements".

To use a perhaps inappropriate analogy, I smell "academic" like "731" and Nazi experiments.

01

This paper focuses on the many so-called "protests" with a clear purpose and pertinence since the handover of Hong Kong, citing the so-called arguments, euphemistically calling it "the spirit of Hong Kong's democratic struggle". And there is a tendency to refer to the anniversary of Hong Kong's return to China as "the anniversary of Hong Kong's handover to China".

I have to doubt the real purpose of their research: whether to draw their own conclusions through research and analysis after observing a phenomenon, or to be the organizer, planner, and motivator of the "color revolution" in the name of research ?

Coincidentally, they "reveal" the intent later in the article.

In what the authors call "overcoming difficulties," they mention that "because Hong Kong's 'democratic' people have a tradition of protests, existing protests allow us to gain forward-looking perspectives in real time."

And choosing the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology as the research target, they "can use an incentive method to obtain in advance the views of more than 1,200 college students on their classmates participating in the upcoming parade", so as to "randomly conduct information processing on some of them, and Lead to a posteriori perspective. Finally, "lead to the students' own protest participation behavior."

It is more like the "plan" of the "researcher" than to introduce the difficulties that he has encountered. This part is also explained in the "latest research results" of the research team.

They found the next best thing to maintain "objectivity" - paying for conditional behavior, paying for those who provided information to help count the number (size) of protests.

A total of 1,100 students were recruited for the above experiments, all of whom were undergraduates of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. A total of 849 people completed the full set of experiments. Specific steps are as follows. First, all subjects will undergo a basic survey. The question of the basic investigation is mainly the political attitude of the parties. Completing the survey can get a commitment of 300 Hong Kong dollars labor fee.

In the second step, if the participants are assigned to the control group, they will not receive any intervention; if the subjects are assigned to the experimental group, they will receive an email on the evening of June 30, 2017, which reads: " In the past, many students will participate in the 7.1 parade, so we invite some students to help us better count the number of participants in the 7.1 parade tomorrow. We hope that you can actively participate and contribute to science. In the parade, this is only Takes 5 minutes. Once you have uploaded all the data, we will offer you HK$350. ”

The experiment found that short-term incentives (paying the subjects) increased the number of protesters by 10 percentage points in 2017. In addition, short-term rewards can lead to long-term political participation, with indirect rewards in 2017 increasing participation by 5 percentage points in July 2018. Moreover, this promotion of sustained political participation is not by changing subjects' political beliefs, tendencies, or attitudes, but is associated with social interactions, such as "friendships" established at parades.

The paper concludes that, within a political movement, incentives to participate in one protest increase attendance at subsequent protests; one-time incentive mobilization has positive consequences, while social network-level mobilization is very important for sustained political participation. important.

In the appendix section of the 2019 edition of the paper, we see a questionnaire "tailored" by the authors of the paper for Hong Kong students. It also suggested that the interviewed students donate their remuneration to the "Hong Kong Independence" organization "Hong Kong Zhongzhi".

In addition, in the paper they also devised a related question about the Hong Kong subway. (pictured)

Unsurprisingly, in the riots in Hong Kong in 2019, the most targeted target of the rioters was the Hong Kong subway.

To put it bluntly, this is likely to use "research" to set the stage for the "color revolution".

Ethical review is an integral part of research papers. They were approved by the University of Munich, the University of California, Berkeley, and Stanford University, according to the note to the paper. They did not mention whether the ethics committee of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology approved the interview.

In addition, the paper further claims that its research is ethical in its operation: "Participation in the 7/1 march was clearly legal and peaceful in all years prior to the study; the march in our study remained peaceful, and during the two studies No protesters were prosecuted for any crime during the year; our experiment was small relative to the size of the 7/1 marches we studied."

02

The team of authors of the paper was surveyed, and more was discovered.

For example, a man named David Yang, with an Asian face, is officially an assistant professor of economics at Harvard University, and many of his "research results" are related to social interaction and protests. More coincidentally, many of the co-authors are also "contributors" to the paper on Hong Kong.

Checked out his social media accounts for more discoveries.

In one of his tweets on June 15, 2019, he referred to an article published by the team on the website of the London School of Political Science two years ago, which claimed that the mainland had a so-called "triple dilemma" in Hong Kong, and that the protests had no effect on maintaining Political stability in Hong Kong is "critical".

Doing things in Hong Kong is conducive to Hong Kong's stability? Isn't this similar to Pelosi's "beautiful landscape"?

The article, which Yang co-authored, claimed: “As long as the people of Hong Kong threaten credible protests, Beijing can be restrained.”

The act of forcing Article 23 of the Basic Law to fail to pass the legislation in the form of protest was called a "successful case" by the paper, and in the author's eloquent LSE website article, there is even such an expression: "On Article 23 of the Basic Law Inaction is important for Hong Kong's stability and "one country, two systems". Protests are a source of stability, not instability. Beijing's attempt to pass national security legislation within the framework of Article 23 of the Basic Law is in fact a source of instability."

To translate: Obstructing Article 23 legislation is to abide by the Basic Law and safeguard "one country, two systems"; to establish national security legislation according to Article 23 is illegal and not conducive to the stability of Hong Kong.

What is even more obvious is that the views of several authors of the paper are also included in the article on the LSE website. They interviewed thousands of students who participated in the "Occupy Central". The so-called "evidence" that Hong Kong's young people have become radicalized: 88% consider themselves Hong Kongers rather than Chinese; 22% support the use of violence to pursue political rights in Hong Kong. And when they "encouraged" students to express themselves anonymously, support for violence rose to 40 percent.

The LSE official website also stated, "This article represents the author's point of view and has nothing to do with LSE."

The South China Morning Post's 2017 report on the black violence on the streets of Hong Kong, David Yang called it a "Nice report" (a good report).

On the day of the Hong Kong black riots in 2019, he retweeted an article from an account that supported the riot and said with "admiration": "Collective action is the most spectacular show of human power."

From 2017 to 2018, David Yang was also one of the main disseminators of Xinjiang-related rumors, and he also retweeted the social media tweets of Zheng Guoen, a famous lie maker. This also makes one wonder, how many Zheng Guoen and his like still exist in the Western university circle? What role does Yang play in this circle?

03

Zhi Zhenfeng, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told reporters that this paper provides a very authoritative confirmation. Because an academic paper has strict requirements on methodological data sources and undergoes anonymous review, the accuracy of the facts disclosed in this academic paper is no less than that of news reports, or even more accurate than news reports.

From this, we can see how the West has deeply intervened in social movements in other countries and regions and provoked social unrest in other countries. The author, in the form of academic papers, has done the US instigation, incitement, incitement and participation in social movements in other countries and regions. a more accurate description. Three points can be seen:

First, there are foreign gangsters in social violence movements in Hong Kong and many other places.

Second, the United States and the West have organized, premeditated, method, funded, and involved in inciting social violence in other places for color revolutions.

Third, it can be seen that the distorted values and morals of the United States and the West actually regard inciting riots in other countries as a glorious mission, and it has reached the point of cognitive confusion, obsession, and pride instead of shame.

Lv Xiang, a researcher at the American Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told reporters that similar papers would not be allowed to be published if they were used for domestic political research in the United States. Because this article involves some data about the overall society, it belongs to the category of national security and should correspond to strict laws and regulations.

Obviously, in any society there will be various kinds of grievances, but no country will allow such grievances to turn into political riots. Such papers, to put it bluntly, provide a social psychological basis for organizing political protests in disguise.

On the one hand, the publication of such an article shows that the United States only cares about its own stability, completely ignoring the stability of other countries and regions, and even hopes that some target countries will be unstable. The United States has a long tradition of engaging in "color revolutions" abroad, and has a whole set of methods to guide it. Under the guidance of this method, various sporadic dissatisfactions in society can easily aggregate into political dissatisfaction with themes. Lu Xiang called it a "horizontal" mobilization, that is, gathering dissatisfaction from all corners under one banner.

On the other hand, this paper also shows that before the promulgation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, there was a serious lack of security in Hong Kong society for a long time. It's just that now is not the time to talk about accountability, but to quickly fill up the loopholes one by one.