The Road to Break the Matrix ~ Dialogue with IYP 2020: About China and the United States (Part 2)

The first half is here: " The Road to Breaking the Matrix ~ Dialogue with IYP 2020: About China and the US First Half "

• What will "change" and remain the same in the new Biden administration?
• Why are Chinese dissidents and U.S. rebels so different?
• What are Chinese intellectuals and Chinese immigrants missing?
• How do political infiltrators operate and how should you respond?
• ...
• How to get your best weapon?

(continued from previous post)

It's not that China doesn't have racial discrimination issues, absolutely not, as the victor contrasted China and the United States; however, in the BLM case, "race" is subconsciously considered to be limited to black people. If you use this topic, you'll need to spend at least a few threads explaining yourself, and there's no guarantee that people will read it. Dissidents and activists must find shortcuts in hot-button events that can mobilize their homeland. The shortcut here is police brutality. Activists in Russia have reacted most acutely.

You can recall, where did the main conflict in the Chinese public opinion field take place at that time? Yes, people are centered on the conflict of sympathy for black people criticizing each other and tearing each other apart. Do the Chinese who oppose the BLM movement really discriminate against black people? I don't think so.

Racism from China does not discriminate against wealthy NBA players. When boxing champion Ali's son wrote in support of Trump and against BLM (yes, he accurately sensed the impact of BLM on far-right language) Chinese public opinion There are many supporters. what is this? It's not about race, it's about class , like the people around Musk's tweet telling the mogul how expensive he drank last night's whisky, they probably wouldn't give a damn about the homeless man sitting on the street corner Take a second look, whether it's white or black.

Again, if you're focusing on racism, you're going off topic .

𝖀: Is this what you always say "Intellectuals need to think like activists"?

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: Yes.

You often hear people say "China is an island", it seems that changes from the outside world cannot affect China? In fact, this is not the case, what is lacking is just how the discourses of Chinese intellectuals lead to the connection between Chinese society and the most progressive parts of the world . As far as BLM is concerned, if you focus on race, you make it "someone else's business".

China's "cracks" are not only between China and the world, but also between Chinese intellectuals and activists -- two communities that are difficult to coordinate and synchronize. If intellectuals can think more about how to stand on the stage of the force of change and share the common goal of promoting change with the actors, work towards this goal, or at least relax the individual winning and losing competition in the debate, it can be bridged. this crack .

In fact, I am optimistic, because I have seen some Chinese public opinion begin to think about local issues; but the scope is not large, and at the same time, many famous intellectuals focus their energy on an angle that is not beneficial to local mobilization, which is a waste. I don't think Chinese society needs action now, but no one can predict when the action will appear, so the key is whether people's way of thinking is conducive to the brewing of action.

Especially Chinese dissidents who have immigrated overseas have a special obligation to bring real democracy to Chinese society through online Chinese content.

𝖛𝖎𝖈𝖙𝖔𝖗: The reason why Chinese immigrants are unable to integrate into the local area is that most of them exile is based on a narrow thinking , that is, "finally able to criticize the Communist Party". Rather than really opening up the opportunity to fight against authoritarianism and violence. This has led them to continue to exist in WeChat groups largely not to join forces with domestic forces, but to enjoy a kind of comfortable grandstand seating.

Rebels are the democratic "part" of America, and independent media and independent organizations are the wisdom of democracy ; if you focus on Washington and the corporate media, you're only missing the most important value.

The union of the Chinese and American rebels is not as difficult as you think, as follows, the meme posted by Chinese friends on Facebook, this is the union - working together in the direction of defending the transparency revolution and democratic truth, and resisting surveillance capitalism.

𝖛𝖎𝖈𝖙𝖔𝖗: A multi-polar democratic world is not impossible, but it is by no means brought about by any government, but by the people of any country. the real rebels .

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: It is not easy for intellectuals to think like activists, especially on social media, it is even more difficult.

The first thing that intellectuals think of is always the observation and discussion of the phenomenon that has appeared. On social media, this kind of thinking will be kidnapped by the so-called "hot topics" in the public opinion field; everything on the Internet is fast Yes, very few people can stop and think, how did those hot spots come about? Is it a real social conflict or the result of human manipulation ?

The large-scale deployment of information warfare navies is precisely to push up false "hot spots" to divert people's attention from real issues. This is true all over the world.

Intellectuals have a great need to remain calm here, no matter how difficult it may be; in fact, they can do it if they keep the big goals of their actions in mind. The biggest hurdles are your personal popularity, followings and reputational considerations - indeed, these things can only be achieved if you "follow the buzz" and say what other people have to say.

But is that really you? Are you striving for those illusory fan numbers?

And what intellectuals need to consider is what is worth studying, and what to study it will have completely unintended effects.

As in the example above, if you focus on "why are so many Chinese so conservative", it will appear that you are rejecting conservatives, are you? I don't think it should be. Our principle is always to go beyond the left and right. As long as it is a good plan, it is worth trying. If you unnecessarily cause misunderstanding of camp boundaries to others, it will only be detrimental to your mobilization.

The left-right paradigm is the source of polarization, and once people label each other as left-right, the conversation ends. Polarizing society is an excellent way to profit from the power, and the power is the only one who benefits. The IYP is committed to ending the left-right paradigm, starting with the truth, and re-engaging with each other. Anyone - whether they claim to be left or right - who refuses to accept the truth will be the only judge of no value for dialogue .

Another example, IYP once published " Will the new Biden administration release the whistleblower ", but that post is only less than 1/5 of the entire content of the analysis of the new Biden administration, and 4/5+ we will not Continue to publish. Because after this post was published, some pro-Trump Chinese accounts quickly adopted this line of thought-targeting the interests of the power that is contrary to the interests of the rebels, what we can do in this case is to quickly suspend the issue.

That's not to say we're going to capitulate, much less that a Biden administration's score will go up, definitely not (we pointed this out, Biden is already largely an empty shell , and those around him will take their Interests influence policy, all this is a fact and will not change); we just need to continue this topic when it is more appropriate in the Chinese context. That moment is not now.

This is a more recent and typical case, citing it to illustrate the above -mentioned problem that intellectual research topics need to strive to approximate the way of thinking of activists, and need to take into account your local context (in the local context of the American rebels Now is an excellent time to disclose people around Biden; but not in China).

Imagine you are striking iron to make a weapon, all you need is to start swinging a hammer when the temperature is warm enough. The strength should be enough, the temperature should be enough, with the ideal of a good sword as the ultimate goal, all your attention is on the iron in your hand, rather than referencing or imitating the operation rhythm of other workshops.

In the end, every workshop can make a sharp sword, whether it is a Chinese swordsmith or an American swordsmith, because your goal is the same, in the world of technology, there are no borders, and wisdom and skills are shared by all. This is union.

𝕮 : It's difficult. I think Chinese intellectuals are all hot spots, and there is almost no such consideration. All they think about is their popularity. In particular, those advocacy media, who especially like to find such hot-spotted intellectuals to speak, will definitely push it up automatically.

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: The "difficulty" is that intellectuals must have a big goal in mind. No matter how you describe it, it must serve the interests of the people, not the interests of the ruling class.

The media can give intellectuals a platform to amplify their voices, and intellectuals must make better use of this platform to achieve the interests of the general public. If your topic of speech is rejected by the corporate media, documenting the before and after process and telling it to everyone on your own blog is an important defiance in itself.

𝕮 : When it comes to corporate media in the US, especially publicity, their Chinese content is so stupid. They think that the Chinese are not stupid enough. They try their best to lower their IQ. Many Chinese misunderstand American politics because of These corporate media are related to the content of publicity, especially those who cannot speak English , and it is impossible to know what is a mouthpiece and what is an independent voice.

For example, the following, I saw it a few days ago, and then I remembered what IYP said earlier, and when I saw the title, I knew it was wrong:

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: Well, indeed, as we quoted the analysis of the American rebels , no matter who wins the 2016 election, a new Cold War against China will start, maybe slightly different in form and details, but the nature is the same. This is not a rule "established" by Trump, nor by anyone, but by the current situation .

The President is in charge of the narrative, he is the steward of the narrative, and he manages the narrative by speaking on behalf of the interest groups that support his election. Just as a puppet tells a story to a child, you cannot say that the story was told by a puppet.

Before this election, Hillary's emails from 4 years ago were once again hot in the Chinese public opinion field (well, it's sad; because this reading is from propaganda, 4 years ago was the transparency revolution, but), you should take a look at it To the crucial part - how Hillary privately promises to the elite how she will satisfy the 1% if elected ; you wouldn't consider this a "special case" of a candidate, would you?

The president is the performer, not the writer of the script, who presents, not defines. He can play, but he cannot deviate from the needs of interest groups, otherwise he will not be able to stand firm in this position.

Almost everyone is watching the poll numbers before the votes are counted. The American rebels don't do that, and neither does the IYP ( see what polls are here , be sure to read this book, highly recommended!), we Depends on the actions of interest groups .

Factions in oligarchies can manifest as someone supporting this hand instead of the other in a certain situation - such as the pre-vote figures of 106 billionaires donating to Biden; 93 to Trump ; But what all oligarchs have in common is the need to maintain the **same** basic state of building their respective kingdoms, which means that while there may be some power struggles at the top, whatever the outcome will not improve oppression, Exploitative, and Orwellian status quo .

The American rebels know very well that the election is not the way to achieve change. The actors on the stage are not the ones who wrote the script. Whether people applaud or throw tables.

𝖀: Got it, it depends on where the money goes, not the poll numbers.

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: Yes. That's why they go to great lengths to use dark money -- money that's hard to trace, and why the investigation of dark money has been one of the priorities of Citizens of America for many years. For example, there are a lot of reports to look at here. In an oligarchy, polling numbers are largely a pre-election publicity stunt that only the corporate media and politicians like to play with.

𝕮: So the policies towards China and Taiwan will remain the same.

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: Yes, everything that happened in the Trump era will continue in the Biden era, which of course includes policy intentions on China and Taiwan.

𝕮: Besides, what will remain the same?

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: "in addition", such as:

1. A similar argument has been made in most commentary on the election: the belief that Biden can repair the relationship between the United States and its allies in order to isolate China.

But this is still largely based on judgments in the economic and trade field (or on the basis of Trump), and in other two more important related fields, this cannot be done:

One is the technology domain and the other is the technology-related intelligence domain. For technology, even Australia, one of the 5 eyes, is trying to get rid of Facebook and Google (such as the ACCC's recent regulations and related debates), and for intelligence, such as the end of transatlantic data exchanges in Europe (see this article for details). explain).

The trends of these two angles are irreversible in the short term, and it has nothing to do with who is elected. Until a complete revolution: a revolution to destroy surveillance capitalism, an electoral revolution, the removal of the overriding privileges of espionage agencies.

But none of this can be done by Biden, who is part of the system that is causing these problems -- a member of that "club," as mentioned above.

2. Two popular views among voters are both wrong:

• "I voted for Biden for anti-fascism" - no, you can't, on the contrary, the complacency brought about by this idea will really hinder anti-fascism;
• "Trump will be liquidated" - no, it won't happen, DC's tradition is to cover each other up and destroy each other's evidence;

As Joseph Kishore put it , the cowardice of Democrats in the face of Trump's coup plot is contemptible . Democrats are afraid of anything that would cause massive unrest that could not only develop into an anti-Trump movement, but threaten the entire capitalist system. That's why they decided to "do nothing".

The Democrats are the party of Wall Street and the military. Biden's fundraising in the third quarter benefited from a flood of inflows from the financial industry as the election loomed. Over the past 4 years, Democrats' "opposition" to Trump has not focused on his fascist politics, but rather, on a tougher foreign policy toward Russia and the Middle East by key arms of the military and intelligence agencies on request .

3. Biden will not take action against tech oligarchs. As a bigtech executive said: Mr. Biden "has many friends in the industry, and this is a world he is very satisfied with". Do you think of Obama ? You are right.

Whether Biden can actually do something about antitrust will depend on the outcome of the January Senate election, and if Republicans control the Senate, Biden can't do anything, assuming he wants to.

Regarding China, the popular saying in Silicon Valley is that "if you get too tough on Huawei, you will force China to develop its own products and undermine the interests of American companies", Biden will hear this, but it is still likely to continue Trump's approach .

4. In particular, you will continue to hear news, even evidence, about Biden and the Chinese government's "secret play"! American protesters warned of this before the general election vote. Remember, this is the same thing as Trump's Russiagate, which you should always remember: this is all an internal game of the ruling class, and people like you and me are not in that club of theirs.

Hold fast to our own goals of defiance. Everything else is idle.

𝕹: It’s true, you didn’t mix in Russiagate, the whole Chinese circle has been exploding, and some people say that you don’t mix to support Trump, hey. They don't understand why it's useless to care about these things.

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: There was no mention of Russiagate at the Democratic convention. They knew in their hearts that it was not the point. But their job is to convince ordinary people that "this is important". The algorithms they control use ethereal internet popularity as a "reward" for those who follow them.

You'll see the same story play out in the Biden era. This time, people shouldn't fall into the same pit again.

𝕮: Corporate media will never tell people this. We can stay in this chat for 4 years, haha, we can verify whether Stone's prediction is true.

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: Very supportive! Most of the content provided by IYP can be read over and over again for a long time, and we are not willing to do so much.

𝕮: How much control does the media have over people's cognition, should people think?

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: The ability to control is very large, to be precise, it is very influential . People use the media to understand the world. Even if the media does not lie at all, their focus - even completely unintentional focus - will also have an impact on people's cognition . Leads people to deviate from the truth and make wrong choices accordingly.

for example. Here's a UK poll asking "Which spy agency is the least responsible", or least reliable:

In fact, the most irresponsible should be MI6.

• Defence Intelligence (DI) is theoretically covered by the FOIA, of course, whether they actually provide information to citizens is another matter ( as in the US , the FOIA is basically non-existent);
• GCHQ actually has a press office, I'm not against it if you want to call it PR, but it does exist;
• MI5 has an ambiguous contact process, and citizen investigations depend on luck;

And MI6, it has nothing, like a black hole.

So why is the result of this poll showing as GCHQ? Quite simply, because GCHQ appears most often in the Snowden documents, it appears more often in corporate media news. That doesn't mean other spy agencies do any less dirty stuff, though, and won't let you know.

You can see that a completely true message can also have some kind of false influence, independent of the message itself.

Corporate media isn't scary, and partisan media doesn't matter, as long as readers have the ability to think and always defend their own interests, not those of the ruling class , there's nothing to mislead you.

𝖀: The Chinese also understand a little bit now. In the past two years, a new word has become popular, you may have seen it, that is, "scolding hot search". The key word here is "scolding". Obviously people already know that notoriety is the shortcut to being an influencer.

𝖛𝖎𝖈𝖙𝖔𝖗: Haha, much like Stone's mantra, he said "being famous on social media is a shame".

𝕹: Social media has become a place where you don't know who's going to be the whistleblower, so you can only slobber with most people without touching the substance.

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: I understand your concern. Maybe that's why most of what we see on social media is worthless slobber, and that doesn't mean the society doesn't have sharp eyes and deep insights. I always think we shouldn't despair over social media opinion, at least it's hard for you to know the real source of that opinion.

The only advantage the people have over those in power is their own huge base, which must be condensed so that it can play its due role. So for those in power, preventing it from coalescing is the key to keeping power stable.

We have published an analysis of the tactics used by the authorities to infiltrate groups of activists , and it is mentioned several times that fragmentation is a key tactic. This tactic is practiced in a variety of ways, and when it happens on the Internet, it becomes more subtle than simply speaking badly. It creates an adversarial environment and *simultaneously* intensifies efforts to support both sides with conflicting views .

Do you still remember what the first step of the three-step boxing technique for maintaining stability was? - Break up.

It is extremely easy to create polarization on social media, where people tend to express themselves, defend their opinions and images due to the prevalence of hyperindividualism, rather than start real conversations — the key to which is listening to each other — — Listening is almost non-existent here. When the information war navy pushes both sides at the same time, both sides will directly feel the excitement of being "popular" and double down on defending their views. "Popular" means that once your opinion is shaken, you will lose support, and even if you have realized that you are wrong, you must stick to it, because from the beginning, everyone is infused with the values of "currency of influence".

What you experience is exactly the effect after the "break up".

𝖀: The first consideration among Chinese people is the price (rather than the value) of connections, and exchanges are like transactions.

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: People need real communities , not social media groups, not circles. There is only competition and mutual exploitation in groups and circles, as you put it, "interaction is like a transaction".

This is no small matter, especially for sensitive people, and (as in the picture above) it is a source of security . Only a sense of security can help you maintain wisdom and sharpness . A misjudgment by an ordinary person can be a minor setback, and if a sensitive person misjudges a situation, the consequences can be physical threats. Not just you personally, but your peers and the organization as a whole.

Victory often doesn't come overnight, and the bigger the evil you're challenging, the more so . If you're feeling down, take a look at the news 👇 below, although this progress is only 7 years later, it's progress, a victory for "we".

Nothing is easy. There are no easy wins. But every battle can be very meaningful.

𝕮: In China, many people think that everything has to be done overnight, as if you can turn the world upside down once you hit the street, it's not that easy. Then people who think this way start to despise all ideas that can't be done overnight and refuse to participate.

𝖛𝖎𝖈𝖙𝖔𝖗: When John Lewis died, no one said "he fought for the civil rights movement all his life, and now the police are still shooting people"; no one said "John Lewis' 2003 stirring speech did not stop Iraq War, the Obama he supports is just a liar waiting for Godot..." No, no one would think that way . But why do we see the viability of a protest movement being measured by one-shot success in China?

𝖀: Nothingness pervades. It's not a year or two away. Nihilists are best at throwing cold water and dragging their feet, because they "need" to stay up in order to avoid their own cognitive dissonance.

𝖛𝖎𝖈𝖙𝖔𝖗: Well, maintaining stability only needs to incite people's nihilistic mentality, and people will automatically realize nothingness. A nihilist not only blocks himself, but actively blocks others, like a free stability maintenance machine.

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: Yes. So think about it, how can those in power incite a nihilistic mentality in society?

𝖀: To shoot. The gunshots from more than 30 years ago still linger.

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: +1

𝕮: Distrust. Infighting, suspicion, poaching, human blood buns...

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: +1

𝕹: Incompetent. You can't do anything but raise your cards, and raising your cards is useless.

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: +1. Any more?

𝖀: Navy. Hire guns to write comments, flood all message boards people can see, botnets push each other, fool algorithms to grab them, all you see are stupid little pinks, and you feel like society is helpless.

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: Totally agree! Regarding the massacre of '89, for most of the decades, the focus has been on the shootings and deaths, as U puts it, "the lingering sound." This will cause future generations to fall into grief, especially emptiness.

"We don't have guns". This is the most lamented IYP has heard in years, it seems that having a gun will solve everything? Not so. We've analyzed why nonviolent movements are more likely to drive the transition to democracy ; and how you can defend yourself and survive gun violence.

It's time to turn our attention to "how to win", after all, you can't move forward by immersing yourself in the past, and only by continuing to move forward can you truly be worthy of the dead .

Simply put, change ideas, learn skills, scientific organizational management methods, creative thinking methods, and win with skills and wisdom. Act, and nothingness disappears.

𝖛𝖎𝖈𝖙𝖔𝖗: The savior will come only when you stop praying for it. It is only when you stop thinking about "what's the use of rebellion" that the value of rebellion emerges .

The movement to liberate Nelson Mandela took eight years, but it had 13 years of foundations before that. These liberation struggles often require the lifelong efforts of the resisters. Nor do they guarantee victory. There are no easy wins, but every battle can be very rewarding. That's why every tiny victory is so precious .

Sometimes, the same battles have to be won again and again.

At each stage, individual and groups of rebels are opposed by powerful powers. To win, you need shrewd skills, you need steadfastness, tenacity; unwavering activists willing to sacrifice the comforts of traditional existence in the service of larger principles.

All of the following are tiny victories to celebrate:

certainly! You know, that's not the goal! We're still not really immune to government surveillance , but they're all paths to goals, maybe just pebbles in the road; but they should give people incentives to keep going.

𝕹 : IYP said, " Despair is arrogance ".

𝕹 : victor, when you said "who is the worst", why is it "physically"? What is the logic level?

𝖛𝖎𝖈𝖙𝖔𝖗: The physical level refers to the specific situation people face, or the threat level, which is divided according to the difficulty level of avoiding the threat. Yes, there is indeed a logical comparison. On a logical level, the "worst" people are those who are the most desperate, the first to give up, and the first to admit defeat .

Such people cannot win, regardless of the level of threat they face at the physical level. Because they have voluntarily surrendered. Whether they are Chinese or American .

𝕹 : I am interested in the reverse osmosis and organizational skills you provided this year, especially reverse osmosis. This is a long-term topic in China, and the unpredictability of human hearts is always the most fun, right? Can you guys briefly talk about this, like what to watch out for, what would those informants do?

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: Well, let’s talk briefly. About what an infiltrator would do, and what you can do about it.

1. Infiltrators will use your language against you. Simply put, they shout whatever you support to ideologically resonate with their target audience, but their footprints go completely against the principles they espouse. This approach creates confusion for supporters in appearance, because the outside world sees you and the infiltrator as "same camp", the same movement.

All you need to do is watch what people do, not just what they say, and you'll see this very clearly.

2. The infiltrator will impose intervention on the movement strategy. Instead of focusing on the movement itself and the goals of the organization , they will focus the conflict within the organization, for example, by advocating "purge" and provoking internal disputes - yes, they are committed to pulling you away from the goal of the action.

In this regard, all you need to do is to always keep the general direction of action at the forefront of your mind, reject all "off-topic" claims, and you can naturally resist infiltration, whether you identify the infiltrator or not, the latter does not unimportant. No doubt, any organization and movement has infiltration, all you need to do is to make it impossible to cause damage even if it exists.

3. Hide behind others. Infiltrators also participate in frontier activities to disrupt or disrupt operations/groups. But more often, they manipulate and provoke others to do things while creating a layer of isolation for themselves.

All you need to do in this regard is to observe and identify any suggestion, and if the suggester does not act on it, you can consider the suggestion carefully. Don't forget, the goal of action is always to solve problems, not create new ones !

4. Constantly incite trivia. Gossip, backstabbing, character assassination ... Infiltrators divert people's attention in various forms, working to divide smaller groups within large groups. Even constant differentiation to create and promote distrust.

All you need to do about this is to emphasize purpose - we are a team, we are a team, and we should not leave any of our teammates behind and marginalized. The only people who benefit from our tearing and splitting are our opponents.

Learn to coordinate and resolve conflicts through dialogue instead of expanding them through differentiation .

5. The infiltrator will try to be the "positive person" closest to the center of the movement, so that their smearing and framing of you will be more "authentic".

If you are a sports center and a leader, what you need to do about this is to be wary of those who unilaterally tell you about the dark side of other teammates, don't be suspicious of a teammate involved just because someone is snitching, you should Investigate, communicate in person with the teammates involved.

In particular, once again, don't just listen to what people say, look and see what people do; don't expect every collaborator to be morally perfect, it's totally unrealistic, all you need to master is- let The actions of the collaborators meet your big goals!

If you're the one being discredited by the infiltrator, talk to your organization's leader to judge whether the organization's leader is competent or not based on the above principles.

6. Infiltrators expand the attack surface. Anyone you meet, or even just strike up a conversation with, is miraculously linked and used to attack your private life, while your focus is on destroying large, corrupt power structures and The trivial focus that infiltrators take when exposing large-scale injustices will be entirely on you personally.

One of the problems with infiltrators is that a lot of what they do is behind the scenes. It is therefore difficult for you to trace the information together. It's important to be vigilant when you have credible information that intruders are trying to disrupt an organization or discredit activists, sharing and exposing information to disrupt an organization.

Note that not every kind of contradiction should be suspect, you must distinguish between personality conflicts, personal dissatisfaction, coincidences or differences of opinion, and **purposeful infiltration manipulation**! Only you can do this because you understand the characteristics of the people you are interacting with - and if you don't at all, you shouldn't be interacting with them.

𝕹: I have to say ha, if it wasn't for your last sentence, I would have interrupted 😂... I have seen many things in the previous points, the kind that are very common in China.

For example 1 "their footprints completely violate the principles they uphold", many people in China are like this, shouting arrogantly on the Internet, as soon as they put down their mobile phones, they continue to make money for the party-state.

And 2, the "off-topic" claims you mentioned are almost everywhere, such as donating money to Trump... Trump's hair is thicker than your waist, right, he lacks your money? Why don't you file a lawsuit for donating money to Assange? Trump wants to kill the best whistleblower platform in the world, to kill real news, all the truth that Assange provides is completely free, he is not profitable at all, he is the one who really needs help.

There are also 4, "rumours, backstabbing", there are simply too many, many circles are torn up. Originally there was a large group of 100 people, but soon another small group of 50 people appeared, and then another small group of 20 people, and then continued. On the contrary, the very small group that split from the front and back did not have enough 4 or 5 people. If anyone says that he has never encountered such a situation in China, it can only mean that he has never been in the real world at all. It's the Chinese circle, that's all.

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: So, the principle of organization is very important, the big goal is the foundation of the principle, you just need to keep the activities and planning process around this goal, remove everything else, you will not be troubled by the clutter.

It is impossible to organize in any country, not just China, without strong goals.

You must have seen people who don't know each other queuing up to buy ice cream, and to organize you need to build a scene like that - ice cream is the common goal of all, the thing people really want, it's up to you to serve; these people don't need to know each other, the only thing they have in common is the need for the ice cream you serve; and you need to do more than manage and distribute ice cream, you need to keep the team following the basics Order and rules - no jamming, no clinging, no fighting, no peeking at other people's phone screens...etc.

We do find that in China, some friends who have failed in the organization have some misunderstandings on this point. China is a human society, people pay attention to etiquette, and subconsciously believe that the accumulation of emotions can lead to the best mobilization and union. This makes sense to a certain extent, for example, emotional relationships allow people to at least respect each other and avoid meaningless conflicts; however, it is also because of this that it is difficult for teams organized in this way to reach truly valuable debates , and "etiquette" occupies With the upper hand, people will subconsciously avoid any potentially controversial issues. This will not work as expected by the organization itself.

We wrote in Episode 2 of our "Total Safety" series : What's the difference between a friend in wine and a friend in need? When you are under threat, who do you look forward to fighting alongside? If we can't take care of each other, what's the result? … You may need to think about these questions all the time in your organization.

𝖀: Then how do you judge whether it is a teammate or a alcoholic friend?

𝖛𝖎𝖈𝖙𝖔𝖗: What is the collaboration of teammates. I give an example. If there is a shootout, your teammates shout to you, "Go behind the cover, I will cover you," and you will theoretically face the aim of multiple gunmen on the way. In other words, whether you can survive or not depends on to your teammates. At this time, sufficient tacit cooperation ability is needed, and this ability is life-threatening.

You have to trust your teammate enough, and that trust is based not just on emotion, but on ability—if your teammate's marksmanship isn't strong enough, even if he really wants to cover you, you shouldn't trust him.

𝖀: Understood. It looks like there are no teammates on social media. There is only quarrel here.

Chinese people just don't know how to debate, and when they talk, they are arguing. Everyone reads different things, and everyone feels that what they read is the truth.

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: " We live in different worlds of information, selected by algorithms, and the only criterion for algorithms is how to maximize the products that attract advertisers and create greater profits for Internet giants ," Cook said... … what. Surveillance capitalists never knew what they were doing.

For the phenomenon you're talking about, you need to first ask a question: "Why do people read". The vast majority of people who read on the Internet these days share the same reason, looking for "beautifully spoken words, especially those that support my own views and positions" as a source of energy when debating with others .

I'm not saying it's a bad idea. In democratic discussions, everyone is using citations to raise their voices; these discussions are about finding an answer that most people can satisfy by colliding with differences. But on the internet, that habit will mean that content that tries to teach practice rather than justify is left out.

In any case, we always think that practice rather than statement is more important ; IYP is not bad at exposition, if we want to get attention, we can do what some online platform editors who have asked me for manuscripts have suggested: "find The most controversial hotspot, getting involved and arguing with celebrities." I didn't get an offer like that because I did something like that many years ago when I was an internet kid and I won't continue to do it now, I've seen the results of everyone doing it , that's what you see now - a market of saliva and noise without a solution.

Again, we need a solid, shining goal to move forward, not a guinea pig in a test box desperately pressing a button for one crumb at a time.

𝖀: I've been tired of the internet for a long time, especially social media; if I remember correctly you started criticizing social media issues a few years ago, read it at the time, but didn't really understand what it said until recently. just get tired.

I'm not the kind of person who mixes fans and brings goods for live broadcast, nor is I a bricklayer who sells courses, and I'm not interested in making connections. The Internet is at most a tool for me to replace text messages and phone calls, and then when I'm idle Take a look at interesting news, chat with acquaintances, that's all.

I think there are a lot of people like me. In reality, I don’t have any friends. I just join in with others on the Internet. Among the people I know, there are two types of Internet users. One is to use it to make money, and the other is to use it to relieve boredom. I should belong to the latter. Therefore, I have never felt that the Internet mobilization, dissemination of knowledge, etc., can be of any use. Most people continue to live their lives as soon as they shut down, and not many people will remember things on the Internet.

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: In general, people like to understand the future "go or no" by looking at those dissents on the Internet. This can be very limiting. We have met some young Chinese friends, they all have a clear ability to understand, they grew up reading declassified documents instead of news, and they have disdain to quarrel on social media, at least when people analyze the question of "can it be done" , they were never included.

𝖛𝖎𝖈𝖙𝖔𝖗: I think what U said makes sense, and it is indeed possible that most people are like this; but there is another kind of person like IYP, and we are working on becoming the "third type", that is, diggers. Maybe we're not going to make money or entertaining with fun and excitement, but we'll make sure we dig at least a brick or two every time we connect, and gradually, piece them together, it's a fortress. Our own fortress.

Everyone understands the word "value" differently, and all you need to do is make your internet connection worthwhile.

In my opinion, in fact, I think many Chinese friends are keen. For example, the word "eat melon" has been popular on the Chinese Internet for a long time. This word highlights the question of being blinded by propaganda, suppressed by censorship, manipulated by algorithmic tyranny, and questioned about meaningless complaints and helplessness; simply put, People see the problem. The only step missing is thinking about the solution.

It's like -- "Are we willing to go on like this? No! So what can we do about it?" This is thinking as a citizen, and that kind of thinking can mobilize direct action .

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: We named the column on citizens' skills for defending the truth " No more eating melons ", which is exactly what we mean.

The IYP uses thematic naming method to refute some common misconceptions. For example, "algorithmic tyranny", when you suspect that the election is rigged , when you find that your tweets or Facebook posts are not followed, when you ca n't find the content you want, but you encounter a situation similar to Wei Zexi on the home page... …you should know that all of these are part of the same root cause.

If people just blame Baidu or Facebook, it's not going to fix the problem, and it's giving those companies the chance to keep lying to you -- they're already very good at apologizing and have billions of dollars ready to be put there waiting to be fined . Then continue their bad practices. Criticism and monetary punishment are not enough to change these bad status quo.

When these powers fool you with promises of reform or rectification , you should know how to best expose their hypocrisy and make the right demands.

𝖛𝖎𝖈𝖙𝖔𝖗: People on the Internet tend to imitate the expression of those bloggers and content with the “highest retweets” — the so-called “mainstream/orthodox” that pleases the power. If enough people hold this way of thinking, instead of defying censorship, the result is that we will see twitter-like shadow bans lead to active obedience.

"Why is the Internet so boring and boring?" The question itself can serve as a starting point for direct action.

𝕹 : Stone, what would you like to say to the Chinese? About this year, or longer.

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: Okay, let me end the last day of the year :)

1. Go to rest when you're tired; but we don't have time to back down No Time To Die - Revolution and despair are old lovers who can't stay together, but are hard to separate. Trying to smash those solid walls is not easy, and any hand will be scarred by it. If you fall, have a good cry and just trust that you can get up again the next time the opportunity arises.

The opposite of life is not death, but habituation; it ends when nothing new comes into life. If you don't want to die, try to keep pushing the unknown.

Hope you stay alive, my friend.

2. Nothing is easy, tenacious will is always the key, as is wisdom and creativity - the most powerful giants in the world are crushing us, and our only advantage is that we outnumber them More. This is why the wealthy and the governments pour their wealth and manpower through mass media propaganda to try to manipulate the thinking and actions of each of us.

That's not to say you can't beat that giant domination machine, but, you can't beat the machine with the tools this machine has to offer!

The first step is to get people to stop believing in the absurd solution of finding keys under streetlights. As a rebel, you need to awaken people to the reality that the world doesn't work the way you learned in school .

To quote an American protester: "We can't push for change by voting. We have to build it ourselves." In China, you can't push for change by petitioning and defending your rights, or complaining and retweeting, so you should know the How to do.

You just need to stop pouring energy in inefficient and ineffective directions and go forge your true sword, remember to start hammering at the most suitable temperature.

3. The counter-narrative is your weapon - control of the narrative is the only talisman of power, and if you can strip that talisman, power will rot and disintegrate.

If you happen to live in a culture that has a deep fear of positive thinking and denial, criticism is the hardest thing in the world. Ordinary complaints are allowed, it has even become a virtue to a certain extent, and you can see how the "mouth gun" dissent on social networks has won the most following; however, if you are a critic, you must Contrasted with a consensus culture that reduces the conflict of values directly to the issue of "personal attitudes".

It's by no means easy, but it's the first step in tearing down the amulet of power. It has to be the first step. I know that people are cold, people want to light a fire to keep warm, and complaining is a kind of behavior to keep warm. But how do you light a fire when it's pouring rain? That's impossible, right? The narrative matrix is the downpour, the thick cloud over everyone's head, and the rest is only possible if you can push it away.

A decentralized guerrilla spirit against the propaganda machine is the best solution to this problem . Guerrilla is what it literally means, that is, constantly attacking different fronts in different ways, not staying on the same line of attack for too long. If your opponent has built up particularly strong armor in one area, you can set it aside and expose their lies on a completely different front.

Narrative manipulators just keep lying, so you're never short of targets.

𝖛𝖎𝖈𝖙𝖔𝖗 : Stone and I both grew up reading The Baffler, a magazine that has given us a lot of inspiration, and why we never feel like "America has changed" or "what did Trump lead to" , we don't think so because we see this entrenched "swamp" that has been silting up for too many years.

Born in 1988, The Baffler was on the scene when the uncreative destruction of American thought and culture began to happen, knowing that there was no choice but to rebel against us .

The Baffler hopes to break open an alternate space for those who feel ready, though, don't expect marching orders to fall between these pages, those are things you'll have to figure out for yourself.

If you want to experience it, IYP will upload two collections for you to download for free here : https://www.patreon.com/posts/da-po-matrix-de-44650085

𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊: Thank you Chinese friends and victor for participating in our 2020 year-end dialogue. Continue to hope that the content of IYP can bring you real help, we will continue to work hard! See you in 2021 :)

⚪️