How to learn to think independently? Dismantling China’s Foreign Ministry’s Explosion of the U.S. Subversion of Xinjiang’s Evidence

The hottest topic recently is the Xinjiang Cotton Gate incident that continues to ferment. On March 26, Aunt Hua from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs showed a video to reporters present. The video, compiled by Beijing Weekly, shows a former Army colonel named Lawrence Wilkerson, former US Secretary of State Powell's chief of staff (chief of staff). In a speech at the Ron Paul Institute (Ron Paul Institute) in August 2018, he mentioned the foreign policy of the United States over the years. Regarding the Xinjiang issue, he said that the best way for the US CIA to destabilize China is to use Xinjiang’s Uyghurs create unrest to provoke Beijing without external force to bring down China. "

This video serves as the official "face-slapping evidence" of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs against the United States. The Red Guards and the Boxers were ecstatic as if they had received the red treasure book. In the highlands, words such as "stone hammer" and "iron proof" are flooding domestic social media, and it seems that the evidence that the United States subverts China has already been established.

We often hear the saying that the enemy of an enemy is a friend. The great leader once said that we should have more friends and fewer enemies. Therefore, the Chinese seem to be particularly concerned about the position of others. As long as those who support me are friends, those who oppose me are enemies. In such a value system where friends and enemies are clearly defined, as long as someone says good things, they will naturally be praised, and on the contrary, they will be severely beaten. From this cotton door incident, it is not difficult to see that most of the brands that occupy the wardrobes of young Chinese people can become the target of public criticism overnight. While domestic brands are still shyly trying to take advantage of the situation, the "blockbuster" of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs came to the rescue, as if the enemy pig teammates were assisting God, dispelling all doubts, the whole logic formed a closed loop, which is perfect

To be honest, I was still shocked after watching this video, but in retrospect, I feel that this case can actually be regarded as a textbook-level typical case, which can illustrate the importance of independent thinking from various dimensions. Therefore, in this issue, we will use the theme of Aunt Hua ️×Former Washington officials, referred to as the "United Front of Huameng", to beat the US emperor's heart to death, and make an introductory video to improve the ability of independent thinking. If you are interested in the current China-US relations are in a daze, and I want to sort out some ideas. I will start from this case to help you dismantle the truth step by step and improve your thinking ability. If you are interested, please read to the end.

The first step in independent thinking, why should I trust you? Or where is the point that you deserve me to believe?

Here is a particularly common mistake Chinese people make - trusting authority, and we return to this case. First of all, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself is an authoritative representative. He represents the most powerful Wolf Warriors in the entire universe. Naturally, ordinary people and junior pinks are convinced that we will not discuss it.

Let's take a look at the protagonist of this video, former US Secretary of State Powell's chief of staff. There is nothing questionable about the Title itself, because the information can be found. The position of this Wilkerson boss is called Chief of staff in English, and is generally called the office director on the mainland. Because he is in the Office of the Secretary of State, in theory, he is an official at the same level as our Director Yang Jiechi. So in the eyes of the Chinese, he is naturally a representative of authority, so does what he says represent facts?

Friends who have seen House of Cards know that the politics of the White House is far more complicated than that of Zhongnanhai, or that the complex method is completely different from that of Zhongnanhai. To put it simply, in order to balance the relationship, the US president often appoints cabinet members or administrative officials of some opposition parties. Even within a political party, there are various factions such as doves and hawks. It is this complex and chaotic situation that forms the American political system. Therefore, when hearing a speech from a former senior White House official, no matter what he says, we need to form a basic common sense that this is only his personal judgment or a judgment based on his position. It does not represent the government's agreed strategy.

The second step of independent thinking, look at the background of the speaker

This is very simple, just need to look at Wikipedia, you can check it yourself. It's not hard to see that, either during his military career or as a staff adviser, the Colonel Wilkerson did not appear to be a militant and had a strong dislike of the CIA. He has repeatedly questioned the intelligence given by the CIA, most notably his strong opposition to the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Although he had drafted Powell's speech to the UN Security Council in February 2003, he said he deeply regretted planning that speech and thought it was the CIA's fault.

From this point of view, the background of the speaker does not seem to be the same type of person behind the black hand that the official wants to strongly render. From Colonel Wilkerson's speech, I found two details for your reference. One is that he emphasized that the CIA wanted to do this, not the US government. Don't get excited about the pinks here, there's really a difference, we'll talk about it later. The second detail is that when it comes to the relationship between the CIA and the Uyghurs, it is actually a hypothetical premise, what if he wants to use these people, what if he doesn't. People with some basic English can see that this is an obvious subjunctive, not an action that has been taken. Since the full content of this speech does not appear to be available online, we do not know what the context of this remark is. The Xinjiang issue is only a joint assumption. Most importantly, the main body of this hypothetical is the CIA!

The third step of independent thinking, the basic common sense of Chinese and American (Chinese and Western) administrative management

At the beginning we talked about how Wilkerson has been emphasizing the CIA, not the US government? Where is the difference? We all know that the United States is a country with the separation of executive, judicial, and legislative powers. We often say that the Biden administration is strictly an administrative organ under the Biden cabinet, which is called administration in English. The CIA is legally an independent intelligence agency, responsible for providing information to relevant government departments, and has no law enforcement powers in the strict sense. (Regarding the power of law enforcement, it is actually controversial, because as an external intelligence agency, it is logically impossible to enforce the law, but in fact the CIA has indeed done a lot of conspiracy and conspiracy to subvert other countries.) Because of his secrecy and relative independence, the president's executive branch does not have direct jurisdiction over the CIA. So for the federal government, the CIA is actually a love-hate role, serving the government but not subject to it. The well-known FBI and the CIA have always been enemies, and the Department of Defense and the CIA often have disagreements and conflicts in cooperation in counter-terrorism operations. One of Wilkerson's most important jobs in the Office of the Secretary of State was to review the intelligence provided by the CIA. During the Iraq War, he believed that the intelligence provided by the CIA was insufficient and the time was tight, which led to his misjudgment. Judging from his career with the CIA, he has a negative attitude. Simply put, the CIA is more inclined to establish enemies, and the government needs to further evaluate whether the CIA's intelligence is valuable to make its own decisions.

Therefore, from the analysis of the functions of the US federal government and Colonel Wilkerson's attitude towards the CIA, his remarks are more like a sarcasm and a rant to the CIA.

The fourth step of independent thinking, information mining and thinking expansion

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity - About Us

From this report and video, we can see that Wilkerson is giving a speech at a called Ron Paul Institute (Ron Paul Institute). It looks like a university research institution. It is not difficult to find out that the full name of this Ron Paul Institute is "Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity". It is an educational and scientific research institution founded by the foundation of Dr. Ron Paul, established in the 1970s. The direction of the institute is peaceful foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties at home.

We might as well follow the clues and see who this Ron Paul is, a Republican and Liberal, a former member of the House of Representatives, who participated in the 2008 US election candidate. Among them, Paul's political leanings caught my attention. According to Wikipedia, Paul was a staunch small government and libertarian. In various votes in Congress, he opposed almost all government spending, bills, or tax bills, and in many votes he was often the only member of the Republican Party who disagreed with the caucus, which also led him to some Republican colleagues. complaints, and earned him the nickname "Mr. No". Paul is a firm proponent of a non-interventionist foreign policy. He has consistently opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and he has criticized the Bush administration's many actions in the war on terror that have violated civil liberties.

We can see that this Ron Paul should be a very conservative in the Republican Party and a libertarian. (About libertarianism, you can google it yourself) From his political views, he opposes all political and economic activities that interfere in the name of the state and government. Simply put, take care of yourself and don't mess around.

Speaking of which, it has almost verified my previous speculation. Wilkerson, who is the Chinese official behind the Iraq War, was actually speaking at a seminar on liberal conservatism and anti-intervention. Therefore, what he said in the video can be completely understood as a hypothetical analysis in a certain scenario, and all the blame is thrown to the CIA, not a stone hammer evidence that the United States interfered in China's Xinjiang issue.

Someone here will definitely jump out and say that I am deliberately defending my father. How can you prove that the United States is not doing anything in Xinjiang? Indeed, I can't prove that the United States is not doing things in Xinjiang. I can only prove that the foreign ministry's video can't prove that the United States is doing things in Xinjiang. In short, this video cannot be used as evidence that the United States is doing things. Students who have studied law know that even if the suspect has all the signs that he is a criminal, the basis for conviction must be evidence that can prove 100% of the fact that he violated the law.

But for this kind of speculative logic, unfortunately, the Chinese do not eat this set.

In fact, we can also pass this case, by the way, the basic principle of brainwashing. Through the monopoly of information channels, the manipulator constantly instills simple and easy-to-understand information to solidify the ideas of the brainwashed, thereby reducing the activity of the brain, and gradually becoming only able to accept the information and logic given by the manipulator. In this case, the United States and China are simplified into a personality symbol, and then create a scene that ordinary people can understand. In the past, if you were backward, you would be beaten, and now if you are strong, you will be jealous. Although these two scenarios are logically They are self-conflicting, but they are all very suitable for the current Chinese values, so naturally everyone is convinced.

Having said that, is there any ideological trend in American politics or academia that wants to subvert or confuse China? I think it definitely exists, but at most it represents a certain point of view and nothing more. In the same way, as a political system that needs to weigh public opinion and various interests, the final strategy for China is far more complicated than we imagined. For China, it is a good thing to be prepared, but the grass and trees are all soldiers, and it is a worry for IQ if they are willing to fight a tooth for a tooth.

Going back to the example of Cotton Gate in Xinjiang, as an ordinary citizen in the Mainland, can you prove that there is no forced labor in Xinjiang? No, why not? Because the information is not transparent, why is the information not transparent? Because the media is not independent. Why is the media not independent? Because it can't make you independent...

That naturally becomes the reason why others find fault with you. Is there any reason for them? Maybe there is a reason they think, but if you don't agree with this principle, and you can't make everyone come to verify it, then others won't play with you, and you also say that others form a group to bully you. Just like many people think North Korea is very mysterious and want to know the local customs, but they can only report to their official travel agency. The tour guide said that our people are living happily, do you believe it?

Finally, I will summarize the four basic methods of how to improve independent thinking, for reference only:

First, reject conspiracy theories and don’t easily believe in any authority, because you don’t know which class or interest this authority represents, so leave more doubts.

Second, try to find out more about the background and context behind the remarks. Maybe he meant something else entirely, or maybe he has now denied what he thought at the time.

Third, most people know very little about how Western countries and groups operate. If we use our own logic to speculate on each other, we will only make ourselves go further and further.

Fourth, after accomplishing the above three points, further research and analyze the additional information that appears to enrich the dimension of your own reasoning.

Well, that's all for today's sharing. Of course, the above is just my family's words, you don't have to believe it all. If you think this video is helpful to you, please like, share, subscribe, support, I'm Marley, see you next time, 88.