China need a new geopolitical Doctrine ?

solarz said:

Except that in the case of Hong Kong, the son was kidnapped from birth by bandits ....

Click to expand...

All former colonies are 'kidnapped children' in this analogy. That makes the role of 'education' more (not less) important. Ceding the initiative in the psychological battlefield and "hoping" it works out is a bad idea. ~"Hope is not a strategy."

Canuck place said:

Very good point and makes one wonder, why is Indian media blasted over Pakistan and not the one way around? Why is western media so dominating? Is it because they have the illusion of not being independent?

Why are some non-western media better at penetration around the world even though they are not independent media eg. TRT, RT, Al Jezeera? Is it because of their style of reporting? Sensationalism? China needs to know the reasons to learn and combat such things or else they will be perpetually behind.

Click to expand...

I'd recommend reading Manufacturing Consent, by Chomsky, which details how Western Media works. It is by far the most detailed and systematic examination of this issue, quantitatively and qualitatively. It's basically the standard by which all analysis of the media should be conducted. There's also a documentary on the book that you can watch.

As for how to combat it, that's not easy. I think the first step is that the population needs to understand its own axioms. Secondly, it needs to understand how media is manipulated and how propaganda works e.g. It needs to be able to conduct source analysis independently. The more members of a society that are truly aware and thinking independently, the more inoculated that population will be to viral propaganda.

manqiangrexue said:

Unfortunately, the usual "strength = blah blah blah" is the education that you need to understand international relations; it is the only cure to your disease. Why answer a question with no relevance? It's not free to have good relationships with these places. You're acting like it's a color choice on a car you're purchasing whether you want to be on good or bad terms with these countries.

What does the US want from China for a good relationship? China needs to kneecap itself and its technological development so that it can't rise to challenge the US. What does the EU want from China for a good relationship? China needs to open its markets and let its young start-ups be crushed by established and experienced European businesses. What do the small countries around China want for a good relationship? They want China to give up Diaoyu, SCS islands, etc... Are you willing to give these things? If you are, that's for starters. Next round, they'll all ask for more continuous blood-letting from China to maintain a fragile sense of "good relations." In the real world, Chinese diplomats need to actually balance having however good relationships they can get without giving up China's interests.

Your post once again shows a childish lack of understanding in regards to international politics.

Click to expand...

Maybe you are being childish instead of me? I'm not the one throwing a temper tantrums because someone posted an opinion that I don't agree with.

free_6ix9ine said:

Maybe you are being childish instead of me? I'm not the one throwing a temper tantrums because someone posted an opinion that I don't agree with.

Click to expand...

What is this? Your "I know you are but what am I?" counterargument? LOL I rebut the content of your posts and I'm "throwing a temper tantrum" while you answer none of my points in posting this, your most intellectually devoid one-line response yet. I think we can let the readers here judge who's the childish one...

Can you answer this?

"What does the US want from China for a good relationship? China needs to kneecap itself and its technological development so that it can't rise to challenge the US. What does the EU want from China for a good relationship? China needs to open its markets and let its young start-ups be crushed by established and experienced European businesses. What do the small countries around China want for a good relationship? They want China to give up Diaoyu, SCS islands, etc... Are you willing to give these things? If you are, that's for starters. Next round, they'll all ask for more continuous blood-letting from China to maintain a fragile sense of "good relations." In the real world, Chinese diplomats need to actually balance having however good relationships they can get without giving up China's interests."

free_6ix9ine said:

Maybe you are being childish instead of me? I'm not the one throwing a temper tantrums because someone posted an opinion that I don't agree with.

Click to expand...

manqiangrexue provided a counterpoint and then called you childish. You called him childish back but provided no counter-counterpoint.

Given that, I would consider manqiangrexue won the argument.

manqiangrexue and free_6ix9ine, insult and counter-insult cancel each other out and bring no value to a discussion. So please save us all some time and avoid using time, please.

Mohsin77 said:

All former colonies are 'kidnapped children' in this analogy. That makes the role of 'education' more (not less) important. Ceding the initiative in the psychological battlefield and "hoping" it works out is a bad idea. ~"Hope is not a strategy."

Click to expand...

You're ignoring the fact that China agreed to 50 years of autonomy for Hong Kong. What China is doing right now is to respect the treaty it agreed to, to the extent that it does not endanger its sovereignty over the territory.

We've gone over this before in the HK thread. Many of us, myself included, wanted Beijing to send in the PAP during the height of the riots, but the result of the last election showed that the central government made the right call in maintaining restraint. HK is not going to change its mind until it hits rock bottom, and there is no reason for the rest of China to be dragged into its angst fest. Let them sort out their issues in the 27 years left to them.

solarz said:

...What China is doing right now is to respect the treaty it agreed to, to the extent that it does not endanger its sovereignty over the territory.

Click to expand...

Did that treaty allow CIA operations in HK? I doubt it. Besides, this is about proactively countering psy ops, which doesn't conflict with the CCP's patient approach, it helps it. This doesn't require an army, nor should it require letting HK "hit rock bottom." Also, it shouldn't be expected that the CIA will stop with HK. They will probably learn from HK, refine their tactics, and then apply them elsewhere...

African-American and Latin-Americans have embraced Western culture the most. Their cultures have been destroyed by the West the most hence why they embraced the culture of their conquerors the most. Both groups also claim to be the most disenfranchised groups in the US and some even claim the world. So if surrendering to the West is so great and will be rewarded how come the two groups that have embraced their culture the most think they're at the bottom? Is this where the racism like of Hong Kongers comes in like we've seen over George Floyd's murder? Asians think they're different? Just look at the US where Asian-Americans who think they're treated like they're invisible in American society. So if Asians are different why do they think they're invisible? South Korean and Japanese have embraced the West more so how come they feel invisible? It's because they still hold on to their culture meaning the West isn't in control. Asians are not captured like African and Latino-Americans where they have no other place to go. Asians can choose to embrace the West but you can also choose not to later on. That's why they don't trust Asians. That's why they always pull out the loyalty card because having your own culture means they don't control you. They like the people that embrace their culture to have no other choices and that can only come from conquering and forcing no other thought to be allowed but of their own. They can't do that these days without looking like the evil of the world meaning even if you choose to embrace Western culture, they still can never trust you.

Asians look on in envy at American popular culture that includes African and Latino-Americans but not you. Maybe if you just surrender they'll let you into the club. You can stop looking in from the outside. You know why Black and Latinos are included there? They don't call it "popular" culture for nothing. In order for you to be successful in popular culture, people have to like you. And who are the majority there? Westerners. They get to decide if you're successful or not. It doesn't matter how well you sing. It doesn't how many home runs you hit or how many touchdowns you make. It doesn't matter how much talent you have. Ultimately your success is determined by if the masses like you. In other words Westerners are the ones in control.

The thing is about popular culture only the fewest people possible could ever be successful in it. That's its nature. The more people that are celebrated, the more it becomes diluted meaning less fame and less fortune so what's the point? So if your a part of a group where the only avenue to success is through popular culture because society showcases these individual few by how much wealth and fame they accumulated and there can only be a few at a time, that's means the majority fail at the attempt. They wasted their lives on something where they most likely were going to fail at anyway and they end up with the low-end jobs because they didn't value getting a degree or learning a skill because Western culture valued popular culture more. A scientist or engineer doesn't need the acceptance of the masses in order for them to put together a nuclear bomb. That's why it's so important for the West to get China to embrace Western culture.

So don't be fooled into believing that China surrendering to the West like others have advocated in here is all positive. It's equivalent to signing your soul away to the devil. The price is so much higher than what you get in return.

Mohsin77 said:

Did that treaty allow CIA operations in HK? I doubt it. Besides, this is about proactively countering psy ops, which doesn't conflict with the CCP's patient approach, it helps it. This doesn't require an army, nor should it require letting HK "hit rock bottom." Also, it shouldn't be expected that the CIA will stop with HK. They will probably learn from HK, refine their tactics, and then apply them elsewhere...

Click to expand...

I sometimes wonder if China has a special department on dealing with these psy ops. I think they can learn from Russia and Putin in this regard. If they don't have a department dealing with this, they really should make one ASAP

Mohsin77 said:

Did that treaty allow CIA operations in HK? I doubt it. Besides, this is about proactively countering psy ops, which doesn't conflict with the CCP's patient approach, it helps it. This doesn't require an army, nor should it require letting HK "hit rock bottom." Also, it shouldn't be expected that the CIA will stop with HK. They will probably learn from HK, refine their tactics, and then apply them elsewhere...

Click to expand...

CIA provided funding to the rioters, which Beijing effectively cut off. Not sure what else you expect Beijing to do?

Mohsin77 said:

Did that treaty allow CIA operations in HK? I doubt it. Besides, this is about proactively countering psy ops, which doesn't conflict with the CCP's patient approach, it helps it. This doesn't require an army, nor should it require letting HK "hit rock bottom." Also, it shouldn't be expected that the CIA will stop with HK. They will probably learn from HK, refine their tactics, and then apply them elsewhere...

Click to expand...

Yes, the agreement prohibit such activities of foreign interference in Hong Kong's internal affairs. It is called Article 23 in the Hong Kong Basic Law.

The agreement between UK and China is embodied in the Hong Kong Basic Law which spells out the rights as well as responsibilities of the people of Hong Kong. One such responsibility is Article 23, which require Hong Kong to set up a security law. China waited patiently for 23 years and the Hong Kong Legislature continues to fail in setting the law up. Finally, China lost her patience and exercises her right through Article 18 and Annex III in the Hong Kong Basic Law to impose China's National Security Law on Hong Kong.

China does not do so in an haphazard manner, but fully follows the procedure as define by the Hong Kong Basic Law. You hardly see any Western MSM talk about this, but instead follow the narrative that China broke her promise.

You can read more about this particular issue in the Hong Kong Protest thread.