Here's a recent video with interviews of Americans living in China. Interesting to hear their perspectives, and no surveillance drones shouting at them!
Hard to say without statistics, but I'm guessing the vast majority. I've read Han Chinese talking about living in Xinjiang and how they personally get along just fine and have Uighur friends. That won't necessarily apply to everyone, but seems to be the norm from what I can tell.Also, there are 22 million people in Xinjiang region. 12 million are Uyghur. The capital city of Xinjiang region is Ürümqi, with a population of 3.5 million, with about half a million being Uyghur. How many of these 12 million or .5 million live peaceably with the Han Chinese, and why?
I think there's probably a natural limit of some sort of the percentage of any population willing to join up with a separatist group. You get a small percentage who will join or at least take an active part in their activities, a larger percentage who will support them but sit on the sidelines, and then those who disagree and see them as making the problem worse - probably the majority.Or are they all signed up to some separatist group (directly or indirectly)? If not, why?
Since 2014, Xinjiang has destroyed 1,588 violent and terrorist gangs, arrested 12,995 terrorists, seized 2,052 explosive devices, punished 30,645 people for 4,858 illegal religious activities, and confiscated 345,229 copies of illegal religious materials.
Probably for some, though threat of punishment doesn't work on a subset of the population. Others, if they can get a passport, might try to get out of the country to go somewhere like Turkey, where they can join ETIM, ISIS, or whatever.Is it the threat of camps?
Don't know, but would like to.And how many ARE signed up to some separatist group (directly or indirectly), and why?
Again, probably some.Is it because of the camps?
Point taken. I don't think there's ever been denial of the the existence of such a group in Xinjiang or the need for China to do something to deal with the empire's color revolution tactics. It seems like it's working, as attacks after 2016 in China dropped a great deal. Pretty great strategy to fix the problem of Western-funded terrorism, something that no other country thought to do.Another thought exercise (for Americans): the CCP has consistently funded, networked with, and even militarily-trained, an imaginary Muslim Black separatist movement in a part of the USA where large numbers of Muslim Blacks live - say, everywhere south of a line from Arkansas to North Carolina. They've already carried out dozens of terror attacks, both within these states and in some neighboring states. Assuming it even allows the situation to reach that point, how might the US federal government respond?
Are they capable of leaving? There are a lot of really poor people who can't leave. We can look at war refugees, and see how well that's going for people who try to leave.If you don't want to be loyal, leave.
It already happened in the US. It's called Japanese internment camps. Just because the US is a piece of crap for doing it, doesn't excuse China for doing it. Besides, no foreign power needs to fund it in the US because the deep state has already been on it with antifa, blm, and the lone gunmen shootings.Another thought exercise (for Americans)
I think there's one important difference between Japanese interment camps in the US and "Uighur" camps in China. From what I know Japanese internees were not conducting illegal activities, they were put in camps solely based on their origin.It already happened in the US. It's called Japanese internment camps. Just because the US is a piece of crap for doing it, doesn't excuse China for doing it.
From what I understand, really poor people are busy just surviving and don't engage in subversive activities against their host nation. It's a similar narrative that prevails in Europe today: migrants left their countries because of poverty. But, there's a fundamental paradox in this statement: if these migrants are so poor, how could they fund their trip overseas in the first place?There are a lot of really poor people who can't leave
He says that due to the reforms while maintaining the tight management, including periodic testing of officials, China progressed significantly and has serious advances in comparison to Russia. Sure, the officials are continuing to steal there as well, but due to the potential harsh punishment, the situation is better than in Russia.
Basically 43 years ago they initiated a change and were deciding how much of Maoism they are going to retain. In comparison to Russia they initiated smart economic reforms along with the socialist ideology. He also mentioned that in comparison to Soviet Union and earlier Russian government, Chinese system was more adaptive to various changes. They also learned from their enemies.
In his talks he also mentions ancient China, and how they had leading technologies in comparison to others, and it allowed Chinese to venture to other areas. Essencially, while certain Empires and countries were rising and falling, China "was always present".
It appears that Chinese approach is "homebase" oriented. Meaning, they venture out, take from "the outside world" whatever they need, but their prime concern is development of their own country. Another element to this approach is keeping all the plans close to their chest and waiting for the right moment.
Some time ago I also listened to what Khazin (a Russian economist) had to say about a possible future for China. He said that due to the looming economic crisis in the West, China may potentially also have a problem. Since China's current economic prosperity is largely based on export, if such external ventures would either become non existent or significantly lower, it would deal a significant blow.
China did take steps to counteract such a possibility, and has been investing a lot of money in development of internal market. But time will tell if this kind of preparation was enough.
Hybrid Wars can be defined as “externally provoked identity conflicts, which exploit historical, ethnic, religious, socio-economic, and geographic differences within geostrategic transit states through the phased transition from Color Revolutions to Unconventional Wars in order to disrupt, control, or influence multipolar transnational connective infrastructure projects by means of Regime Tweaking, Regime Change, and/or Regime Reboot.”
There is a great deal of financing by the globalist NGO s just to mention, that finance their trip and other things. Heard it first hand from migrants that some get money in Turkey.From what I understand, really poor people are busy just surviving and don't engage in subversive activities against their host nation. It's a similar narrative that prevails in Europe today: migrants left their countries because of poverty. But, there's a fundamental paradox in this statement: if these migrants are so poor, how could they fund their trip overseas in the first place?
Really good video. Daum's observation about the opacity being a feature not a bug was interesting - hadn't thought if of that way before. One aspect they didn't go into detail about is that the direction of the pilot programs was largely left up to the cities , so that could contribute to some of the more negative perceptions - different cities tried different things. This article provides a pretty good summary of how things started, and how the system is developing. Has a few extra details, some of which were touched on briefly in the video, e.g., the various disconnected parts of the system, and how it's not a unified panopticon like it's portrayed in the west. A couple excerpts:Yep, and that's what the "social credit" thing is really all about. It's not for citizens, but for corporations. Explained here.
China did not develop a unified credit information collection and classification management standard. Instead, each region and each government department built their own credit platforms. As a result, information sharing is very difficult. Various departments and local authorities have from time to time competed for dominance in the construction of the credit system, based on their interests, leading to further inconsistencies.
To the degree that citizens have a universal score, it's more of a financial credit score. This Chinese guy goes over his own score and shows how it works:In December 2020, the government missed the deadline it set itself in 2014. However, it issued guidelines for further improvements. It highlights the importance of central legislation and lays the ground for a future national law on the social credit system. The government says that local authorities misapprehended the definition of “bad behavior”. Spitting in public and fare dodging should not be part of the credit score, for instance. Only illegal activities defined by law should be in this category, it said.
Pretty sure this is in reference to the "judgment default" category Daum was talking about:The systems of different cities are not yet integrated together. The information they collect, the evaluation mechanisms they set up and their applications rarely match. Suzhou residents can borrow books using their Osmanthus account, for instance, and citizens with a higher score can borrow more books. But most other local credit score systems do not share this feature.
Doubts linger regarding the actual usage of credit scoring apps. AlgorithmWatch asked several residents in Suzhou about the Osmanthus system. Out of five people who had heard about it, two had never used or checked their account. Suzhou officials claim that the system covers all of its 13 million inhabitants.
Public opinion:According to the most recent statistic available, by the end of June 2019, courts nationwide had 27 million people on the blocklist restricting air travel and 6 million on the one restricting access to high-speed trains. 14 million of these were also on the list of “discredited individuals”. This represents about one in every hundred Chinese citizens.
Public opinion is starting to shift. According to Xinhua, the state-owned news agency, 70% of people who took a survey initiated by multiple media outlets in July 2020 expressed concern about misuse of the social credit system.
However, many still say they agree with the system’s purpose. “Social scoring is not a bad thing”, a retired school principal in Shanxi province told AlgorithmWatch. “Nowadays we don’t know who we can trust, with the poisoned milk powder, and gutter oil used for cooking. I think it’s good that a system is in place to ensure a certain level of trust”, she added. “I am not worried. It won’t affect me and my family, it’s to punish the dishonest people who don’t pay their debts.”