unknown translator 闷声发大财
Shenzhen
Joined March 2022
- Tweets6.6K
- Following1.1K
- Followers5.8K
- Likes83.8K
To be honest, who gives a shit.
The community organizer (aka 网格员) approached me months back to discuss the election; knowing full well that I wouldn’t have a clue about the candidates, he offered to make recommendations for me. All we have to do is accept those recommendations. Treating elections as something of such great importance is nothing more than a foolish Western malady.
以后我作为中国人的发言，我尽量用中文来写推文，反正Grok在翻译中文时表现很不错，英语读者读起来肯定不会有大问题。
说实话，我真的很难相信在美国有任何爱好和平的人，会因为反对战争而投票给民主党。如果我是一个爱好和平的人，不希望自己为两党的罪行承担任何责任，那么我肯定不会参与投票。
所以我很难相信有很大一票人，总统选举时因为希望美国远离战争而投票给共和党的选民，这次转投了民主党的说法。如果有转投的情况，那大概和反对战争无关，更有可能是因为驱逐非法移民之类的治安政策影响了他们的日常生活。
基于这种理解，我认为美国中期选举的结果更多是上次支持特朗普的人没有被动员出来（因为他们厌倦了战争），以及上次没有被动员出来的民主党潜在选民这次全被动员起来了。
如果单单是上次特朗普的支持者因为厌倦战争而放弃投票，我想这次中期选举不一定会实现这种程度的逆转，所以民主党的动员是决定性的。而这些被动员出来投票的人绝不是和平爱好者，如果你现在说要核平以色列，他们大概会有很多人同意。
这并不是说我反对他们核平以色列的冲动，如果有得选，我相信世界上有很多人会非常乐意看到这件事的发生。但问题是，这些人始终将自己的国家视为世间一切事物的仲裁者，有权决定他国人民的生死，而不是将外国的战争视为与自己无关的事，又或者自己无权决定的事。这种微妙的区别决定了他们对接下来可能发生的任何战争和任何政权更迭，会有不同的看法。如果有足够好的道德理由，这些人同样是战争的支持者。
所以以为这次美国中期选举是美国人厌倦了战争的证据，我认为是一种不合理的结论。甚至我认为情况恰恰相反。他们只是想要一场让他们更容易占有道德高地的战争。
Some people believe that the Democrats' victory in the midterm poses a threat to the Taiwan issue. This is mostly right, but it isn't a bad thing for China.
If at this moment there are still illusions that we might have an opportunity for peaceful reunification with the cooperation of US, it would be best to let such illusions be gone as soon as possible.
This piece almost makes me sad. Iranian elites seem to believe in American democracy more than Americans do.
Americans used the midterm elections to prove they don't want war—can they actually get an outcome that moves them away from war based on this result?
The biggest myth about the American democracy is that the people can influence national policy through their votes.
REGIME CHANGE IN AMERICA SAYS PROFESSOR MARANDI
@s_m_marandi:
“The American people have already said ‘no’, the midterm elections are obviously about the war, and the Iranian have brought about regime change.”
It means that you basically need a Democratic Monarch to achieve these goals.
the first candidate to fix our healthcare, make it possible for a family to live on one income, make it so americans dont have to compete with the entire world for a job & not suck netanyahus asshole will be president for 1,000 years
1
5
482
Does US election really have an anti-Zionist option? I think Trump's defeat is merely a reaction to the fact that the non-interventionist project cannot be implemented through electoral system.
Regarding Chinese propagandists, there is a fact that people may not yet know, and even if they do know, they might avoid discussing it:
Although CPC can achieve unified decision-making in its mechanism, this does not mean the party is fully unified on thought, or ideologically. One example is sufficient to illustrate this: Chinese leaders did not reach a consensus of thought when controlling the Covid epidemic, which is why Shanghai's outbreak spiraled out of control.
The same applies to the propaganda field. Some state-owned media organs believe they should promote LGBTQ and Jin Xing, but while they actively promote her overseas, this trans dancer planted in China by US, was banned from TV in China.
Some pro-China accounts on X that are not run by the state, even if they appear to express opinions independently, can change their views on specific events through contacts with different official institutions via various channels, amplifying the potential ideological contradictions within CPC.
Aren't those who promote Jin Xing as China's most popular TV host exactly such examples? Whenever I see them cheering about this, I want to vomit. But why do they engage in such propaganda, evidently not spontaneous, but organized? They may truly be controlled by foreign entities, but a more likely scenario is that certain faction within the party establish contact with them through semi-official platforms (for one example: Roy Singham and his NGO enterprise) to push agendas that cannot be advanced within the state apparatus.
I have consistently used Jin Xing as an example precisely because this case is so typical: his rise, his foreign connections, the official support he received, all are tracable, and that illustrates the differing attitudes of party factions on cultural issues and foreign policy.
In fact, a decade ago, factional struggles within Chinese politics were still one of the most popular topics among the public, people talked about it constantly in private. But now, for certain reasons, this topic has become less popular. And English-language world seems to know nothing about this.
Among all the flatters on Lula, what I find most incomprehensible is those from the Russians.
I remember more than once Lula claimed to be sick to avoid appearing in the same meeting with Putin. The old guy's stance on the Russia-Ukraine issue is unusually ambiguous. For me, he is siding with Europe over Russia. But you could also say that I'm biased against him.
However, among all the leaders of the BRICS countries, the Chinese (liberal) media will always only heap praise on Lula, with coverage of him often being overwhelming and all-encompassing. Even though China's relationship with Russia is closer and more significant, the Chinese media's coverage of Putin is always very neutral.
I am very clear about the quality of Chinese media, because I study them. Their approach is undoubtedly to elevate Brazil, especially by emphasizing its Western leftist qualities, in order to draw a comparison with Russia.
I can fully understand that Russians hold a certain respect for Lula, especially because he is a leader of the BRICS nations. But some of the flattery is truly hard to comprehend.
我见到很多中国人评论说，中国是通过严酷打击贩毒吸毒而成功禁毒的。我曾经稍微研究过中国的禁毒史。在我看来，以上观点仅适用于改革开放之后。
改革开放前，中国本已彻底清除严重的毒品泛滥。由于改革改变了中国的经济环境，导致毒品问题以新的形式死灰复燃。
中国人对禁毒措施的印象，来自这个“后毒品时代”。他们所认为的强力压制，是建立在国家已经克服最初严重的毒品泛滥的基础上，对新环境采取的治安措施。
事实上，中国共产党的禁毒史要远得多，他至少要追溯到1930年代中国还在内战时，中国共产党建立的苏维埃政权。
中国最初毒品问题如此严重，是因为大地主通过土地兼并，将特定地区的土地集中起来，而生产活动已经脱离传统农业，被鸦片种植等行业垄断。尽管国民党精英同意需要处理毒品问题，但内战导致这种经济模式被军阀和国民党所纵容。
由于这种特殊的时空环境，中国共产党并没有在所有苏维埃革命区实施最严格的禁毒措施，包括鸦片运输过境的拦截等等。因为这种对鸦片禁运的严格执行将会激发社会内部的矛盾，不利于他们的工作。但由于认识到鸦片不但在精神和肉体层面上摧残着中国人，而且是受到经济活动模式所固化，因此共产党很成功地通过土地改革，使失地农民重新获得生计，通过土地再分配使土地重新成为生活资料，而不是以生产经济作物和攫取战略资源为主导，从而使革命区很多民众脱离了毒品依赖：不单是精神肉体上的依赖，还有经济层面上的依赖和恶性循环。
在这个重大的实践经验的基础上，共产党在建立新中国不久，就在全国范围内彻底消灭了鸦片的问题。
Lots of words defending Singham's failed NGOism.
People like Roy Singham using his Wall Street money to invest in the so-called anti-imperialist cause do not provide any kind of crucial support.
If that is the case, all the so-called just causes he supported must surely have borne abundant fruit. Yet, in reality, they have achieved no more than the endeavors of any political activist who never received a penny from bosses like him for their work.
The fact is quite the opposite, Singham's money only polluted all legitimate resistance. To obtain his Wall Street money, ordinary people who don't fuck with your socdem PC must be completely driven out.
All Chinese official institutions that cooperate with Singham are the comprador class, which is the most deeply detested by ordinary Chinese people.
Fox News has uncovered a global conspiracy: 101 organisations in 13 countries involved in “organising, participating in, or amplifying” protests in Europe and India. At the centre of this web sits Neville Roy Singham, a US entrepreneur living in Shanghai who funds left-wing causes.
Who are these sinister organisations? According to Fox, they’re student associations, labour unions, socialist and communist groups, advocacy groups and media outlets. That labour unions and socialist parties would support radical protests is, of course, pretty shocking stuff.
The means of organisation, participation and amplification amount to… posting supportive messages on social media. That might sound fairly innocuous, but how else are we to explain the fact that young people in France, Italy, Spain, Albania, India and elsewhere are taking to the streets?
In France, young people are putatively protesting over education, public spending and the cost of living. In India, they claim to be opposing a revision of the electoral rolls that has removed around 130 million names. Across the Western world, a generation has spent three years watching its governments arm and defend a genocide in Gaza.
But it’s now clear that the real reason for these protests is the prolific social media activity of Roy Singham’s friends.
The whole thing calls to mind the mid-20th century in the US, when otherwise perfectly happy workers went on strike at the instigation of Soviet-paid agitators. Or when Black people in the South, treated very fairly under Jim Crow, came over all uppity upon contact with Chinese communist propaganda.
Being serious for a moment: what Fox News and others are complaining about is the anti-imperialist left having any voice at all. Liberal “freedom of speech” has always worked fine as long as the ruling class enjoyed an effective monopoly on propaganda and dissent was marginal. Now anti-war and anti-imperialist voices are growing louder and more effective, it seems that rules have changed.
We can see where that leads. In India, NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha was arrested in 2023 over alleged Singham-linked funding, an arrest the Supreme Court later declared invalid. In the US, Senator Grassley wants CodePink and the People’s Forum registered as foreign agents. In Britain, Palestine Action has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation, and more than 90 percent of last year’s 3,061 terrorism-related arrests were for supporting it. In the US, NSPM-7 lists “anti-capitalism” as an indicator of domestic terrorism.
Dimitrov defined fascism as “the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital”. This line of reporting and policy points in that direction. When liberal democracy can no longer win the argument, both liberalism and democracy are abandoned.
油管长期操控话题，情况过于明显，我认为都甚至不用讨论。
十年前如果你用中文登录油管，那么你基本只能刷到海外民逗的低智商视频。这种情况直到疫情发生之后才稍微有点改变，因为多了不少海外中国人发有关疫情的视频。
包括波士顿圆脸在内的一些现在在国内互联网上颇为有名的键政网红，就是这个时间段冒出来的。
2025年之后，美国自由派犹太人想要利用中国建立反特朗普叙事，才开始出现chinamaxxing，以及一大堆傻逼网红跑来中国直播的情况。
如果不是美国精英的内部矛盾激烈到一定程度，现在根本不可能在海外平台看到任何对中国友好的信息。十年前任何一个油管用户，肯定都会得到相同的结论。
结果现在一堆低龄低智商，好像昨天才学会上网的小逼崽子，居然跑出来说，如果你质疑平台在操纵舆论，那么你就是阴谋论。
你说我该说些什么？
As early as 2025, when "refugees" to Xiaohongshu appeared, I already mentioned the competition between China and US in discourse manipulation on social platforms.
The topics X recently created precisely prove that US authorities slightly surpass China in this regard. China's Xiaohongshu also has a translation function, yet it failed to create trending topics like China-Brazil and China-Turkey interactions.
As long as we understand the industrial policies of the next US administration, we will notice that the main field of competition between China and US in the coming period will be their power projection in Central and South America. Given that these regions are highly influenced by the western social media, breaking the info monopoly of the US ruling class will be one of China's most important tasks in the future.
We should evaluate the role of XHS from this perspective. From this standpoint, we have already seen the function of breaking the info monopoly at play, but as my previous posts, XHS's info dissemination capabilities are still insufficient, it cannot replace the functionality of TikTok.
There are many reasons for this.
1) Xiaohongshu itself is a social platform centered on urban consumerism, its major user base is apolitical.
2) when China created the refugee topic, it was clearly supported by bot farms deeply entrenched on Twitter/X, but such support was short-lived—possibly due to bot-crackdown measures—and China has since lost the ability to create trending topics in English major social media.
3) China's state-owned liberal-leaning media chose poor collaborators (clowns like Hasan Piker) instead of long-term cultivation of organic topics through research.
14
335
The recent China-Brazil and China-Turkey interactions on X are both based on several new feature settings — the automatic translation and the default recommended timeline. If you turn off these features, as I usually do, you'll find that it's actually hard to see those posts that are currently viral.
Noticing the role of the platform and who benefits from these topics, rather than just overwhelming the other side at the topic level, is crucial to understanding today's cybernatic information warfare.
And this isn't just on platforms like X. On China's internet, the same goes for topics surrounding the Ming-Qing and radical feminism.