08-10-2021, 07:46 AM
** 08-Aug-2021 World View: Still skeptical
So in this case, I spent several days researching these issues, I
collected a number of sources, and I summarized them in my post. But
none of that research means anything to you. It's as if I never did
it. You must think that I'm a credulous idiot. You just come in,
announce that you're skeptical, and say that you'll track down some
REAL sources, some "well-connected" sources.
Your main reason is that it was originally published in 2005 by the
Epoch Times. So what exactly are you saying? That the reporter at
the Epoch Times hated the CCP, so he made the whole thing up, and that
everyone is complete fooled? Is that what you're suggesting? If
that's what you think, please say so, because I'd like to see you make
that argument.
It's not true that Nyquist was the only source. Christoph Becker was
also a source. If you read Nyquist's blog, he references a number of
sources of his own. We're not just credulous idiots who believe
anything we read. We cross-check everything with other sources, and
when the sources match up, we reasonably conclude that the claims are
likely to be correct.
Here's another source for you to check out:
-- Chi Haotian / Is Nazi China emerging?
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotl...merging/0/
(Indian Defense Review, 25-Sep-2011)
This article was written ten years ago, and the author debated whether
Chi Haotian's letter was authentic, and came to the same conclusion as
I did: that if it hadn't been authentic, then someone would have said
so. It was for the same reason -- that no Chinese officials have
denied the validity of the story.
I'm quite familiar with the story behind the Falun Gong and the Epoch
Times, but perhaps you don't understand how the world works. The NY
Times can lie all it wants. Russia Today can lie all it wants. China
Daily can lie all it wants. If they're caught lying, they can always
depend on many others to come to their defense.
But that's not true of the Epoch Times. When it posts something like
the Chi Haotian story, then if there's an error it will be subject to
enormous ridicule, and disavowal.
But that didn't happen with this story. In fact, there's been almost
silence ever since the story was published. In 16 years, there has
been no word from Chinese officials including Chi. Why is that?
Because they don't want to call attention to the article. They'd
rather stick with silence, and just count on people like you to reject
it because you're "skeptical." They know that the speech is valid, so
they're better off leaving people like you "skeptical." The Chinese
are good at manipulating Westerners, and even know how to manipulate
Westerners with silence.
So who are your "well-connected" sources? Are they Chinese officials
or "well-connected" to Chinese officials? If they gave you an answer
either confirming or repudiating Chi's speech, that would actually be
major international news.
So when you hear back from your "well-connected" friends, please be
certain to post what they tell you. I'm very interested in hearing.
I predict that your "well-connected" friends will either not answer at
all or will give a non-committal answer, because if they said anything
else, the Chinese Communists would throw them into a pit. They would
rather say nothing, because they know you won't bother to do any
actual research, and you'll just remain "skeptical."
Navigator Wrote:> I am still skeptical. I have asked some well connected sources to
> look into it.
> Reasons for my skepticism:
> 1 - This appears to have a SOLE source, J.R. Nyquist. I can't
> find any sources other than those ultimately quoting him in the
> Epoch Times.
> 2 - Epoch Times was founded/is run by Falun Gong refugees. They of
> course hate the CCP (with good reason) and want to bring it down.
> They overstep frequently, publishing stuff they have not properly
> vetted, but which fits their ideology and narrative (the fact that
> the liberal left does this all the time too does not make it
> right).
> It could take me a week or so to hear back, if they take the time
> to look into it seriously.
So in this case, I spent several days researching these issues, I
collected a number of sources, and I summarized them in my post. But
none of that research means anything to you. It's as if I never did
it. You must think that I'm a credulous idiot. You just come in,
announce that you're skeptical, and say that you'll track down some
REAL sources, some "well-connected" sources.
Your main reason is that it was originally published in 2005 by the
Epoch Times. So what exactly are you saying? That the reporter at
the Epoch Times hated the CCP, so he made the whole thing up, and that
everyone is complete fooled? Is that what you're suggesting? If
that's what you think, please say so, because I'd like to see you make
that argument.
It's not true that Nyquist was the only source. Christoph Becker was
also a source. If you read Nyquist's blog, he references a number of
sources of his own. We're not just credulous idiots who believe
anything we read. We cross-check everything with other sources, and
when the sources match up, we reasonably conclude that the claims are
likely to be correct.
Here's another source for you to check out:
-- Chi Haotian / Is Nazi China emerging?
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotl...merging/0/
(Indian Defense Review, 25-Sep-2011)
This article was written ten years ago, and the author debated whether
Chi Haotian's letter was authentic, and came to the same conclusion as
I did: that if it hadn't been authentic, then someone would have said
so. It was for the same reason -- that no Chinese officials have
denied the validity of the story.
I'm quite familiar with the story behind the Falun Gong and the Epoch
Times, but perhaps you don't understand how the world works. The NY
Times can lie all it wants. Russia Today can lie all it wants. China
Daily can lie all it wants. If they're caught lying, they can always
depend on many others to come to their defense.
But that's not true of the Epoch Times. When it posts something like
the Chi Haotian story, then if there's an error it will be subject to
enormous ridicule, and disavowal.
But that didn't happen with this story. In fact, there's been almost
silence ever since the story was published. In 16 years, there has
been no word from Chinese officials including Chi. Why is that?
Because they don't want to call attention to the article. They'd
rather stick with silence, and just count on people like you to reject
it because you're "skeptical." They know that the speech is valid, so
they're better off leaving people like you "skeptical." The Chinese
are good at manipulating Westerners, and even know how to manipulate
Westerners with silence.
So who are your "well-connected" sources? Are they Chinese officials
or "well-connected" to Chinese officials? If they gave you an answer
either confirming or repudiating Chi's speech, that would actually be
major international news.
So when you hear back from your "well-connected" friends, please be
certain to post what they tell you. I'm very interested in hearing.
I predict that your "well-connected" friends will either not answer at
all or will give a non-committal answer, because if they said anything
else, the Chinese Communists would throw them into a pit. They would
rather say nothing, because they know you won't bother to do any
actual research, and you'll just remain "skeptical."
