An Open Explanation Of My Behavior On Pekingduck

One of the strongest criticisms I have heard from this forum is that I never respond to my own threads. Today, I want to explain the reason for that to all readers here on Pekingduck:

Roughly speaking, there are two types of "conversations" in the world: one is for "expressing opinions", the other is for "controlling others' behaviors". Everyone knows about the "expressing opinions" one. So this post will discuss the "controlling others' behaviors" type of conversation.

I do not want to have any lengthy private conversations with any of the Pekingduck members here, simply because I want to avoid being controlled and lose my own principles and opinions. One effective way to control others is to "insincerely praise" others. For example, if I make friends with some of you, you may say "Math, I follow all of your posts, and I love your writing! You always have very insightful analysis on issues!". If I accept that praise and feel content, then I'll like that person, and think that I'm obligated to do things that will bring more praise. So he may imply that "It'll be best if in the future you can write about bad things in China like the rest of us do...", and I will have fallen into his trap, and slowly move towards his direction, and lose myself. So maybe in the future, my writings will change as a result, just like he wanted.

Another way is to use the "you dissapoint me" technique. For example, you may first praise your kid regularly. Then suddenly one day, you say to your kid "Honey, you are usually great, but what you did today dissapointed me." The kid's psychology will then feel a need please you, and will change his behavior to make you praise him more, and will slowly be led by your schemes. So if you say that "Math, I like your writings usually, but what you wrote today dissapointed me.", I will say back, "Well I don't care if you are dissapointed, I'm glad to dissapoint and anger you, hahaha!."

These types of "controlling others' behaviors" conversations are most effectively used by women. A woman may ask you "May you help me open this window?" It seems to be a very democratic request, and it's up to you to help her. But if you refuse, she will give you a very dissapointed look, and may even ask you, "Why won't you help me? Do you think I'm ugly?". And again, this seems like a very democratic question, and it's up to you to answer yes or no. But in essence it forces you to say "No, I don't think you are ugly." , and slowly your behaviors are being led into her schemes. For me, if she asks me "May you help me open this window?", I'll of course say "No, I may not." And if she then asks "Why won't you help me? Do you think I'm ugly?". I'll unhesitatingly say, "I do, you are too ugly.".

How did Gorbachev fall for the American trap and started those "glastnost" that led to the tragic breakup of the USSR? Well the Americans had many high-level diplomats (including Reagan himself) to have wine and dinners and parties with him, and try to get very intimate with him and insincerely praised him frequently over casual settings. so they slowly influenced and changed his behavior. And soon, Gorbachev's mental guard was let down, and his thinking was changed, and as we know, the USSR collapsed as a result. How terrifying such conversations are!

In fact, when American diplomats try to convince a nation to do something, they always try to insincerely praise its leaders. For example, they'll say to the Chinese leader, "You have made great economic success, and you did an impressive job of keeping growth and peace in your country. And you have made improvements on Human Rights". The Chinese leader may be unalert, and accepts that praise, and feels dizzy because of the praise. Then the American diplomat may say "Now, you'll impress everyone even more if you can release some of your jailed prisoners, etc etc." Then, slowly, and gradually, the Chinese leader will try to fulfill those demands, just to get more empty and sweet praises. And over the course of 10 years, it'll have "peacefully transformed" China's behavior into what America wants.

I believe Mao was very aware of such "controlling behavior" conversations. So he never formed any close relationship with any foreign leaders or diplomats. He may chat very intimately and at length with Chinese farmers, with professors, etc. But when it comes to foreign diplomats, he always kept the conversation very superficial and very distant, and if the diplomat wanted to discuss real issues, he will refer them to his assistants and other Chinese officials. One reason so many Americans fear Mao and think he's great is that America was never able have those "intimate talks" with Mao and control his behavior.

Many nations today have established "direct hot lines" between their leaders, so the leaders can talk to each other directly anytime they want. My suggestion is that those "direct hot lines" should be cut off immediately.

But of course I enjoy posting on this forum very much, and I thank Richard, the forum moderator, to allow me to continue posting here.