Pompeo 在 Reagan Institution 开幕致辞， 英文翻译练习，推倒洗脑防火墙

使用CN2/CN2GIA顶级线路，支持Shadowsocks/V2ray科学上网，支持支付宝付款，每月仅需 5 美元

## 加入品葱精选 Telegram Channel ##

原文在美国国务院**：美国的承诺（The promise of America）**

2020年 11月 10 日，40 Presidential Drive，Simi Valley, CA 93065

大家好，早上好… 寒暄，致谢，开场。 今天来这里真的很特别。
SECRETARY POMPEO:  Well, good morning, everyone.  And thanks, Roger.  Thanks to you also, Ben, and all the Reagan Foundation trustees, and the institute staff for making this event possible.  It’s really special to be here today.

I’m honored that you asked me to inaugurate this Center for Freedom and Democracy.

See if I can’t solve this feedback problem myself.

As we were getting ready for this, as my team was helping me get ready, I was reminded of a line from Emerson – I don’t quote poetry often; I should do so more – (laughter) – that President Reagan quoted during his famous speech at Westminster, in 1982.  He said that an institution is lengthened by the shadow of one man.

他说过一个机构只是一个人延长的身影。

And there is no man who did more than Reagan to restore America’s confidence and advance human freedom in the post-World War II era.

And so there’s no better first event for the Sutton Family Auditorium than continuing that work by launching this new institution, 40 years after America sent our 40th President to the White House.

The people watching online and those in this room are students of President Reagan.

As a kid growing up in California, I got to see him in action as the governor.  It was a very different California then.  (Laughter.) 当一个孩子在加州长大，我将看到他成为州长，而加州也将变得非常不同。笑，里根是加州州长。

But it was Ronald Reagan as governor who believed in the promise of America and of our people.

He understood that no other nation, under God, was conceived in liberty quite like the one that we are.
他理解没有其它国家，在上帝之下，比我们更相信自由解放。

His deep, innate understanding of America as an exceptional place in the world gave him the strength to face down the Soviet scourge.

He was confident.  He was confident that every threat that he faced – and I must say I am, too.  We have many threats today that remain.

But I am equally confident that America will overcome any challenge, from Communist China to the terrorist regime in Tehran.

Because that’s what free people do.  We come together; we solve problems; we win, they lose; and we execute our foreign policy confident that we are that shining city on a hill.

And that’s what I want to spend a few minutes talking about today.

Look, I know you all believe in the promise of America’s freedom.  President Trump believes in it.

I do too.

Our nation’s story isn’t about dehumanizing critical theories.  It’s not about oppressors and oppressed. 我们的国家不是非人化的批评家的故事。不是镇压者和被镇压者的关系。

It’s not about materialism, or even that might makes right. 不是（唯）物质化，就算它也可能正确。

It’s about the reality that all men and women are made in the image of God, with certain inherent, God-given rights just by virtue of our humanity.  These truths in the Declaration really are indeed self-evident.

Never before, in all of recorded history, was a nation founded on the premise that government’s role is to protect those very rights, to secure them.  And it’s what makes us so special.  It’s what makes us so good, and it’s what I get to see every day as I work with my team or travel around the world.

It’s what always made our life so attractive to the strivers and those who are seeking a better world.

I must say, as I travel, you don’t see individual families trying to migrate to Iran, or to Russia, or to Venezuela.  Those countries offer abuse, not the opportunities that free nations can afford peoples.

I’ve talked about American exceptionalism.  I did so in Brussels; I did it in Cairo; I did it in Jakarta, and every opportunity that I’ve had in my public life.  Sometimes it was met with a resounding thud as well.  I’ve walked out of quiet ward rooms.

But President Reagan talked about America’s founding promise.  He did it in the same way and did it every chance he got, too.

And at Westminster, he reminded the audience what kind of people they were: free people, worthy of freedom, and determined to not only remain so but to help others gain their freedoms as well.

He, President Reagan, put his belief in freedom and the American promise at the very center of how he thought about foreign policy.  And so is the Trump administration.

It was a half-dozen years after his Westminster Address, President Reagan returned to England and at Guildhall described how he had executed the vision he had outlined in 1982.  He said his foreign policy had been one of “strength and candor.”

And those principles have guided President Trump’s foreign policy, too.  Take a look at the things that we have done so far.

In the Middle East, American strength has replaced leading from behind.  We destroyed the caliphate, the ISIS caliphate.  We killed Baghdadi and Soleimani, and we have restored substantial deterrence.

The effort against the Islamic Republic of Iran to put maximum pressure has denied Tehran and its terrorist proxies tens of billions of dollars.

American diplomatic strength has made our relationships with our Gulf partners the closest that they have ever been.

And by just simply recognizing Jerusalem – candidly recognizing Jerusalem – as the capital of Israel and acknowledging that the Golan Heights are part of Israel, we’ve helped secured our ally, the Jewish state, as central to the region’s future.

And it’s – much to the chagrin of some here in town – has delivered peace and forged new ties of prosperity and security through the Abraham Accords.  But we’re not finished yet.

Those pillars of strength and candor are also the foundation for America’s policy towards the world’s number-one threat to freedom today: the Chinese Communist Party.

I’ve spoken about this at great length, and I have borrowed from President Reagan with great frequency in how we think about this challenge.  For 40 years-plus, we steered a course correction.  We changed.  Been handled with kid gloves and we had ignored all the contrary evidence that showed that the regime in Beijing really is troublesome.  We showed what it is.  It is authoritarian; it is brutish and is antithetical to human dignity and freedom.

And we’ve stated clearly and consistently that the United States-China relations will not be dictated by exceptions carved out by the party, but by the simple and powerful standards expected of any nation with aspirations to play a role on the global stage.
并且我们一直说得清楚中美关系将不会是黨所期待的支配关系，而是全球舞台上各国参与的简单有力的标准。

That means what we’ve told our counterparts in China – accountability, transparency, reciprocity from Beijing.  This is exactly what President Reagan demanded from Moscow.
那意味着我们已经告诉我们中国的对手 - 北京应该说话算数，透明，互动。正是里根总统对莫斯科的要求。（然后下面就开始集火中国中共和中美对抗了…）

And it also means no more illegal claims in the South China Sea, no more coercion and co-optation of American businesses, no more consulates used as dens of spies, no more stealing of intellectual property, and no more ignoring fundamental human rights violations.  And the party’s atrocities in Xinjiang, Tibet, and elsewhere will not be tolerated.

This challenge requires not only diplomatic effort but military strength to keep the peace.  So this administration has made historic investments to enhance our armed forces and to focus their efforts and bolster our primacy in the region.

I’ve been the Secretary of State now for coming on 30 months, traveled the world talking to our friends and partners about the CCP’s nature and its intentions.  I’ve told them that the West is winning.  I’ve reminded them that we will prevail.

The good news is that the free world and sovereign nations are beginning to wake up.  They are now rallying to this cause.  I’ll often hear, we don’t want to pick between the United States and China.  I remind them that that’s not the fight.  The fight is between authoritarianism, barbarism on one side and freedom on the other.

And so we’ve begun to strengthen the institutions that can achieve this objective.  From the Quad, to ASEAN, to NATO, we’ve woken them up to the threat posed by this Marxist-Leninist monster.

The new and lasting consensus on the Chinese Communist Party is an historic result of America’s strength and candor, precisely the traits that President Reagan spoke of.

The fact, the urgency of this matter is now accepted all across the political spectrum, and it shows that the Trump administration has succeeded in making this important shift for American national security and indeed for the freedoms of all humanity.

It’s an accomplishment that will steer a generation of American foreign policymakers.

We should all approach this challenge – and indeed every challenge – confident in our nation’s purpose, sure of our values, and determined to protect our way of life because we believe so deeply in America’s promise.

And just like President Reagan, we have every reason to be optimistic.  America itself is a continent-wide reminder that freedom is the superior alternative to tyranny.

If our policies aren’t grounded in a love of America – in the knowledge that, though we’re flawed like every other country, that we are, indeed, an exceptional nation; our founding principles are unique and our future promise is also special – then if we get that wrong, our nation will suffer.

But if we get it right, our friends and allies will see America leading, and we will all emerge stronger, freer, and more confident.  And we will face the China challenge.
如果我们做对了，我们的朋友和盟国将看到美国的领导力，我们将更强、更自由、更自信。并且我们将面对中国挑战。

President Reagan knew this.  Appeasement and blind engagement makes us weak.  Beijing, Tehran, and other tyrannical regimes take advantage of weakness.
里根总统知道的。鼠目寸光的讨好和拉钩让我们软弱。北京、德黑兰和其它暴政统治利用这种软弱。

And we cannot ever afford to return to the days when America sacrificed its natural leadership to morally pliant multilateral institutions that, in fact, erode American sovereignty.  These institutions are run by the same kind of “little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital” that Reagan warned us about in his speech that he called “A Time for Choosing.”

We can’t sustain an empty dialogue with regimes that have no intention to forge peace, or to respect the free and open order that we worked so diligently – so diligently to build.

President Reagan’s life and his consistent moral clarity offer us incredibly valuable lessons.  It was in 1952, near the start of the Cold War, that Ronald Reagan, an actor, went to Fulton, Missouri – middle America, not far from my home in Kansas.  He went to where Churchill gave his Iron Curtain speech just a few years earlier.

There he said, quote, “America…is an idea that has been deep in the souls of man ever since man started his long trail from the swamps.  It is nothing but the inherent love of freedom in each one of us.”

That idea, that idea of the inherent love of freedom, led millions in Eastern Europe to tear down the Berlin Wall 31 years ago yesterday, and the Iron Curtain in the months that followed fell too.

And we see – we see in this desire for peace all across the world today.  We see it in the people of Hong Kong waving American flags.  We see it in the people of Venezuela, tired of Nicolas Maduro’s destructive regime.  We see it in Nicaragua, we see Iranians and Belarusians all longing for this very human condition.  It’s within each of us.

America had debates about how to confront the Soviet threat.

And we’ve debated and will continue to debate how to approach the China challenge.  I think that’s good; I think that’s healthy in a democracy.

But our true north, on which we must always return – our true north – a more perfect union, and greater human freedom in the world, must remain.

This place, this special place, the Reagan Institute will play a key part in that.

Today you are reaffirming America’s belief in the great things at the heart of an amazing nation.

And I’m glad, too, that you’re focusing your work on that Westminster Address, where President Reagan spoke about fostering “the infrastructure of democracy” and leaving Soviet communism on the “ash-heap of history.”

Those remarks, they were early on in his presidency.  It was bold.  And what he says is true.

It was grounded in America’s first principles, but it was forward-looking and optimistic because Reagan knew those principles were right.

This Center will continue to march on.  It will continue that march of freedom and democracy for the next generation.

And you’ll keep lengthening the shadow of a man who reminded Americans that we are in fact good, that we are in fact special, and that the world needs us to live up to our nation’s providential promise.

It is an amazing honor to be here as you’re getting started in this new place.

I look forward to following your work and taking some questions today.

May God bless the United States of America.  Thank you all.  (Applause.)

MR ZAKHEIM:  Thank you, Mr. Secretary.  I was about to tell you how to put the mic on, but you clearly are —

SECRETARY POMPEO:  A trained professional (inaudible).

MR ZAKHEIM:  — capable at handling that.  So we’re going to take – I’m just going to have a – we have time just for a few questions we’ll do from the stage, and for those in the room and online, I think you agree with me that was just a remarkable set of remarks, and inspiring, actually, the way you integrated President Reagan’s legacy with the work you’ve done as Secretary of State in the Trump administration.

Let’s start with China and the Chinese Communist Party.  That was a big piece of your speech, and you reference President Reagan’s speech in Fulton, in Missouri, and many people look at Churchill’s speech in Fulton as kind of – the Iron Curtain speech as the beginning of the Cold War.  Your administration, or the President’s administration, your time in this administration – did you witness a moment where you kind of had that Iron Curtain moment, where you recognized that this regime, the Chinese Communist Party presented a challenge that the only frame of reference was really going back to the Cold War?

SECRETARY POMPEO:  Yeah.  So you know the President – if you go back and look at the President’s remarks from his campaign, and even before that, he had identified a number of the challenges connected to the Chinese Communist Party and its behavior.  And then early on in the administration as we developed our National Security Strategy, you can see it begin to become fleshed out.  You can see the bones being put underneath it.  And then as CIA director, I got to see firsthand every morning what these characters were up to.

And when I say that, you got a chance – you get the chance to have the glimpse inside of the apparatus and its intent, which is critical.  So we have lived with communist regimes in the world, and they’ll choose their own governments’ model, but they don’t impact the world in the way that Xi Jinping intends to impact the world.  And so this combination of capacity and intent on behalf of the current leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, it became very clear that this was the central challenge that this administration would face, and we believe the central challenge America will face in the years ahead.

And so we put together all the apparatus, all the institutions.  At the State Department, we have fundamentally re-shifted how we think about the world.  My ambassadors, no matter where they are in the world, have China at the top of their list.  So if you’re an ambassador in the Democratic Republic of Congo or in South Korea or in Oman, you know that the Chinese Communist Party’s intent on impacting that country, and we are determined to make sure that we use our capacity to push back against that challenge.  I articulate it perhaps more clearly in some remarks at the Nixon Library —

**MR ZAKHEIM:  **We’ve heard of that library.  It’s —

**SECRETARY POMPEO:  **— where we – yeah, where we, for the first time, took a complete laydown of the scope of the challenge presented, and now the Trump administration has laid out its response, both the American response and then the response that we are working on the world so that the world can see this and do this collectively.  Because just as Reagan needed other partners in the fight against the authoritarian regime in the Soviet Union, this will take a global response as well.

**MR ZAKHEIM:  **So I want to talk about allies in just a minute, but just to drill down a little bit more on China.  We – the famous image of President Reagan in front of the Berlin Wall – “Tear down this wall” – iconic now, obviously quite controversial.  The agency which you lead perhaps didn’t want him to use those words.  They got that wrong.  But when you think about China and you think about the great firewall, right, which reflects what China’s doing in the digital age, we’re obviously wrestling how we manage the competition with China.  Some would suggest that we should reinforce that wall and keep the free world outside of it and let China live within its great firewall.  Give me your thoughts on that.  Maybe we should take down the great firewall and aspire for that in the same fashion that we wanted the Berlin Wall to come down.
谈盟国之前再谈一下中国，我们 - 著名的里根总统在柏林墙前的图像 - 拆了这墙 - 现代的标志， 明显是很对立。 你领导的组织可能不想要他使用这些词汇。他们错了。 但是当你想想中国和他们的伟大防火墙，是吧，这就是中国在数据时代做的，我们当然还在纠结于如何与中国竞争。一些人会建议我们应该加强这个墙让自由的世界在墙外让中国人活在防火墙内。告诉我他怎么想。也许我们应该拆了伟大的防火墙并且期待它和柏林墙一样倒下。

**SECRETARY POMPEO:  **Yeah.  In the end, the people of China will ultimately be determinative just as the people of the Soviet Union were ultimately determinative of the course of history inside of that country.  And so it’s our fundamental effort to work to make sure that the Chinese people have access to information, data, all the things that they will need to see so that they, too, can share in these very freedoms that we all care so much about.  So yes, the analogy of the Cold War is imperfect and we can talk about the places it’s different, but make no mistake about it:  This innate desire for freedom, for personal autonomy, for human dignity is something that, just as Reagan said, I think, rests in the souls of each of us.  And for us to have the capacity to permit them to tear down this firewall that has been built around China would enable the people of China to make a much different set of decisions than the one that their current leadership has taken them down – the path their current leadership is taking them down.

是，在最后，中国人民最终会下定决心就像是苏联人民在那个国家最后的历史时刻的坚决。并且我们因此有基础深厚的支撑让我们努力确保中国人得到资讯，数据，所有的内容他们将用来看到他们也是可以分享这样的自由，我们非常关心这个。所以是的，冷战的比喻不是很完美我们可以讨论不同的区别，但是不要搞错：这样内在的对自由的渴望，个人自治，人性尊严是正如里根总统所说，我想，是基于我们每一个人的灵魂。而且对我们来说有能力允许他们拉倒这围住中国的防火墙之后将让中国人民做出做出不同的各种选择和现在的领导人选择的不同 - 现在的路上现在的领导人正在放倒他们。

**MR ZAKHEIM:  **So yeah, separating the people from the party obviously a big emphasis of your remarks.  Recently I had the opportunity to have a conversation with Natan Sharansky, a famous dissident, refusenik in the Soviet Union, which really impacted the Reagan administration in so many ways from beginning to the end.  And he talked about – almost wistfully – about the concept of linkage and how President Reagan and his secretary of state, Secretary Shultz, no matter what the conversation was with the Soviet Union or other leaders around the world, human rights, the plight of people seeking freedom always began the conversation, was always top of the list.  Talk to me a little bit about the importance of linkage as explained by President Reagan and Secretary Shultz, referenced by Natan Sharansky.  Do we need to do more of it?  And how do we continue kind of advancing that, whether you’re dealing with the Chinese Communist Party or even our friends and partners?

是的，分割人民和黨是你的一个明显的大重点。…

**SECRETARY POMPEO:  **Sure.  So a complicated – a complicated topic.  I’ve actually spent a lot of time.  So we’ve put, of course, two – two things at the State Department while I’ve been there.  One is I put together a commission; it’s called the U.S. Commission on Unalienable Rights.  We wrote a report; I’d urge you to read it.  It takes about 40 minutes to flip through.  But it was an attempt to reground American foreign policy in these fundamental understandings about human dignity, and I think the commission did a phenomenal job of going back to our Declaration of Independence, back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and accounting for these things, these pre-political rights that were provided by God, not by government.  And it – I think it refocused our effort in the State Department.  I hope that it has set down not policies, but principles on which we ought to do and think about human rights.

Second, we’ve spent a lot of time working on religious freedom issues, that central freedom, the capacity to exercise one’s conscience and one’s faith in the way that they want.  And I put those two as a baseline to answer your conversation because it’s the case that no matter where we go, whatever country we’re dealing with, whether they’re people we have a security relationship with or when we’re dealing with the Chinese Communist Party and the horrors that are taking place inside of China today, not just the – I talked about Xinjiang in my remarks, but Catholic churches are being de-Sinicized – are being Sinicized.  You’re seeing Christian faith stamped out in Tibet, in now northern Mongolia.  Every place that human freedom wants to flourish, the Chinese Communist Party is resisting it.  And so each time we have a conversation, at every level between the United States and China, we raise these issues in part because I think the President had it right – to link them matters – but second, I think we have a fundamental obligation to do this on behalf of the American people.

…每一个人性自由想要繁荣的地方中共都在拒绝。所以每一次我们谈论，任何一个中美关系的层次，我们提出问题部分是因为我想总统有权力 - 连系这些问题 - 但是其次，我想我们有根深的义务为美国人的利益这样做。

**MR ZAKHEIM:  **In your remarks – and we only have a few more minutes, so we’ll just do a couple more questions – you reference international organizations and how they’ve often sought to erode our sovereignty.  You also did that in a section of your speech talking about strength and candor, and the need to have a foreign policy that advances and that speaks that way.

At the same time, international organizations have been used and are necessary despite the critique in your speech, in many conservatives’ view, whether it be Iran and dealing with Iran through the Security Council, or even dealing with COVID and the need to engage with international organizations.  Give us your take in terms of sitting atop Foggy Bottom as our diplomat in chief, how you’ve come to think and appreciate or not appreciate the role of international organizations as we advance U.S. interests.

SECRETARY POMPEO:  Yeah.  So you’re right, I appreciate and not appreciate – some of each, to be sure.  We’ve come at this as first principles.  So it comes back to our central understanding, our no-BS understanding:  Does this thing work?  You set an institution up, it’s 70 years on, or it’s a hundred years on – is it still functional?  Is it fit for purpose?  This is what everybody does in their personal life, it’s what every business does.  Does the institutional structure permit us to get to the place that we were intending?  Not necessarily America’s intention, but the very statement of mission that the institution has.

If it is broken beyond repair in spite of great American efforts – I’d give you the Human Rights Council at the United Nations —

MR ZAKHEIM:  A classic example.

SECRETARY POMPEO:  — if it’s broken beyond repair, at some point you just have to say, “I don’t want to be connected to that, I can’t fix it, I’m going to try and create something outside of that that will actually deliver on human rights.”

There’s other things you try to fix.  I’ll – that you – you hinted at the World Health Organization.  We have been through three, maybe four efforts at reforming the World Health Organization – significant efforts, real efforts, American-led efforts over decades, Republican and Democrat administrations alike.  Epic failures.  So the President concluded, frankly on my recommendation, that we ought to go try and build an infrastructure that would actually deliver the very outcomes that the World Health Organization is designed to deliver.  So it’s about purpose, function – does it fit, does it work?

I’ll give you an example where we have made one better, we decided we’d go fight.  So there’s an organization many won’t know.  It’s called the World Intellectual Property Organization.  It turns out this actually matters an awful lot to America’s wealth and jobs here at home.  It was run by someone controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.  There was an election, we were about to allow that person to continue, and the State Department built out a team and went and won an election.  We got someone who actually cared about property rights running the World Intellectual Property Organization.  Stunning.  (Laughter.)  I know.  To anyone listening saying, “Well, that seems – why are you bragging about this?”  It turns out – turns out that it was a close call.  There were – it was a hotly contested race.  But what we did there is we said this is an institution that matters.  If we think we can make this institution function, let’s make sure we get the right team, the right organization, the right structure in place to do that.  And so we did.

And so we built out the counter-ISIS coalition of 90 countries.  We now have almost 50 nations that are part of what we call our Clean Network who have refused to put Chinese telecom infrastructure inside the country.  I remember my first trip abroad, my very first one, where I pitched a country giving up on Huawei.  And I remember the reporting the next day: “Pompeo throws himself against the wall and bounces,” right?  Just – right?  Epic failure.  But it turns out that good work, rational thought, candor, data have now led 50 countries and – it’s dozens and dozens of telecom companies – all around the world to say, “No, we’re not going to let this happen.”

So these international infrastructure matters.  We should use it for the good of the world.  But we never should permit ourselves to continue to be in a situation in one of these organizations where the organization no longer has any possibility of delivering a good outcome.

MR ZAKHEIM:  So that framework – the infrastructure, the models, the approach, you have to see if it’s working for you – we were just talking about international organizations, and let’s wrap up with this question.  The organizations that came out of President Reagan’s Westminster speech – the National Endowment for Democracy and all those umbrella organizations – those are nearly 40 years old, right, continue to do great work.  We have people in the room here that have led some of those organizations.  At the same time, the world has changed dramatically since then.

What’s your thinking about what we need to do as a country to update, sharpen, modernize – pick your favorite word – in terms of how we as a country promote and advance freedom and democracy in the world?

SECRETARY POMPEO:  Yeah.  Any time something’s 40 years old – that includes me – (laughter) – it needs – it often needs a makeover.  And I think a lot of these institutions also need makeovers.  So we’ve all – we all know Voice of America.  We all know Radio Free Europe.  We all know these institutions that delivered in powerful ways all across the world.  But communications have changed; times have changed.  The capacity for nations to screen information and the way that they do it has changed.

And I’m not convinced we have it right yet.  I think we’ve made a little bit of progress in our four years, but there is an awful lot left to do.  These are – places like the National Endowment for Democracy and organizations like what’s now the USAGM have an important role to play around the world in advancing democracy, and we need to make sure we empower them with the right leaders and tools so that they can actually deliver on those objectives.

MR ZAKHEIM:  Secretary Pompeo, I’d be remiss without commenting on how you’re the embodiment of peace-through-strength diplomacy with your socks, being a foot soldier –(laughter) – which here at the Reagan Institute, we certainly notice and appreciate.  But everyone, please join me in thanking the Secretary of State for joining us —

Pompeo 国务聊，我不恭维你用力和平的外交政策就是疏忽了，带着老兵的袜子，做为一名步兵 – 哈哈 – 这里在里根总统纪念馆，我们当然也知道并且感激。但是，所有人，请和我一起感谢国务卿聊来和我们一起聊。

SECRETARY POMPEO:  Thank you very much.

MR ZAKHEIM:  — and launching our Center for Freedom and Democracy. 启动我们的自由和民主中心。

SECRETARY POMPEO:  Thank you. 谢谢。

(Applause.)

品葱用户 hkfool 评论于 2020-11-13

我已经做了30个月的国务亲，国务聊，满世界跑去和我们的朋友聊天，聊中共的本性和意图。我告诉他们西方在赢。我已经提醒他们我们将活下去。

I’ve been the Secretary of State now for coming on 30 months, traveled the world talking to our friends and partners about the CCP’s nature and its intentions.  I’ve told them that the West is winning.  I’ve reminded them that we will prevail.

有点离任前的说话感觉.

品葱用户 **hkfool

hkfool** 评论于 2020-11-14

>>我已经做了30个月的国务亲，国务聊，满世界跑去和我们的朋友聊天，聊中共的本性和意图。我告诉他们西方在…

And there is no man who did more than Reagan to restore America’s confidence and advance human freedom in the post-World War II era.
没有人在二战后比里根做的更多来重建美国的自信和推进人类的自由。

但是不管你怎样说我们这些全球化精英还是更务实，
新能源的秘密你根本不知道，
80亿人口的挑战你根本看不到，
每二十年一代的人体电池和每19年一批的姑娘十八，
就算你感觉我们腐败我们也有讲解全球共赢和改善环境污染，
新产品再过两代，你们老白男和小白男的比例就继续下降，
理想什么的你就说吧，未来是我们的，是全球的，当然也包括中共。
不可以搞种族歧视也不可以搞党派歧视，
墙不是我们修的你也少说两句，
里根就是说了要拆墙最后才变得老年痴呆，
中共加入了全球化就是有自知之明，
什么样的国就有什么样的民，
什么样的文字教育什么样的文化，
多元化的世界包容一切，
你却很可能干不了下一个四年。
美国的衰落是大国的命运，
内卷的趋势和百年前的大英帝国一样样，
3G4G5G之后还不明白，
人肉电池就是新能源，
我们至少还可以说是有能力坏一下，
而你就是傻，老彭，Pompeo，
你说的盟国都去祝贺了拜登当总统，
而你还在为川普做卫兵，
毛主席49年说《再见了司徒雷登》
今天我们说：再见了， 胖，皮，奥，O～OO～OOO～OOOO

品葱用户 **hkfool

hkfool** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>And there is no man who did more than Reagan to re…

技术上，人们会说推倒防火墙很难啊….  其实相反，非常简单，美军让美式 5G或者 XG 对中国免费就可以，让星链 StarLink 式低轨卫星网对中国免费。 甚至收费都可以，因为中共的 5G 费用已经可以达到 星链 成本价了。

幸好，美国人选了 Biden 做总统，哈哈，墙国继续。

品葱用户 **oeirjsd

hkfool** 评论于 2020-11-14

>>技术上，人们会说推倒防火墙很难啊…. 其实相反，非常简单，美军让美式 5G或者 XG 对中国免费…

然后中共可以大规模搜查卫星锅。。。starlink照样用不了

品葱用户 **hkfool

oeirjsd** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>然后中共可以大规模搜查卫星锅。。。starlink照样用不了

以中国人享受免费资源的能力和早已经无数次展示的抢夺免费资源的决心来说，只要卫星免费，锅将是多多的，收不完的。 所以，…… 你或者是想多了，或者是过于轻视了中国大叔大妈大哥大嫂和无数所谓愚民的力量。

要知道一旦上了这个网，就意味着电话、网络全解决，国际电话和国际漫游也不用再加钱，同时 Youtube，Twitter, Telegram, IG, Facebook 全部解决，也不用再有什么钓鱼翻墙付费喝茶了。

品葱用户 **p2p123

hkfool** 评论于 2020-11-14

>>以中国人享受免费资源的能力和早已经无数次展示的抢到免费资源的决心来说，只要卫星免费，锅将是多多的，收…

不用完全免费。 可以开放一个低速率的免费公共帐号， 高速率的按档次收费。
深圳立刻就能制造出各种各样的”隐形“锅。

品葱用户 **hkfool

p2p123** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>不用完全免费。 可以开放一个低速率的免费公共帐号， 高速率的按档次收费。深圳立刻就能制造出各种各样的…

甚至直接就催生一个新天线产业。

品葱用户 **p2p123

oeirjsd** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>然后中共可以大规模搜查卫星锅。。。starlink照样用不了

starlink 锅 体积小多了 ，马斯克还要用在电动车上，随着技术发展， 体积将更小。

品葱用户 **hkfool

p2p123** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>starlink 锅 体积小多了 ，马斯克还要用在电动车上，随着技术发展， 体积将更小。

如果让美军太空军来做的话，甚至有可能把军费赚到饱。

品葱用户 **范松忠

oeirjsd** 评论于 2020-11-14

>>然后中共可以大规模搜查卫星锅。。。starlink照样用不了

会的，以前就是这么对待电视节目的。

品葱用户 **范松忠

hkfool** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>如果让美军太空军来做的话，甚至有可能把军费赚到饱。

说到美军，为什么不把激光武器搭载到卫星上？激光是光速，射杀习来曼尼，习来曼尼在大屠杀广场阅虫时，跑得了吗？还能打偏了？？

品葱用户 **hkfool

范松忠** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>会的，以前就是这么对待电视节目的。

区别在于以前没有网络，没有 WTO， 而且以前有一个大锅，还没有自动翻译软件. 以前的大锅无法接收到出口日本的年轻肉体展示， 没有 pornhub, 没有海外反贼，以前没有的太多了。以前的那个大锅也没有可能让中国人和流浪海外的数千万差点忘记初心的华语使用者聊天。

另外，刚才看了一下， StarLink 在上个月完成三次发射，投放了 180 颗卫星。

品葱用户 **hkfool

范松忠** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>说到美军，为什么不把激光武器搭载到卫星上？激光是光速，射杀习来曼尼，习来曼尼在大屠杀广场阅虫时，跑得…

哈哈，里根式的思路，一套激光发射装备大概是一个标准40英尺集装箱，太空维护将是。。。所谓太空是离开地面十万公里，你要有能力让激光打十万公里，不说能源发射问题，只说瞄准十万公里之外的一个暴君的脑袋就是一个大问题。

品葱用户 **范松忠

hkfool** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>区别在于以前没有网络，没有 WTO， 而且以前有一个大锅，还没有自动翻译软件. 以前的大锅无法接收到…

所以以前都是看港台的。

抱歉没关心你的翻译，我……顺着你的链接进去听完了彭佩奥演讲。很开心，很开心！

品葱用户 zlxdmever11 评论于 2020-11-14

我觉得推墙的行动值得肯定，但结果我个人并不乐观，从身边的人来看，思想上的墙比网络上的墙高得多

不会翻墙的，在中国，大部分是底层

底层说实话，大多没钱没时间没受过多少教育，他们更关心一日三餐，物价，工资/养老金，网络只是他们闲时最经济的娱乐方式而已。只要不是被当局直接碾压过，他们就压根没啥政治诉求，只求生活安定+温饱而已

而中国现在的经济已经停滞，不安定的因素越来越多，这个时候，底层生活水平的任何恶化，都可以被当局引导到“外国颠覆势力的破坏和煽动上”来。把墙破开的行为，也许并不能够让反XX的共识形成，反而可能会收到反效果

而且，对抗当局，是需要组织的。在现状，宗教/结社/网络/聊天群/出行，全部被打压和监控的情况下，谁组织，怎么组织？老美亲自下场？

在当局，没有失去对社会的控制的能力/意愿的现状下，我是觉得 推墙 还早

品葱用户 **范松忠

hkfool** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>哈哈，里根式的思路，一套激光发射装备大概是一个标准40英尺集装箱，太空维护将是。。。所谓太空是离开地…

多少钱？贵吗？对付习来曼尼，一下灭掉，10亿美元，灭了习来曼尼，你想想，贵吗？100亿，贵吗？？

品葱用户 **hkfool

zlxdmever11** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>我觉得推墙的行动值得肯定，但结果我个人并不乐观，从身边的人来看，思想上的墙比网络上的墙高得多不会翻墙…

推墙这样的工作是启蒙的第一步，勿以善小而不为，千万不要找任何借口。

品葱用户 **AlanW

范松忠** 评论于 2020-11-14

>>说到美军，为什么不把激光武器搭载到卫星上？激光是光速，射杀习来曼尼，习来曼尼在大屠杀广场阅虫时，跑得…

在马斯克完成星舰，并帮助美军建设太空制造厂以前，这是不可能做到的。部署成本和维护成本都太高了。

品葱用户 **AlanW

hkfool** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>哈哈，里根式的思路，一套激光发射装备大概是一个标准40英尺集装箱，太空维护将是。。。所谓太空是离开地…

你错了，太空是指卡门线以上，也就是海拔一百公里为界限。十万公里，你快到月球了。

品葱用户 **范松忠

AlanW** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>在马斯克完成星舰，并帮助美军建设太空制造厂以前，这是不可能做到的。部署成本和维护成本都太高了。

不用太多维护了，小习来曼尼，小的独裁者，无人机，大的，就剩下普京和小金了，他们都没有习来曼尼那么邪恶，也就是为习来曼尼量身定做，一次就够了，不用怎么维护了。

品葱用户 **AlanW

范松忠** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>多少钱？贵吗？对付习来曼尼，一下灭掉，10亿美元，灭了习来曼尼，你想想，贵吗？100亿，贵吗？？

对美国而言，花这样的价钱，仅仅为了干掉一个习近平，是远远 不划算的。要做，就必须是，可常态化打击的太空武器，所以必须要LEO运载能力达到150吨的星舰完成以后，甚至要等到太空上的制造工厂建设完毕以后才行。

品葱用户 **zlxdmever11

hkfool** 评论于 2020-11-14

是的，长期肯定是有效果的

品葱用户 **AlanW

范松忠** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>不用太多维护了，小习来曼尼，小的独裁者，无人机，大的，就剩下普京和小金了，他们都没有习来曼尼那么邪恶…

以现在美国军用卫星常用的spacex的猎鹰九和ULA的德尔塔，运载能力都在二十吨以下（其中spacex是为了回收一级节约成本，不回收可达22.8吨）
这意味着，必须多次发射，进行组装，因为激光武器耗能是巨大的，一个可以精确杀死习近平的激光武器，重量至少在六十吨以上，加上激光器的研制费用，整个项目的预算可能真的要五十到一百亿美金。
所以，现在这样做，既不符合政治局势 ，美军也不愿意付出这样大的成本，做这样的一个费力不讨好的事情。

品葱用户 **hkfool

zlxdmever11** 评论于 2020-11-14

>>是的，只是我觉得，效果可能不太，所以别有太大心理预期

其实，如果你习惯了一切希望都被消灭的情况，你可以对卫星网换一个思路：一方面直接冲入美国 6G，或者 几G 都行，投资人将赚到大大一大笔。 海外 IT 巨人不用在寻找中共市场许可证， 几个百度和腾讯轻松冲进来， 几个华为的机会也就更公平的出现了， 这些会让全球化精英发疯的，不管他们是传统的资本家还是数据世界的冲浪者。

另一方面，没有人除了少数反贼会专注反共内容。 人们将会被更多的娱乐性内容吸引过去， 这些内容更精彩，因为不用接受审查， 也因此更赚钱，内容制作者，个人媒体就会大大发展成为产业。

而对美军来说，他们又得到一次推动 GPS 一样，甚至更伟大的战争胜利。 只有中共军迷还在认为战争就是大口径火炮， 不， 战争是从卫星接入的真实的内容，和自由。 丢掉手机月费的人们会得到更廉价的数据服务，和一个80亿人更方便的沟通的机会，电话、微信、QQ 都可以保留，但是会有更好的，电信欺诈会被自由世界过滤掉，而不是越禁越多的中国特色。

品葱用户 **范松忠

AlanW** 评论于 2020-11-14

>>对美国而言，花这样的价钱，仅仅为了干掉一个习近平，是远远 不划算的。要做，就必须是，可常态化打击的太…

我觉得划算的，这么多官司，企业，什么贸易战，美国损失的太多了，还不如几百亿美元，一次性解决掉习来曼尼。

原子弹就是这个思维嘛，一次性解决掉日本。

品葱用户 **范松忠

AlanW** 评论于 2020-11-14

>>以现在美国军用卫星常用的spacex的猎鹰九和ULA的德尔塔，运载能力都在二十吨以下（其中space…

其实花这个钱，比贸易战久拖不决，美国损失的更多。而且直接灭了习来曼尼的话，中国这块地方民主了，市场又归美国了，欧洲都不好意思抢了，不是吗？

品葱用户 **hkfool

范松忠** 评论于 2020-11-14

>>我觉得划算的，这么多官司，企业，什么贸易战，美国损失的太多了，还不如几百亿美元，一次性解决掉习来曼尼…

你可以看一下这一段， 美国人甚至认为让中国人留在墙里也很好。

MR ZAKHEIM:  So I want to talk about allies in just a minute, but just to drill down a little bit more on China.  We – the famous image of President Reagan in front of the Berlin Wall – “Tear down this wall” – iconic now, obviously quite controversial.  The agency which you lead perhaps didn’t want him to use those words.  They got that wrong.  But when you think about China and you think about the great firewall, right, which reflects what China’s doing in the digital age, we’re obviously wrestling how we manage the competition with China.  Some would suggest that we should reinforce that wall and keep the free world outside of it and let China live within its great firewall.  Give me your thoughts on that.  Maybe we should take down the great firewall and aspire for that in the same fashion that we wanted the Berlin Wall to come down.
谈盟国之前再谈一下中国，我们 - 著名的里根总统在柏林墙前的图像 - 拆了这墙 - 现代的标志， 明显是很对立。 你领导的组织可能不想要他使用这些词汇。他们错了。 但是当你想想中国和他们的伟大防火墙，是吧，这就是中国在数据时代做的，我们当然还在纠结于如何与中国竞争。一些人会建议我们应该加强这个墙让自由的世界在墙外让中国人活在防火墙内。告诉我他怎么想。也许我们应该拆了伟大的防火墙并且期待它和柏林墙一样倒下。

品葱用户 **AlanW

范松忠** 评论于 2020-11-14

>>其实花这个钱，比贸易战久拖不决，美国损失的更多。而且直接灭了习来曼尼的话，中国这块地方民主了，市场又…

灭了习近平，还会有下一个，还会立刻交恶普京。显然不如川普这样软刀子割肉来得好。

品葱用户 **范松忠

hkfool** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>你可以看一下这一段， 美国人甚至认为让中国人留在墙里也很好。MR ZAKHEIM:  So I wa…

that wall and keep the free world outside of it and let China live within its great firewall.

嗯，刚才听了演讲，没太完全在意，确实很多人有这种想法，包括反贼们。

但我还是认为，花100亿美元用卫星激光武器灭了习匪之后，中国市场就是美国的。不贵，又人道，关键，不在于美国多么伟大，而在于，消灭了习来曼尼这个疯子，美国才能安心。

要知道养寇的将军，寇必须在可控范围之内，如今，中匪已经太强大了，不灭，美国也不能睡好觉不是吗？

品葱用户 **范松忠

AlanW** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>灭了习近平，还会有下一个，还会立刻交恶普京。显然不如川普这样软刀子割肉来得好。

不会，地球上只有汉族的奴性这么厉害，斯拉夫民族会抗争的，我相信他们。

就是长辈先动筷子的肮脏民族才有这么深厚的奴性！！！

品葱用户 **hkfool

范松忠** 评论于 2020-11-14

>>that wall and keep the free world outside of it an…

实际上就像是一些中国人对 Trump 的想法一样，就算是他连任，中国也已经有思路来对付他了。 同样，你认为美国会没有兵棋推演包子的行为模式吗？ 美国至少政治界和战略分析部门清楚如何对付他。 另外，一方面，对美国来说不宣而战是不道义的，几百亿美元不值得她这样做。 一方面，很多美国人包括老白男们真没有把中国当回事。

品葱用户 **范松忠

hkfool** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>实际上就像是一些中国人对 Trump 的想法一样，就算是他连任，中国也已经有思路来对付他了。 同样，…

是啊，小共，小习上窜下跳，以为大锅撅起了，结果，美帝根本没把它当苏联2.0，可怜的小习，哈哈哈哈哈哈。

品葱用户 **hkfool

范松忠** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>是啊，小共，小习上窜下跳，以为大锅撅起了，结果，美帝根本没把它当苏联2.0，可怜的小习，哈哈哈哈哈哈…

它的优势是内卷的优势，如果美国和盟国无法得到突破内卷的机会，中国的优势就很大。 人口优势，金字塔有大山一样的优势，愚民人数的优势。

对中共人，人们常常以为中国人就是要生活在愚昧中。 其实这是中共要人们以为如此，中国有什么自由报道？没有多少吧？全部关键词过滤掉了。 所以这个不需要提前认定中国人是愚昧的，很可能相反，都是反贼，都悄悄藏着呢。

不管是美国把 5G 搞成卫星网，还是把 6G 直接穿透伟大的墙。 中共愿意直接付一百亿一千亿给 华盛顿权力沼泽中的鳄鱼们，只为让它们去游说：不要搞这样的网络啊， 电磁波进入中国也是主权伤害啊，我们可以给钱啊……haha blalba。

从一个高维度社会看一个低维度世界是一种自然的自信，不会因为缺几个 GDP 着急，也不会因为对手搞了几个见不着的秘密武器着急。

类似的内容，我在 金字塔几何学里写得比较多。https://pincong.rocks/article/24886

品葱用户 **范松忠

hkfool** 评论于 2020-11-14

>>它的优势是内卷的优势，如果美国和盟国无法得到突破内卷的机会，中国的优势就很大。 人口优势，金字塔有大…

关键还是这个，我说了就是汉人的奴性，这个民族，也就是风俗，传统文化，就是要听大人的，长辈的，这样的奴性是别的前共产党国家无法比拟的，也就是为什么苏共、捷克共等那么惨的原因，他们没找到独裁的好土壤，好可怜的共产党啊！

中共，厉害，选对了地方，哈哈。

品葱用户 **hkfool

范松忠** 评论于 2020-11-14

>>关键还是这个，我说了就是汉人的奴性，这个民族，也就是风俗，传统文化，就是要听大人的，长辈的，这样的奴…

同样的理由就是为什么最近 Trump VS Biden 的区别根本没有什么大不了。 民主国家的领导人都是烂苹果，为什么？ 因为有阳光所以看得清啊。
金字塔上只有爬虫，只有奴性，只有伟大领袖和伪神一样，却无法证伪。

那么问题就是「金字塔无敌」，实心的金字塔不崩溃，不可能被革命。 连墙都推不倒，还说什么拆掉金字塔，墙是金字塔修的。 但是，全球化让美国吃亏，也让中共早晚被束缚，理性力量总有机会在金字塔内生长，金字塔不倒塌但是，会变成坟墓，然后在一座巨坟上生长出原始森林一般的多塔系统。 人类的灵性只在金字塔外生长。

品葱用户 **范松忠

hkfool** 评论于 2020-11-14

>>同样的理由就是为什么最近 Trump VS Biden 的区别根本没有什么大不了。 民主国家的领导人…

习匪选对了土壤。

品葱用户 **hkfool

范松忠** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>习匪选对了土壤。

是金字塔选择它们，而不是相反。 至于它们，包子和它的前辈们，它们只是选择了一座18层高的地狱。

品葱用户 **范松忠

hkfool** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>是金字塔选择它们，而不是相反。 至于它们，包子和它的前辈们，它们只是选择了一座18层高的地狱。

总之，俺……不愿做中国人，无论何时都不愿。
https://pincong.rocks/article/26309

品葱用户 **hkfool

范松忠** 评论于 2020-11-14

不要中计， 中共、五毛小粉红最喜欢你这样说。 而你并没有出生在一个可以说不喜欢的地方。

品葱用户 **红色江山代代传

hkfool** 评论于 2020-11-14

>>

想多了，忘记原来怎么抓卫星锅的吗？还要全家邻里互相举报 不然连坐，不要低估中共打击异己的手段

品葱用户 **zlxdmever11

hkfool** 评论于 2020-11-13

亲 我也很希望这短期能实现，这样我就有一半的理由不用准备移民了

你说我习惯了没有希望的情况，我说，我是更多从身边接触到的人来思考这个问题。
我的成长轨迹比较有特点，从家庭到学校，底层到中高层的人（小区保安/小职员——地产商/厅级副部级家子弟），我都接触过，我就分类说吧

1底层：吃饭打扮，微信，抖音，游戏，央视广播地方戏曲
2中层：留学卡位，资产增值保值，别墅，教育
3往上：合伙从政府项目里套利

2-3都是会翻墙的，多有留学背景，也多是支持当局的，还怂过我两次说别瞎想中国比国外好

1不会翻墙也不感兴趣，55+的多半手机都玩不溜，就更别说装个锅+调试软件+visa卡；20+的偶尔看看国外电影电视剧，但也仅限于此了，英语是不肯学的，更多的时间花在穿衣打扮游戏+国产影视剧上
所以，推墙，对中上层没有意义，对他们来说，根本没有墙

那么，你希望，通过，推墙，这个手段，给这些底层，开一个窗，了解真相。
了解真相后，就自然产生了对当局的怨气，对现实生活的不满，怨气和不满会逐渐汇聚成民意

然后呢？他们自己站起来，捍卫自己的权益，推动社会的改良–推翻体制？
肯定会有人这么做，也会造成一定的影响。

影响会有多大呢？
我说个旁边小区维权的例子。交房后业主们投诉房屋质量问题/还是面积不够，组成了业主委员会，和地产商/政府，多方谈判；谈了几轮下来，业主委员会的问题都解决了，人也消失了，最后地产商象征性的补偿了其它业主几千块钱，就不了了之了。

民愤肯定还在，业主还是不满，但是，咋的了呢？生活还是要过，总不能天天不上班去维权吧

我认为，推墙后，能造成的影响，和这个，类似。
确实是给当局新增了很多麻烦，但并不是双方无法妥协的麻烦。
底层活着就很吃力了
不到活不下去的那一刻，他们在反抗后，都会倾向于妥协。

（类似的例子还有很多，老兵维权啊，血汗工厂啊，不举例了
新疆那是特例，对大部分底层来说，新疆和国外，没什么区别）

你不能指望，推墙后，他们就换了个脑子似的，为了信仰/理想决不妥协，努力追求公平自由的社会
那不是中国人，那是美国人

品葱用户 **hkfool

zlxdmever11** 评论于 2020-11-14

>>亲 我也很希望这短期能实现，这样我就有一半的理由不用准备移民了你说我习惯了没有希望的情况，我说，我是…

推墙的目的不是反黨，不是革命也不是造反，都不是或者不仅仅是。 推墙的目的是让中国恢复正常的逻辑， 我相信这个真正的理由没有人相信。 也不需要中国人相信，国外人相信就好了，推墙的目的是为了让地球上不要出现一个与众不同的独特人种，这太麻烦了。

正常来说，我也没有必要把时间浪费在悲观主义者身上。 把卫星互联网当做卫星电视的大锅，相互告密，举报，连坐，酷刑等等。 就用中共的话术来说吧，一切都是为了利益，卫星电视带来的利益远远小于卫星互联网，而使用卫星互联网不仅可以更隐蔽，也可以反举报，为使用者带来另一种安全，至少在被迫害时有一个发出求救信号的机会。 更不要说这个成本也可能比内网更低，或者得到更多的娱乐内容。

而得到利益的并不仅仅是中国人，所有参与者都可能从这个产业链中受益的时候，这样的技术不会在意中国人怎样想。 更何况许多想法就是中共植入的。

品葱用户 **范松忠

hkfool** 评论于 2020-11-14

>>不要中计， 中共、五毛小粉红最喜欢你这样说。 而你并没有出生在一个可以说不喜欢的地方。

我说哪句？我真的这么理解，我不会放弃抗争的，真的！

品葱用户 **hkfool

范松忠** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>我说哪句？我真的这么理解，我不会放弃抗争的，真的！

总之，俺……不愿做中国人，无论何时都不愿。
https://pincong.rocks/article/26309

就是这一句，中国是不个不允许这样说的国家，不可以不愿。你应该说：我知道，我理解，我正能量，我和谐，我爱，我幸福，我认为我国最厉害，领导好，领导先请，enjoy Hellfire Blade Missles first…

品葱用户 **范松忠

hkfool** 评论于 2020-11-13

>>就是这一句，中国是不个不允许这样说的国家，不可以不愿。你应该说：我知道，我理解，我正能量，我和谐，我…

我知道了，我现在躲在外面约15年了，如果情况不好，我自杀也不会主动送中的。

点击品葱原文参与讨论

最简单好用的 VPS,没有之一，注册立得 100 美金