The Methodology on China Studies

Copyright © 2006, Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong

The recent UN Resolution (July 2006) on North Korea's missile test shows that Chinese power is now a major factor for the world peace. The China Studies, thus, become a very important discipline. I have read some great articles on nuclear weapons proliferation, arms control, military capabilities, piracy and maritime security in Asia in many news magazines, such as Times, Economist, etc.. Yet, in my view, those articles on China Studies, especially in the area of American security, are more of opinions than genuine research works. Thus, I would like to offer an organized methodology on China Studies on the issue of American security.

After September 11, 2001, there are many security issues around the world. However terrible the September 11 was, the issue of true US national security, in my view, is,

"Will there be a power able to not only challenge but surpass the US power in 10 years, 20 years, or...."

The above question can really be rewritten as:

  1. Will or can China be able to challenge and surpass the US power in 10 years, 20 years, or...
  2. If it happens, will that be a threat to USA?

To make the above questions answerable, they must be rewritten as:
  1. Does Chinese culture have the internal energy and intelligence to transform itself and to surpass US in the areas of science, technology and economy?
  2. Will South-East Asia become the backyard of China? Will the US power in that area be marginalized? How do we know if there is even a remote chance of this? If it can, how can we stop it?
  3. Can China pacify the threats from Russia and India for a long period of time, even during an event of US-China conflict?
  4. Can China set an immovable wedge between US and Japan? Many strategists will not even contemplate this question today. But, history knows better. Japan was Sinicized over one thousand years. Yet, it turned on China when an opportunity arose. If China can accomplish two of the three issues above, Japan might not be a true loyal friend of the US any more.
  5. If China can accomplish all issues above, will China become a threat? Or, will she stay as a benign power?
  6. Can we stop China to achieve those above without a war with China? Can a war do the job?

Now, we have some workable issues. The process above to transform a question to other questions then to others yet is using a mathematics methodology which solves a mathematical equation by rewriting the equation, moving the terms between equal sign, combining some terms or factoring out some terms, etc.. With this process, the new equations are significantly different from the old ones, but they are mathematically identical.

While the above mathematical process is able to solve equations, it is unable to find answer for question. The above process is unable to formulate an equation for a question. Without an equation, the mathematical process is useless. Only methodology of physics can formulate equations for questions. This methodology of physics consists of four steps:
  1. Select (often arbitrarily but with insights) some major variables and postulate (again with insights) an equation.
  2. Verify the above equation in two ways.
  3. Fine tune a workable equation by selecting some secondary variables and repeat the verification process time and again.
  4. Determine the scope of the answer space by simulation. This is called building a model.

With a model, different scenarios and possibilities can be evaluated for that given question.

Well, for our question, what are the major variables? Do we have any insight on this? Obviously, if Chinese culture does not have the internal energy and intelligence to surpass US in the area of science and technology, she will not be able to achieve all other tasks. Modern knowledge and technology can educate a single individual to become the President of United Nation but was unable to transform the culture of which that person came from. The inertia of a culture is very massive and will take a mammoth effort to change it. As a very old culture, the inertia of Chinese culture must be measured with an astronomy scale. If the Chinese culture does not have IT, she will never be able to challenge USA. Yet, there are signs that she does have IT. Our problem is that we do not know what that IT is. So, we do not know how to deal with that IT. Those news analyses (however superficial they are) are the best things we have. What are the major variables for IT? Do we have any insight on this?

Culture is a life, similar to a biological life. A life has many visible signs and traits. Before the discovery of genetics, we can only describe those signs and traits without knowing the why and how about them. Any treatment on a symptom was obtained by trial and error. After enough heavy-priced errors, we can get a stroke of luck. Before, we did have thousands years of time and was able to afford millions errors. But, it will be a dishonor to ourselves if we still use this old method today. Fortunately, we did discover the Genetics. That is, the Genetics of culture can be established, and its framework should be identical to the genetics of biological life. The Genetics consists of the followings:
  1. There are genes which are the blue prints and the engines of traits.
  2. There are gene switches. Cancer cells are our own cells. Yet, there are very, very few persons born with cancer. That is, the default setting for the cancer gene is set on off, and it is switched on later in life. Gene is at dormant and not expressed if it is not switched on.
  3. There are switch genes. Many genes must be switched to on by other genes. For example, the default setting for the sex organ gene is set to produce a female sex organ. If the male hormone gene in the brain is not switched on, the male sex organ gene cannot express, and the male baby will be a hermaphrodite. This is a case of an up-stream control gene. In some situations, the control gene will be switched off when the down stream controlled gene is switched on. This kind of control gene will become hidden and invisible, while it is the key for the life of that organism or culture. The male species of Black Widow is one example of such a control gene.
  4. There are parasite genes. Over eighty percent (80%) of our (human) genes are taking a free ride. They enjoy life while not doing any work.
  5. There are three ways to change genes.
With this Culture Genetics, we now are able to find the major variables of our question.
  1. Are there intelligence genes in Chinese culture? What are they?
  2. Are there any malignant genes? What are their gene switches? If we know these gene switches, we can switch them off.
  3. What are its control genes (switch genes)? Are they visible or hidden?
I have written a few articles: They can be read at my web page "China Studies."

Obviously, these are the intelligence genes in Chinese culture. With them, China will definitely have the potential to challenge USA in terms of its culture internal energy. Yet, my articles showed a very important phenomenon. Those intelligence genes were not fully expressed. There was something much more powerful suppressing them.
  1. The Chinese word system is an 100% root word system. Yet, in two thousand years, no Chinese youth (absolutely no one) learns Chinese written language by taking the advantage of a root word system.
  2. For two thousand years, the body meridian doctrine was believed and practiced, but no one knew how it was developed, and no one cared to know it.
  3. Again, no one knew that Confucianism is a religion, as it itself did not claim to be one.

This kind of mysteriousness goes way beyond the esoteric tradition. One happening is an incidence. Two cases are coincidence. But, there must be a driving force if it happens time and again. What is this gene of mysteriousness? What is this mysteriousness for?

The color of mysteriousness is opaque. Is it benign or malicious? At least, it is camouflaged, perhaps by many parasite genes. Our studies on those parasite genes will exhaust most of our energy while not gaining any true knowledge about it.

Without the language of mathematics, the mystery of nature would not be able to be revealed wholly and be described exactly. Different computer language has different capability. The language determines the capability of a logic machine and the level of intelligence which can be produced by that logic machine. Without a true understanding of a language system, we will never be able to evaluate the level of intelligence produced by that system.

The meaning of English phrase comes from its member words directly. "Go on" means go and on. "Cancer stick" means a cancer causing stick, such as cigarette. The Chinese phrase 「 服 從 」 (Fuo Zhonn) means "obey." Fuo means garment. Zhonn means "from, follow(ing) or track." How can "garment follow", "garment track" or "garment from" mean obey? Why does it use a phrase instead of a single word? It will be interesting to know of how many people in the world today know the why. As an 100% root word system, the meaning of every Chinese word can be read out from its face. By using a phrase, it means that it describes something or tries to hide something to be read out directly. What is that thing? Why is no one who knows it today? This kind of opaqueness is extended to cover even most of Chinese themselves. Then, there is, of course, a very little chance for others to view the Chinese soul.

The above example shows that Chinese language is able to convey one level of meaning while hides many other meanings. Today, 90% of Chinese college graduates cannot understand the classic Chinese writings. Theoretically, a military message can be written in Chinese without any encryption while no one can decode it. A message without encryption can never be decoded by computer. There is no one (absolutely no one) able to understand the esoteric writings of some Taoist's teaching if he is not an already initiated adept. Dictionaries are of no use at all for this. And, this is completely different from the mumbling of Nostradamus' prophecies, which does not convey any definite meaning, while Taoist's canon can be understood precisely by it adepts. However, the opaqueness of Chinese language is beyond the comprehension of 99% of Chinese people themselves. Only by knowing the true soul of Chinese language and Chinese culture, that opaqueness can be removed.

It is now very clear. If we cannot decode this gene of mysteriousness, we will not be able to deal with China intelligently.
  1. Can Chinese power reach the same height as the America's?
  2. Will Chinese power be benign or malicious?
  3. Can these two super powers co-exist? and how?

Can we answer these questions intelligently? If we cannot even decode the phrase "Fuo Zhonn," how can we be certain that we have understood the true meanings of Chinese canons? Without a true understanding of Chinese language and Chinese culture, we might not even be able to distinguish a statement from China, whether it is just a word of mouth and a political propaganda, or it could be a reflection of her genetic trait. Then, what is the base for any analysis on the issue of American security in Asia? Furthermore, the nature and the meaning of other security issues (such as: nuclear weapons proliferation, arms control, transnational terrorism, ..., etc.) in Asia depend fully on the US-China relations.

In my view, with the three methodologies, and with the insights of Chinese language and Chinese culture, we are able to do some analyses much deeper than those news articles on those security issues. Of course, the insights are the true treasures of this endeavor.


Reviews



From : "Kent Calder" kcalder2@jhuadig.admin.jhu.edu
To : tienzen@netzero.net
Subject : Re: The Methodology on China Studies
Date : Tue, Jul 18, 2006 01:01 AM

Dear Jeh-Tween,

Thank you for your thoughtful note. Broadly speaking, I agree with your emphasis on cultural variables as possible constraints. I would also add problems of structure and governability. In sum, we cannot directly translate economic scale and growth rates into geo-political influence, although I do think the world must be prepared for a China somewhat stronger than at present.

Best regards,

Kent Calder

Kent Calder
Director, East Asian Studies
The Edwin O Reischauer Center
Johns Hopkins University
1619 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Suite 624
Washington DC 20036





Date: 9/10/2006 11:58:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: macfarq@fas.harvard.edu (Roderick MacFarquhar)
To: besteng@cs.com
Subject: Chinese language

Dear Dr. Gong:

Many thanks indeed for sending me your materials on the Chinese language. I wish you the best of luck in your future scholarly research into this fascinating topic.

:Roderick MacFarquhar


Dr. Roderick MacFarquhar
Fairbank Center for East Asian Research
Harvard University
1730 Cambridge St.,
Cambridge, MA 02138





The governability of China


Social science has the name as a science but does not use the same methodology as the science does. The big difference is that many terms in social science are not exactly defined as the scientific terms are. What does the term of "governability" mean? If the variables of this G-function (governability) are democracy, human rights (in terms of Western view), etc., then, it might not be a suitable function to calculate the governability of other societies. Perhaps, we need to find a universal G-function first. The best scientific way for this is to start out simple. For example, what is the governability of a herd of sheep? As we know today, there are two G functions for a herd of sheep.

  1. G1 (wild sheep) = an innate force (such as locking horns, ..., mating,...) + the environments (fields of grass, predators, weather, ...).
  2. G2 (tamed sheep) = shepherding (man + dog + ..., leashes, harnesses, fences, man made food, ...) + the innate force of sheep + the environments.

From these two G functions, we can quickly get some conclusions:

  1. G (wild herd of sheep) and G (wild school of fish) are, of course, having different G values, but they have the same formula. So, we can write a general G1 function as:
    G1 = In (....) + En(....)
  2. G2 is a cross species dynamics and can be written as:
    G2 = Sh(...) + G1
G1 is the law of jungle, and Sh (...) is the law of man.

Now, the question is, "Is G(human) a G1 or a G2?" If G(civilization) is a G2, then the human government acts as an over-man species and is no longer a human species. Here, I would like to try to perform the calculation of the G (civilization) function in terms of the International security.

It is quite safe to assume that G1 (human) is universal. If we are wrong, we can always come back to make some adjustments. So, we can simplify the G2 (civilization) as:
G2 ~ Sh (...)
But, does Sh (China) be the same as Sh (America)? We can write out the Sh-functions as follow. If we are wrong, we can always come back to change them.


Does Sh (America) be better than Sh (China)? With these mathematical functions, we are now able to do some evaluations. We can evaluate the stability of each function.

Many American China-experts made the following reasoning:

  1. Sh (America) will become un-stable or be collapsed if democracy is ceased.
  2. Chinese government is not a democracy. So, Chinese government is not stable regardless of its economic growth.

Mathematically, a variable which can cause the collapse of Sh (dog) function might not have any effect on the Sh (sheep) at all. Thus, to evaluate the stability of Chinese government must use Sh (China), not Sh (America). In mathematics, a stable function must be a continuous function. A continuous function will remain to be continuous unless one or more of its variables have a dramatic change. The Sh (China) has been a stable function for five thousand years. A few variable shocks (such as Opium war, economic revolution, ...) did shake its stability a bit. However wonderful the democracy is, if China is democratized over night, the Sh (China) will be shaken, not be strengthened. Thus, we seemingly are able to de-stabilize China by propaganda on democracy in and around China. Mathematically, a chance of success on this strategy is very small, almost zero. The inertia of Sh (China) is simply too massive. The June 4th, 1989 event did not truly hurt China but strengthened her.

Now, we again get two conclusions:

  1. The governability is a function of culture.
  2. Without truly knowing the Sh (China), we cannot come up a correct strategy to deal with China. Only by knowing the details of Sh (China), then;

Obviously, all calculations must start out from Sh1. For America, the calculation of Sh1 is very easy, with votes every four years, then with poll numbers in between. But, what is the key variable for calculating the Sh1 of China? I would like to get some inputs from all of you. In the mean time, I would like to introduce a「 服 」 (Fuo) index.

  1. 「 服 從 」: (obey)
  2. 「 服 人 」: (let other submit or obey)
  3. 「 服 氣 」 : (accept your superiority)
  4. 「 懾 服 」 : (scare you to submission)
  5. 「 威 服 」 : (force you to submission)
  6. 「 不 服 」 : (will not accept your superiority)
  7. 「 服 輸 」 : (accept the defeat)
  8. 「 心 服 」 : (accept your superiority from the heart)
  9. 「 口 服 」 : (submission with mouth)
  10. 「 臣 服 」 ; (willing to submit as your servant)
  11. 「 折 服 」 : (bend over for submission)

Many people in Taiwan was not "fuo" for the 2004 Presidential election. So, Taiwan government was very un-stable ever since regardless of the fact that it was elected by votes. That is, Americans always fuo the election results while Taiwanese might not fuo an election result. For America, election result settles the issue of governability while any issue can only truly be settled with fuo in Taiwan. It is very obvious that there are enough Iraqis not fuo the America; so there is an Iraqi predicament for America today.

Every Chinese knows the meanings of the above fuo-phrases. Yet, for the single word "fuo," 99.99% of Chinese people knows it as garment, nothing else.


They do not know, for heaven's sake, why is the word fuo (garment) gotten into the phrases (on submission) above?

This is not only an example of calculating the Sh1 (Chinese) which is significantly different from the calculation of Sh1(American) but shows some great mysteries of Chinese culture. The meanings of the above phrases (on submission) were not derived from any grammatical rules. I bet, there are less than two persons in the entire world who know the transformation mechanism of transforming garment fuo to a Sh1 (fuo), the governing fuo. Anyway, if we do not know the mystery of this fuo transformation and if we do not know that fuo is the dominant variable in the Sh1 (China) function, then any discussion on the governability of China is simply no more than some standing comedies. If the USA can fuo the Chinese people, China will never be a threat to America.

  1. Can democracy fuo Chinese people?
  2. Can the human right concept of the West fuo Chinese people?

If they cannot, then all these issues are just some meaningless mumbling for Chinese people. But, why do these not be able to fuo the Chinese people? What can America do to fuo the Chinese people?

This fuo mystery consists of two parts, the Etymology of Chinese words and the mystery of Chinese governability. I will let the second part (the governability) stay as the bet I made above. After all, when the first part of the mystery is known, the second part should become much, much easier.

Many thousand years ago, king's carriage used a team of horses (at least 4, up to 8). The leading two horses were called "fuo." The other horses were called 「 驂 」 "sunn," meaning third and beyond. Today, the word "fuo" is written as the radical "moon" on the left, the root (king's seal) on the upper right, the root "right hand" at lower right. (Note: there are 7 roots for right hand in Chinese. I showed only one of them in my web page.) Yet, this word "fuo" was changed from the original form when one error occurred during the years. The word "moon" and the word "boat" were very similar in form. That is, the original word "fuo" had a radical "boat" on the left, not the radical "moon." Now, we can read out the meaning of this word "fuo" from its structure, the king's (seal) man (hand) pulling a boat. At those days, man pulls boat with hands, but king's man pulling a boat with hands would be a shame. They pull it with a team of horses, leaded with the two front horses. So, this word "fuo" was the name for those two front horses.

By rules of Chinese Etymology, the name of a horse should have a radical (horse). Indeed, the word "sunn" has a radical (horse) and a radical (three). Yet, the word "fuo" has no radical (horse). That is, the "fuo" is no longer a horse. When a lowly man submit himself to the king, he has no right to bow the head to the king directly but to the fuo (king's horse). Now, we are not surprised that the word "fuo" is so much entangled with the governability in Chinese language. In short, if people not fuo the king, the king will be overthrown.

Buddhism came to China, and Chinese fuo (was fuoed by) it. At one time, over 80% of Chinese claimed to be Buddhists. The first Christian encounter in China was 1300 years ago. Yet, less than 3% of Chinese are Christians today. It is not because the theology of Christianity is worse than the Buddhism's, but in many ways, Christianity did not fuo the Chinese people. Without knowing of how to fuo Chinese people, any Christian mission will continue to have hard time in China.

Note: Chinese words do not have parts of speech, no tense, no numbers. The noun, the adjective, the verb, the past tense, etc. of a word are all having the same form. Again, in Chinese grammar, "to fuo" and "to be fuoed by" are having the same form. This could be a big confusion for American readers. As I am trying to discuss Chinese culture here, I will, however, stay with Chinese grammar for the word "fuo." After all, it is not that hard to distinguish the difference between the two, especially, after you get use to it. For examples:

  1. If people fuo the Chinese government with their mouths, people will rebel as soon as there is a chance.
  2. If Christianity fuo the Chinese people, many Chinese will become Christians.

Obviously, these two "fuo" have the opposite meanings while they have the same form and the same grammatical structure. However, these two sentences will cause no confusion at all for Chinese people. Language is not only a way for communication but a way for a culture to process its reasoning. It would be interesting to know whether that confused reasoning is simply stupidity or is a form of genius. Again, while the meaning of a sentence is absolutely not understandable in English, it is all very clear in Chinese.

According to the equation of governability above,
G2 (China) = Sh (Chinese) + G1 (Chinese)
and by definition of this equation, Sh (Chinese) is not a species of Chinese but an Over-Chinese species.

If the Sh (Chinese) = fuo (horse),
and it was later transformed to as Sh (Chinese) = fuo (garment)
then, Sh (Chinese) is indeed an Over-Chinese species, as obviously, neither fuo (horse) nor fuo (garment) is a human.

If the Sh (the West) = throne
and it was later transformed to as Sh (America) = Constitution,
again, the Sh (America) is also an Over-American species.

In terms of mathematical functions, which one is more stable, Sh (China) or Sh (America)? Sh (America) = Constitution is a well-known function. But, if we do not know the substance of this fuo-function, not know the transformation process of fuo (horse) to fuo (garment), not know the process of how the fuo (garment) was implemented as a fuo (governing), we will not be able to evaluate the Sh (Chinese) function. But, this ignorance does not mean that Sh (Chinese) is more un-stable than the Sh (American) is. We might be greatly surprised that the answer could be other way around.

Not only no American knows the fuo function and fuo switches of Chinese culture , but 99.99% of Chinese people themselves today does not know that "fuo" was the name for a horse and does not know that "fuo" symbolizes the power of king. Worse yet, 100% of Chinese people did not ever heard about this Fuoism.

There are many schools of governing philosophy in China. But, only three of them are worthy some discussions.

  1. Confucianism -- governing with jen (love), li (order), yi (moral), etc., that is, the livelihood of people is the responsibility of the government, and a big government is needed, similar to Democrat.
  2. Laotze Taoism -- governing with no-action, not to interfere the lives of people. The smaller the government the better, similar to Republican.
  3. School of law -- governing with three methods,
For two thousand years, these are the doctrines of Chinese governing philosophy. Yet, all the differences between those schools are different ways on fuo.
  1. Confucianism -- wants a heart fuo from the people, not just a mouth fuo.
  2. Laotze Taoism -- gain fuo by not bothering people.
  3. School of law --

Is the current government of China stable? If the people does not fuo her, she will be toppled very soon. If people fuo her with mouths, people will rebel as soon as there is a chance. If people fuo her with hearts, people will defend her with their lives. Any discussion on the stability of Chinese government without knowing this fuo index is just a wild opinion.

Yet, there was no Fuoism, no philosophy of Fuo, no doctrine of Fuo, never, never. Not only China's enemy did not know about her vital fuo buttons and fuo switches, all Chinese themselves did not heard about any Fuoism. As long as China's enemy does not know her fuo buttons and fuo switches, that enemy can never fuo the Chinese people. China can be conquered 100 times without risking of losing its vitality and its identity if the conqueror does not know how to fuo the Chinese people. As long as the Chinese people is not fuo, any conqueror will be toppled sooner or later.

In addition to this mysterious Fuoism, there is another issue even more important. Why is there this mysteriousness? This is not a single incidence. There was a mystery of Body Meridian Doctrine. For two thousand years, there is no one (not a single person) knows that Chinese writing system is an 100% root word system. My father is now 92 years old. He was a professor of Chinese language and Chinese philosophy over forty years at the National Chung-ion University in Taiwan. He knew a few thousand word origins of Chinese words, and there are less than 50 persons in the entire world who know this as much as he does. It took a lifetime for him to learn the origin of each word independently, for thousands of them. He did not know that those word origins were linked as a system. No one did in China.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, many Chinese scholars began to accuse that the Chinese writing language was the culprit for China's misfortune and turmoil at those days. As each Chinese word is an ad hoc character without a clear logic framework as its soul, the Chinese writing language was accused as the reason that China did not develop science. Furthermore, memorizing six to ten thousand ad hoc characters is not only a gigantic work but a huge waste of young person's youth. Thus, in 1958, a major effort to simplify the Chinese word system was launched. That is, at that time, no one in China knew that Chinese writing language is an 100% root word system. By knowing only 220 word roots, the original meaning of every 60,000 Chinese characters can be read out from the structure of the word itself. I have listed some samples (over 20 word roots) in my website (http://www.chinese-word-roots.org), and you can see that this point is very much self-evident.

However, this ignorance on Chinese word system is nobody's fault, because that system was perfectly camouflaged in four ways.


The fact is that 99.9999% of Chinese did not know the origin of any Chinese word and 100% of Chinese did not know that Chinese writing system is a root word system. Yet, the four above are seemingly not a result of some careless errors but a well-designed camouflage. But why? Why is this mysteriousness?

I do see some great advantages on this intentional camouflage though. When Chinese writing language becomes a so, so, so difficult subject, and it takes a lifetime for a native Chinese to learn it while he is only able to master 10% of it, then, no enemy of China can truly master it easily. When he does master it, he has been Sinicized. Before he is Sinicized, he has no chance of any kind to discover China's fuo buttons and fuo switches.

This postulation is strongly supported by the fact that any educated foreigner who did not know a single Chinese word can master the Chinese writing language in three months (or no more than six months) by learning the word roots system. With the word roots system, the Chinese writing language is even simpler than the high school geometry. There are only 220 Chinese word roots, and they can be memorized much easier than 220 beautiful faces. By knowing these 220 word roots, he will know about the Chinese word system 100 times better than the 99.9999% of native Chinese does now. This is a very dire scenarios. China as a culture will become totally naked in the front of the whole world. In order to prevent this ever happens, this supreme secret of Chinese word roots system cannot even be known by Chinese themselves.

On Genetics, a biological life acts out the commands of its gene regardless of whether it knows about that gene or not. Before the discovery of genetic engineering, any genetic disease was un-treatable with traditional medicine. If a control gene is deeply hidden, no virus or bacteria can ever attack it. If a culture trait is geneticalized, especially becomes a deeply hidden gene, the survival of that culture is definitely assured. Seemingly, Chinese has intentionally geneticalized many of her culture traits. My father taught the Chinese political philosophy in universities over 40 years while he did not ever heard about the Fuoism because there is never a written out doctrine as Fuoism in the history. When I discussed this Fuoism with him, he cried out, "Indeed, all Chinese-isms are just different Fuoism. We were fooled by the camouflage of fuo as a garment for thousands of years. All those discussions of fuo (garment) in those-isms are now making sense. Yet, what you have said is just a preface of it."

Again, is Sh (America) = Constitution more stable than Sh (China) = Fuo (garment)? Although I have not talked about what fuo (garment) truly is, Sh (China) will be a very, very stable function if the fuo (garment) has been geneticalized. In my view, Sh (America) = Constitution is also geneticalized, although it is not a hidden gene. Seemingly, this culture geneticalization process for "hidden genes" is the sole invention of Chinese culture.

If America can fuo Chinese people, China will never become a threat to USA regardless of how strong and powerful China becomes. In my view, there is no longer any need of continuing to hide those hidden genes today. By disclosing those hidden genes, the trust between America and China can be assured. I do not see any adverse effect for America to fuo Chinese people. Of course, the fuo between each other will be even better.