⁣⁣VAGUE RULES - An Excellent Breakdown of the 'TipToe to Tyranny' Globally Employed during 2020 Scamdemic VAGUE RULES August 23, 2021 Adam Riva ⁣https://dauntlessdialogue.com/vague-rules/ Written by Simon Esler and edited by Adam Riva, VAGUE RULES breaks down Mao Zedong’s blueprint for tyranny as mimicked by modern Big Tech companies. This film explores the lesser-known authoritarian techniques employed during the global pandemic lockdowns of 2020 and how they provoke the darkest aspects of human nature TRANSCRIPT & SOURCES On October 10, 1950, the Chinese Communist Party, lead at the time by Mao Zedong, launched the Instruction on Suppression of Counter-Revolution campaign. It involved communist party committees across all of China initiating a massive effort to “suppress and purge counter-revolutionaries.” As justification for this large-scale operation Mao cited an active population of various “counter-revolutionary elements” numbering more than 2 million people. This brutal campaign was waged on the people of China for two years, with more than 2.6 million people arrested with 710,000 put to death…as “counter-revolutionaries.” Zedong’s initial orders were that 0.5 percent of every thousand in each targeted locality be put to death. Of course he also stated that if a region’s “counterrevolutionary problem” was “more serious” they could increase the killing to 1% per thousand. He later gave permission to his troops to break past these kill quotas asking that they keep it capped between 1.5% and 2%. By January 1951, Zedong was receiving reports of the campaign’s success, such as the report sent to him on the brutal killing of over 5000 people in western Hunan. His response to the report was : “This disposal is very necessary…especially those places where bandits are rampant, where there are many bullies, and where secret agents are concentrated, we should kill a few batches…all places must hurry to do so.“ By the 22nd of that month, Zedong sent a telegraph which read: “You have killed more than 3,700, which is good, kill 3 or 4,000 more… you can kill 8 or 9,000 people this year as a target”. On February 5, 1951, Zedong received a report from the Northwest Bureau of the Central Committee with a request for approval to kill in all provinces without his explicit permission. Zedong responded: “For those who are sentenced to death, it is enough to execute them with the approval of the special department for lighter cases.” As the commissioners governing each province began to implement genocide without Zedong’s oversight there was a local desire to follow the example of their superiors. Eventually the authority to sanction killings was passed down from the provincial level to the county level, with nothing but the vague notion that victims had been labeled as a “counter-revolutionary,” a term with no real definition. How did it come to be that Mao Zedong’s desire to eradicate his opposition was not only carried out according to his orders, but even worse, those working under him became desperate to be seen by Zedong as increasingly ruthless? How did the brutality of Zedong’s subordinates exacerbate to the point of killing citizens competitively? While the genocidal element of this campaign seems like the most insidious aspect of this chapter in Chinese history, there was a hidden undercurrent of social engineering at play that was perhaps the driving force behind genocide, one that tends to elude the Western mind. Have despotic world leaders utilized this tactic again since it worked so terrifying well over half a century ago? On March 9th, 2021 the Epoch Times published an article entitled Communist Tactics to Force Self-Censorship Sweeping America. In it they included a section entitled Vague Rules: “The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the world’s most notorious censor of free speech, has for decades used the method of making its policies intentionally vague. During its past political campaigns, for example, the central leadership would issue a decree that “rightists” and “counterrevolutionaries” were to be punished. The next lower rung of Party officials wouldn’t be told what exactly makes one a “rightist” or a “counterrevolutionary” and perhaps not even what the punishment should be. No official, however, would want to be seen as too lenient—that would carry the risk of being labeled oneself. As such, each successive level of bureaucracy would intensify its interpretation of the policy, leading to ever more extreme results. In some periods, the hysteria went far beyond self-censorship, as even refraining from political speech wasn’t enough.“ As we saw in the case of Mao Zedong’s Suppression of Counter-Revolutionaries campaign, the result was CCP authorities essentially begging Zedong for permission to kill more people with less oversight. But this isn’t a matter of Chinese history anymore. Intentionally vague rules, put in place to enable tyranny, while they have been rampantly at play through the Covid na