Australian Influencer Leading Small Group Performance Review and Strategy Report
The following is an extract from a performance review and strategy report from the Leading Small Group coordinating Chinese propaganda in Australia.
“Once upon a time propaganda was easy, we told illiterate peasants what to think, they were delighted to have thoughts for the first time, and grateful to the party for supplying them. Today, in China and beyond, higher levels of sophistication are required.”
The following is an extract from a performance review and strategy report from the Leading Small Group1 coordinating Chinese propaganda in Australia. It was given to us by mistake.
Telling China’s Story Well (讲好中国故事/TCSW)
Since the middle of the last decade, we have been implementing the policy of the party central committee with Xi Jin Ping at the core etc. and have endeavoured to “Tell China’s Story Well” (TCSW).
In the context of Australian propaganda work, this means
focus on fostering loyalty and countering historical nihilism among the Chinese community
cultivating western historical nihilism and promoting our narrative among English language speaking citizens
This report focuses on our efforts to:
Discredit the Xinjiang human rights violation narrative
Discredit ASPI, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other enemy think tanks
Discredit and harass (psy-ops) people associated with ASPI and its China-related work to deter others
Miscellaneous CCP narrative support
The subsets of the Australian voting population we are interested in for this report are:
English speakers under 40 years old, low to moderate education levels.
Chinese speakers in Australia, recent migrants, who vote.
This report principally focuses on the use of Social Media, and considers only the following five assets.
Borrowed Mouths:
我们一贯重视“借嘴说话”，通过国际友人开展对外宣传
We have always attached importance to "borrowing mouths to speak" and carried out external propaganda through international friends.
Some of these mouths are rented, some of these we directly employ. These five are caucasian, some are Australian, and all have English as a native language.
Andy Boreham:
Shanghai United Media Group, YouTube
“Seeded player” Green Eyed Andy’s “Reports on China”
Boreham work sample
Daniel Dumbrill:
CGTN, Guangdong Today and 南方日报 / 南方视频 （Southern Times / Southern Video), YouTube
Dumbrill Work Sample
Jaq James:
Writer
Co West Pro China narrative support documents (GoFundMe, PayPal)
Assists Daniel Dumbrill on Australian content (quote Pearls and Irritations).
Critical Social Work Publishing House
Robbie Barwick
Australian Citizens Party (ACP) “organiser and a researcher”.
Writing (Citizens Alert Service)
Political Activity - August Scene at HRW event on Xinjiang at Latrobe university / integrated anti Vicky Xu psy-ops effort.
Barwick political and media work sample:
Jordan Shanks-Markovina
Youtube, China Daily (Video)
Stand Up Comedy
Work Sample 1: Uyghurs as terrorists and as CIA plot
Work Sample 2: Anti ASPI, western media whataboutism
“I don’t think it’s wise to be arcing up the relationship with China” gaslighting Australians into thinking the relationship breakdown is their country’s fault.
ASSET ASSESSMENTS
Western Nihilism Index Scores (WNI)
WNI measures the effectiveness with which the assets can undermine Western audiences confidence in their own culture or political system. It is based on six factors scored out of five, added together for a score out of thirty. It includes a Mandarin factor as persuasion of Chinese speakers resident in Australia is important to us. It is the localised equivalent of “historical nihilism” (历史虚无主义).
RED:
All score highly on Red (Ideological Allegiance). Boreham and James stand out for substantial length of time in China, Mandarin study and exposure to the superiority of our political and social system. All have a natural inclination towards western nihilism and self-loathing. In the case of Shanks and Boreham, this is cultivated and entrenched through tertiary education in Australian and NZ humanities faculties.
EXPERT:
Boreham, Dumbrill and Shanks score highest as they have media related education or experience, but the rankings are subjective made based on watching their videos.
DEPENDENCE:
Only Boreham is directly financially dependent on us. James’ lifestyle is tenuous, based on fundraising (GoFundMe), Barwick is dependent on his political party, Dumbrill benefits from working with us, and Shanks is essentially independent. He has not promoted our cause conspicuously since September 2021.
PERSUASIVE:
Boreham, Dumbrill and Barwick use sweeping statements like “indisputable evidence” that is easily disputed.
Shanks takes complex ideas and dumbs them down. Simple messages (“USA is breeding terrorists in Xinjiang”, “Uyghurs deserve to be imprisoned"), provides entertainment value, are memorable, and normalise demonisation of Xinjiang’s minority peoples.
James, has so far primarily been a writer. Despite our stranglehold on Australian academia, we still struggle to find writers who will actively defend our narrative on Xinjiang.
The best we can hope for at an institutional level, even ACRI, is that our allies will avoid the issue altogether. She is all we have at this stage.
REACH:
REACH Rankings are based on the following audience coverage data:
Boreham’s large WeiBo coverage suggests he is having more impact with discrediting the west among Chinese audiences, than with English speakers. Dumbrill has a relatively large YouTube following.
James’ reports, have propaganda value, as people can say ASPI has been debunked, simply because a report exists. Barwick’s Australian Citizen’s Party (ACP) message has yet to become influential, but the propaganda, organisational and political infrastructure is now established for future use.
Shanks has 628000 YouTube subscribers and 70 000 Tiktok followers, most of whom would be Australian voters, Shanks is the key to making our Australia strategy work. The email list for all major political parties combined would be roughly equivalent to their membership, less than 150,000 people, with less engagement, and without unified messaging, even within parties. PM Albanese’s 562 000 Twitter followers is a smaller audience than Shanks.
Performance Review:
As Sun Tzu explains: There are not more than five cardinal tastes (sour, acrid, salt, sweet, bitter), yet combinations of them yield more flavours than can ever be tasted.
There are more assets than the five discussed in this report, yet with these five alone we can sow division and create confusion in Australian public opinion and eventually get allies into parliament outside the current major parties through the Australian Citizens Party (ACP), within this decade.
We are broadly satisfied with current performance of these assets. The synergy between their activities is dramatically more significant than the value of the individuals alone.
Synergy Example:
James creates a document “Scholarly Analysis or Strategy Disinformation”
Barwick promotes it (YouTube / Twitter)
Dumbrill promotes Barwick (YouTube / Twitter)
Boreham promotes Barwick promoting James (YouTube / Twitter / WeiBo)
Coverage in traditional state media, mention and sharing on party controlled and external (foreign) social media by MOFA spokespersons such as Hua Chun Ying.
23 September 2022
James interviewed by Barwick promoted on Twitter by Boreham (link). A good example of synergistic teamwork.
The combination of all Boreham, Dumbrill, James and Barwick is dramatically more valuable than the limited effectiveness of the individuals. Operating separately is Shanks, similar and simpler message, operating in parallel, but not directly supportive of these four.
Strategic Recommendations:
Tik Tok:
Commence the shift from YouTube, where criticism is permitted in comments, to Tik Tok, where we control the algorithm, and everything else.
Shanks:
Bring Shanks back into the fold. With his superior WNI score, especially Persuasion and Reach he is the not so much a 法宝 （magic weapon) as a 味精 （flavour enhancer).
Shanks is the MSG in our Sun Tzu Cardinal Taste Combo Strategy, and without him, we aren’t getting the results we could. Find out what went wrong and get him back in the team.
A “Leading Small Group” (领导小组） is an ad hoc body of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) charged with decision-making on major functional issue areas. LSGs operate effectively as interagency executive committees, cutting across the government, party, and military systems.
Is this for real? Can you share the Chinese report?