The Great Retraction: From Wooden Junks to Fiber Optics

 

The Great Retraction: From Wooden Junks to Fiber Optics

History is not a circle, but a spiral—the same themes recur with increasingly sophisticated tools. China’s current "VPN Zeroing" campaign is the digital reincarnation of two historical traumas: the Qing Dynasty’s Great Clearance (禁海令)and the COVID-19 Zero-Policy (封城). In all three instances, the central logic remains the same: the state believes that total isolation is the only cure for "external contamination," whether that contamination is pirates, a virus, or a YouTube video.

From a human nature perspective, this reflects a recurring paranoia within centralized power. When the world outside becomes too complex to control, the instinctive reaction is to slam the door, lock the windows, and pretend the exterior doesn't exist.

A Lineage of Isolation

The parallels are striking, revealing a persistent "fortress" mentality across centuries:

• The Qing Sea Ban (1661): To starve out rebels in Taiwan, the Qing forced coastal populations miles inland, burning homes and banning ships. It destroyed the maritime economy to protect the throne. Today’s "emergency cable pulling" in Shenzhen is the modern version of burning the junks. The goal is the same: cut the connection to Taiwan and the outside world, regardless of the economic cost to coastal merchants.

• The COVID Lockdown (2022): The "VPN Zeroing" is essentially a Digital Quarantine. Just as people were barred from leaving their apartments to achieve "Zero-COVID," data is now barred from leaving the border to achieve "Zero-Information." The police calling a student over a Teams code is the digital version of a "Big White" (防疫大白) knocking on your door because your health code turned red.

The Business of Self-Harm

In every instance, the business model of the "retraction" is cannibalistic. The Qing Dynasty eventually fell behind the West because it missed the Industrial Revolution during its isolation. The COVID lockdowns shattered domestic consumption and global supply chains. Now, "VPN Zeroing" threatens to decapitate China’s tech sector and foreign trade.

The cynicism is palpable: the state treats the internet as a "foreign scam," just as the Qing treated foreign trade as "barbarian trickery." The irony? By successfully isolating its citizens, the state also accidentally "cleans up" the global internet by choking the scam factories—a rare moment where the world benefits from China’s self-inflicted wounds.

---

The Great Digital Blackout: When the Bamboo Curtain Becomes a Faraday Cage

 

The Great Digital Blackout: When the Bamboo Curtain Becomes a Faraday Cage

In a move that feels less like a policy update and more like a tactical retreat into a digital bunker, China has initiated "Operation Wall-to-Wall." From Jiangsu to Guangdong, data centers are pulling plugs and cutting fibers under the banner of "V-P-N Zeroing." This isn't just about blocking Twitter anymore; it’s about Severance. By cutting off access to Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the rest of the world, Beijing is effectively turning the national internet into a giant, high-tech intranet.

From a historical perspective, this is the "Bamboo Curtain" 2.0. In the 20th century, isolation was achieved with physical walls and radio jamming. In 2026, it’s achieved by "emergency cable pulling" in Shenzhen and automatic network termination. The darker side of human nature is revealed in the sheer efficiency of this fear: a student gets called to the police station just for receiving a Microsoft Teams verification code, labeled as "foreign fraud." It’s the ultimate gaslighting—treating the outside world not as a marketplace of ideas, but as a source of infection.

The Business of Isolation

The business model of a globalized China is now in direct conflict with its model of total control.

• The Economic Suicide: For a nation that thrives on foreign trade, cutting international lines is like a marathon runner deciding to stop breathing to avoid inhaling smog. Without stable connections, orders are lost, trust is eroded, and the "Top 3" data centers become expensive paperweights.

• The Scam Call Paradox: Here is the delicious irony—as China intensifies its "anti-fraud" internal surveillance, Westerners might notice a sudden, blissful silence on their phones. Why? Because the massive "scam factories" operating out of Chinese hubs (and their border regions) are being choked by the same filters intended to silence dissidents. When you kill the connection, you kill the scammers along with the scholars.

The tragedy of the "Zeroing" policy is that it treats 1.4 billion people like children who cannot be trusted with a window. But history shows that the more you tighten the grip, the more the "unintended consequences"—economic stagnation and intellectual decay—begin to slip through the fingers.

---

From Iron and Bamboo to Today’s Digital and Hybrid Curtains: China’s CCP, Russia, and the New Barriers to the West

 From Iron and Bamboo to Today’s Digital and Hybrid Curtains: China’s CCP, Russia, and the New Barriers to the West

---

Origins of “Iron Curtain” and “Bamboo Curtain”

The term “iron curtain” originally comes from 19th‑century theatre safety: an iron fire screen that could drop between stage and audience to contain flames. By the 20th century, it evolved into a political metaphor for an impenetrable divide. In 1946, Winston Churchill famously said an “iron curtain has descended across the Continent,” describing the closed, controlled borders between Soviet‑dominated Eastern Europe and the liberal democracies of the West. The phrase stuck as shorthand for the physical and ideological partition of the Cold War blocs.

“Bamboo curtain” was coined later as an Asian counterpart. It drew directly from “iron curtain,” but used bamboo—an image of East Asia—to describe the communist barriers separating the People’s Republic of China (PRC), North Korea, and other communist or single‑party states in East and Southeast Asia from the capitalist West. Unlike the heavily fortified European frontier, the “bamboo curtain” was often less about walls and more about censorship, visa controls, and political isolation; it was also less stable, shifting with the Sino‑Soviet split and later with Sino‑US rapprochement in the 1970s.

By the late Cold War and early post–Cold War period both terms lost their crispness. The “bamboo curtain” came to describe more fluid, uneven barriers—for example, closed regimes like Burma/Myanmar or later North Korea—while the “iron curtain” faded after the 1989 revolutions and the Soviet Union’s collapse.

---

What Curtain Today for the CCP’s PRC?

For the Chinese Communist Party–ruled PRC today, the old “bamboo curtain” no longer fits neatly. The PRC is deeply integrated into global trade and finance, yet it remains a highly controlled, surveillance‑heavy autocracy. The most accurate contemporary metaphors are:

• “Cyber‑wall curtain” or “firewall curtain”: The Great Firewall already blocks foreign platforms, censors information, and controls digital discourse; state media and AI‑driven propaganda further deepen this barrier.

• “Digital bamboo curtain”: A hybrid name that keeps the “bamboo” image but adds “digital” to stress how control now runs through internet regulation, social‑credit‑like monitoring, and data sovereignty rather than just physical borders.

This “digital curtain” reflects how the CCP lets capital and tourists cross the border but restricts ideas, information flows, and political organization. It is porous economically yet rigid ideologically, making it less a solid wall and more a filtering curtain—selectively blocking and reshaping what can enter and leave.

---

What Curtain Today for Putin’s Russia?

For Putin’s Russia, the old “iron curtain” also needs updating. Russia is not sealed off like 1980s Eastern Europe; it still trades with Europe, the Middle East, and Asia while running a large‑scale disinformation and cyber‑espionage apparatus. Modern labels that fit better include:

• “Mirror‑iron curtain” or “hybrid‑iron curtain”: The iron image remains (centralized control, repression of dissent, state‑directed media), but now layered with cyber‑warfare, disinformation, and hybrid tactics aimed at weakening Western democracies from the outside.

• “Imperial‑iron curtain”: Stresses Putin’s model—restoration of a great‑power, autocratic zone around Russia, backed by military coercion and economic leverage on neighbors—while still allowing selected elites to move abroad and spend in the West.

Unlike the Soviet curtain, which sought to lock out the West, Putin’s curtain is aggressively outward‑looking: it seeks to disrupt and fracture NATO and the EU even as it keeps domestic opposition fenced in. In that sense, it is an offensive “iron curtain plus,” not just a barrier at home but a weapon abroad.

Open Societies vs. Closed Societies: A Fundamental Divide

 

Open Societies vs. Closed Societies: A Fundamental Divide

In an increasingly interconnected world, nations often present a façade of modernity through impressive infrastructure and technological advancements. Yet, beneath this surface, lie profound differences in societal structures that dictate the freedoms and opportunities available to their citizens and interactions with the global community. The distinction between "open societies" and "closed societies" serves as a crucial lens through which to understand these disparities, with Western democracies typically embodying the former and China representing a prominent example of the latter.

Western democracies, often termed open societies, are fundamentally built upon a set of universal principles designed to foster individual liberty and societal progress. These include the rule of law, ensuring that everyone, including those in power, is subject to the same legal framework; robust human rights, protecting freedoms of speech, assembly, and belief; the separation of church and state, guaranteeing religious neutrality and preventing religious interference in governance; and a commitment to democracy, empowering citizens through participation in their government.

Crucially, open societies thrive on the free flow of information. Information is not centrally controlled but circulates freely through independent media, academic discourse, and open internet access, allowing citizens to form informed opinions and hold their leaders accountable. Similarly, there is a free flow of people, with citizens generally possessing the right to travel internationally, and visitors experiencing fewer restrictions on movement within the country. The free flow of capital also underpins economic dynamism, with relatively unrestricted movement of investments and currency across borders, fostering global trade and integration. These interconnected freedoms create a vibrant, dynamic environment conducive to innovation, criticism, and adaptation.

China, while undeniably a modern country boasting breathtaking infrastructure—high-speed rail networks, extensive highways, and towering skyscrapers that rival any in the world—operates on a fundamentally different paradigm, best described as a closed society. Despite its outward appearance of modernity and technological prowess, the underlying societal controls are extensive and pervasive.

One of the most defining characteristics of China's closed society is the severe restriction on the free flow of information.The "Great Firewall" is a sophisticated censorship and surveillance system designed to block access to vast swathes of the global internet, including international news outlets, social media platforms, and websites deemed politically sensitive.Domestic media is tightly controlled, and dissent is routinely suppressed, ensuring that the information citizens receive is largely curated by the state. This lack of unrestricted information profoundly limits public discourse and critical thought.

Furthermore, there are significant limitations on the free flow of people. While Chinese citizens can travel abroad, the issuance of passports and overseas travel is often subject to state approval, and the ability to emigrate is not a readily exercised right for all. For foreign tourists, access to certain regions within China can be restricted, and movements are often monitored. This control over physical movement reflects a broader governmental desire to manage societal interactions.

The free flow of capital is also highly regulated in China. Strict capital controls are in place to manage the inflow and outflow of currency, impacting foreign investment, repatriation of profits, and individual financial transfers abroad. While these controls are often justified for economic stability, they fundamentally limit the autonomy of individuals and businesses in managing their financial assets globally.

In essence, while China has mastered the hardware of modernity, its software—the operating system of its society—is built on principles of centralized control rather than individual liberty and openness. This fundamental difference in the flow of information, people, and capital is what truly distinguishes an open society from a closed one, irrespective of superficial technological achievements.