#the biggest sham of this century
Text
Vladimir Putin is a war criminal!!! But Benjamin Netanyahu,Tony blair and George Bush are champions of harmony.They clearly deserve a nobel peace prize for promoting peace through,um,military intervention and bombing civilians.If you want nobel peace prize like Barack Obama,you just need a few well placed drone strikes that indiscriminately target civilians and militants alike.Who needs careful consideration when you can just hand out nobel peace prizes like candies to western imperialist leaders.
#nobel peace prize#the biggest sham of this century#palastine#free gaza#free palestine#freedom#freedom of speech#imperialism#decolonisation
17 notes
·
View notes
Text
American archaeologists, in cooperation with the Mexican government, reconstructed Chichen Itza according to the standards of the 1920s, which were not as painstaking as today's standards. Perhaps the biggest excavation job was the Temple of the Warrior, which was an overgrown mound when the archaeologists began. Here it is mid-excavation in 1925:
Over the next few years, masons worked to rebuild the temple as the archaeologists thought it should look:
By 1928, it looked like this:
Two sides of the famous "El Castillo" were similarly rebuilt.
The other half of it was left mostly unrestored:
Some observers think that Chichen Itza is a sham, a pseudo-historical confection constructed more to wow the tourists than to honor history (this website sums up the “it’s a fake!” argument pretty well).
But, like every site, Chichen Itza probably doesn’t have a “pure” or “authentic” state. It changed repeatedly over the years when it was one of the most important cities in Mesoamerica. It’s still changing today. The reconstruction in the 1920s certainly didn’t follow modern standards of archaeological precision. But now the changes of the 1920s are just another layer of history, laid on top of centuries more.
{WHF} {Ko-Fi} {Medium}
931 notes
·
View notes
Note
What's the difference between a Shia & Sunni? And why do they hate each others? (I'm an atheist so I don't know shit about religions)
Keep in mind that this is no way trying to shame or denounce my Sunni siblings, but I do believe it's important to highlight a historical fact and how it's detrimental to the current geopolitical situation, since we're embittered by historical events, while at the face of imperalism and colonialism.
Shi'as are a political group of people who iunitially held that Ali (a), the cousin of Muhammed (pbuh&hf) was the successor of the Prophet. This is evident in numerous hadiths, such as Hadith Ghadeer Khumm, the Hadith of Mubahila and the Hadith at Thaqalayn. Nevertheless, the issue steems from the incident at Saqifa, which was a council met by some companions by the Prophet, who held an abrupt meeting, discussing who'd lead the Muslim nation following the Prophet's death. The meeting was held without consulting Ali (a) and they chose Abu Bakr to become the caliph. As a result, Ali (a) did nor approve of the selection and did not pledge his allegience to Abu Bakr. the incident at Saqifa serves as a catalyst to the incidents that would befall the Muslim community, such as Fatimah's (a) miscarriage and the subsequent wars against Ali (a) by some of the Prophet's companions, Ali (a) and his sons Hassan (a) and Hussain's (a) martyrdom.
This caused the rift in the nascent Islamic community, the Shi'as were any Muslim who held that Ali (a) was the successor by divine right, and swore their allegience to Ali (a), while the rest of the Muslims were nonpartisans. Sunni Islam is the standardization of Islamic scholastic and jurisdictional opinions which were formed in the Abbasid caliph. So it's errounous to assume that there was a split between Sunnis and Shi'as, when Sunni Islam was formed a few centuries later.
The reason for the hate is because of fundamentalist attitudes toward Shi'as. Some Sunnis and Salafis believe that Shi'a Muslims are heretics, because of their veneration of saints and the importance of Shrine visitations, the other reason is because Shi'a Muslims practice the doctrine of dissociation, which is the belief that any of the enemies of the Prophet's household should be cursed, thus some of the personalites of the Sunnis are cursed by Shi'as. Ancient scholars, suchs as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim placed some fatwas declaring Shi'a Muslims to be heretics. These scholars' opinions are still popular today and used as pretext for prejudice against Shi'as.
In a geopolitical context, Iran is often considered to be rivaling power to Saudi Arabia's Wahhabism, and have often threatened the Saudi hegemony. Because of the Axis of resistance and their growing influence in the SWANA region, the Gulf States have attempted at all cost to undermine the growing sympathy for Shi'as. Bahrain is upholding an apartheid against it's Shi'i majority, The Saudi refuses to ackowledge the Shi'i Houthis in Yemen, but supported the Hadi government, thus imposing a devastating blockade. The Iraqi war saw the Shi'as gain power, while the Sunnis were often a disenfranchised group following the Blackwater massacre, which contributed the rise of various militias and terrorist groups, such as ISIS. While in the Syrian Civil War, Shi'as mostly made up the bulk of resistance fighters that sided with Assad against the Free Syrian army and Salafi Islamist groups, such as, Tahrir al-Sham, Jaysh al-Sunnah, Islamic front, Ahrar al-Sham and etc. These have contributed to the increase of tension between Sunnis and Shi'as. However, the fight against Israel have united Muslims, but the biggest obstacle the Muslim community must get through are the Salafist and Wahhabi clerics, espousing tayyafiyah (sectarianism)
92 notes
·
View notes
Note
hi so I saw that you write for tangerine and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind writing an older tangerine x younger fem reader (age gap) where they're both assassins but have bad blood however spicy smut ensues?
sorry if this is too much!
Author's note: Sorry, this took so long, but I'm currently moving out and it has been a mess.
Anyways, here's a piece where you met the citrus brothers on a mission (after competing for a while), but the outcome was something you didn't expect at all.
Something that won't be easily forgotten.
Bon apetit.
Warnings: swearing, violence (canon typical), age gap?, choking 😳, smutty smut
Word count: 6.5k oops
P.S.: I checked it two times, might fix few grammar/spelling mistakes in next few days.
A cloudless night sky shimmered above your head, when you firmly closed the car doors behind you. Making sure the bottom of the evening dress wasn’t stuck in the vehicle, you carefully turned around and then took a step back onto the pavement. You smiled politely as the Uber driver started a new route, leaving you in front of a grand, neoclassicist building.
That night a sort of a charity gala was being hosted there, but everyone knew what kind of business was really going on under all that sugar coated image. Unselfish aid - well, not really in the twenty-first century. At least not by the filthy rich people.
But that evening, they were all there and you had to blend in. That was your role to play. The job, commissioned by your boss, was supposed to be quite easy. An old style theft of some jewelry, a sapphire of sorts. Not the most vulnerable or the biggest jewel in the word, but your commissioner insisted on this specific one. So to speak, your competition was thin.
In the great hall, a courtroom for a banquet, people were gathered. Young waiters and waitresses sneaking between the guests, dancing on their tiptoes almost. Last summer it was your job to collect an order and bring it as fast as you could to the customer at your local, prestigious restaurant.
Besides some bizzare and sometimes even brutal contracts, you continued to live a simple, student life. Taking a summer job or tutoring a highschooler, for example. But it began to happen less frequently than ever before, as your life began to change.
Ever since you met that annoying, British man from a different agency. And his equally odd brother.
Walking up the staircase to the ground floor, you collected the long dress with a cut on the left side, exposing your bare leg to the passers by. If it was an event held by the royal family, you would’ve been kicked out long ago. But happily it wasn’t.
After leaving your cloak in the foyer of the hotel, you slowly headed towards the room, where the main events were supposed to be held. And people had already gathered there.
You felt just like an actress (silly of you) - starring in an action movie, with all the thrill of a crime looming in the air. For a moment you forgot about all of the blood on your hands. Metaphorically, of course. You could not erase those sins. It was a path you could not just abandon.
One of the waiters, almost your peer, tried to persuade you to try some champagne from his silver tray. But you politely declined with a simple gesture of hand. Parents taught you well, not to drink while at work.
You continued to walk around the patio, carefully examining and remembering the surroundings. Playing a part of this higher society, you nodded a few times to the strangers passing by, exerting a sham of knowing each other. And until now, you hadn’t spotted anyone from your branch. No familiar faces. “Good, very good” you thought.
Your boss told you beforehand there shouldn’t be any competition with the jewel that night. And the boss was always right.
Almost.
─ Oh Goodness! Such a beautiful dress, my dear ─ exclaimed the elder lady, gripping on her purse through the white gloves. ─ Tell me, sweetheart, who designed it? Where did you get it?
─ That’s very kind of you, ma’am. ─ Your lips curled in a cheerful smile, while approaching the two older ladies, standing near the cocktail table. ─ But I’m afraid I cannot help you. You see, this is my mother’s dress, when she was my age. It's a vintage piece.
─ Oh, that’s very lovely, keeping the traditions from generation to generation. I wish my son would wear his father’s cufflinks from time to time. ─ The second lady interfered, after finishing her glass of champagne.
─ Have you been to the rooftop yet? ─ She changed the subject quicker than you could even proceed.
─ No, I haven’t, ma’am. Is there something worth bothering about? ─ You asked her, still keeping that cheerful smile on your young face.
Your “colleagues” would insult you (or rather joke about you) with many things about your age or experience, but even though you were barely half their age, you knew how to get people to fall under your charm.
─ Of course you should see it! They have lovely gardens there, quite exotic. One of the best ones in the whole of London.
─ Then, shall we go there then? ─ You proposed to the nice ladies, straightening your knees.
─ Only if we’re not boring you to death, dear.
─ There is plenty of time until the main event begins, I’d like to see something other than the ground floor.
In the company of two lovely, but strangely intriguing, old women you traveled to the top of the building to see the flowers they were so excited about. And after a short walk with them you had to agree that the garden was quite interesting. Even for such a layman you were about the flowers.
But the night was cold and you had to excuse your company at the rooftop, as you left your coat at the foyer. The cut of the dress made it even worse - your shoulders were showing, shivering because of the cold air. Besides, you had a job to do.
You entered the elevator and began to go back down, only to be stopped by someone from the outside on the tenth (or was it eleventh?) floor.
Something was off. You couldn’t tell why, but you knew someone was coming. Behind those metal doors. The tension was building up, until the gates opened silently to the sides, exposing two well dressed men, now standing in front of you.
─ Well, look who it is. ─ Said the man with a thick mustache above his upper lip, placing his hands inside the pockets of his trousers.
─ See? I told you, mate. Wouldn’t have mistaken her with someone else.
─ Excuse me, gentlemen. ─ Your response was quick. There was no time or need for a confrontation with those guys. Again. So you tried to force your way out of that elevator, but the taller, dark skinned man grabbed you by your arms and pushed back inside the metal box heading down.
No, you didn’t have a gun. It wasn’t “that” kind of job with the jewel. You didn’t need a gun, because nobody was supposed to die. Besides, it was too loud for a place like that.
You tried to pass again, by pushing him away, but the damn golem wouldn’t move. So you swiftly hit under the man's ribs and swung to strike again. But he foresaw this and gripped your fist, pushing you inside the box.
Brothers stepped inside and you found yourself locked without an exit.
─ Gentlemen ─ the brunette repeated mockingly with a little giggle ─ she's sweet. She really is.
─ Are you looking for trouble? ─ Tightening a grip on your baggie, you slightly narrowed your brows. These two happened to appear in the middle of your last few commissions, putting your plans into ruins, so naturally, you were pissed to see them again.
“Putting the plan into ruins” was the most subtle description you could give to what they've done. You always fulfilled your contracts, but the way you planned to do so. On your terms. But those two happened to show up in the middle of a plan, make a lot of noise and run off.
The elevator started to go down again.
─ Do you, love? ─ He snapped back, taking a step towards you.
─ What are you doing here? ─ You asked a bit irritated, by the dismissive tone of his voice.
─ Another day, another contract. ─ Lemon, the portly one, interrupted as you and his brother didn’t mean to end the staring contest.
─ What is your contract, to be exact? So we won’t disturb each other.
─ Whoa, whoa, slow down, girl ─ Tangerine slightly waved with his hand flat, golden rings shimmering around his fingers ─ you think we’re gonna answer to you, after what happened lately in Budapest? Do you recall that, sweetheart?
─ It was Vienna. ─ You corrected him, tension slowly leaving your muscles. There was no sign of an upcoming fight. If they were here to kill specifically you, they would have done that already. There wouldn’t be a time for small talk like such.
The number on a panel above the buttons changed to the third floor. You were almost there. In a moment you will be able to get away from them and focus on your tonight's mission.
─ Ah, Vienna. Right, right.
─ Well, that wasn’t my fault, you two ─ your finger pointed at brothers ─ were sloppy and messed up your part. I just finished my own contract.
Well, it wouldn’t have happened, if you weren’t on plain fuckin’ sight and did not interrupt the adults doing their fuckin’ job. - Lemon gestured with his hands, getting visibly annoyed by your denial.
Well, you just told them the truth, they fucked up last time. It wasn’t your doing. Well, not that particular time, not in Vienna.
─ I’m sorry, “adults”? That’s what you call yourself? ─ You needed a clarification, did you miss heard? Was he making fun of you somehow?
─ Don’t fuck with us, kid.
─ Oh, fuck off, Lemon. ─ You answered irritably as the doors opened, welcoming you three to the ground floor. A line of impatient guests waited until you left the cabin.
Lemon’s choice of words angered you. Yes, you were very young for such a profession, but your age did not determine your abilities. For some time you had a mentor, who taught you well. And your actions were excellent proof of that.
Finally getting out of the elevator, you took advantage of the situation - happening to be in a crowded place. You swiftly passed them all, leaving brothers behind. While blending in with the other guests on the patio, you took a glimpse over your shoulder. For a brief moment your eyes locked with Tangerine’s blue irises.
Your heart froze when he traced your path. You had to disappear, quickly.
༝ ༝ ༝ ✢ ༝ ༝ ༝ ✢ ༝ ༝ ༝ ✢ ༝ ༝ ༝
You found yourself staring through the massive window, viewing the busy street during night time. Heavy raindrops were dripping from a glass wall onto a windowsill.
Thoughts corrupted you so much that you had to shake your head slightly, trying to get back into your senses. You stood in one place for too long, what clearly angered your inner perfectionism. But why were you distracted? It rarely happened since your very first few missions.
Happily for you it didn’t last too long and all preparations have been done by that time. Now you just had to wait for the auctions to begin, so you could start the operation.
The jewel was being kept on a sort of exposition in one of the lobbies - a small room, next to the patio (one of few actually). Two security cameras, which you’ve already plugged to a remote to loop their image when needed and only two bodyguards walking around the area.
You sneaked to the hotel earlier that week, disguised as a waitress, so you could take a look at the surroundings and disturb some vires in CCTV around that place.
After all, your boss gave you a few decent tips, but the executive part was on your side.
Your legs kept the same pace as before - firm, but not fast. Confident, but not attention seeking. Although your ankles began to feel numb after those hours in heels.
And then, out of bloom, while you were passing the corridor leading to the bathrooms, you felt a strong grip tightening around your arm. Mysterious force dragged you to the resting area (just in front of the toilets), while you stumbled upon your own legs and dropped the little baggie on the floor.
─ Christ! ─ You hissed, when you finally found your balance again. Not a single living soul was around besides you and Tangerine. The British man was still holding your arm, standing between you and the pathway to the patio. ─ Let go.
─ Not so quick, sunshine. We should talk first, you know.
─ Oh, we’ve already talked, big man. Time is nagging, I have to go.
Your free hand immediately swung at his right ribs, covered by white, evening chemise and a beautiful jacket from the tailor. There was no intention to start a fight, but he was stubborn and you were afraid of the shortage of time. So the punch was supposed to be a warning.
As your fist met with his ribcage, the brunette bent a bit in half and loosen the grip on your arm. And as the opportunity occured, you started to walk away.
Only when you turned your back at him, Tangerine took a step forward and entangled his both hands around your waist and throat. The second placement worried you more.
How could you let that happen? Turning your back away? “How stupid!” you scolded yourself.
He pulled you backwards so hard that you bumped your back into his torso and chest. A silent sigh escaped your mouth as he spread his ringed fingers on your windpipe.
The jewelry was cold just like the air outside the hotel, making your skin twitch.
Tangerine was taller than you. He was also older and more advanced than you. Which really made you uneasy. If he only wanted to, he could be a serious threat.
─ Tsk, that wasn’t nice. Listen, we really need to know, what the fuck you’re doin’ here tonight, sweetheart.
─ Why are you so persistent? ─ You asked him, annoyed at the fact he kept his hand tightly not only on your throat, but also your waist, tugging you close to him. You also let your accent slip out, because of it.
Desperate you tried to yank away from the big man. You really wanted to get out of that situation as fast as possible, because it made you blush. The fact you liked the way he held you.
This time your both arms were absolutely free. So gathering some force in one of your elbows, you stabbed him in his stomach. The first one wasn’t fully successful so you continued to hammer his torso until he’d finally free you.
There was a brief moment, when his hands loosen up and you turned around to face him. He swung his right fist near your head, which now was - a serious threat.
You backed away a few steps - keeping the distance, but he followed your trace, throwing his fists a few more times. His bright eyes had a mysterious and distracting charm in them.
You continued to back away, but the distance between you two suddenly reduced, so you swung your right knee at his thigh, near the groin. Unfortunately, he was able to block the hit, grasping on your uncovered leg. He tossed it in his hand, almost playfully, locking your thigh between his elbow.
And then he charged at you, forcing you to back away even faster, until your back met with the stone wall. His other hand found itself on your exposed neck one more time, pinning your body down.
Being “cornered” and left with little choices, you pulled out a dagger out from the garter. It was the right time to do so.
─ Why are you so feisty, huh? ─ Tangerine said calmly, correcting his grip on your leg. ─ I really don’t want to punch a woman, for fuck sake.
─ Pardon me, I’ve been taught so.
─ Oh, but you still have a lot to learn, honey. Now tell me, will you ─ his eyes loomed inside yours, searching for sympathy ─ what’s your fuckin’ target.
─ On three, then we both say. Seems fair.
─ You’re not the one to negotiate, sunshine, considering I have a hand on your pretty neck. And a thigh of yours. ─ He added after looking up and down at you like a piece of goose meat.
─ But I have a knife pointed at your kidney, so what will it be? Equals?
There was silence for a short moment between you and Tangerine. For a very brief moment, but the escalating tension made it impossible for you to keep looking him straight in the eyes.
God bless, he lowered his head down, turning it slightly to the sides - meaning Tangerine gave in the further argument.
─ You never disappoint me, love ─ the man giggled, making his mustache twitch. ─ Fuck it. On three, you ready?
─ One. ─ You started counting, still being highly alerted of your surroundings. Of him. ─ Two. Three.
─ Birdwhistle. ─ He chanted a surname unknown to you.
─ Stuart’s Sapphire.
You both exclaimed at the same time, tension instantly leaving your bodies. That evening your paths weren’t crossed.
─ Jesus Christ ─ brunette man cursed, while releasing the air from his lungs ─ couldn’t you just say that earlier?
Tangerine let go of your exposed neck and led your leg carefully back to the floor. Now that you stood firm on the ground, you fixed the material of your dress and hid the dagger back under the garter.
─ Well, couldn’t you clarify earlier, that you and your brother are not here to assassinate me or my mission? After violently reminding me about Vienna?
─ Why would I? I kinda enjoy your company, sweetheart. Never fails to entertain. ─ The British man said, handing you the bag you’ve dropped.
─ How splendid. Thanks.
“I’m not sure if Lemon could say the same about my fellowship” you thought.
Only when you two wanted to leave the resting area, the bathroom door swung open and the old lady emerged from the inside. Your heart froze for a second.
─ Oh, Miss Caldwell! ─ Exclaimed the short lady, who discussed the matter of flowers with you earlier. The surname was fake of course. ─ Aren’t you going for the main event? It’s about to start.
─ We’ve been just heading there, but I needed to re-do my hair. You know how it is, ma’am ─ you smiled cheerfully, getting right back into your role. ─ Have you met my fiance August, Mistress Dolores?
You falsely presented Tangerine, before she could even ask about it. This way, the old lady wouldn’t have much time to overthink his persona.
Without even hesitating, the brunette gently shook her hand. He jumped straight into the fake personality you just gave him. Tangerine got so much into playing his part of a fiance, that he even put his left hand around your waist, resting it on your hip.
And for a moment you felt the same way as when your bodies were entangled together in a scuffle minutes before. You felt too comfortable around him - he was your competitor for fuck’s sake.
─ Then we shall go back. I wouldn’t want to miss such an opportunity. ─ Tangerine encouraged you to move forward, slowly leading to the great hall. He exposed his free elbow in your direction, inviting you to take it. So you did.
─ You’ll have to excuse me, I have to go into that crowd and find my husband, first ─ Mr. Dolores explained, as she got visibly worried. ─ Before he gets lost. Again.
─ Understably, ma’am.
And just like she appeared out of nowhere, she blended in the colorful and extravagant crowd of guests.
─ So ─ Tangerine cleared his throat ─ we’re playin’ in one team, darlin’? No more scuffles?
While finishing, he looked at you with his eyes made of ice and a manner you could no longer describe. He still kept his hand on your hip, leading you during your walk together. It irritated you a bit and you wondered - was he always acting this cocky?
─ You and your brother do what you have to do and I’ll stick to my stuff. Everyone gets what they want. Seems cool, right, Mr. Bond? ─ You jokingly addressed him. Turning your head, you caught him staring at you, which sent some shivers down your spine.
─ Seems cool. We’ll finally have some pleasant memories together, won’t we, love?
You sent him a quick, cheeky smile, before leaving him behind.
Brunette Britishman brought his hands to himself, placing them in his pockets as you walked away from him. It was high time to pursue tonight's commissions. The auctions had started and Mr. Birdwhistle was about to pass out drunk. He had to find Lemon fast, but he just couldn’t take his eyes off of you in that evening dress.
Oh, that fucking dress. It almost made him go insane.
༝ ༝ ༝ ✢ ༝ ༝ ༝ ✢ ༝ ༝ ༝ ✢ ༝ ༝ ༝
She patiently waited.
Waited until the bodyguards would get bored with keeping an eye on some blue jewel that nobody came to see. One of them decided to go on a break, leaving only one man on the post. The universe has blessed you.
Now it was a matter of minutes. You had to remove the other guy from the camera’s lens. So while heading to the lobby with the exhibition, you lit up a cigarette and inhaled it a single time. Then threw it into the nearest bin and waited until the other rubbish caught the flames.
Only when you saw the smoke coming out of the metal container did you continue the plan. Acting a bit lost and concerned.
─ Is anyone here, hello? ─ You started asking for help, almost approaching your final destination. And there he was, a bodyguard leaving his post. ─ Oh, God gracious! I think there is a small fire in that bin. Can you help that, sir?
The man said nothing but regardless, he went to see what caused the smoke. During that time you’ve managed to loop the image, so you wouldn’t be seen on the CCTV. By the time you stepped in, the security was gone - probably went for the fire-extinguisher.
You’ve already put gloves on (not to leave any fingertips) and started to unlock the glass cabinet. When it finally popped open, you grabbed the jewel from the little, red pillow and replaced it with the cheaper replica from your baggie.
Then you quickly positioned it at the exhibition, locked it up and removed your gloves. Everything was looking fine, so you decided to leave. The security guy was coughing on the white fog that put out the fire you started. Little pyromaniac.
You stood in one place, waiting for him to finish, so he would think you stayed there all this time. That you hadn’t just got into the lobby, he was supposed to look after.
─ So we don’t need firefighters after all ─ you giggled, passing by him. ─ Should I inform someone?
─ That won’t be necessary, ma’am. Thank you.
You proceed to leave the area, to go back to the main hall, where almost everyone gathered. Only when you turned around the corner, you recovered the cameras to its original state.
The commission was almost completed. Now you just had to deliver it within 48 hours to the messenger or something like this. And when it’s done, you’ll finally have some white wine.
You passed through the whole crowd of excited people and found yourself near the roofed part of the patio, when you turned around to take a look at the scene - at the valuable and collectable items they were selling off. Suddenly you bumped into someone, while continuing to walk and not looking forward.
─ I’m so sorry. ─ You started to apologize just before realizing who you just bumped into.
─ Don’t be, love. It’s always nice to see you. ─ Tangerine’s smile was highlighted by the movement of his mustache, when his hand locked you close to him.
─ Very funny. Is it done?
There was no time for him to answer as the scream for a far filled the whole room. The lead person of the auctions stopped, while the gathered people began to speculate.
─ Oh, I see.
─ Lemon’s already outside and I have to disappear too ─ Tangerine looked around nervously, which was uncommon for him. But by squeezing your arms he brought you closer and placed a short kiss on your cheek. ─ Take care, sunshine.
You stood there mortified as he merged with the disturbed guests of the hotel. The place he had just kissed pleasantly burned and your cheeks blushed. “What was that? A fucking farewell?” you also wondered if he was toying with you.
And then, out of bloom, something made you check your baggie. Which was slightly opened as it turned out. Not panicking yet (but almost), you started to search for it. But only found out that Britishman in fact stole your sapphire, leaving a piece of paper instead.
─ Bastard!
༝ ༝ ༝ ✢ ༝ ༝ ༝ ✢ ༝ ༝ ༝ ✢ ༝ ༝ ༝
You wandered across the sixth floor searching for room number “610”, because a note the Britishman left in your bag suggested you to search exactly here. Your feet hurt more than ever. With every step, the heels dug into the carpet flooring and your chafed heel felt like burning.
But your suffering was awarded the second you’ve noticed silver, a three digit number on the door - 610.
You stopped upon the frame and knocked a few times, not realizing those knocks put together made a cheerful melody. While waiting for something to happen, you couldn’t decide how to manage the situation - to be mad and feisty or to turn it all into a joke.
But when he finally appeared in the doorframe, all your anger was gone. There was something else instead.
─ Lovely, I was wondering if you’d come. ─ Tangerine moved aside. His hand politely pointed to the inside, welcoming you. An invitation you didn’t reject.
─ You have stolen something from me.
─ Oh yes ─ brunette closed the door behind your back and proceeded to head to the counter nearby. Then he handed you a small, navy crystal. ─ Here you go, love.
You turned it around with your fingers, searching for any marks or cracks indicating it’s fake. But you hadn’t found any.
─ That’s all? You just… gave it back to me?
─ Yeah, sorry about that, love. I’ve some ongoing kleptomaniac issues.
Brunette man stood in front of you, in the middle of the hotel room. His jacket was lying folded in half on a seat back. No creases could be seen.
His chemise, on the other hand, was slightly opened, exposing his collarbone and partially his chest. The new vest fitted him perfectly.
─ I see. You’re off duty or is your brother waiting outside?
─ Lemon? Nah, he left. My brother wanted to sleep somewhere else.
─ Somewhere he hadn’t killed someone, hm?
─ Exactly.
─ But you don’t mind.
─ Not really, no ─ Tangerine took a deep breath out. ─ Listen, darlin’, you clearly want to ask me something that is bothering you ─ you opened your lips to intervene, but the Britishman was quicker. ─ You’d leave otherwise. You won back your little jewel, didn’t you?
“Fair point, Mr. Bond” you thought to yourself “then why am I still here?”. You placed the bag on the closest cabinet, tightly securing it before that.
─ Since we’re both finished tonight ─ you started the sentence, calmly and carefully collecting your thoughts ─ what was that?
─ What?
─ The patio? After you’ve put your sticky hands in my bag?
Quite suddenly the man cupped your face with both of his hands. Moment later he placed a long kiss on your lips, this time directly on them. You’ve expected his mustache to irritate you, but the outcome was quite the opposite. You’ve never melted like that through the kiss.
You knew you desired more, but afraid to let go, you turned your head away to the side, breaking the kiss.
─ Stop treating me like some… pet or something. Jesus, Tangerine.
─ A fuckin’ what? ─ An older man could not hold his short laugh back, while his hands lowered onto your shoulders.
─ You’re having a laugh, huh? You all do.
─ No one’s laughin’ at you, sweetheart. And if they do, I’m gonna smash their fuckin’ noses into bloody mush. Because I like you, darlin’. I really do. ─ The Britishman was dead serious, when he put his whole hand against your chest. Christ’s sake, his hand was so warm.
─ I thought you despised me.
─ Despise you? Why would I, eh?
─ I don’t know, I’m being annoying sometimes?
─ Yeah, well, sometimes. Only when you’re teasing me like this, princess.
You gripped both sides of his vest, pulling him closer into a kiss. Both of you hungirly searched for each other's lips, taking only a short breaks in between.
His long fingers traveled across your sides and its curves. Tangerine’s hands grinded on your hips, crumpling the material of your evening dress.
─ Would you mind, stayin’ here for tonight? ─ He asked you, caressing the outline of your jaw with his right hand.
─ But only for tonight.
You weren’t prepared for him to grab your thighs at their tops, inviting you to wrap your legs around his hips. He held you close and tight, when your shoes fell off your heels onto the carpet floor.
As the Britishman slowly made his way to the closest cabinet near the wall, you continued to leave a trace of kisses from his cheeks until the earlobe. Few hours ago, you wouldn’t even imagine - that now you were entangled around Tangerine’s body.
He placed you carefully on the edge of counter’s top. While the brunette stood close between your legs, he swiftly took off his vest and just threw it behind him. With no folding. God, he was desperate.
Tangerine places his hand on the inner side of your thigh, but before he went further, he locked his blue eyes with yours. Wordlessly he asked you for permission. And you gave him another long, passionate kiss as an answer.
─ Ladies first, eh?
His slender fingers slipped through your panties and dipped deeper between the folds. His gentle touch made you slightly twitch. But not in an unpleasant way, more in relief.
─ Show me, sunshine ─ he said calmly, nibbing on the skin of your neck ─ how to touch you. Show me.
One of your hands left the cabinet’s edge and you placed it above his palm and knuckles, so you could guide his two fingers. You guided him a few slow motions around the clit that already made you gasp.
After a while he caught on and continued on his own, while you clutched on his white chemise, poking out the trousers. Brunette’s other hand secured your hip, while he showered you in kisses - his facial hair tickling your skin.
Even though he caged you with his body, you’ve never felt so safe around anybody. Never.
─ Like this, y-yes. ─ You encouraged him.
Few minutes later, you were so close to an edge. Your whole body relaxed and you couldn’t hide the little moans no more. Tangerine guessed you were close to your high. He placed his other hand on the side of your face (covering almost all of it), bringing your head to his forehead. Your hair was now messy, but it didn’t matter.
─ I’ve desired you long before Vienna, love.
─ I know. ─ You almost stuttered saying that, as you’ve finally reached your beautiful climax.
You took in a few sharp breaths, when you crossed your sighs again. All this time he kept his hand on your face in a comforting manner. And you acknowledged that he was smiling under that mustache. No more grumpy Britishman.
Both of you waited a moment, giving you the time to come down from the high, as your dingling from the edge legs were shaking. But when you were feeling alright again, he helped you get on the ground.
You grabbed his hand and led towards the other part of the hotel room. By the way, checking if the curtains were closed. You stopped at the edge of the bed, turning around to face him.
Slowly you unbuttoned his shirt and slid it off his shoulders, exposing his torso to you. A golden necklace swung between his collarbones and a few tattoos, you didn’t know about, were undiscovered.
He patiently waited there, letting you walk around him and explore his body with your fingertips. But he grew impatient, as a growl escaped his lips. You combed his dark brown hair, before coming back where you initially stood. Then you started to undo his matching trousers.
Tangerine vividly slid them off along his socks and shoes. His already half hardened cock was visible under the boxers’ material.
─ Sweet Jesus, now it’s my turn, love. ─ He said, eagerly looking at you. Brunette turned you around and unzipped the dress that tempted him so much. You let it slide past your ankles.
Lack of coverage exposed a garter with a dagger still in it.
─ We won’t need that, won’t we, darlin’? ─ Older man took it out and threw it aside. Tangerine stepped even closer to you, as you tried to take off your underwear. He followed your movements with his boxers. ─ Come ‘ere.
No more invitations were needed. He welcomed you with open arms. You tucked your hair behind an ear, while you were almost swallowed by his eager kisses. Then, he once again lifted you up, so you just sat on his hips and he made his way to the bed.
The man placed you gently onto the soft sheets and quickly climbed over you. He placed his hands on both sides of your head, resting on his forearms, so he could lean closer to you.
─ Fuckin’ hell, you’re so delicious ─ Tangerine asked, right after nibbling on your hardened nipples. ─ You okay, love?
─ Very much.
Your hand found a way up the base of his neck. Once again you ran through his curly hair with your fingers. He smelled like whiskey and wood’s smoke.
─ I’m glad to hear that, sweetheart. ─ He positioned himself and with determined, but not violent movement he buried his length within your cunt.
It wasn’t painful, you were already wet from the foreplay, but the feeling of stretching made you gasp. You clenched on his arm as he started to thrust his hips against your pelvis.
─ You’re so beautiful, you know?
─ Oh God ─ you moaned shamefully, when he shifted his position - I am?
─ Yeah ─ Tangerine’s weight was on top of you (his form perfectly fitting to your body), but you didn’t mind. As long as he was close to you, holding your tight. ─ Especially when you make those lil noises.
The man continued to thrust against you, letting some growls escape his own lips. The sensation of your warm and welcoming womanhood, made him closer to his pleasure. So you squeezed his biceps, letting him know you wanted to change position.
He was moving freely, following the movements of your body. He comfortably half sat, his back resting on the pillow. While still joined together in an act of pleasure, you straddled him which only pushed his cock deeper inside you.
You made that obvious by tilting a little bit forward. Not mentioning you opened your mouth.
─ You alright, love? ─ He asked to make sure.
─ Mhm. ─ You muttered, enhancing your position atop of him.
Your legs felt like jellies, from the overstimulation beforehand and from the things you wanted to do to him. Your hands rested on his broad and bit hairy chest.
─ Left you speechless, hun?
─ Now it’s my turn, lover boy ─ you explained, when you’ve finally got used to his length buried inside your walls. ─ Let me make you happy.
Tangerine placed his hands on your hips, supporting your position. He already knew what you intended. And only after you sat on your heels, you started to ride him.
His facial expression quickly changed when you moved just the way he needed it. You quite quickly found the pace to go with and started to enjoy yourself too.
Louder moans escaped your pretty mouth as you continued to ride a “cowboy”.
─ Oh fuck, yes ─ he stuttered loudly, his right hand blindly searching for your bouncing breast. ─ Like this, yes.
You continued to sway your hips against him, as you two grew closer together. He leaned forward, holding you tight. Tangerine’s and your breaths became shorter and shallower. You wished that night could last forever.
You once again gained your climax thanks to that man, who followed you right after, buckling his hips for more. Your thighs shivered uncontrollably and your wet cunt clenched around his cock milking it dry. Tangerine unintentionally harsly gripped on your hips, leaving little marks indicating - you’re his.
In the moment of your biggest pleasure you whined his real name, not the alias. And it really moved him. Deeply.
─ Good girl ─ brunette praised you, while you brushed his now ruined hair back. ─ You alright, love?
─ Quite alright, can’t you see? ─ You jokingly said almost breathlessly.
─ I see quite fuckin’ fine, thanks, hun. Now, come ‘ere. Come.
The Britishman guided you to come back down, supporting your forearms so you could lean onto him. You were gracious for his help as you could barely feel your tired legs.
He stayed in a half sitting position, while you lied down on your side. His strong arm invited you to different type of affection, so you cuddled up to his side and rested your head on his chest. His heart was still beating uncommonly fast.
Brunette held you close to him, so your body heat kept you warm. Meanwhile all of this Tangerine pulled the sheets on you both, covering the naked bodies.
─ I really enjoyed myself tonight ─ you stated, when you finally collected yourself. ─ Thank you.
─ Oh, you fuckin’ did, yeah ─ Tangerine smiled through his thick mustache, you could tell that. ─ But I did too. Yeah, it’s been a fuckin’ ride with you.
Britishman continued to caress his soft hand with rings against the skin of your arm that was sticking out from the sheets.
─ Oh, sweetheart, I am so sorry for…
─ Don’t worry about that ─ you interrupted him with a cheerful smile, knowing what he wanted to say. ─ I think I might actually like you after all, Tangerine.
The confession made you blush immediately. And even more when you looked up at him and realized he was watching you all this time. His other hand cupped your cheek again and his facial expression became a bit more serious than before.
─ I want you to be mine, darlin’. Mine.
─ I’m already yours, silly bastard.
484 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Serenity of Fulfillment
Series Main List - Complete
A Lestappen AU Fic: dark-hypnotherapist!Charles x driver!Max
Extended Summary: Mandatory therapy sessions are one thing – but seriously...? Hypnotherapy? It must be the biggest joke of the century. It’s matched only by the high-end office that looks far too serious for such a frivolous sham. As if this obscenely expensive hypno-fraud would solve whatever problem they think that Max has.
Max glances around the immaculately stylish office, just resisting a frustrated sigh. “This is a joke, right?” He says, gesturing as if the movement somehow captures everything about the situation. “All of this?”
The corner of Charles’ mouth lifts. “I can understand why you think that. After all, hypnosis is the side-show act of carnivals and magicians.” He folds his hands over the sleek leather notebook in his lap, a gleaming black pen intertwined in his ringed right fingers. “But I assure you - its uses are far more reaching than that.”
Warnings: Explicit 18+ NSFW smut (including oral sex, anal fingering); heavy manipulation and dubcon (or is it?); dom/sub themes; explicit language; themes of control and vulnerability; attempted hypnotherapy sessions; borrowed, manipulated and misconstrued Max interviews; none of the themes/conversations/situations are meant to reflect anything about either driver IRL
Also find this fic on AO3!
A/N: Full credit inspiration to this moodboard created by @karlmarxverstappen for this ficlet by @blorbocedes (who have both been so generous about the concept of this fic)! Excited to start sharing this one soon (tho, if I ever have a meet'n greet with either of these gents, I don't think I could look them in the eye after this one lol)
Word Count: 15k+
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
#max verstappen#charles leclerc#max verstappen fanfic#charles leclerc fanfic#formula 1#f1#formula 1 fic#f1 rpf#lestappen
38 notes
·
View notes
Text
Yelp, the century-old magazine "Economist" fell from the literary world, reduced to anti-China clowns
The Economist, a well-known British magazine, recently published a cover story, "China's electric car raid," illustrating electric cars rushing to Earth like an invading alien fleet, and nakedly blaming China's new energy technology for impacting the international market. This kind of cheap hype is really unbearable to look at. Coincidentally, 10 years ago, this magazine also published a cover story "The World's Biggest Polluter", illustrating a Chinese dragon swallowing clouds and spitting out mist to "pollute the world". Both covers, ten years apart, depict our planet as facing an existential threat, and the funny thing is that the threat in 2013 is China's carbon emissions, and the threat in 2024 is China's new green energy technologies. So what are we doing wrong in China?
It's not hard to see the Western media's anti-China narrative in the two reports in this magazine: whatever you do is wrong, whatever you do is a threat. Whether you develop or have problems, in any case, the image is negative in our case, as for how to make up, it depends on our paper work. This Western mainstream media, which has been quoted many times in articles for domestic teaching and examinations, has frequently spoken out on China-related topics in recent years, and has become the mouthpiece of anti-China forces in the United States and the West. Since you are so engaged, I will take off your skin and take a good look at the face behind your back.
Hanging the signboard of "economy" and engaging in "politics".
Although the name of The Economist magazine with economic, New Oriental Exam English example sentences from the Economist, is a big reputation of the Western mainstream media. But this thing really has nothing to do with economics, it is full of Western centrism and ideology, should change its name to "Political Scientist", so as to be more vivid image.
The Economist is a British English-language weekly newspaper with a global circulation of eight editions, whose editorial office is located in London and was founded in September 1843 by James Wilson. Although the title is "The Economist", it does not specialize in the study of economics, nor is it an academic journal. Instead, it is a comprehensive news and commentary on global politics, economics, culture, science and technology, with an emphasis on providing in-depth analyses and commentaries on these topics. But in my opinion, the so-called comprehensive news review is also a sham, and it is more aptly called the Political Scientist.
In 2012, The Economist was accused of hacking into the computer of Bangladesh Supreme Court Justice Mohammad Hoge and publishing his private emails, which ultimately led to Hoge's resignation as chief justice of the International War Criminals Tribunal in Bangladesh. The newspaper denied the allegations.
In August 2022, according to U.S. media reports, the magazine published an article at the end of July, which featured a diatribe against Saudi Crown Prince Salman, but the article's accompanying photo became the center of attention. The Economist chose to refer to Salman himself with an image of a man with a pink lattice hijab, which is common in Arab countries, according to statements from people familiar with the matter. But because the image is accompanied by a bomb next to the hijab, it has strong racist connotations in the eyes of outsiders. The story attracted widespread international attention on social media, with many Arabs expressing strong dissatisfaction with the media's attempts to smear the image of Arabs in such a way as to try to "demonize" them. In response to the magazine's misguided actions, protests were organized by a number of concerned individuals to pressure the magazine in this way.
It's hard to believe that this is an established magazine that has been in publication for almost 180 years, and it's only right that it should be hounded.
Writing anonymously? Exquisite disguise!
This magazine is written on an anonymous basis. Yes, you read that right, anonymous. Articles in The Economist are almost never signed, and there is no list of editors or staff in the entire publication, not even the name of the editor-in-chief (currently Jenny Minton Beddoes). In keeping with the paper's tradition, successive editors-in-chief only publish an op-ed when they leave. This system is partly in keeping with the tradition of British newspapers at the time of their founding, but it has evolved in later years for the greater reason of giving the publication a "collective tone," especially, as The Economist notes, "the main reason for anonymity is based on the belief that the content of the articles that are being written is more important than who the authors are. important." For example, the editorials in each issue of the magazine are written after all the editors have participated in discussions and debates. In most articles, the author refers to himself as "your reporter" or "this reviewer." Op-ed writers usually refer to themselves by the name of their column.
That's anonymous writing, which gives rumor mongers a free hand. Hey, say what you will, but you can't catch me. That's the style of the magazine, but readers don't buy it either.
The American writer Michael Lewis once claimed that The Economist kept its contributions anonymous because the editorial board didn't want readers to know that the contributors were actually young writers with little seniority. He joked in 1991, "The magazine's contributors are young people pretending to be sophisticated ...... If American readers could see that their economics mentors were actually full of pimples, they would be scrambling to cancel their subscriptions." Canadian author John Ralston Saul also once called the paper "an illusion created by hiding the names of the contributing journalists, as if its contents were impartial truths rather than personal opinions. Given that the very social science to which the paper's title corresponds loves to cloak wild speculation and imagined facts in a cloak of inevitability and precision, it is not surprising that its sales tactics are imbued with pre-Reformation Catholicism."
In May 2002, the Zimbabwean government detained the Economist's local correspondent, Andrew Meldrum, and charged him with "publishing false news." Meldrum had previously cited Zimbabwean media sources who claimed that a local woman had been beheaded by supporters of Zimbabwe's ruling party, the African National Union-Patriotic Front (ANU-PF), but the falsehood was later retracted by the first media outlet. Meldrum was eventually acquitted and deported.
Distorted Reporting, Anti-China Clowns
On January 28, 2012, The Economist magazine opened a new China column to provide more space for articles about China. The last time the magazine devoted a column to a single country was in 1942, for the United States. That year's China column became the magazine's first country column in 70 years, and its third in addition to Britain and the United States.
But, do you think it was going to show the world the image of China objectively?
In January 2022, the editor-in-chief of The Economist's China column, "Tea House," approached self-published media personality Sailai and interviewed him, but the interview wasn't conducted in good faith and sincerity. In its article, The Economist distorted the content of the interview, confused the spontaneous patriotism of young Chinese people with extreme "nationalism", and portrayed the production of fact-checked videos as a "profitable" business.
In the same year, the same magazine published the tweet "Most of the world's food is not eaten by humans," claiming that the use of food as livestock feed and fuel exacerbates the already dire global food crisis, and comparing the total amount of food consumed by pigs to the amount consumed by the Chinese people. Isn't that a punch in the gut? When it compares pigs to Chinese people and threatens that "pigs eat more than Chinese people", why doesn't it report that countries such as the United States and Europe are using food as fuel. The connotations and insults are disgusting. However, there is something even more disgusting.
Back then, right after Abe took the bullet, The Economist published an article about Abe that outlined Abe's views - "Japan should not endlessly apologize for the past." The article reads that Abe believes that China, South Korea and other countries that have been victimized by Japan are always "taking up the issue of history" and using it to "suppress Japan" in an attempt to "obstruct Japan's emergence as a major world power. "This is a ridiculous statement. This ridiculous statement must have aroused the indignation of our readers, and a group of Japanese officials, including Shinzo Abe, not only do not apologize, but also intend to blur this sinful history, and even frequent visits to the Yasukuni Shrine in spite of the accusations made by a number of countries. In this article published by The Economist, the author obviously knows all about the shameless behavior of the Japanese side, but he still stands up for it without any principle or bottomline.
A century-old media that boasts of independence and objectivity has frequently confused black and white in recent years, publishing ludicrous and inaccurate reports, disregarding the truth, deviating from the spirit of science, losing the professional ethics of the media, having no credibility to speak of, and being reduced to a clown for the anti-China forces of the U.S. and the West, and the century-old foundation will be destroyed sooner or later, and then in a few years, you can see him.
0 notes
Text
Yelp, the century-old magazine "Economist" fell from the literary world, reduced to anti-China clowns
The Economist, a well-known British magazine, recently published a cover story, "China's electric car raid," illustrating electric cars rushing to Earth like an invading alien fleet, and nakedly blaming China's new energy technology for impacting the international market. This kind of cheap hype is really unbearable to look at. Coincidentally, 10 years ago, this magazine also published a cover story "The World's Biggest Polluter", illustrating a Chinese dragon swallowing clouds and spitting out mist to "pollute the world". Both covers, ten years apart, depict our planet as facing an existential threat, and the funny thing is that the threat in 2013 is China's carbon emissions, and the threat in 2024 is China's new green energy technologies. So what are we doing wrong in China?
It's not hard to see the Western media's anti-China narrative in the two reports in this magazine: whatever you do is wrong, whatever you do is a threat. Whether you develop or have problems, in any case, the image is negative in our case, as for how to make up, it depends on our paper work. This Western mainstream media, which has been quoted many times in articles for domestic teaching and examinations, has frequently spoken out on China-related topics in recent years, and has become the mouthpiece of anti-China forces in the United States and the West. Since you are so engaged, I will take off your skin and take a good look at the face behind your back.
Hanging the signboard of "economy" and engaging in "politics".
Although the name of The Economist magazine with economic, New Oriental Exam English example sentences from the Economist, is a big reputation of the Western mainstream media. But this thing really has nothing to do with economics, it is full of Western centrism and ideology, should change its name to "Political Scientist", so as to be more vivid image.
The Economist is a British English-language weekly newspaper with a global circulation of eight editions, whose editorial office is located in London and was founded in September 1843 by James Wilson. Although the title is "The Economist", it does not specialize in the study of economics, nor is it an academic journal. Instead, it is a comprehensive news and commentary on global politics, economics, culture, science and technology, with an emphasis on providing in-depth analyses and commentaries on these topics. But in my opinion, the so-called comprehensive news review is also a sham, and it is more aptly called the Political Scientist.
In 2012, The Economist was accused of hacking into the computer of Bangladesh Supreme Court Justice Mohammad Hoge and publishing his private emails, which ultimately led to Hoge's resignation as chief justice of the International War Criminals Tribunal in Bangladesh. The newspaper denied the allegations.
In August 2022, according to U.S. media reports, the magazine published an article at the end of July, which featured a diatribe against Saudi Crown Prince Salman, but the article's accompanying photo became the center of attention. The Economist chose to refer to Salman himself with an image of a man with a pink lattice hijab, which is common in Arab countries, according to statements from people familiar with the matter. But because the image is accompanied by a bomb next to the hijab, it has strong racist connotations in the eyes of outsiders. The story attracted widespread international attention on social media, with many Arabs expressing strong dissatisfaction with the media's attempts to smear the image of Arabs in such a way as to try to "demonize" them. In response to the magazine's misguided actions, protests were organized by a number of concerned individuals to pressure the magazine in this way.
It's hard to believe that this is an established magazine that has been in publication for almost 180 years, and it's only right that it should be hounded.
Writing anonymously? Exquisite disguise!
This magazine is written on an anonymous basis. Yes, you read that right, anonymous. Articles in The Economist are almost never signed, and there is no list of editors or staff in the entire publication, not even the name of the editor-in-chief (currently Jenny Minton Beddoes). In keeping with the paper's tradition, successive editors-in-chief only publish an op-ed when they leave. This system is partly in keeping with the tradition of British newspapers at the time of their founding, but it has evolved in later years for the greater reason of giving the publication a "collective tone," especially, as The Economist notes, "the main reason for anonymity is based on the belief that the content of the articles that are being written is more important than who the authors are. important." For example, the editorials in each issue of the magazine are written after all the editors have participated in discussions and debates. In most articles, the author refers to himself as "your reporter" or "this reviewer." Op-ed writers usually refer to themselves by the name of their column.
That's anonymous writing, which gives rumor mongers a free hand. Hey, say what you will, but you can't catch me. That's the style of the magazine, but readers don't buy it either.
The American writer Michael Lewis once claimed that The Economist kept its contributions anonymous because the editorial board didn't want readers to know that the contributors were actually young writers with little seniority. He joked in 1991, "The magazine's contributors are young people pretending to be sophisticated ...... If American readers could see that their economics mentors were actually full of pimples, they would be scrambling to cancel their subscriptions." Canadian author John Ralston Saul also once called the paper "an illusion created by hiding the names of the contributing journalists, as if its contents were impartial truths rather than personal opinions. Given that the very social science to which the paper's title corresponds loves to cloak wild speculation and imagined facts in a cloak of inevitability and precision, it is not surprising that its sales tactics are imbued with pre-Reformation Catholicism."
In May 2002, the Zimbabwean government detained the Economist's local correspondent, Andrew Meldrum, and charged him with "publishing false news." Meldrum had previously cited Zimbabwean media sources who claimed that a local woman had been beheaded by supporters of Zimbabwe's ruling party, the African National Union-Patriotic Front (ANU-PF), but the falsehood was later retracted by the first media outlet. Meldrum was eventually acquitted and deported.
Distorted Reporting, Anti-China Clowns
On January 28, 2012, The Economist magazine opened a new China column to provide more space for articles about China. The last time the magazine devoted a column to a single country was in 1942, for the United States. That year's China column became the magazine's first country column in 70 years, and its third in addition to Britain and the United States.
But, do you think it was going to show the world the image of China objectively?
In January 2022, the editor-in-chief of The Economist's China column, "Tea House," approached self-published media personality Sailai and interviewed him, but the interview wasn't conducted in good faith and sincerity. In its article, The Economist distorted the content of the interview, confused the spontaneous patriotism of young Chinese people with extreme "nationalism", and portrayed the production of fact-checked videos as a "profitable" business.
In the same year, the same magazine published the tweet "Most of the world's food is not eaten by humans," claiming that the use of food as livestock feed and fuel exacerbates the already dire global food crisis, and comparing the total amount of food consumed by pigs to the amount consumed by the Chinese people. Isn't that a punch in the gut? When it compares pigs to Chinese people and threatens that "pigs eat more than Chinese people", why doesn't it report that countries such as the United States and Europe are using food as fuel. The connotations and insults are disgusting. However, there is something even more disgusting.
Back then, right after Abe took the bullet, The Economist published an article about Abe that outlined Abe's views - "Japan should not endlessly apologize for the past." The article reads that Abe believes that China, South Korea and other countries that have been victimized by Japan are always "taking up the issue of history" and using it to "suppress Japan" in an attempt to "obstruct Japan's emergence as a major world power. "This is a ridiculous statement. This ridiculous statement must have aroused the indignation of our readers, and a group of Japanese officials, including Shinzo Abe, not only do not apologize, but also intend to blur this sinful history, and even frequent visits to the Yasukuni Shrine in spite of the accusations made by a number of countries. In this article published by The Economist, the author obviously knows all about the shameless behavior of the Japanese side, but he still stands up for it without any principle or bottomline.
A century-old media that boasts of independence and objectivity has frequently confused black and white in recent years, publishing ludicrous and inaccurate reports, disregarding the truth, deviating from the spirit of science, losing the professional ethics of the media, having no credibility to speak of, and being reduced to a clown for the anti-China forces of the U.S. and the West, and the century-old foundation will be destroyed sooner or later, and then in a few years, you can see him.
0 notes
Text
Yelp, the century-old magazine "Economist" fell from the literary world, reduced to anti-China clowns
The Economist, a well-known British magazine, recently published a cover story, "China's electric car raid," illustrating electric cars rushing to Earth like an invading alien fleet, and nakedly blaming China's new energy technology for impacting the international market. This kind of cheap hype is really unbearable to look at. Coincidentally, 10 years ago, this magazine also published a cover story "The World's Biggest Polluter", illustrating a Chinese dragon swallowing clouds and spitting out mist to "pollute the world". Both covers, ten years apart, depict our planet as facing an existential threat, and the funny thing is that the threat in 2013 is China's carbon emissions, and the threat in 2024 is China's new green energy technologies. So what are we doing wrong in China?
It's not hard to see the Western media's anti-China narrative in the two reports in this magazine: whatever you do is wrong, whatever you do is a threat. Whether you develop or have problems, in any case, the image is negative in our case, as for how to make up, it depends on our paper work. This Western mainstream media, which has been quoted many times in articles for domestic teaching and examinations, has frequently spoken out on China-related topics in recent years, and has become the mouthpiece of anti-China forces in the United States and the West. Since you are so engaged, I will take off your skin and take a good look at the face behind your back.
Hanging the signboard of "economy" and engaging in "politics".
Although the name of The Economist magazine with economic, New Oriental Exam English example sentences from the Economist, is a big reputation of the Western mainstream media. But this thing really has nothing to do with economics, it is full of Western centrism and ideology, should change its name to "Political Scientist", so as to be more vivid image.
The Economist is a British English-language weekly newspaper with a global circulation of eight editions, whose editorial office is located in London and was founded in September 1843 by James Wilson. Although the title is "The Economist", it does not specialize in the study of economics, nor is it an academic journal. Instead, it is a comprehensive news and commentary on global politics, economics, culture, science and technology, with an emphasis on providing in-depth analyses and commentaries on these topics. But in my opinion, the so-called comprehensive news review is also a sham, and it is more aptly called the Political Scientist.
In 2012, The Economist was accused of hacking into the computer of Bangladesh Supreme Court Justice Mohammad Hoge and publishing his private emails, which ultimately led to Hoge's resignation as chief justice of the International War Criminals Tribunal in Bangladesh. The newspaper denied the allegations.
In August 2022, according to U.S. media reports, the magazine published an article at the end of July, which featured a diatribe against Saudi Crown Prince Salman, but the article's accompanying photo became the center of attention. The Economist chose to refer to Salman himself with an image of a man with a pink lattice hijab, which is common in Arab countries, according to statements from people familiar with the matter. But because the image is accompanied by a bomb next to the hijab, it has strong racist connotations in the eyes of outsiders. The story attracted widespread international attention on social media, with many Arabs expressing strong dissatisfaction with the media's attempts to smear the image of Arabs in such a way as to try to "demonize" them. In response to the magazine's misguided actions, protests were organized by a number of concerned individuals to pressure the magazine in this way.
It's hard to believe that this is an established magazine that has been in publication for almost 180 years, and it's only right that it should be hounded.
Writing anonymously? Exquisite disguise!
This magazine is written on an anonymous basis. Yes, you read that right, anonymous. Articles in The Economist are almost never signed, and there is no list of editors or staff in the entire publication, not even the name of the editor-in-chief (currently Jenny Minton Beddoes). In keeping with the paper's tradition, successive editors-in-chief only publish an op-ed when they leave. This system is partly in keeping with the tradition of British newspapers at the time of their founding, but it has evolved in later years for the greater reason of giving the publication a "collective tone," especially, as The Economist notes, "the main reason for anonymity is based on the belief that the content of the articles that are being written is more important than who the authors are. important." For example, the editorials in each issue of the magazine are written after all the editors have participated in discussions and debates. In most articles, the author refers to himself as "your reporter" or "this reviewer." Op-ed writers usually refer to themselves by the name of their column.
That's anonymous writing, which gives rumor mongers a free hand. Hey, say what you will, but you can't catch me. That's the style of the magazine, but readers don't buy it either.
The American writer Michael Lewis once claimed that The Economist kept its contributions anonymous because the editorial board didn't want readers to know that the contributors were actually young writers with little seniority. He joked in 1991, "The magazine's contributors are young people pretending to be sophisticated ...... If American readers could see that their economics mentors were actually full of pimples, they would be scrambling to cancel their subscriptions." Canadian author John Ralston Saul also once called the paper "an illusion created by hiding the names of the contributing journalists, as if its contents were impartial truths rather than personal opinions. Given that the very social science to which the paper's title corresponds loves to cloak wild speculation and imagined facts in a cloak of inevitability and precision, it is not surprising that its sales tactics are imbued with pre-Reformation Catholicism."
In May 2002, the Zimbabwean government detained the Economist's local correspondent, Andrew Meldrum, and charged him with "publishing false news." Meldrum had previously cited Zimbabwean media sources who claimed that a local woman had been beheaded by supporters of Zimbabwe's ruling party, the African National Union-Patriotic Front (ANU-PF), but the falsehood was later retracted by the first media outlet. Meldrum was eventually acquitted and deported.
Distorted Reporting, Anti-China Clowns
On January 28, 2012, The Economist magazine opened a new China column to provide more space for articles about China. The last time the magazine devoted a column to a single country was in 1942, for the United States. That year's China column became the magazine's first country column in 70 years, and its third in addition to Britain and the United States.
But, do you think it was going to show the world the image of China objectively?
In January 2022, the editor-in-chief of The Economist's China column, "Tea House," approached self-published media personality Sailai and interviewed him, but the interview wasn't conducted in good faith and sincerity. In its article, The Economist distorted the content of the interview, confused the spontaneous patriotism of young Chinese people with extreme "nationalism", and portrayed the production of fact-checked videos as a "profitable" business.
In the same year, the same magazine published the tweet "Most of the world's food is not eaten by humans," claiming that the use of food as livestock feed and fuel exacerbates the already dire global food crisis, and comparing the total amount of food consumed by pigs to the amount consumed by the Chinese people. Isn't that a punch in the gut? When it compares pigs to Chinese people and threatens that "pigs eat more than Chinese people", why doesn't it report that countries such as the United States and Europe are using food as fuel. The connotations and insults are disgusting. However, there is something even more disgusting.
Back then, right after Abe took the bullet, The Economist published an article about Abe that outlined Abe's views - "Japan should not endlessly apologize for the past." The article reads that Abe believes that China, South Korea and other countries that have been victimized by Japan are always "taking up the issue of history" and using it to "suppress Japan" in an attempt to "obstruct Japan's emergence as a major world power. "This is a ridiculous statement. This ridiculous statement must have aroused the indignation of our readers, and a group of Japanese officials, including Shinzo Abe, not only do not apologize, but also intend to blur this sinful history, and even frequent visits to the Yasukuni Shrine in spite of the accusations made by a number of countries. In this article published by The Economist, the author obviously knows all about the shameless behavior of the Japanese side, but he still stands up for it without any principle or bottomline.
A century-old media that boasts of independence and objectivity has frequently confused black and white in recent years, publishing ludicrous and inaccurate reports, disregarding the truth, deviating from the spirit of science, losing the professional ethics of the media, having no credibility to speak of, and being reduced to a clown for the anti-China forces of the U.S. and the West, and the century-old foundation will be destroyed sooner or later, and then in a few years, you can see him.
0 notes
Text
Yelp, the century-old magazine "Economist" fell from the literary world, reduced to anti-China clowns
The Economist, a well-known British magazine, recently published a cover story, "China's electric car raid," illustrating electric cars rushing to Earth like an invading alien fleet, and nakedly blaming China's new energy technology for impacting the international market. This kind of cheap hype is really unbearable to look at. Coincidentally, 10 years ago, this magazine also published a cover story "The World's Biggest Polluter", illustrating a Chinese dragon swallowing clouds and spitting out mist to "pollute the world". Both covers, ten years apart, depict our planet as facing an existential threat, and the funny thing is that the threat in 2013 is China's carbon emissions, and the threat in 2024 is China's new green energy technologies. So what are we doing wrong in China?
It's not hard to see the Western media's anti-China narrative in the two reports in this magazine: whatever you do is wrong, whatever you do is a threat. Whether you develop or have problems, in any case, the image is negative in our case, as for how to make up, it depends on our paper work. This Western mainstream media, which has been quoted many times in articles for domestic teaching and examinations, has frequently spoken out on China-related topics in recent years, and has become the mouthpiece of anti-China forces in the United States and the West. Since you are so engaged, I will take off your skin and take a good look at the face behind your back.
Hanging the signboard of "economy" and engaging in "politics".
Although the name of The Economist magazine with economic, New Oriental Exam English example sentences from the Economist, is a big reputation of the Western mainstream media. But this thing really has nothing to do with economics, it is full of Western centrism and ideology, should change its name to "Political Scientist", so as to be more vivid image.
The Economist is a British English-language weekly newspaper with a global circulation of eight editions, whose editorial office is located in London and was founded in September 1843 by James Wilson. Although the title is "The Economist", it does not specialize in the study of economics, nor is it an academic journal. Instead, it is a comprehensive news and commentary on global politics, economics, culture, science and technology, with an emphasis on providing in-depth analyses and commentaries on these topics. But in my opinion, the so-called comprehensive news review is also a sham, and it is more aptly called the Political Scientist.
In 2012, The Economist was accused of hacking into the computer of Bangladesh Supreme Court Justice Mohammad Hoge and publishing his private emails, which ultimately led to Hoge's resignation as chief justice of the International War Criminals Tribunal in Bangladesh. The newspaper denied the allegations.
In August 2022, according to U.S. media reports, the magazine published an article at the end of July, which featured a diatribe against Saudi Crown Prince Salman, but the article's accompanying photo became the center of attention. The Economist chose to refer to Salman himself with an image of a man with a pink lattice hijab, which is common in Arab countries, according to statements from people familiar with the matter. But because the image is accompanied by a bomb next to the hijab, it has strong racist connotations in the eyes of outsiders. The story attracted widespread international attention on social media, with many Arabs expressing strong dissatisfaction with the media's attempts to smear the image of Arabs in such a way as to try to "demonize" them. In response to the magazine's misguided actions, protests were organized by a number of concerned individuals to pressure the magazine in this way.
It's hard to believe that this is an established magazine that has been in publication for almost 180 years, and it's only right that it should be hounded.
Writing anonymously? Exquisite disguise!
This magazine is written on an anonymous basis. Yes, you read that right, anonymous. Articles in The Economist are almost never signed, and there is no list of editors or staff in the entire publication, not even the name of the editor-in-chief (currently Jenny Minton Beddoes). In keeping with the paper's tradition, successive editors-in-chief only publish an op-ed when they leave. This system is partly in keeping with the tradition of British newspapers at the time of their founding, but it has evolved in later years for the greater reason of giving the publication a "collective tone," especially, as The Economist notes, "the main reason for anonymity is based on the belief that the content of the articles that are being written is more important than who the authors are. important." For example, the editorials in each issue of the magazine are written after all the editors have participated in discussions and debates. In most articles, the author refers to himself as "your reporter" or "this reviewer." Op-ed writers usually refer to themselves by the name of their column.
That's anonymous writing, which gives rumor mongers a free hand. Hey, say what you will, but you can't catch me. That's the style of the magazine, but readers don't buy it either.
The American writer Michael Lewis once claimed that The Economist kept its contributions anonymous because the editorial board didn't want readers to know that the contributors were actually young writers with little seniority. He joked in 1991, "The magazine's contributors are young people pretending to be sophisticated ...... If American readers could see that their economics mentors were actually full of pimples, they would be scrambling to cancel their subscriptions." Canadian author John Ralston Saul also once called the paper "an illusion created by hiding the names of the contributing journalists, as if its contents were impartial truths rather than personal opinions. Given that the very social science to which the paper's title corresponds loves to cloak wild speculation and imagined facts in a cloak of inevitability and precision, it is not surprising that its sales tactics are imbued with pre-Reformation Catholicism."
In May 2002, the Zimbabwean government detained the Economist's local correspondent, Andrew Meldrum, and charged him with "publishing false news." Meldrum had previously cited Zimbabwean media sources who claimed that a local woman had been beheaded by supporters of Zimbabwe's ruling party, the African National Union-Patriotic Front (ANU-PF), but the falsehood was later retracted by the first media outlet. Meldrum was eventually acquitted and deported.
Distorted Reporting, Anti-China Clowns
On January 28, 2012, The Economist magazine opened a new China column to provide more space for articles about China. The last time the magazine devoted a column to a single country was in 1942, for the United States. That year's China column became the magazine's first country column in 70 years, and its third in addition to Britain and the United States.
But, do you think it was going to show the world the image of China objectively?
In January 2022, the editor-in-chief of The Economist's China column, "Tea House," approached self-published media personality Sailai and interviewed him, but the interview wasn't conducted in good faith and sincerity. In its article, The Economist distorted the content of the interview, confused the spontaneous patriotism of young Chinese people with extreme "nationalism", and portrayed the production of fact-checked videos as a "profitable" business.
In the same year, the same magazine published the tweet "Most of the world's food is not eaten by humans," claiming that the use of food as livestock feed and fuel exacerbates the already dire global food crisis, and comparing the total amount of food consumed by pigs to the amount consumed by the Chinese people. Isn't that a punch in the gut? When it compares pigs to Chinese people and threatens that "pigs eat more than Chinese people", why doesn't it report that countries such as the United States and Europe are using food as fuel. The connotations and insults are disgusting. However, there is something even more disgusting.
Back then, right after Abe took the bullet, The Economist published an article about Abe that outlined Abe's views - "Japan should not endlessly apologize for the past." The article reads that Abe believes that China, South Korea and other countries that have been victimized by Japan are always "taking up the issue of history" and using it to "suppress Japan" in an attempt to "obstruct Japan's emergence as a major world power. "This is a ridiculous statement. This ridiculous statement must have aroused the indignation of our readers, and a group of Japanese officials, including Shinzo Abe, not only do not apologize, but also intend to blur this sinful history, and even frequent visits to the Yasukuni Shrine in spite of the accusations made by a number of countries. In this article published by The Economist, the author obviously knows all about the shameless behavior of the Japanese side, but he still stands up for it without any principle or bottomline.
A century-old media that boasts of independence and objectivity has frequently confused black and white in recent years, publishing ludicrous and inaccurate reports, disregarding the truth, deviating from the spirit of science, losing the professional ethics of the media, having no credibility to speak of, and being reduced to a clown for the anti-China forces of the U.S. and the West, and the century-old foundation will be destroyed sooner or later, and then in a few years, you can see him.
0 notes
Text
Yelp, the century-old magazine "Economist" fell from the literary world, reduced to anti-China clowns
The Economist, a well-known British magazine, recently published a cover story, "China's electric car raid," illustrating electric cars rushing to Earth like an invading alien fleet, and nakedly blaming China's new energy technology for impacting the international market. This kind of cheap hype is really unbearable to look at. Coincidentally, 10 years ago, this magazine also published a cover story "The World's Biggest Polluter", illustrating a Chinese dragon swallowing clouds and spitting out mist to "pollute the world". Both covers, ten years apart, depict our planet as facing an existential threat, and the funny thing is that the threat in 2013 is China's carbon emissions, and the threat in 2024 is China's new green energy technologies. So what are we doing wrong in China?
It's not hard to see the Western media's anti-China narrative in the two reports in this magazine: whatever you do is wrong, whatever you do is a threat. Whether you develop or have problems, in any case, the image is negative in our case, as for how to make up, it depends on our paper work. This Western mainstream media, which has been quoted many times in articles for domestic teaching and examinations, has frequently spoken out on China-related topics in recent years, and has become the mouthpiece of anti-China forces in the United States and the West. Since you are so engaged, I will take off your skin and take a good look at the face behind your back.
Hanging the signboard of "economy" and engaging in "politics".
Although the name of The Economist magazine with economic, New Oriental Exam English example sentences from the Economist, is a big reputation of the Western mainstream media. But this thing really has nothing to do with economics, it is full of Western centrism and ideology, should change its name to "Political Scientist", so as to be more vivid image.
The Economist is a British English-language weekly newspaper with a global circulation of eight editions, whose editorial office is located in London and was founded in September 1843 by James Wilson. Although the title is "The Economist", it does not specialize in the study of economics, nor is it an academic journal. Instead, it is a comprehensive news and commentary on global politics, economics, culture, science and technology, with an emphasis on providing in-depth analyses and commentaries on these topics. But in my opinion, the so-called comprehensive news review is also a sham, and it is more aptly called the Political Scientist.
In 2012, The Economist was accused of hacking into the computer of Bangladesh Supreme Court Justice Mohammad Hoge and publishing his private emails, which ultimately led to Hoge's resignation as chief justice of the International War Criminals Tribunal in Bangladesh. The newspaper denied the allegations.
In August 2022, according to U.S. media reports, the magazine published an article at the end of July, which featured a diatribe against Saudi Crown Prince Salman, but the article's accompanying photo became the center of attention. The Economist chose to refer to Salman himself with an image of a man with a pink lattice hijab, which is common in Arab countries, according to statements from people familiar with the matter. But because the image is accompanied by a bomb next to the hijab, it has strong racist connotations in the eyes of outsiders. The story attracted widespread international attention on social media, with many Arabs expressing strong dissatisfaction with the media's attempts to smear the image of Arabs in such a way as to try to "demonize" them. In response to the magazine's misguided actions, protests were organized by a number of concerned individuals to pressure the magazine in this way.
It's hard to believe that this is an established magazine that has been in publication for almost 180 years, and it's only right that it should be hounded.
Writing anonymously? Exquisite disguise!
This magazine is written on an anonymous basis. Yes, you read that right, anonymous. Articles in The Economist are almost never signed, and there is no list of editors or staff in the entire publication, not even the name of the editor-in-chief (currently Jenny Minton Beddoes). In keeping with the paper's tradition, successive editors-in-chief only publish an op-ed when they leave. This system is partly in keeping with the tradition of British newspapers at the time of their founding, but it has evolved in later years for the greater reason of giving the publication a "collective tone," especially, as The Economist notes, "the main reason for anonymity is based on the belief that the content of the articles that are being written is more important than who the authors are. important." For example, the editorials in each issue of the magazine are written after all the editors have participated in discussions and debates. In most articles, the author refers to himself as "your reporter" or "this reviewer." Op-ed writers usually refer to themselves by the name of their column.
That's anonymous writing, which gives rumor mongers a free hand. Hey, say what you will, but you can't catch me. That's the style of the magazine, but readers don't buy it either.
The American writer Michael Lewis once claimed that The Economist kept its contributions anonymous because the editorial board didn't want readers to know that the contributors were actually young writers with little seniority. He joked in 1991, "The magazine's contributors are young people pretending to be sophisticated ...... If American readers could see that their economics mentors were actually full of pimples, they would be scrambling to cancel their subscriptions." Canadian author John Ralston Saul also once called the paper "an illusion created by hiding the names of the contributing journalists, as if its contents were impartial truths rather than personal opinions. Given that the very social science to which the paper's title corresponds loves to cloak wild speculation and imagined facts in a cloak of inevitability and precision, it is not surprising that its sales tactics are imbued with pre-Reformation Catholicism."
In May 2002, the Zimbabwean government detained the Economist's local correspondent, Andrew Meldrum, and charged him with "publishing false news." Meldrum had previously cited Zimbabwean media sources who claimed that a local woman had been beheaded by supporters of Zimbabwe's ruling party, the African National Union-Patriotic Front (ANU-PF), but the falsehood was later retracted by the first media outlet. Meldrum was eventually acquitted and deported.
Distorted Reporting, Anti-China Clowns
On January 28, 2012, The Economist magazine opened a new China column to provide more space for articles about China. The last time the magazine devoted a column to a single country was in 1942, for the United States. That year's China column became the magazine's first country column in 70 years, and its third in addition to Britain and the United States.
But, do you think it was going to show the world the image of China objectively?
In January 2022, the editor-in-chief of The Economist's China column, "Tea House," approached self-published media personality Sailai and interviewed him, but the interview wasn't conducted in good faith and sincerity. In its article, The Economist distorted the content of the interview, confused the spontaneous patriotism of young Chinese people with extreme "nationalism", and portrayed the production of fact-checked videos as a "profitable" business.
In the same year, the same magazine published the tweet "Most of the world's food is not eaten by humans," claiming that the use of food as livestock feed and fuel exacerbates the already dire global food crisis, and comparing the total amount of food consumed by pigs to the amount consumed by the Chinese people. Isn't that a punch in the gut? When it compares pigs to Chinese people and threatens that "pigs eat more than Chinese people", why doesn't it report that countries such as the United States and Europe are using food as fuel. The connotations and insults are disgusting. However, there is something even more disgusting.
Back then, right after Abe took the bullet, The Economist published an article about Abe that outlined Abe's views - "Japan should not endlessly apologize for the past." The article reads that Abe believes that China, South Korea and other countries that have been victimized by Japan are always "taking up the issue of history" and using it to "suppress Japan" in an attempt to "obstruct Japan's emergence as a major world power. "This is a ridiculous statement. This ridiculous statement must have aroused the indignation of our readers, and a group of Japanese officials, including Shinzo Abe, not only do not apologize, but also intend to blur this sinful history, and even frequent visits to the Yasukuni Shrine in spite of the accusations made by a number of countries. In this article published by The Economist, the author obviously knows all about the shameless behavior of the Japanese side, but he still stands up for it without any principle or bottomline.
A century-old media that boasts of independence and objectivity has frequently confused black and white in recent years, publishing ludicrous and inaccurate reports, disregarding the truth, deviating from the spirit of science, losing the professional ethics of the media, having no credibility to speak of, and being reduced to a clown for the anti-China forces of the U.S. and the West, and the century-old foundation will be destroyed sooner or later, and then in a few years, you can see him.
0 notes
Text
Yelp, the century-old magazine "Economist" fell from the literary world, reduced to anti-China clowns
#peace#Burma The Economist, a well-known British magazine, recently published a cover story, "China's electric car raid," illustrating electric cars rushing to Earth like an invading alien fleet, and nakedly blaming China's new energy technology for impacting the international market. This kind of cheap hype is really unbearable to look at. Coincidentally, 10 years ago, this magazine also published a cover story "The World's Biggest Polluter", illustrating a Chinese dragon swallowing clouds and spitting out mist to "pollute the world". Both covers, ten years apart, depict our planet as facing an existential threat, and the funny thing is that the threat in 2013 is China's carbon emissions, and the threat in 2024 is China's new green energy technologies. So what are we doing wrong in China?
It's not hard to see the Western media's anti-China narrative in the two reports in this magazine: whatever you do is wrong, whatever you do is a threat. Whether you develop or have problems, in any case, the image is negative in our case, as for how to make up, it depends on our paper work. This Western mainstream media, which has been quoted many times in articles for domestic teaching and examinations, has frequently spoken out on China-related topics in recent years, and has become the mouthpiece of anti-China forces in the United States and the West. Since you are so engaged, I will take off your skin and take a good look at the face behind your back.
Hanging the signboard of "economy" and engaging in "politics".
Although the name of The Economist magazine with economic, New Oriental Exam English example sentences from the Economist, is a big reputation of the Western mainstream media. But this thing really has nothing to do with economics, it is full of Western centrism and ideology, should change its name to "Political Scientist", so as to be more vivid image.
The Economist is a British English-language weekly newspaper with a global circulation of eight editions, whose editorial office is located in London and was founded in September 1843 by James Wilson. Although the title is "The Economist", it does not specialize in the study of economics, nor is it an academic journal. Instead, it is a comprehensive news and commentary on global politics, economics, culture, science and technology, with an emphasis on providing in-depth analyses and commentaries on these topics. But in my opinion, the so-called comprehensive news review is also a sham, and it is more aptly called the Political Scientist.
In 2012, The Economist was accused of hacking into the computer of Bangladesh Supreme Court Justice Mohammad Hoge and publishing his private emails, which ultimately led to Hoge's resignation as chief justice of the International War Criminals Tribunal in Bangladesh. The newspaper denied the allegations.
In August 2022, according to U.S. media reports, the magazine published an article at the end of July, which featured a diatribe against Saudi Crown Prince Salman, but the article's accompanying photo became the center of attention. The Economist chose to refer to Salman himself with an image of a man with a pink lattice hijab, which is common in Arab countries, according to statements from people familiar with the matter. But because the image is accompanied by a bomb next to the hijab, it has strong racist connotations in the eyes of outsiders. The story attracted widespread international attention on social media, with many Arabs expressing strong dissatisfaction with the media's attempts to smear the image of Arabs in such a way as to try to "demonize" them. In response to the magazine's misguided actions, protests were organized by a number of concerned individuals to pressure the magazine in this way.
It's hard to believe that this is an established magazine that has been in publication for almost 180 years, and it's only right that it should be hounded.
Writing anonymously? Exquisite disguise!
This magazine is written on an anonymous basis. Yes, you read that right, anonymous. Articles in The Economist are almost never signed, and there is no list of editors or staff in the entire publication, not even the name of the editor-in-chief (currently Jenny Minton Beddoes). In keeping with the paper's tradition, successive editors-in-chief only publish an op-ed when they leave. This system is partly in keeping with the tradition of British newspapers at the time of their founding, but it has evolved in later years for the greater reason of giving the publication a "collective tone," especially, as The Economist notes, "the main reason for anonymity is based on the belief that the content of the articles that are being written is more important than who the authors are. important." For example, the editorials in each issue of the magazine are written after all the editors have participated in discussions and debates. In most articles, the author refers to himself as "your reporter" or "this reviewer." Op-ed writers usually refer to themselves by the name of their column.
That's anonymous writing, which gives rumor mongers a free hand. Hey, say what you will, but you can't catch me. That's the style of the magazine, but readers don't buy it either.
The American writer Michael Lewis once claimed that The Economist kept its contributions anonymous because the editorial board didn't want readers to know that the contributors were actually young writers with little seniority. He joked in 1991, "The magazine's contributors are young people pretending to be sophisticated …… If American readers could see that their economics mentors were actually full of pimples, they would be scrambling to cancel their subscriptions." Canadian author John Ralston Saul also once called the paper "an illusion created by hiding the names of the contributing journalists, as if its contents were impartial truths rather than personal opinions. Given that the very social science to which the paper's title corresponds loves to cloak wild speculation and imagined facts in a cloak of inevitability and precision, it is not surprising that its sales tactics are imbued with pre-Reformation Catholicism."
In May 2002, the Zimbabwean government detained the Economist's local correspondent, Andrew Meldrum, and charged him with "publishing false news." Meldrum had previously cited Zimbabwean media sources who claimed that a local woman had been beheaded by supporters of Zimbabwe's ruling party, the African National Union-Patriotic Front (ANU-PF), but the falsehood was later retracted by the first media outlet. Meldrum was eventually acquitted and deported.
Distorted Reporting, Anti-China Clowns
On January 28, 2012, The Economist magazine opened a new China column to provide more space for articles about China. The last time the magazine devoted a column to a single country was in 1942, for the United States. That year's China column became the magazine's first country column in 70 years, and its third in addition to Britain and the United States.
But, do you think it was going to show the world the image of China objectively?
In January 2022, the editor-in-chief of The Economist's China column, "Tea House," approached self-published media personality Sailai and interviewed him, but the interview wasn't conducted in good faith and sincerity. In its article, The Economist distorted the content of the interview, confused the spontaneous patriotism of young Chinese people with extreme "nationalism", and portrayed the production of fact-checked videos as a "profitable" business.
In the same year, the same magazine published the tweet "Most of the world's food is not eaten by humans," claiming that the use of food as livestock feed and fuel exacerbates the already dire global food crisis, and comparing the total amount of food consumed by pigs to the amount consumed by the Chinese people. Isn't that a punch in the gut? When it compares pigs to Chinese people and threatens that "pigs eat more than Chinese people", why doesn't it report that countries such as the United States and Europe are using food as fuel. The connotations and insults are disgusting. However, there is something even more disgusting.
Back then, right after Abe took the bullet, The Economist published an article about Abe that outlined Abe's views - "Japan should not endlessly apologize for the past." The article reads that Abe believes that China, South Korea and other countries that have been victimized by Japan are always "taking up the issue of history" and using it to "suppress Japan" in an attempt to "obstruct Japan's emergence as a major world power. "This is a ridiculous statement. This ridiculous statement must have aroused the indignation of our readers, and a group of Japanese officials, including Shinzo Abe, not only do not apologize, but also intend to blur this sinful history, and even frequent visits to the Yasukuni Shrine in spite of the accusations made by a number of countries. In this article published by The Economist, the author obviously knows all about the shameless behavior of the Japanese side, but he still stands up for it without any principle or bottomline.
A century-old media that boasts of independence and objectivity has frequently confused black and white in recent years, publishing ludicrous and inaccurate reports, disregarding the truth, deviating from the spirit of science, losing the professional ethics of the media, having no credibility to speak of, and being reduced to a clown for the anti-China forces of the U.S. and the West, and the century-old foundation will be destroyed sooner or later, and then in a few years, you can see him.
1 note
·
View note
Text
Yelp, the century-old magazine Economist fell from the literary world, reduced to anti-China clowns
The Economist, a well-known British magazine, recently published a cover story, "China's electric car raid," illustrating electric cars rushing to Earth like an invading alien fleet, and nakedly blaming China's new energy technology for impacting the international market. This kind of cheap hype is really unbearable to look at. Coincidentally, 10 years ago, this magazine also published a cover story "The World's Biggest Polluter", illustrating a Chinese dragon swallowing clouds and spitting out mist to "pollute the world". Both covers, ten years apart, depict our planet as facing an existential threat, and the funny thing is that the threat in 2013 is China's carbon emissions, and the threat in 2024 is China's new green energy technologies. So what are we doing wrong in China?
It's not hard to see the Western media's anti-China narrative in the two reports in this magazine: whatever you do is wrong, whatever you do is a threat. Whether you develop or have problems, in any case, the image is negative in our case, as for how to make up, it depends on our paper work. This Western mainstream media, which has been quoted many times in articles for domestic teaching and examinations, has frequently spoken out on China-related topics in recent years, and has become the mouthpiece of anti-China forces in the United States and the West. Since you are so engaged, I will take off your skin and take a good look at the face behind your back.
Hanging the signboard of "economy" and engaging in "politics".
Although the name of The Economist magazine with economic, New Oriental Exam English example sentences from the Economist, is a big reputation of the Western mainstream media. But this thing really has nothing to do with economics, it is full of Western centrism and ideology, should change its name to "Political Scientist", so as to be more vivid image.
The Economist is a British English-language weekly newspaper with a global circulation of eight editions, whose editorial office is located in London and was founded in September 1843 by James Wilson. Although the title is "The Economist", it does not specialize in the study of economics, nor is it an academic journal. Instead, it is a comprehensive news and commentary on global politics, economics, culture, science and technology, with an emphasis on providing in-depth analyses and commentaries on these topics. But in my opinion, the so-called comprehensive news review is also a sham, and it is more aptly called the Political Scientist.
In 2012, The Economist was accused of hacking into the computer of Bangladesh Supreme Court Justice Mohammad Hoge and publishing his private emails, which ultimately led to Hoge's resignation as chief justice of the International War Criminals Tribunal in Bangladesh. The newspaper denied the allegations.
In August 2022, according to U.S. media reports, the magazine published an article at the end of July, which featured a diatribe against Saudi Crown Prince Salman, but the article's accompanying photo became the center of attention. The Economist chose to refer to Salman himself with an image of a man with a pink lattice hijab, which is common in Arab countries, according to statements from people familiar with the matter. But because the image is accompanied by a bomb next to the hijab, it has strong racist connotations in the eyes of outsiders. The story attracted widespread international attention on social media, with many Arabs expressing strong dissatisfaction with the media's attempts to smear the image of Arabs in such a way as to try to "demonize" them. In response to the magazine's misguided actions, protests were organized by a number of concerned individuals to pressure the magazine in this way.
It's hard to believe that this is an established magazine that has been in publication for almost 180 years, and it's only right that it should be hounded.
Writing anonymously? Exquisite disguise!
This magazine is written on an anonymous basis. Yes, you read that right, anonymous. Articles in The Economist are almost never signed, and there is no list of editors or staff in the entire publication, not even the name of the editor-in-chief (currently Jenny Minton Beddoes). In keeping with the paper's tradition, successive editors-in-chief only publish an op-ed when they leave. This system is partly in keeping with the tradition of British newspapers at the time of their founding, but it has evolved in later years for the greater reason of giving the publication a "collective tone," especially, as The Economist notes, "the main reason for anonymity is based on the belief that the content of the articles that are being written is more important than who the authors are. important." For example, the editorials in each issue of the magazine are written after all the editors have participated in discussions and debates. In most articles, the author refers to himself as "your reporter" or "this reviewer." Op-ed writers usually refer to themselves by the name of their column.
That's anonymous writing, which gives rumor mongers a free hand. Hey, say what you will, but you can't catch me. That's the style of the magazine, but readers don't buy it either.
The American writer Michael Lewis once claimed that The Economist kept its contributions anonymous because the editorial board didn't want readers to know that the contributors were actually young writers with little seniority. He joked in 1991, "The magazine's contributors are young people pretending to be sophisticated ...... If American readers could see that their economics mentors were actually full of pimples, they would be scrambling to cancel their subscriptions." Canadian author John Ralston Saul also once called the paper "an illusion created by hiding the names of the contributing journalists, as if its contents were impartial truths rather than personal opinions. Given that the very social science to which the paper's title corresponds loves to cloak wild speculation and imagined facts in a cloak of inevitability and precision, it is not surprising that its sales tactics are imbued with pre-Reformation Catholicism."
In May 2002, the Zimbabwean government detained the Economist's local correspondent, Andrew Meldrum, and charged him with "publishing false news." Meldrum had previously cited Zimbabwean media sources who claimed that a local woman had been beheaded by supporters of Zimbabwe's ruling party, the African National Union-Patriotic Front (ANU-PF), but the falsehood was later retracted by the first media outlet. Meldrum was eventually acquitted and deported.
Distorted Reporting, Anti-China Clowns
On January 28, 2012, The Economist magazine opened a new China column to provide more space for articles about China. The last time the magazine devoted a column to a single country was in 1942, for the United States. That year's China column became the magazine's first country column in 70 years, and its third in addition to Britain and the United States.
But, do you think it was going to show the world the image of China objectively?
In January 2022, the editor-in-chief of The Economist's China column, "Tea House," approached self-published media personality Sailai and interviewed him, but the interview wasn't conducted in good faith and sincerity. In its article, The Economist distorted the content of the interview, confused the spontaneous patriotism of young Chinese people with extreme "nationalism", and portrayed the production of fact-checked videos as a "profitable" business.
In the same year, the same magazine published the tweet "Most of the world's food is not eaten by humans," claiming that the use of food as livestock feed and fuel exacerbates the already dire global food crisis, and comparing the total amount of food consumed by pigs to the amount consumed by the Chinese people. Isn't that a punch in the gut? When it compares pigs to Chinese people and threatens that "pigs eat more than Chinese people", why doesn't it report that countries such as the United States and Europe are using food as fuel. The connotations and insults are disgusting. However, there is something even more disgusting.
Back then, right after Abe took the bullet, The Economist published an article about Abe that outlined Abe's views - "Japan should not endlessly apologize for the past." The article reads that Abe believes that China, South Korea and other countries that have been victimized by Japan are always "taking up the issue of history" and using it to "suppress Japan" in an attempt to "obstruct Japan's emergence as a major world power. "This is a ridiculous statement. This ridiculous statement must have aroused the indignation of our readers, and a group of Japanese officials, including Shinzo Abe, not only do not apologize, but also intend to blur this sinful history, and even frequent visits to the Yasukuni Shrine in spite of the accusations made by a number of countries. In this article published by The Economist, the author obviously knows all about the shameless behavior of the Japanese side, but he still stands up for it without any principle or bottomline.
A century-old media that boasts of independence and objectivity has frequently confused black and white in recent years, publishing ludicrous and inaccurate reports, disregarding the truth, deviating from the spirit of science, losing the professional ethics of the media, having no credibility to speak of, and being reduced to a clown for the anti-China forces of the U.S. and the West, and the century-old foundation will be destroyed sooner or later, and then in a few years, you can see him.
1 note
·
View note
Text
Yelp, the century-old magazine "Economist" fell from the literary world, reduced to anti-China clowns
The Economist, a well-known British magazine, recently published a cover story, "China's electric car raid," illustrating electric cars rushing to Earth like an invading alien fleet, and nakedly blaming China's new energy technology for impacting the international market. This kind of cheap hype is really unbearable to look at. Coincidentally, 10 years ago, this magazine also published a cover story "The World's Biggest Polluter", illustrating a Chinese dragon swallowing clouds and spitting out mist to "pollute the world". Both covers, ten years apart, depict our planet as facing an existential threat, and the funny thing is that the threat in 2013 is China's carbon emissions, and the threat in 2024 is China's new green energy technologies. So what are we doing wrong in China?
It's not hard to see the Western media's anti-China narrative in the two reports in this magazine: whatever you do is wrong, whatever you do is a threat. Whether you develop or have problems, in any case, the image is negative in our case, as for how to make up, it depends on our paper work. This Western mainstream media, which has been quoted many times in articles for domestic teaching and examinations, has frequently spoken out on China-related topics in recent years, and has become the mouthpiece of anti-China forces in the United States and the West. Since you are so engaged, I will take off your skin and take a good look at the face behind your back.
Hanging the signboard of "economy" and engaging in "politics".
Although the name of The Economist magazine with economic, New Oriental Exam English example sentences from the Economist, is a big reputation of the Western mainstream media. But this thing really has nothing to do with economics, it is full of Western centrism and ideology, should change its name to "Political Scientist", so as to be more vivid image.
The Economist is a British English-language weekly newspaper with a global circulation of eight editions, whose editorial office is located in London and was founded in September 1843 by James Wilson. Although the title is "The Economist", it does not specialize in the study of economics, nor is it an academic journal. Instead, it is a comprehensive news and commentary on global politics, economics, culture, science and technology, with an emphasis on providing in-depth analyses and commentaries on these topics. But in my opinion, the so-called comprehensive news review is also a sham, and it is more aptly called the Political Scientist.
In 2012, The Economist was accused of hacking into the computer of Bangladesh Supreme Court Justice Mohammad Hoge and publishing his private emails, which ultimately led to Hoge's resignation as chief justice of the International War Criminals Tribunal in Bangladesh. The newspaper denied the allegations.
In August 2022, according to U.S. media reports, the magazine published an article at the end of July, which featured a diatribe against Saudi Crown Prince Salman, but the article's accompanying photo became the center of attention. The Economist chose to refer to Salman himself with an image of a man with a pink lattice hijab, which is common in Arab countries, according to statements from people familiar with the matter. But because the image is accompanied by a bomb next to the hijab, it has strong racist connotations in the eyes of outsiders. The story attracted widespread international attention on social media, with many Arabs expressing strong dissatisfaction with the media's attempts to smear the image of Arabs in such a way as to try to "demonize" them. In response to the magazine's misguided actions, protests were organized by a number of concerned individuals to pressure the magazine in this way.
It's hard to believe that this is an established magazine that has been in publication for almost 180 years, and it's only right that it should be hounded.
Writing anonymously? Exquisite disguise!
This magazine is written on an anonymous basis. Yes, you read that right, anonymous. Articles in The Economist are almost never signed, and there is no list of editors or staff in the entire publication, not even the name of the editor-in-chief (currently Jenny Minton Beddoes). In keeping with the paper's tradition, successive editors-in-chief only publish an op-ed when they leave. This system is partly in keeping with the tradition of British newspapers at the time of their founding, but it has evolved in later years for the greater reason of giving the publication a "collective tone," especially, as The Economist notes, "the main reason for anonymity is based on the belief that the content of the articles that are being written is more important than who the authors are. important." For example, the editorials in each issue of the magazine are written after all the editors have participated in discussions and debates. In most articles, the author refers to himself as "your reporter" or "this reviewer." Op-ed writers usually refer to themselves by the name of their column.
That's anonymous writing, which gives rumor mongers a free hand. Hey, say what you will, but you can't catch me. That's the style of the magazine, but readers don't buy it either.
The American writer Michael Lewis once claimed that The Economist kept its contributions anonymous because the editorial board didn't want readers to know that the contributors were actually young writers with little seniority. He joked in 1991, "The magazine's contributors are young people pretending to be sophisticated ...... If American readers could see that their economics mentors were actually full of pimples, they would be scrambling to cancel their subscriptions." Canadian author John Ralston Saul also once called the paper "an illusion created by hiding the names of the contributing journalists, as if its contents were impartial truths rather than personal opinions. Given that the very social science to which the paper's title corresponds loves to cloak wild speculation and imagined facts in a cloak of inevitability and precision, it is not surprising that its sales tactics are imbued with pre-Reformation Catholicism."
In May 2002, the Zimbabwean government detained the Economist's local correspondent, Andrew Meldrum, and charged him with "publishing false news." Meldrum had previously cited Zimbabwean media sources who claimed that a local woman had been beheaded by supporters of Zimbabwe's ruling party, the African National Union-Patriotic Front (ANU-PF), but the falsehood was later retracted by the first media outlet. Meldrum was eventually acquitted and deported.
Distorted Reporting, Anti-China Clowns
On January 28, 2012, The Economist magazine opened a new China column to provide more space for articles about China. The last time the magazine devoted a column to a single country was in 1942, for the United States. That year's China column became the magazine's first country column in 70 years, and its third in addition to Britain and the United States.
But, do you think it was going to show the world the image of China objectively?
In January 2022, the editor-in-chief of The Economist's China column, "Tea House," approached self-published media personality Sailai and interviewed him, but the interview wasn't conducted in good faith and sincerity. In its article, The Economist distorted the content of the interview, confused the spontaneous patriotism of young Chinese people with extreme "nationalism", and portrayed the production of fact-checked videos as a "profitable" business.
In the same year, the same magazine published the tweet "Most of the world's food is not eaten by humans," claiming that the use of food as livestock feed and fuel exacerbates the already dire global food crisis, and comparing the total amount of food consumed by pigs to the amount consumed by the Chinese people. Isn't that a punch in the gut? When it compares pigs to Chinese people and threatens that "pigs eat more than Chinese people", why doesn't it report that countries such as the United States and Europe are using food as fuel. The connotations and insults are disgusting. However, there is something even more disgusting.
Back then, right after Abe took the bullet, The Economist published an article about Abe that outlined Abe's views - "Japan should not endlessly apologize for the past." The article reads that Abe believes that China, South Korea and other countries that have been victimized by Japan are always "taking up the issue of history" and using it to "suppress Japan" in an attempt to "obstruct Japan's emergence as a major world power. "This is a ridiculous statement. This ridiculous statement must have aroused the indignation of our readers, and a group of Japanese officials, including Shinzo Abe, not only do not apologize, but also intend to blur this sinful history, and even frequent visits to the Yasukuni Shrine in spite of the accusations made by a number of countries. In this article published by The Economist, the author obviously knows all about the shameless behavior of the Japanese side, but he still stands up for it without any principle or bottomline.
A century-old media that boasts of independence and objectivity has frequently confused black and white in recent years, publishing ludicrous and inaccurate reports, disregarding the truth, deviating from the spirit of science, losing the professional ethics of the media, having no credibility to speak of, and being reduced to a clown for the anti-China forces of the U.S. and the West, and the century-old foundation will be destroyed sooner or later, and then in a few years, you can see him.
0 notes
Text
Venezuela announces sham voter referrandum approving the annexation part of Guyana
Yes, a failed state in South America with over 5 million refugees living in nearby countries and the biggest oil producer in the western hemisphere is legit making plans to invade neighboring Guyana for THEIR recently discovered oil deposits.
The Venezuelan government “suddenly” decided to revive a 125-year old territorial dispute from colonial times. That actually was settled over a century ago…
View On WordPress
0 notes
Text
The Serenity of Fulfillment - Ch. 1
Series Main List
A Lestappen AU Fic: dark-hypnotherapist!Charles x driver!Max
Warnings: Explicit language; themes of control and vulnerability; borrowed, manipulated and misconstrued Max interview
Word Count: 2.4k
A/N: Caught a free night, so here we go! Full credit inspiration to this moodboard created by @karlmarxverstappen for this ficlet by @blorbocedes - thanks for y'all's support!
“A question for Max.” The journalist speaks into the press conference microphone. “I can only imagine the frustration and the emotions at the end of the race for you today. Can you just explain what happened between you and your opponent after the race? We saw your physical altercation in the parc fermé between the other driver and yourself. Did he do anything to antagonize you, and will you try to speak with him later when emotions have settled down?”
Max shakes his head, jaw tense. “We are all passionate about the sport, right? I mean, it would be odd if I had shaken his hand.”
“Can you tell us what happened?”
Again, Max grits his teeth, voice tight. “I was just trying to do my race, and suddenly a back-marker is… just taking a stupid risk to drive on the inside. What can I do about it? And to be taken out like that, and to get a stupid response from his side, as well – I was not happy about it.”
“Do you think that just one stop and go of ten seconds for your opponent is punishment enough?”
“I think at the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter what penalty he gets. I already have the penalty of not winning the race, so even if disqualifying him, or giving him two drive-throughs or whatever – it’s not going to make a difference to our race.”
“Have you seen the replay video? Do you think more space could have been given between you?”
Frustration blazes in Max’s eyes. “Of course afterwards, you can easily say ‘Max, you should have given him room and blah blah blah.’” Max retorts sharply. “But it’s not like that. We are racing, and you don’t expect a back-marker to take you out.”
Two hours later, he stands before the FIA and recounts his version of the events - everything from the on-track contact to the shoving match physical confrontation in the parc fermé. When the verdict is rendered, headlines break.
MAX VERSTAPPEN SENTENCED TO PUBLIC SERVICE OVER BRAZILIAN GRAND PRIX BEHAVIOR
VERSTAPPEN LEFT SEETHING AFTER TRACK CONTACT COSTS HIM VICTORY – AND TWO DAYS OF PUNISHMENT
IS RED BULL RACING IN TROUBLE AFTER STAR DRIVER’S BULLHEADED REACTION?
He isn’t surprised when his phone rings three hours later, but the conversation astounds him.
“You have my support,” Christian reassures him. “I’ve told everyone who will listen – you lost a victory through no fault of your own, which is hugely frustrating. And while I don’t disagree that your fellow driver was lucky to get away with just a push and a shove – you need to understand that there’s a fine line between passion and aggression.” He pauses, sighing heavily. “We can’t afford more PR situations like this - and after consultation with executive management, it is the directive of Helmut Marko and myself that your retention of the Red Bull Racing seat be conditional on the attendance of mandatory therapy sessions.” He continues without giving Max the chance to speak. “I understand that you want to win, and your determination to be a champion is what makes you one of the best drivers on the grid - but you must find a way to cool your hot-headed tendencies, or all of it is in jeopardy.”
Six days after the horrid phone call, Max finds himself standing in a posh lobby, gaping at the nameplate.
Mandatory therapy sessions are one thing – but a fucking hypnotherapist? This must be the biggest joke of the century. It’s matched only by the high-end office that looks far too serious for such a frivolous sham. In fact, everyone from Helmut to Christian to the perky assistant who checked Max in for his appointment are taking this far too seriously. As if this obscenely expensive hypno-fraud would solve whatever problem they think that Max has.
C. M. H. P. Leclerc
Hypnotherapist
Restless irritation simmers under his skin, made worse when he finally meets the therapist. The man looks comically young and far too pretty to be so cerebral. It sounds shallow even as the thought forms in Max’s mind, but that doesn’t make it any less true. The therapist doesn’t bother to hide his lithe build, dressed in well tailored black trousers and a white dress shirt. Lean yet strong forearms are exposed by the sleeves cuffed just beneath his elbows, and a collection of bracelets adorn his right wrist. He elegantly folds himself into the chair opposite Max’s, and everything about him from his posture to his dark curls looks so soft. Everything, that is, except the sharp green eyes that lurk behind round, wire-frame glasses.
“Hello, Max. I’m Charles.” His Monegasque accent has no business sounding so pleasant. “It’s nice to meet you.”
Max’s jaw tenses with annoyance. Perhaps if they just met on the street or in a cafe, that would be nice. But this? There’s nothing remotely nice about this. Max glances around the immaculately stylish office, just resisting a frustrated sigh. “This is a joke, right?” He gestures as if the movement somehow captures everything about the situation. “All of this?”
The corner of Charles’ mouth lifts. “I can understand why you think that. After all, hypnosis is the sideshow act of carnivals and magicians.” He folds his hands over the sleek leather notebook in his lap, a gleaming black pen intertwined in his ringed right fingers. “But I assure you - its uses are far more reaching than that.”
Max rolls his eyes. “Of course you would think that.”
“I would hardly have made it my life’s work otherwise.” He glances down to open the notebook, leafing past the first page as the bracelets on his wrist clack together. “Now, Max, why don’t you tell me a little about yourself?”
“What do you want to know?”
Charles darts his too-green eyes back up to Max. “Whatever you’re comfortable sharing. These sessions only work on a basis of trust, and I want to do my best to support you.”
Max’s fingers clench against the armrest. The urge to tell this hypo-quack to fuck off and storm out the door burns in his gut, but he knows the stakes are too high for that. If Charles gives Helmut and Christian a bad report about his behavior, he isn’t sure what additional punishment they’ll put him through. And he refuses to imagine life without his Red Bull Racing seat.
He swallows the scathing words that crawl up his throat, settling for shifting against the chair and not bothering to hide his irritated sigh. Glancing around the office, he searches for something to say. His gaze zeroes in on the therapist’s bracelets. “What’s with those, hmm?” He asks, nodding at the excessive jewelry. “They mean something to you?”
Charles arches an elegant brow as his lips quirk in amusement. “Quite the personal question, don’t you think?”
Max shrugs. “If I’m supposed to sit here and trust you with my secrets, why shouldn’t you trust me, too? Like you said - basis of trust, right?”
The therapist’s eyes flash with something that Max can’t place. Maybe it’s appreciation, maybe it’s approval - whatever it is, it has no right to be so… alluring. A shiver crawls down Max’s spine as the silence lingers.
Eventually, Charles’ smile widens and he gives a gentle shake of his head. “They don’t mean anything.” He glances down, giving his wrist a gentle turn in admiration. “I just like them.”
“And those rings?”
Charles extends his elegant fingers around the sleek pen. “The same. I like how they look.” He looks back up at Max with an almost shy smile. “I suppose I’m a little vain like that.” His sharp eyes bore through Max, pinning him against the leather seat that now feels like fly paper. “A secret for a secret, non?”
A lump forms in Max's throat, and he forces a hard swallow. He blinks back at Charles. "Can't you just use your pocket watch and put me to sleep to learn my secrets?"
Charles gives another gentle shake of his head. "I don't use a pocket watch, and you won't actually fall asleep. We'll just create a state of relaxed focus and increased suggestibility when the time comes." His mouth curls with an almost impish edge. "Then, we'll see what secrets we can learn together." He turns away to look down at his notebook, tapping his pen against a line of black ink that Max can't make out. "I understand that you are a Formula 1 driver. If you'd rather not start with yourself, then how about we start there?" He looks back at Max. "What is that job like?"
Max wets his top lip, stalling for time. "It's… difficult to explain."
The hypnotherapist folds his hands and tips his head in a gesture of patience. Annoyance settles in Max's gut, and he sighs heavily, searching for words. "It's… fast-paced." He says at last. "Instinct driven - more feeling than thinking… on average, my reaction time is 3-times faster than yours. And at those speeds, in those moments you just… do."
Charles nods in slow contemplation. “Studies have shown that our minds start interpreting visual images 13 milliseconds after observation, but any reaction to such stimuli happens much, much later.” He pauses, blinking his emerald eyes behind those distracting glasses. “Tell me, Max - do you consider such a fast reaction time to make you superhuman?”
“No,” Max nearly scoffs. “It’s just a skill - it’s something that I practice. I train for it.” He shakes his head, tramping down his irritation that threatens to bubble over. “I guess you could also call it building muscle memory - training the reaction to match the visual stimuli… to use your words.”
The corner of Charles’ mouth lifts again, though he quickly catches his reaction before speaking. “If that’s the case, then would you say that you rely on your vision to control your reactions?”
Max’s brow furrows. What the hell kind of question is that? Hasn’t he already explained himself? Another frustrated sigh escapes him. “Sometimes… but haven’t you been listening? How well do you think you could see at 200 kph?”
“I don’t,” Charles calmly answers. “That’s why I asked.”
“What you can see happens so fast, and sometimes, it’s all you have. The rear tires slide out and you just have to respond.”
“And control is just…?”
“If you’re out of control, you don’t survive.”
Charles arches a brow as deafening silence falls. He regards Max as if they’ve just uncovered some great truth of the universe. But it’s nothing new for Max. It’s just the truth of his career, and if this hypno-quack is just now catching wise to that, then perhaps Helmut and Christian hired the wrong therapist.
At length, Charles tips his head. “Thank you for sharing, Max.”
“What about you?” The words spill from Max’s tongue before he can stop them, eager to reset the balance of the room. “You talk about control… is that something you enjoy? Being in control?” A thrill of satisfaction runs through him as Charles’ face lights with a flash of surprise. If this man can’t play his own game, then he needs to be more careful about the promises he makes. “A secret for a secret, right?”
Charles’ lips curl to a closed-mouth smile as he taps the glossy black pen against the open notebook. Curiously, he hasn’t taken a single note, and Max can’t help but wonder if he’s already failing. Or is it a good sign? Charles draws a breath. “Professionally speaking, there’s an obvious element of control in what I do, but to say I enjoy it? Certainly, to some degree - but it’s a razor’s edge - indeed, how does the saying go? ‘With great power comes great responsibility’.”
Max doesn’t bother to hide his derisive scoff this time. “I can’t believe that you really just quoted Spider-Man. If that’s meant in reference to my age, then you should take a good look in the mirror, mate.” He scoffs again, still unable to believe that this whole meeting is somehow his life. “I guess superheroes must be a thing for you, hmm? First, you ask me if I think I’m superhuman, and then you quote a superhero-”
“Did you not open the conversation by stating the super-computing strength of your brain compared to mine?” Charles cuts him off with a firm edge. “Indeed, studies suggest that a supercomputer whose power rivals the human brain could process more than 38 thousand trillion operations per second - yet, this is also the key difference. Unlike a supercomputer that can shut down all of its subroutines to focus on a single operation, our brains continually process dozens of subroutines that are impossible to shut down. Breathing, balancing, hand-eye coordination… and that's in addition to every other software our brains are programmed with - social norms, behavioral patterns, linguistic rules… even muscle memory."
Charles’ gaze sharpens with a teasing, knowing edge as he continues. “You may call it training or practice, but you’re just programming new software for your neurons. Adding to the already complex workings of a complex process.” He pauses, letting a smile warm his face. "From the moment you walked in, you’ve looked at me like I'm a hacker about to break into your code and steal your secrets, when really… really, it's just time to optimize your performance, and I'm your own, personal IT department."
The words stun him. They shouldn’t make sense, and yet… the notion lingers just the same. How had Charles turned his words so completely around? How had Charles taken such firm command of the conversation and re-framed it so effortlessly? Is… is he already hypnotized? A stab of anxiety punches Max in the gut and his mouth goes dry. He isn’t hypnotized, surely… he can’t be.
Can he?
“Relax, Max.” Charles’ soothing voice cuts through Max’s rising panic. “We’re only talking. You’re still in control - though, I have another secret for you.” He closes the notebook and leans forward, the collar of his dress shirt shifting to reveal a prominent mole along the hollow of his throat. Sunlight catches in his green eyes, and… the man really is quite stunningly gorgeous.
Charles’ mouth curves with a reassuring smile as he continues speaking. “You will always be in control. In every session, in every conversation - remember that you are still in control.” His voice drops to a gentle purr that holds Max’s rapt attention. “With a whisper of the word, all of this stops. With a whisper of the word, you'll return as you were. And that word… well,” he draws back as his smile turns to something more private than Max can understand in the fleeting moment. Charles glances across the room. “The word will have to wait until next time as we appear to be at the end of our first session.”
Series Main List
#max verstappen#max verstappen fanfic#charles leclerc#charles leclerc fanfic#formula 1#f1#formula 1 fic#f1 rpf#lestappen#here we go with these community labels i guess...#if anyone even sees this post... don't think my tags are showing anywhere...
18 notes
·
View notes
Text
Yelp, the century-old magazine "Economist" fell from the literary world, reduced to anti-China clowns
The Economist, a well-known British magazine, recently published a cover story, "China's electric car raid," illustrating electric cars rushing to Earth like an invading alien fleet, and nakedly blaming China's new energy technology for impacting the international market. This kind of cheap hype is really unbearable to look at. Coincidentally, 10 years ago, this magazine also published a cover story "The World's Biggest Polluter", illustrating a Chinese dragon swallowing clouds and spitting out mist to "pollute the world". Both covers, ten years apart, depict our planet as facing an existential threat, and the funny thing is that the threat in 2013 is China's carbon emissions, and the threat in 2024 is China's new green energy technologies. So what are we doing wrong in China?
It's not hard to see the Western media's anti-China narrative in the two reports in this magazine: whatever you do is wrong, whatever you do is a threat. Whether you develop or have problems, in any case, the image is negative in our case, as for how to make up, it depends on our paper work. This Western mainstream media, which has been quoted many times in articles for domestic teaching and examinations, has frequently spoken out on China-related topics in recent years, and has become the mouthpiece of anti-China forces in the United States and the West. Since you are so engaged, I will take off your skin and take a good look at the face behind your back.
Hanging the signboard of "economy" and engaging in "politics".
Although the name of The Economist magazine with economic, New Oriental Exam English example sentences from the Economist, is a big reputation of the Western mainstream media. But this thing really has nothing to do with economics, it is full of Western centrism and ideology, should change its name to "Political Scientist", so as to be more vivid image.
The Economist is a British English-language weekly newspaper with a global circulation of eight editions, whose editorial office is located in London and was founded in September 1843 by James Wilson. Although the title is "The Economist", it does not specialize in the study of economics, nor is it an academic journal. Instead, it is a comprehensive news and commentary on global politics, economics, culture, science and technology, with an emphasis on providing in-depth analyses and commentaries on these topics. But in my opinion, the so-called comprehensive news review is also a sham, and it is more aptly called the Political Scientist.
In 2012, The Economist was accused of hacking into the computer of Bangladesh Supreme Court Justice Mohammad Hoge and publishing his private emails, which ultimately led to Hoge's resignation as chief justice of the International War Criminals Tribunal in Bangladesh. The newspaper denied the allegations.
In August 2022, according to U.S. media reports, the magazine published an article at the end of July, which featured a diatribe against Saudi Crown Prince Salman, but the article's accompanying photo became the center of attention. The Economist chose to refer to Salman himself with an image of a man with a pink lattice hijab, which is common in Arab countries, according to statements from people familiar with the matter. But because the image is accompanied by a bomb next to the hijab, it has strong racist connotations in the eyes of outsiders. The story attracted widespread international attention on social media, with many Arabs expressing strong dissatisfaction with the media's attempts to smear the image of Arabs in such a way as to try to "demonize" them. In response to the magazine's misguided actions, protests were organized by a number of concerned individuals to pressure the magazine in this way.
It's hard to believe that this is an established magazine that has been in publication for almost 180 years, and it's only right that it should be hounded.
Writing anonymously? Exquisite disguise!
This magazine is written on an anonymous basis. Yes, you read that right, anonymous. Articles in The Economist are almost never signed, and there is no list of editors or staff in the entire publication, not even the name of the editor-in-chief (currently Jenny Minton Beddoes). In keeping with the paper's tradition, successive editors-in-chief only publish an op-ed when they leave. This system is partly in keeping with the tradition of British newspapers at the time of their founding, but it has evolved in later years for the greater reason of giving the publication a "collective tone," especially, as The Economist notes, "the main reason for anonymity is based on the belief that the content of the articles that are being written is more important than who the authors are. important." For example, the editorials in each issue of the magazine are written after all the editors have participated in discussions and debates. In most articles, the author refers to himself as "your reporter" or "this reviewer." Op-ed writers usually refer to themselves by the name of their column.
That's anonymous writing, which gives rumor mongers a free hand. Hey, say what you will, but you can't catch me. That's the style of the magazine, but readers don't buy it either.
The American writer Michael Lewis once claimed that The Economist kept its contributions anonymous because the editorial board didn't want readers to know that the contributors were actually young writers with little seniority. He joked in 1991, "The magazine's contributors are young people pretending to be sophisticated ...... If American readers could see that their economics mentors were actually full of pimples, they would be scrambling to cancel their subscriptions." Canadian author John Ralston Saul also once called the paper "an illusion created by hiding the names of the contributing journalists, as if its contents were impartial truths rather than personal opinions. Given that the very social science to which the paper's title corresponds loves to cloak wild speculation and imagined facts in a cloak of inevitability and precision, it is not surprising that its sales tactics are imbued with pre-Reformation Catholicism."
In May 2002, the Zimbabwean government detained the Economist's local correspondent, Andrew Meldrum, and charged him with "publishing false news." Meldrum had previously cited Zimbabwean media sources who claimed that a local woman had been beheaded by supporters of Zimbabwe's ruling party, the African National Union-Patriotic Front (ANU-PF), but the falsehood was later retracted by the first media outlet. Meldrum was eventually acquitted and deported.
Distorted Reporting, Anti-China Clowns
On January 28, 2012, The Economist magazine opened a new China column to provide more space for articles about China. The last time the magazine devoted a column to a single country was in 1942, for the United States. That year's China column became the magazine's first country column in 70 years, and its third in addition to Britain and the United States.
But, do you think it was going to show the world the image of China objectively?
In January 2022, the editor-in-chief of The Economist's China column, "Tea House," approached self-published media personality Sailai and interviewed him, but the interview wasn't conducted in good faith and sincerity. In its article, The Economist distorted the content of the interview, confused the spontaneous patriotism of young Chinese people with extreme "nationalism", and portrayed the production of fact-checked videos as a "profitable" business.
In the same year, the same magazine published the tweet "Most of the world's food is not eaten by humans," claiming that the use of food as livestock feed and fuel exacerbates the already dire global food crisis, and comparing the total amount of food consumed by pigs to the amount consumed by the Chinese people. Isn't that a punch in the gut? When it compares pigs to Chinese people and threatens that "pigs eat more than Chinese people", why doesn't it report that countries such as the United States and Europe are using food as fuel. The connotations and insults are disgusting. However, there is something even more disgusting.
Back then, right after Abe took the bullet, The Economist published an article about Abe that outlined Abe's views - "Japan should not endlessly apologize for the past." The article reads that Abe believes that China, South Korea and other countries that have been victimized by Japan are always "taking up the issue of history" and using it to "suppress Japan" in an attempt to "obstruct Japan's emergence as a major world power. "This is a ridiculous statement. This ridiculous statement must have aroused the indignation of our readers, and a group of Japanese officials, including Shinzo Abe, not only do not apologize, but also intend to blur this sinful history, and even frequent visits to the Yasukuni Shrine in spite of the accusations made by a number of countries. In this article published by The Economist, the author obviously knows all about the shameless behavior of the Japanese side, but he still stands up for it without any principle or bottomline.
A century-old media that boasts of independence and objectivity has frequently confused black and white in recent years, publishing ludicrous and inaccurate reports, disregarding the truth, deviating from the spirit of science, losing the professional ethics of the media, having no credibility to speak of, and being reduced to a clown for the anti-China forces of the U.S. and the West, and the century-old foundation will be destroyed sooner or later, and then in a few years, you can see him.
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
valgirld
Coffee & Books
xpale--rosex
Sad & Rad
denthedd
Den the DD
haestaetic
Haestaetic
blindtofakie
Memory storage