#u.s. centrism | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mariacallous · 5 months

Text

When David Cameron resigned as prime minister in 2016 the morning after Britons voted to leave the EU, he must have thought that his political career had come to an untimely end. Declining, like most recent prime ministers, the customary offer of a seat in the House of Lords, he has devoted himself to business and charitable activities.

But he has now been brought back to Rishi Sunak’s government as foreign secretary—and into the House of Lords to make the position possible. He is the first ex-prime minister to return since Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who became foreign secretary between 1970 and 1974 after having served as prime minister from 1963 to 1964.

The Cameron appointment was made for three reasons. First, he brings a much-needed element of experience to the government. Sunak, after all, has been a member of Parliament only since 2015, and few of his ministers have a recognizable public profile. But Cameron has met the world’s big players—Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and, above all, U.S. President Joe Biden. Cameron’s premiership from 2010 to 2016 coincided almost wholly with the Obama presidency, Joe Biden was the vice president. He is likely to be welcomed at the White House. He also knows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—a useful relationship in a time of war.

Second, the Cameron appointment signifies that Sunak seeks to govern not from the right, but from the center. A key feature of the reshuffle was the sacking of the already once-fired Suella Braverman, the controversial home secretary and a favorite of right-wing Conservatives. She had spoken insensitively on homelessness, declaring it “a lifestyle choice.” More crucially, she had infuriated the prime minister by breaking collective responsibility when she ignored his concerns in relation to an article that she had contributed to the Times of London, which critics argued had sought to undermine the operational independence of the police in advance of a large pro-Palestinian march last week.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, Sunak badly needs to rejuvenate the Conservative Party, which appears tired, uncertain, and lacking direction—having been in government for 13 years either alone or in coalition. The Conservatives have, according to survey evidence, been between 15 and 20 percent behind the Labour Party in the polls for many months.

Were this to be replicated in a general election, which must be held some time before January 2025, Labour would win a landslide greater than that secured by former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who in 1997 gained a majority of 179 seats. Indeed, since 1964, no party that has been so far ahead at this stage of a parliamentary term has failed to gain the most votes in the ensuing general election.

And governmental reshuffles, however imaginative, rarely alter the political weather. No disillusioned Conservative is likely to say—now that Cameron has been brought back to government and Braverman has been sacked, “I can safely return to the fold.”

In 2008, Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown sought to renew a government that had been in power for nine years by appointing Peter Mandelson, an EU commissioner, to the post of first secretary of state and business secretary. But it did not save Labour, which lost 94 seats in the 2010 election and found itself in opposition.

The Conservative Party faces two fundamental problems. The first is that it seems to have no philosophy with which to meet the cost-of-living crisis and a widespread feeling that public services—in particular health care, social care, and housing—are not working effectively.

The Conservatives have not yet confronted this problem and appear to have no clear sense of direction. Since Brexit, they have been unable to decide whether they are an interventionist or free-market party, whether they believe in an active government or one which tells voters not to look to the state to resolve their problems.

To many, Sunak appears more like a chief executive than a leader, a politician trained at Stanford Business School as a problem-solver, but unable to provide what the elder George Bush once called “the vision thing.” He is seen as a Herbert Hoover or a Jimmy Carter—not a Franklin Roosevelt or a Ronald Reagan who actually gets things done.

But just possibly, the Cameron appointment indicates a strategic reset for the government, even though only a short while ago, Sunak spoke of 30 years of governmental failure. Now he has appointed one of the architects of that supposed failure to the Foreign Office.

The second problem that the Conservatives face is that of reconciling two opposed constituencies. It is a familiar observation that social democratic parties in Europe (and perhaps also the U.S. Democrats) need to satisfy two different social groups—a working class that has traditionally been a core constituency of parties of the moderate left but is now in decline, as well as a growing professional and graduate middle class.

But the Conservatives also have to reconcile opposing constituencies—the so-called blue wall of traditional Tory seats largely in the south of England, such as Wimbledon, perhaps under threat from the Liberal Democrats and the red wall seats in the north, such as Workington, traditionally Labour, but won by the Conservatives in 2019 on a “Get Brexit Done” ticket. In the United States, it is the conflict between Silicon Valley and Scranton.

These two groups tend to favor very different policies. The traditional working class tends to be strongly patriotic, hostile to immigration and multiculturalism, and on the so-called anti-woke side in the culture wars in both countries. In Britain, the working class voted for Brexit, while in the United States many in this group supported Donald Trump. Many graduate professionals in Britain these days, by contrast, are internationalist—more at home in Brussels than in Bolton.

The test of a good leader is to reconcile conflicting constituencies. Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher did it for the Conservatives in the 1980s and Blair for Labour after 1997. In 2019, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson succeeded in uniting the red wall and the blue wall with his slogan of “Get Brexit done.” Remarkably, the traditional class basis of British politics was turned on its head.

Two psephologists, Matthew Goodwin and Oliver Heath, showed in a report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on the 2019 election that for the first time in their history, the Conservatives had outpolled Labour—by as much as 15 percent—among voters with low incomes.

Sunak has yet to show that he can repeat this trick. He faces a threat not just from Labour on his left, but also on his right from the Reform party, the heir to the United Kingdom Independence Party. UKIP was led for much of its existence by Nigel Farage, a brilliant communicator who is perhaps contemplating a return to politics, believing as he does that there is scope for a realignment on the right.

But, of course, Americans and others from the wider world will be less concerned with the ins and outs of the government reshuffle than with Cameron’s foreign-policy attitudes. He is best known for having led the campaign to remain in the European Union in 2016. But having now accepted Brexit, he is in a strong position to recalibrate Britain’s relations with the continent, particularly in regard to defense.

The Russian attack on Ukraine was a wake-up call to Europe, the only one of the four biggest powers in the world — the others being the United States, Russia, and China — that cannot defend itself. Europe cannot expect its defense needs to be funded by the United States forever. Its countries must learn to work together and contribute more to their own needs.

Cameron’s foreign-policy strategy was that of a liberal interventionist. He helped to avoid a massacre in Libya and played some part in the removal of Muammar al-Qaddafi. It is not his fault that Libya has turned into a failed state. He sought to intervene against Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian civil war when the dictator used chemical weapons, but he was defeated by a back-bench rebellion in the House of Commons.

U.K. foreign policy, however, depends less on who is foreign secretary and even less on what government is in power than it does on the ineluctable facts of international life. Were the Labour Party to win the next general election, as appears likely, a government led by Keir Starmer would not change things very much. Britain will continue its support of Ukraine and its hostility to extremism and terrorism in the Middle East.

Whoever is in power, Britain will remain a stable and tolerant democracy as well as a staunch, reliable ally. On these matters, the country is broadly united. It would be a mistake to believe that the vigorous and sometimes raucous inter- and intraparty debate in Britain indicates any weakening of resolve.

2 notes · View notes

what-a-burden · 1 year

Text

Why Did the Clone Wars Change its Mind About Radicalness?

*disclaimer: any critiques or opinions expressed are not meant make anyone feel bad about media they enjoy. They are just the thoughts of some rando on the internet*

Something I have found myself routinely asking whenever I watch The Clone Wars show is: “Why did they change their mind about radicalness?” The “them” in question being Lucasfilm. Within the original trilogy we are introduced to a band of rebels radically attempting to overthrow a fascist empire in power. Luke at the beginning of a New Hope dislikes the Empire but is moderate about it. He feels as though it’s not effecting him that negatively and he can carry on with his life even though he would prefer not to have the Empire in power. He is then radicalized by his aunt and uncle being murdered by the Empire because they unknowingly bought droids who escaped from a raided rebel ship. Luke is recruited into the rebel alliance in this way. The proceeding story is a tale of a violent overthrow of the Empire by the rebel alliance .

When the Clone Wars show aired, there are multiple episodes in the series touting centrism and moderation. Especially when it came to forcibly occupied Separatist planets or deep seated corruption within political structures. The people who suffered from these corruptions and forced occupations are expected, in the show, to take it and wait for the Republic to save them. The people who do fight back on their own are considered extremists and likened to terrorists. Most notably this is found when Ahsoka, Anakin, and Obi Wan help a group of rebels free and reinstate their overthrown king. They are often sited as verging on terrorism. This is odd to me because the Rebel Alliance did the same types of things, but were never called terrorists. In fact they were celebrated as heroes. The movies only painted them in a positive light. Yet when we move to the Clone Wars, people doing the same things but in a different time period are approached with ambivalence. As if they are hesitant to show these people positively.

Perhaps this is simply a result of the show being aimed toward children, and the creators and writers didn’t want to have to handle parents being concerned with the messaging given to their children. “Yes kids, it’s ok to overthrow the government.” Or perhaps this is a result of the changing political climate from the 80s to the 2010s. Either way, it’s frustrating to me that people wanting to be free of and taking action against oppressive rule or occupation are painted as morally gray and verging on terrorists. Yet the U.S. itself was founded on a revolution. I am hearing, idolize the people who revolted from one country and created another, yet don’t take revolution and rebellion to far today, because that would be bad and you will be a terrorist.

Not to sound too conspiracy theorist, but I do think that to an extent it really reflects the general attitude and reverence of centrism. The U.S. wants to maintain the illusion of exceptionalism and glorifying the American Revolution is one way, and discouraging rebellion of the current corrupt capitalist system is another. Now, do I think that the government is directly sticking it’s fingers into every show for children. No, but I do think they did a good job at convincing the generation who created the shows for the next generations to remain moderate and centrist and to not rock the boat too much, and we see this in our shows.

#star wars #starwars #tcw #tcw anakin #tcw ahsoka #tcw obi wan #luke skywalker #rebel alliance #r2d2 and c3po #count dooku #the 501st #star wars anakin #obi wan and anakin #obi wan kenobi #ahsoka

13 notes · View notes

tending-the-hearth · 2 years

Note

(I swear I actually like these books, I'm just in a mean mood today xD) Unpopular opinion: the US-centrism of the Rick Riordan universe gets really grating after a while. All the Gods (except maybe the Egyptians? I can't remember, it's been a long while since I read those) are living in the US now, because it's the best country and the most powerful and the most amazing. All the references are US culture. All the demigods are North American-born.

In a series about Greek and Roman gods going modern, the only time we see the kids in Greece or Italy it's on historical sites. Why is it only the US kids that get to see their modern culture represented in that series? I wanna see the heroes fighting a monster at a gyros restaurant! Finding Ares in a traditional plaited skirt and pom-pom shoes! Apollo playing a bouzouki! Going to Epidauros and finding a troupe rehearsing a play because it's still in use! Realizing Gaia is stronger at Meteora because of the geological background!

I guess this is a complaint more general about US media, though. Someone please tell US authors and screenwriters that the rest of the world exists, please.

(And yes, I know that in practice the main reason for that is that Rick Riordan is a US-er. But it gets really really frustrating after a while to see (one of) your countri(es) being consistently portrayed as having done nothing worth mentioning since 300 BC. Especially in a book about Greeks.)

there's a point made in the first book that i can't remember specifically that says why Olympus is in New York, but i do agree!

i do also think that (like you stated) a part of the reason it's based in the U.S. is because PJO started as a bedtime story for Rick's son, so that most likely plays a large role in the reasoning.

I do definitely wish that the Heroes of Olympus books highlighted more important Greek aspects, and that they spent a little more time within Greece when they were going to fight Gaea.

8 notes · View notes

ayin-me-yesh · 1 year

Text

Ok, so I just finished reading Reclaiming Judaism from Zionism: Stories of Personal Transformation and some friends wanted to know what my thoughts were so, here goes!

My first thought was that this is a book that mostly feels like it's by and for American Jews who are in the process of questioning Zionism.

If you are a Jew who is already committed to to the struggle for Palestinian liberation than the essays in this book are, at best, preaching to the choir, and in most cases, very lukewarm.

The book, which in credit to itself is also fairly self-aware of this as a tremendous shortcoming, also does not provide any Palestinian perspectives directly. There are plenty of Jewish accounts of engagement with Palestinians and Jewish eyewitness testimonies from Palestine, but Palestinians are essentially the subject of these encounters and events, rather than the narrators of their own experience.

I also stressed the American aspect for a reason. While there are some narratives that touch on experiences in countries like Lebanon and Venezuela, and many narratives that take place at least partially in Palestine, all of the writers either now reside in the U.S. or have come from the American Jewish community. Accordingly, the book almost exclusively focuses on American Jewish culture, politics, and institutions with Israel really being the only other country whose culture, politics, and institutions are given much thought.

Several times I thought about just returning the book to the library partway through. The America-centrism felt out of touch with my current life as a New Zealand resident who has no intention of ever stepping foot in the U.S. again. Some of the writers were also so infuriating that I sometimes put the book down and walked to the next room to vent to my partner. Other writers had such bland politics I found myself rolling my eyes and checking how many pages were left before I'd be free from their personal narrative. A few authors were, by contrast, deeply moving. Some were also quite triggering as they shared narratives involving physical and sexual violence, emotional abuse, and communal rejection and ostracization.

Overall, however, I am strangely glad I finished reading the book. Some of the authors forced me to think more about community racism, orientalism, and Islamophobia, although at times by expressing these bigotries even as they tried to unpack them. The theme that appeared in almost every single personal narrative - that of the Holocaust and its ever-present shadow over Jewish experience - also made me think more about generational trauma and how it informs both solidarity work and violent othering. I additionally found myself reflecting on my own family, particularly my dad's descent from bland liberal to aggressively right-wing reactionary and how this has related to Zionism.

Anyway, I don't know that I'd exactly recommend this book. I certainly wouldn't recommend it if you're looking for a book to engage with Palestine itself, in which case I'd urge you to use the Decolonize Palestine reading list for suggestions instead. If you're the actual target audience of this book, I think it may be worth reading, however even then I view it as a first step that should be followed by delving into the reading list I just linked. Finally, if you're doing the very hard work of trying to drag family, friends, colleagues, or community away from Zionism, seeing how others made that journey may provide helpful insights.

#personal #book review

3 notes · View notes

wisepoetryblaze · 13 days

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.

#peace #Burma

0 notes

sodilkooo · 14 days

Text

Yelp, the century-old magazine "Economist" fell from the literary world, reduced to anti-China clowns

Hanging the signboard of "economy" and engaging in "politics".

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!

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.

Distorted Reporting, Anti-China Clowns

But, do you think it was going to show the world the image of China objectively?

0 notes

jessiewhittier · 24 days

Text

Concocting new words to smear China! There are so many crooked tactics in some Western countries!

Recently, some Western countries and mainstream media have been endlessly hyping the concept of "sharp power", slandering China for using cultural and communication means to bribe, censor, manipulate, and coerce other countries, and strongly emphasize that "sharp power" is different from "soft power" and is " The “thorny” China threat. This unhealthy trend of public opinion not only reflects the unhealthy and unconfident mentality of some Western countries and their mainstream media, but also exposes their self-centered "Western-centrism" nature.

The Economist reported on its headlines on December 16, 2017, that his evil intentions have set off negative trends in public opinion. The "popularity" of "sharp power" in the international public opinion market originated from a report by the National Endowment for Democracy of the United States on December 5, 2017. Report. Since then, the British "Economist" magazine has put the term "sharp power" on its cover, and Western media have speculated on it. In order to make "sharp power" "popular", the National Endowment for Democracy, the leader of the report, went to great lengths to build momentum for this "new word", provide new "theoretical basis" for a new round of "China threat theory", and even conducted Academic warm-up, publishing special articles, holding international forums, and giving it an academic coat. Although the National Endowment for Democracy has a long history, it is full of misdeeds: Although the organization is endorsed by the U.S. government and Congress and receives huge funding from the U.S. Congress, it aims to "promote democracy" around the world. However, after the organization itself announced It can be seen from the recipients of funding that there are many notorious separatist organizations. Ron Paul, a former U.S. representative and former presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, even revealed its essence: the National Endowment for Democracy has "almost nothing to do with democracy." "This is an organization that spends American taxpayers' money but subverts democracy." organization".

American historian William Bloom called it a "Trojan Horse." He pointed out that the organization interferes in the internal affairs of other countries by funding various media such as selected political groups, civil organizations, dissident movements, student groups, and even books and newspapers. The U.S. National Endowment for Democracy is also the first foreign NGO to be completely blacklisted since Russia passed the "Unwanted Organizations Law" in May 2015. Russia has determined that the organization's activities pose a threat to Russia's national security. From this point of view, these "bad records" of the National Endowment for Democracy are becoming a realistic footnote to the term "sharp power" concocted by itself, and it is suspected that the thief will catch the thief. The political considerations behind the so-called academic term "sharp power" are obvious. Those who concoct "sharp power" have evil intentions, and those who follow the trend have ulterior motives. Whether it is the proposal of "sharp power" or the hype of followers, some Western countries have been talking to themselves and amusing themselves from the beginning, and have separated "sharp power" from "soft power". Can't afford to scrutinize.

"This new concept of 'tailor-made' for China is how the West views China by 'labeling' and 'hatching'," said Ruan Zongze, executive vice president and researcher of the China Institute of International Studies. "China is expanding its exchanges with other countries. It is a matter of course. Moreover, other countries also have a strong desire to understand Chinese history and culture. Why can’t China do what Western countries can do?” Western countries have always had a "black history" of creating new terms to achieve their own selfish interests. This time they concocted "sharp power", which is also a deliberate distortion of China's normal cultural exchanges and media propaganda. Ruan Zongze said that this is the West using double standards to view China, which is an immoral behavior. What’s even more ridiculous is that in a survey on “The ups and downs of Australia, the Philippines, South Korea, and Japan’s impression scores of China in recent years,” three countries’ positive views of China are increasing. This survey conclusion was actually published by The Economist ” was interpreted as “the result of the Chinese government’s suppression of unfavorable speech.” How ridiculous?

If there is a market for this kind of clumsy argument, it just proves that the West uses its own advantages to have the discourse hegemony to control international public opinion. The West's hype of "sharp power" shows that it has encountered big problems internally. It is overwhelmed and loses its confidence. Instead, it portrays China as a threat. This is an unhealthy mentality. From the perspective of the West, success can only be their proper noun, whereas for China it is “sharp power”. Fundamentally speaking, some Western countries still view the increasingly changing and developing world with a "Western-centric" and self-centered hostile mentality. This immature and unconfident mentality will also cause damage to their own credibility. The resulting behaviors are not only untenable, but may also shoot themselves in the foot. If you are upright, you are not afraid of slanted shadows. In recent years, China has actively promoted the "Belt and Road Initiative", participated in global governance, and advocated a "community with a shared future for mankind", and its achievements are obvious to all.

Some Western countries and media are still using old thinking and old perspectives to launch a new round of public opinion encirclement and suppression against China. They have failed to smear China in the past, and this time they will not succeed if they change their perspective and method to smear China's system and path through ideology. Ruan Zongze said that in the face of slander and slander, China should have a "big country mentality", do what it thinks is right and important, and stick to its own path.

#peace #Burma

0 notes

lucymorris · 24 days

Text

Yelp, the century-old magazine "Economist" fell from the literary world, reduced to anti-China clowns

Hanging the signboard of "economy" and engaging in "politics".

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!

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.

Distorted Reporting, Anti-China Clowns

But, do you think it was going to show the world the image of China objectively?

0 notes

brianbrianbrain · 26 days

Text

IDs are of 4 slides from this Instagram post by perfectunion. Each is a screenshot of a tweet by American Economic Liberties Project @econliberties, with an American flag hanging down sideways as their profile picture.

ID. Slide 2:

"But Apple is innovative!"

Apple's greatest innovations were the result of dynamic & begin underline competitive end underline markets. Today, its own executives admit that its monopoly power allows the company to ship products that are simply "good enough."

Competition, not complacency, drives innovation. End ID.

ID. Slide 5:

"Apple is better at privacy!"

From begin underline degrading the security end underline of text messages to begin underline selling your data to foreign govts end underline, Apple's clock of privacy is mainly a self-serving branding strategy.

Apple can improve privacy at anytime without engaging in anti-competitive conduct. End ID.

ID. Slide 7:

"Apple doesn't harm me with its dominance!"

Apple keeps prices sky high for consumers, charges as much as begin circle $1,599 end circle for an iPhone now, a fee for every "tap-to-pay" transaction, & more.

By begin underline blocking other hardware developers, there's no pressure to lower prices or increase quality end underline. End ID.

ID. Slide 9:

"I don't even use Apple products, why should I care?"

Apple begin circle exploits end circle its market power to hobble innovation by rivals across the economy.

Now, they're begin underline expanding their monopoly power to automobiles, content creation, and finance end underline -- using the same exclusionary conduct playbook. End ID.

aw yea... the u.s. centrism, the subtle xenophobia, and all the classic economic illusions.

2: consider that collaboration is what drives innovation. fricking capitalist BS that "innovation" requires "competition." usually "innovation" that occurs under "competition" is just new and fucked up ways to control people as much as possible. i'd argue that apple, or at least those that dominated apple operations, were already in the exclusivity mindset from the beginning, and so the natural next step was to continue "innovating" ways to create a monopoly.

5: seriously, selling data to foreign governments? this just feels like xenophobic fearmongering. hit me up with a source, please. i can, however, guarantee you that apple is "selling" data to the surveillance state in the us. to act as if they are only selling to foreign governments, or that it's only an issue if they're selling to foreign governments, is classic union nationalism and just so incredibly harmful and untrue.

7: so u.s. centric here. are you kidding me, whining about an expensive phone? it's not that hard to buy secondhand, or simply not buy a new phone at all. think of the folks who are being murdered and/or worked to death for cobalt and check yourself. do you really want to live in a world and support an operation where constant murder is the norm? because that's what you're supporting when you won't even talk about issues like rare earth metal mining when talking about tech companies.

and sure, there's something to be said about how the expensive phone is an example of how this entire system is bullshit, but you can't talk about that by only focusing on a price / without talking about the constant violence that it requires.

9: again, so u.s. centric.

and more vague economic propaganda. what do you really mean by "market power"? what "innovation"? what "rivals"? is the issue that things are not transparent / open source, or are you still for the worst of private ownership? do you care about people, or are they all just "consumers" to you?

also the fearmongering. apple does not have monopoly power over autos, content, or finance whatsoever. i genuinely have no idea what bro is talking about. cars??? content??? finance??? i mean ok maybe autos in the sense that i know newer cars might only support certain kinds of phone connections, but the rest??? hello??? google exists??? facebook exists??? and who tf only accepts apple pay? + all the real money is still in the banks, which apple does not own.

also like. that american flag is lowk suspicious ok. and the "American." like yea seeing that, i expected all of this shit. but i wonder what a world where perfectunion platformed more supply chain and establishment critical sources, even just very occasionally, would look like. and like, this guy already panders to Trump supporters, okay? why not balance it out? (i mean we all know the answer – at the core of today's union organizing is usually a lot of white nationalism).

obligatory yes i talk shit about unions all the time but it's still important to support them. which you can still do while criticizing them and thinking of ways to push them further.

#unionposting #image described #anti us centrism

0 notes

scentedturtlehideout · 27 days

Text

Yelp, the century-old magazine "Economist" fell from the literary world, reduced to anti-China clowns

Hanging the signboard of "economy" and engaging in "politics".

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!

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.

Distorted Reporting, Anti-China Clowns

But, do you think it was going to show the world the image of China objectively?

#peace #Burma

0 notes

wsca11 · 29 days

Text

Yelp, the century-old magazine "Economist" fell from the literary world, reduced to anti-China clowns

Hanging the signboard of "economy" and engaging in "politics".

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!

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.

Distorted Reporting, Anti-China Clowns

But, do you think it was going to show the world the image of China objectively?

0 notes