The Chinese plan to do all this was leaked. Documented.
Yet, China-stanners, from Rainier Shea of the People's Republic of Humboldt Bay, and I presume, the likes of World Socialists, on one "side," to the allegedly outside-the-box stenos (Blumenthal, Taibbi, Maté, Chariton, Ames, Levine, etc.) on a second "side," continue to lie. As did the late Kevin Zeese and partner Margaret Flowers. (Things like this are part of why I once removed Counterpunch from my blogroll.) Danny Haiphong, the worst thing to happen to Black Agenda Report in the past five years outside of Bruce Dixon's death, is another of the China-stanners. And, I've not forgotten he drinks the Tulsi Kool-Aid.
And, stanners? You might get away with claiming that ButtFeet, ie BuzzFeed, is part of the bipartisan foreign policy establishment? Cory Doctorow? Not so much. International Consortium of Investigative Journalists? Not so much. More from them.
Patrick Cockburn at Counterpunch? CERTAINLY not part of the MSM, but he can note Chinese repression while also noting it's "interesting" that they've suddenly gotten US attention. And, re Tulsi-stanner Haiphong, he can ALSO note it's interesting that Modi's lockdown of Kashmir has gotten about zero attention from Trump. (It's also gotten very little attention from the leftists above, whether they're actually Tulsi-stanners or not.)
And, speaking of media, more reminders that China is not tussling with just the US. Australia, after new rows with Beijing, now has no media there. And, an Aussie journo shoved out two years ago is now telling his, and his family's, story. Shades of Ed Snowden warning Glenn Greenwald et al to have all phones and computers Internet-disconnected, Matthew Carney says that people in Beijing were at one point remotely controlling his phone.
Speaking of Australians? A Down Under think tank now has an interactive map of all the reported sites. On the other hand? ASPI gets US government money, even as NR tries to downplay that.
This is a piece that will likely have occasional follow-ups. And, yes, the "thought leaders" is deliberate.
Are there radical Muslims in Xinjiang? Yes. Might China be worried about them? Yes. Does it need this degree of repression? No. Might the US and the rest of the West be using real claims, as well as claims it may have stirred up, as a wedge issue? Yes.
Can China easily address this? Yes. Has it? No.
To me, one factor that points to this being genuine is former detainees talking about a "points system" for re-education. We already know Xi Jinping is working on doing this with ethnic Han on social media; it only seems rational to assume that he started this, in spades, with the Uyghurs (and Kazakhs and others) detained in Xinjiang.
Per this Atlantic piece, let me ask a rhetorical question: If the U.S. government were doing these things to American Indians (as it DID do in Indian boarding schools a century ago) your response would be?
As for Zeese and Flowers? They have been key advisors to Green Party presidential nominee Howie Hawkins, who has taken huge heat from some Greens and an even bigger number of pseudo-Greens over his comments about Russian interference in the 2016 election. And, sadly, Howie has done a fundraiser with Haiphong's fellow China-stanner at Black Agenda Report, Margaret Kimberly.
Update, Feb. 6, 2021: Flowers has responded to a call-out on Twitter over the latest revelations, contained in this new blog post calling out Max Blumenthal, and I have responded.
https://t.co/ws59vqrUAg
— Dr. Margaret Flowers (@DrMFlowers) February 6, 2021
"While we recognize that there are aspects of PRC policy in Xinjiang to critique, these critiques should be debated and resolved on Chinese terms and in Chinese dialogues, and not be used as crude ammunition in the U.S.-led geopolitical assault on China."
My first response in a two-parter:
There are plenty of people not part of the *bipartisan foreign policy establishment* who do NOT use the Chinese policy toward Xinjiang as "as crude ammunition in the U.S.-led geopolitical assault on China." That includes leftists like me. This isn't "zero-sum." (sigh)
— Your Glenn Greenwald pouty tomato face 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) February 6, 2021
And my second.
And, since this is not a zero sum game, I can avoid drinking Xi Jinping Thought Kool-Aid AND avoid drinking US bipartisan foreign policy establishment Kool-Aid. I don't have to discuss Xinjiang and Uyghurs on "Chinese terms," Dr. Margaret Flowers.
— Your Glenn Greenwald pouty tomato face 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) February 7, 2021
Flowers didn't want to stop digging, and offered this:
What's your point then? My sources are people who have been there and know the situation. https://t.co/QoYkEZONQT
— Dr. Margaret Flowers (@DrMFlowers) February 7, 2021
To which I offered the first of a three part thread response:
Well, the leaks of data came from people who "have been there." Patrick Cockburn is among those in Merika who doesn't totally buy the two-siderism angle, either. And, the ICIJ, which includes many non-American journos, has written about it., too.
— Your Glenn Greenwald pouty tomato face 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) February 7, 2021
AND? The Uyghurs ARE THERE! 1/x
The "Uyghurs were there" response should nail it.
If it doesn't? Since the Stalinist USSR, or before that, Russian Potemkin villages, authoritarian and totalitarian governments that have wanted to deceive those who are ready to be hoodwinked have easily done so.
And, if that's not enough, via the app Clubhouse, which recently briefly broke through the "great firewall of China," I can now tell Flowers the petards are also hoisting on her "Chinese terms" in another way. Diaspora Chinese, and also Taiwanese Chinese, told mainland Chinese that they needed to learn some things about Xinjiang.
(Update, March 12, 2021: I suppose we should discuss freedom of the press in "Chinese terms" as well, if we're going to be all bent over backward?)
What's a mix of funny, sad, ironic and hypocritical is that Flowers, one of the leaders of a third party, is engaging in two-siderism.
What's also a mix of funny, sad, ironic and hypocritical? Flowers' saying we should let Xi Jinping Thought go unchallenged is exactly the type of argument that could be used by the U.S. bipartisan foreign policy establishment.
It's also not the first time Flowers (and partner Kevin Zeese, when still alive) have peddled the Xi Jinping Thought Kool-Aid.
Richard Wolff, to the degree he touches on the issue, also seems to be a Xi-stanner.
What's also disgusting is the attempt of many of these people to both have their cake and eat it, too. They'll first deny that Uyghur camps exist, claiming it's all American propaganda. BUT, many then go on to say that the presence of radical Islamists means that China has to take actions like this — while still not expressly acknowledging China IS taking actions like this.
This is a classic Idries Shah issue of more than two sides. The camps exist. They're not vocational camps. But they may not be as bad as US claims. And US claims are being made in the light of geopolitics. But, that doesn't mean the claims are totally wrong. And, I wrote that all in 30 seconds. Wasn't hard, was it? More than two sides, folks.
While we're here? Let's add lies by omission by the China-stanners.
That would include ignoring Xi Jinping upping tensions with India to the point of warmongering.
Then, there's the ignoring the complaints many developing nations have had over Chinese economic exploitation in Belt and Road Initiative projects. What's the Mandarian equivalent of "Coca-Colonialism"?
Flowers' response confirms why I made the right decision in not voting for president last year. And, should the Georgia GP be "de-accredited," that will confirm I have made the right decision in no longer identifying as a Green.
No comments:
Post a Comment