Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024.
Evan Davis is clearly the most streamlined disinformer among BBC's otherwise openly clumpsy ones. This is why Peter Klevius thinks he is one of the best examples of BBC's evil tactics, not the least because he's got a way of nice sounding talking that dupes most people.
Here's just a tiny but revealing example so to see how the insidious mechanism works almost unnoticed.
How
many tragedies has BBC's racist and militaristic Sinophobe Evan Davis
anti-China ranting from the world's biggest platform caused among
Chinese people in UK and elsewhere - and of course never or rarely
reported by BBC?!
* When UK's (already outdated quality disaster - compare the US controlled costly Trident and Aukus quality failures) aircraft carrier was launched Evan Davis complained that UK had 'only two' to attack China (sic). Talking about a megalomanic mouse with underlying inferiority complex. Btw, at that time China had only one in service because it focused more on peaceful trade and cooperation than militarism. However, precisely due to US aggression China had to prepare itself. So China's latest (and several forthcoming ones) is superior to US best, in a class UK can only dream about - no matter how much warmongers like BBC's Evan Davis push for robbing even more money to useless and needless military equipment from already poverty stricken UK people.
UK is 28th on the per capita list.
20241219 17:00 On BBC's "News" Putin said: 'Russia's GDP is fourth in the world in terms of purchasing power parity, and first in Europe. I don't think UK is even in the top five.'To this BBC's warmonger* Evan Davis pukes: 'I think Russia's per capita GDP is a great deal lower than UK. I don't know what metrics he was referring to when he said 'we're ahead of UK'. Peter Klevius: Really! How could you possibly miss that? And that UK's per capita GDP is heavily inflated by London's gold and finance flow that little benefit ordiunary UK people. In China the situation is the very opposite. There are a couple of hundred millions of rural population that pulls down China's overall per capita GDP but simultaneously greatly benefit from the 105 cities with more than a million people (UK has one and US 9) whose per capita GDP is much higher than China's general. Also do note that China's Macao has a per capita GDP which is more than double that of UK.
Peter Klevius wrote:
Is BBC/Jonny Dymond committing, or complicit to, war crimes/crimes against humanity* by deliberately misleading the public via the world's biggest fake news media platform?
* In the context of international
crimes, falsehoods — ranging from selective reporting of facts,
deliberate mischaracterization of events and adversaries, or even plain
fabrication and lies — constitute a breeding ground in which incitement
to support the committing of violence (i.e. war) can thrive. While
disseminating such falsehoods does not constitute a direct call to
commit physical violence, it nevertheless sows the seeds for mass
atrocities. The outer limits of International Criminal Law (ICL) —
defined by the principle of culpability — depends on whether campaigns
of disinformation in the context of mass atrocities could ever give rise
to individual responsibility. On the basis of the Fritzsche, Gvero and
Mbarushimana cases, liability for disseminating disinformation might in
principle be engaged before, during and even after the commission of
such crimes. Concerns about the role of media may also pose the question
whether media or their personnel may be liable for amplifying
disinformation campaigns.
News
media fascism, hate incitement, misinformation and warmongering far
from impartiality: BBC's Jonny Dymond used the main Sunday news
(20241124) together with Nato's former Assistance Secretary General
Baiba Braze - a notorious war hawk - pushing for censoring critics of
the war that US/Nato started as a result of Obama's 2013 plan to place
US nukes around Russia's military base Sevastopol/Crimea (see below).
However,
Dymond and Baiba didn't mention with a word that more than half of
western Ukrainians (eastern Ukrainians and Crimeans overwhelmingly
support Russia but weren't asked) now want negotiations and peace with
Russia. In other words, BBC/Dymond not only produced deliberate
disinformation, but thereby also committed war crime** and crime against
humanity by inciting hate from UK's biggest state media outlet.
BBC "news" is a modern global copy of Goebbel's domestic Nazi propaganda.
Background (but see a more in depth analysis below).
February
9, 1990. James Baker III, US Secretary of State, said to Mikhail
Gorbachev, NATO will not move one inch eastward if you agree to German
unification, basically ending World War II. And Gorbachev said, that’s
very important. Yes, NATO doesn’t move, and we agreed to German
unification. The US then cheated on this, already starting in 1994 when
Clinton signed off on, basically a plan to expand NATO all the way to
Ukraine.
2008 Angela Merkel laid the foundation for a prosperous
Germany/EU by approving Nord Stream gas supply from Russia - thereby
going against dollar freeloader (since 1971) US pressure.
2013
Obama threatened Russia with his plan to place US nukes around Russia's
miltary base at Sevastopol/Crimea. Obama's meddling started by arranging
a rough Gallup poll among Crimeans which, to his disappointment,
clearly revealed that an overwhelming majority didn't want to belong to
Ukraine at all but wanted to be part of Russia. However, Obama didn't
care but instead continued to puch for Ukraine's Nato membership - and
thereby also US nukes (compare the Cuba crisis 1962). So Putin arranged a
full referendum which overwhelmingly supported Russian annexation.
2014
US toppled Ukraine's elected Russia friendly president and started the
US supported civil war against Russians in eastern Ukraine which
culminated in Russia's intervention in late February 2022.
In April 2022 Ukraine was ready for negotiations with Russia but was stopped by US (via UK PM Johnson's intervention).
Olaf
Scholz tried to stop the war and reopen Nord Stream. This led to US
destroying three of the four Nord Stream pipelines after Biden publicly
promised to do so.
2024 US/Nato escallated the war by using US
most sophisticated military neans - in a flagrant opposition to the will
of the majority of Ukrainians.
The Nord Stream gas supply
was essential for Germany, EU and Russia - so how could it be in
Russia's interest to not participate peacefully?! However, dollar thief
(since 1971) US had a main interest in destroying EU-Russia relations.
The Nord Stream gas supply was essential for Germany, EU and Russia - so how could it be in Russia's interest to not participate peacefully?! However, dollar thief (since 1971) US had a main interest in destroying EU-Russia relations.
Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024.
How US robs the world since it 1971 by violated the Bretton Woods
agreement and then started printing dollar costed by the rest of the
world. Relase US fiat bomb by clicking it.
The Obama Regime’s Plan to Seize the Russian Naval Base in Crimea
November 2, 2019
by Eric Zuesse
Clear and convincing evidence will be presented here that, under U.S. President Barack Obama, the U.S. Government had a detailed plan, which was already active in June 2013, to take over Russia’s main naval base, which is in Sevastopol in Crimea, and to turn it into a U.S. naval base. There can now be no question that the war in Ukraine started, and resulted from, the U.S. Government’s plan to take over all of Ukraine, and especially to take over that Russian naval base, in Crimea, which then was in Ukraine.
The war in Ukraine didn’t start at the time when a lot of people think that it did, with the overthrow of Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych. It was already underway considerably before that time, because it started in Washington, as the folloowing masterful 11-minute documentary makes clear — it started as a subterranean war by Washington to take over Ukraine, before it became an overt war (a “civil war”) within Ukraine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWkfpGCAAuw
The CIA-edited and written Wikipedia claims that the war commenced in “a series of military actions that started in February 2014”; and, that, from the outset, it has been a “Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present)” — not any sort of American intervention in Ukraine. However, to the extent that Russia has been involved in the Ukrainian war, that involvement came later, and was a reaction against what the U.S. Government and its agents had done to Ukraine (which nation is, of course, on Russia’s doorstep, and so Russia inevitably did respond). Therefore, the propagandistic function of Wikipedia must be acknowledged, even though Wikipedia is adequate for providing an introductory overview of some non-geostrategic subjects.
The U.S. regime, under Barack Obama, had been planning, ever since June 2011, a takeover of Ukraine, in order to become enabled ultimately to place its nuclear missiles within less than five minutes flying-time to a first-strike blitz destruction of the Kremlin (thus preventing any effective Russian counter-attack). However, things didn’t work out quite according to the plan for the takeover of Ukraine, and here is how the war in Ukraine actually began:
We’ll open by describing the planning for the conquest of Russia’s key naval base, in Sevastopol in Crimea. Crimea was inside Ukraine during 1954-2014, but had otherwise been inside Russia, going all the way back to 1783. (During 1954, the Soviet dictator, Khrushchev, arbitrarily transferred Crimea, from Russia to Ukraine, even though the vast majority of Crimeans considered themselves to be Russians, and their native language was Russian — but, after all, the Soviet Union was a dictatorship. Crimeans had no say in the matter.)
The U.S. regime prepared for its planned takeover of Crimea by commissioning Gallup to poll Crimeans in 2013 to find out whether the residents there considered themselves to be Ukrainians (which would make the U.S. regime’s job in Crimea easier), or instead still Russians (which would foretell resistance there); and the findings were that Crimeans overwhelmingly still considered themselves to be Russians, definitely not Ukrainians. Nonetheless, the plan for the takeover went forward — the U.S. team, it is clear, decided that the residents of Crimea could be dealt with, in such ways as is shown here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loKajkXoTBU
Some were clubbed to death, others became permanently disabled from their injuries, but this was a warning to Crimeans, to buckle under, and give up: be ruled from Kiev, by Washington’s regime. It didn’t work. A referendum was quickly held in Crimea about whether they wanted to be ruled by the newly installed Ukrainian government, and the results were in line with Gallup’s findings: Crimeans wanted to be ruled from Moscow, not from Kiev.
The U.S. then hired Gallup to survey Crimeans soon after the referendum. (Perhaps the U.S. regime was hoping to find that a scientific sampling of Crimeans would show a far smaller percentage favoring the breakaway of Crimea from Ukraine than the referendum had reported, which could greatly intensify international skepticism about the legitimacy of Russia’s takeover of Crimea. But, if that was the purpose, Gallup’s findings again turned out to be a disappointment.)
Here is what Gallup found in both its 2013 and 2014 polls of Crimeans:
When Gallup did their “Public Opinion Survey Residents of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea May 16-30, 2013” (which was called that because even when Crimea was part of Ukraine, it had a special status, as being an “Autonomous Republic” — not a province), only 15% (slide 8) of Crimeans viewed themselves as “Ukrainian,” but 40% said “Russian,” and 24% said “Crimean.” 53% (slide 14) wanted Crimeans to be part of the “Customs Union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan,” but only 17% wanted Crimeans to be part of “The European Union.” 68% (slide 15) said their feelings toward “Russia” were “warm,” but only 6% said their feelings toward “USA” were “warm.
When Gallup in April 2014 (right after the referendum) polled Crimeans again (slide 25), 76.2% had a “negative” view of the United States, and 2.8% had a “positive” view of it; 71.3% had a positive view of Russia, and 8.8% had a negative view of it. Asked whether (slide 28) “The results of the referendum on Crimea’s status likely reflect the views of most people there/here,” 82.8% said yes; 6.7% said no. 89.3% in the poll expressed an opinion on this matter, and 93% of those who expressed an opinion said that the referendum “likely did reflect the views” of Crimeans. That was almost exactly the same percentage as those who in the referendum had voted to rejoin Russia. It couldn’t have been stronger verification of the referendum-results, than that. The Gallup poll findings (like its predecessor) were hidden from the public — not broadcast to the public by the regime’s propaganda-media. After all: the U.S. Government is a regime — it’s not a democracy. All of the formalities, now, are just for show. Both of its political parties are imperialists (“neoconservative”). Only their style differs.
So: the U.S. regime knew that it wasn’t, at all, wanted nor welcomed by Crimeans, but that Russia very much was. The U.S. regime thus moved forward on the basis that the government of Ukraine owned that land; the residents who lived there did not, and should have no say about what government owned it and would rule them. The idea was that, if the people there didn’t like it, they should emigrate to Russia (and, according to a Russian source, “4.4 million went to Russia” — removed themselves from Ukraine — after the coup).
The U.S. regime, clearly, wanted the land, not the people who were living on it. The expectation, as soon as Ukraine was under U.S. control from the coup, had been that America would get the entirety of Ukraine, including Crimea; but, then, Russia’s Vladimir Putin stepped in and protected Crimeans who were clamoring to hold a referendum in order to express their collective will on this matter; and this referendum was held, on 16 March 2014, and it produced over 90% voting for Crimea to be a part of Russia, such as Crimea had been before Khrushchev transferred it to Ukraine.
So: the U.S. regime failed to get the naval base that it had expected to get in Sevastopol in Crimea. That was a crucial failure for Obama.
Those events — the coup and, three weeks later, the Crimean referendum — occurred in 2014, but the planning for the coup had already been going on for years, and it wasn’t being called off once Gallup reported in 2013 that most Crimeans loathed the U.S. The active operation to take over Ukraine had started actually on 1 March 2013 inside the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, which was almost 9 months before Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, on 20 November 2013, rejected the EU’s demand that Ukraine must bear the full $160 billion cost of abandoning its existing trading relationships with Russia and its allies, in order to join the EU. Wikipedia says that the overthrow of Yanukovych started on 21 November 2013 when he said no to the EU, but actually it started on 1 March 2013; and the planning for it had started by no later than June 2011. And it may be said to have begun even prior to that, when, near the very start of Obama’s Presidency, Obama called the then-Ukrainian-Presidential-candidate Yanukovych to Washington in order to sound him out on — if Yanukovych would become the winner — getting Ukraine into NATO, America’s anti-Russian military alliance. Getting Ukraine into the EU was really just to be a steppingstone to getting it into NATO so that U.S. nuclear missiles could be placed there against Moscow. This is what everything was really about. On 7 January 2010, the Kiev Post bannered “Yanukovych: Ukraine will remain a neutral state” and this is what actually sealed his fate. Yanukovych, with that now in his platform, won the Presidential election on 7 February 2010. So: he was in Obama’s gunsight even at the very moment when he won the Presidency.
There was no question as to whether Ukrainians wanted to be in NATO: they did not. During 2003-2009, only around 20% of Ukranians wanted NATO membership, while around 55% opposed it. In 2010, Gallup found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean “protection of your country,” 40% said it’s “a threat to your country.” Ukrainians predominantly saw NATO as an enemy, not a friend. But after Obama’s February 2014 Ukrainian coup, “Ukraine’s NATO membership would get 53.4% of the votes, one third of Ukrainians (33.6%) would oppose it.” The coup turned what remained of Ukraine sharply against Russia. NATO is the key; the EU is more like an excuse for Ukraine to be admitted into NATO.
In June 2013 (well before the ‘democratic revolution’ in Ukraine started), NAVFAC, the U.S. Naval Facililities Engineering Command, published on its website, a “Project Description” for “Renovation of School#5, Sevastopol, Ukraine,” under the euphemistic title “EUCOM Humanitarian Assistance Program”. EUCOM is the U.S. European Command — it is purely military, not “humanitarian,” at all. The 124-page request for proposals (RFP) showed extensive photos of the existing school, and also of the toilets, floor-boards, and other U.S.-made products, that the U.S. regime was requiring to be used in the renovation (by some American corporation, yet to be determined) of that then-Ukrainian school in Crimea, which at that time was a Ukrainian Government property, not at all American-owned or operated. So: why were U.S. taxpayers supposed to fund this ‘humanitarian’ operation, by the U.S. military?
A remarkably full description, of what that extraordinary RFP was about, was provided on 24 April 2014 by a “Lada Ray,” under the headline “Breaking! US Planned to Turn #Crimea into Military Base Against Russia”, and here is its opening:
—
Breaking! US Planned to Turn #Crimea into Military Base Against Russia
24 April 2014, Lada Ray
A couple of weeks ago Crimea and Sevastopol almost unanimously voted to re-join Russia. The Crimeans said: we had been unappreciated guests, now we are returning home after a long voyage. More about that in my articles:
Why is Crimea Overwhelmingly Pro RE-Unification With Russia? https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/why-is-crimea-overwhelmingly-pro-re-unification-with-russia/
Prediction: Crimea Independence Vote https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/prediction-crimea-independence-vote/
The information coming to the surface now shows that if Crimea stayed as part of Ukraine, it would have become a huge NATO/US military base. I seriously doubt that the people of the Crimea would have stood for that, but if such a thing did happen, it would have meant WWIII as Russia would never allow it. From this perspective it’s especially clear why NATO, USA and EU were so shocked that Russia decisively accepted Crimea back. They already considered it theirs.
The city of Sevastopol is the prized possession. This is one of the best harbors in the world. But the entire Crimea is of huge strategic importance – first and foremost, if you want to attack Russia. In addition, Crimea is important for the control over other countries, including Iran and Turkey. As they say, he who controls Crimea, controls the Black Sea.
At least one hospital in Crimea’s capital Simferopol and at least one school in Sevastopol were targeted by the US/NATO just recently. They were planning on turning the hospital into a base for their troops after a massive renovation. One of the high schools (a gymnasium) in Sevastopol the Kiev authorities were about to sell to the US to be repurposed as a school for spies, targeting Russia. It was planned that the kids going to that school would be learning languages and spying techniques since an early age.
It appears Americans wanted to turn the Crimea into a massive military/navy/intelligence complex. The famous, one-of-a-kind Soviet underground submarine base in Balaklava, which is now the Museum of the Cold War, was visited in the past several years by at least 25 delegations from the Pentagon, US Navy, NATO, and Western political circles. Kiev gave them access to super-secret Russian/Soviet sectors of the base, which were supposed to be off limits. They studied with great interest the secret documentation and technology.
In Sevastopol, called “the city of the Russian glory” and the “hero city,” the NATO and US navy ships and military have been present for years. The population greeted them with constant protests, which prevented some of the planned joint military exercises between NATO and Kiev. Sometimes, the NATO ships had to leave because of the population’s resistance (protest footage on video below at 1:54). US/NATO ships in the Sevastopol harbor tried many times to “park” right in front of the Russian ships stationed there just out of spite. As we know, for 23 years, since the breakup of the USSR in 1991. Russia has been leasing its own base on its historic land for $100mln a year from Kiev.
Sevastopol had been the important base of the Russian Fleet since 1776. Sevastopol is a large and beautiful city populated with ethnic Russians, many of whom are retired navy officers and their families. These people dreamed for 23 years of going home – and by home they always meant Russia. Add to that that Kiev constantly attacked Russian language, little by little taking away the right of the Russian-speakers to speak their native language.
In Crimea, the US financed very generously various media, NGOs, and politicians, who would essentially become their agents. Of course, much of that was styled as support for democracy.
People of the Crimea felt deeply insulted by such attitude by the bought-and-paid-for Kiev and such disrespect of their heritage and wishes by the US/NATO.
—
You didn’t see that information in the New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, Telegraph, Guardian, or any other U.S.-regime propaganda-organ; and, so, the facts that are told there might be surprising (or even shocking) to readers under the U.S. regime; but they are true, and the propaganda isn’t.
Then, Ukraine’s far eastern Donbass region, which had voted over 90% for the democratically elected President of Ukraine whom Obama had overthrown, also broke away. Here is how that happened:
Ukraine started its war against resisters by drafting everyone they could grab, and sending them in tanks into the south and east, in order to prevent any more secessions than Crimea had already done. The draftees were terrified, and didn’t want to kill. On 16 April 2014, the Kiev Post bannered “A day of humiliation, as Ukrainian military offensive stalls, six armored vehicles seized”. It opened: “On April 15, Ukraine’s military began an anti-terrorist operation against Kremlin-backed insurgents who have taken over numerous government buildings and police headquarters in several cities of Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine’s most populous region where 10 percent of the nation’s 45 million people live.” The residents in Donbass were now officially (by gther Obama-installed government) called “terrorists,” and Ukraine called its war to exterminate them the “Anti-Terrorist Operation” or ATO. Its objective was to eliminate as many of Yanukovych’s voters as possible (and Donbass having voted over 90% for Yanukovych meant that all of it was now a free-fire zone for Ukraine’s soldiers and bombers), so that the new regime would be able to win future elections (by eliminating the government’s opponents).
On 2 May 2014, thugs who were organized by the newly installed American regime in Kiev burned to death an uncounted number, perhaps over a hundred, individuals inside the Odessa Trade Unions Building, who had been distributing flyers against the coup-regime. Some of the massacre’s key organizers had friends inside the Obama White House. That event set off a panic throughout the eastern and southern half of Ukraine, where Yanukovych had overwhelmingly won the Presidency. The secession movement in the areas where Yanukovych had won (southern and eastern Ukraine), formed, and during 4-9 May 2014 took over some government buildings. Donbass, where Yanukovych had won by over 90%, seceded. The bombings and cannonades against Donbass — and sometimes even firebombings against them— took over.
That’s how the war started.
The U.S. regime and its supporters imposed severe sanctions against Russia for responding.
The accounts that have been given about the Ukrainian war by U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media have been boldly blatant lies.
Peter Klevius wrote:
Same day as China's Chang'e 6, as the world's first ever, had landed back on Earth with samples from the far side of the Moon, BBC's radio troll Sarah Montague didn't manage with a word to mention it in her 45 min "news"!
See how US stole the world-dollar 1971 - and how China's rise challenges US stolen dollar hegemony.
The US demonized China has nothing to do with the real China, but all to do with US dollar embezzlement that makes it possible for US to spend despite constant trade deficit. US is the world's biggest counterfeiter - and a dangerous loser!
To understand US fear of China (the "China threat"), you need to understand 1) the background, i.e. US enormous 1971 dollar theft and its escalating consequences now, 2) the fact that China is already superior in every area* of tech and science, as well as meritocratic real democracy. Moreover, China has no reason to start wars - while US whole existence (the stolen dollar hegemony) depends on warmongering (militarization), and starting and continuing wars. And to understand how low the US led West has sunk, just consider BBC implying Russia deliberately targeting a children's hospital (why would Russia ask for more negative news?!) while not mentioning with a word Israel's slaughtering in Gaza and West bank the same day - not to mention the more than 40,000 Palestinians already murdered - most of them children and innocent adults!
* Both US and China itself try to downplay China's success - for different reasons.
Watch how US stole the dollar. When Nixon 1971 admitted US dollar theft (while lying it was temporary) said 'your dollar may not give you as much abroad as before", that statement actually defined the amount of US embezzlement, because when the US dollar was no longer pegged to gold - only pegged to the whims of US Federal Reserve - it meant that the world dollar (outside US) had to pay for US deficit. So the Bretton Woods (1944) all world currency dollar that was pegged to gold under the custodianship of the Fed, after the theft 1971 (i.e. US violation of the gold connection) the dollar became split in two: a US dollar covering US deficit, and a world dollar that pays for it - both under the custodianship of US. What the US Fed is doing is controlling both currencies while favoring the US dollar.
US
is the real enemy - and modern meritocratic high tech China is the real
friend for any country that chooses peace and prosperity instead of
militarism, war and misery!
Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024.
Sarah Montague's hateful and racist Sinophobia is part of BBC's perverted anti-China propaganda that not only clashes with English consumers and companies* interest, but is also dangerous because it goes now in desperate $-embezzler US lead.
* Except of course military ones. However, because China is the technological world leader, Western (i.e.US made or controlled, with Chinese parts) military equipment is already outdated in an accelerating tempo.
People in England have to pay a compulsory fee to BBC under threat of penalty, no matter if they like its misleading propaganda or not. The only thing worth listening on BBC are a few consumer and private economy programs. All the others are BBC in-house propaganda added with out of house* propaganda - which are promoted in ads equally annoying and frequent as on commercial media. And BBC's s.c. "science" programs constitute a joke
* Usually oligarchially connected to already well-off BBC staff.
Cherry picking hate
BBC impartiality: Although BBC's radio troll Sarah Montague is extremely eager on "reporting" made up negatives about China, she always completely misses positives!
If BBC's Sarah Montague is so dumb that she doesn't get what she's doing, then Peter Klevius will of course forgive her. However, then she shouldn't be rewarded by BBC for spreading misleading propaganda.
Apart from BBC's Sarah Montague & Co's fake "news" and deliberate lying by choosing guests bolstering BBC's lies, BBC also violates every journaistic communication rule:
BBC's Sarah Montague & Co appeal to force or threat is a form of communication meant to support violence/militarism against China.
BBC's Sarah Montague & Co try to force compliance with words as weapons, directly intended to exert power.
BBC's Sarah Montague & Co use name calling instead of engaging in fair arguments, and don't engage substantive reasons or arguments, hence clearly aiming to amplify feelings of conflict against China.
BBC's Sarah Montague & Co's objectification makes it easier to defend violence/militarism against China/Chinese.
BBC's Sarah Montague & Co's reification of Chinese, their government etc. steals from the Chinese people their humanity and complexity in order to amplify perhaps alredy existing emotional disdain in the listeners.
BBC's Sarah Montague & Co overgeneralize in a distorted way and draw conclusions that are too broad to be justified. The purpose of this distorted thinking and communication is to advance a Sinophobic position that strengthens an us/them division and amplifies emotions directed toward the absolute majority of Chinese people.
When innocent Julian Assange was released from UK jail (jailed on order from US that its puppet "ally" UK obeyed),
The
plea deal was a ploy by the US Government to avoid embarrassment - but
BBC continues following criminal US lead by implying guilt.
Julian
Assange never risked anyone's life - but he told the world that US both
risked and did murdered and tortured innocent people.
No comments:
Post a Comment