A research centre to support China's push for nuclear fusion power has been approved. It will be able to test large superconducting magnets and filters under operational conditions.;
I’m aware of what it is. I like to use it to learn about things that generally have agreement among internet users. Why do you think that your sources aren’t being used to edit the pages on WP? (Genuine question)
Why do you think that your sources aren’t being used to edit the pages on WP?
It’s self-evident why not: My sources run counter to the imperial core’s narrative. Specifically the United States government’s narrative. The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing terrorist cells in Xinjiang, and once those efforts failed, it concocted and promoted this genocide narrative. Antony Blinken is still pushing this slop, while aiding and abetting an actual genocide in Palestine.
We see here for example the evolution of public opinion in regards to China. In 2019, the ‘Uyghur genocide’ was broken by the media (Buzzfeed, of all outlets). In this story, we saw the machine I described up until now move in real time. Suddenly, newspapers, TV, websites were all flooded with stories about the ‘genocide’, all day, every day. People whom we’d never heard of before were brought in as experts — Adrian Zenz, to name just one; a man who does not even speak a word of Chinese.
Organizations were suddenly becoming very active and important. The World Uyghur Congress, a very serious-sounding NGO, is actually an NED Front operating out of Germany […]. From their official website, they declare themselves to be the sole legitimate representative of all Uyghurs — presumably not having asked Uyghurs in Xinjiang what they thought about that.
The WUC also has ties to the Grey Wolves, a fascist paramilitary group in Turkey, through the father of their founder, Isa Yusuf Alptekin.
Documents came out from NGOs to further legitimize the media reporting. This is how a report from the very professional-sounding China Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) came to exist. They claimed ‘up to 1.3 million’ Uyghurs were imprisoned in camps. What they didn’t say was how they got this number: they interviewed a total of 10 people from rural Xinjiang and asked them to estimate how many people might have been taken away. They then extrapolated the guesstimates they got and arrived at the 1.3 million figure.
Sanctions were enacted against China — Xinjiang cotton for example had trouble finding buyers after Western companies were pressured into boycotting it. Instead of helping fight against the purported genocide, this act actually made life more difficult for the people of Xinjiang who depend on this trade for their livelihood (as we all do depend on our skills to make a livelihood).
Any attempt China made to defend itself was met with more suspicion. They invited a UN delegation which was blocked by the US. The delegation eventually made it there, but three years later. The Arab League also visited Xinjiang and actually commended China on their policies — aimed at reducing terrorism through education and social integration, not through bombing like we tend to do in the West.
I guess my main issue with your argument is that I’m not convinced of the reliability of the sources you’ve cited regarding the situation in Xinjiang.
Despite your criticisms of Wikipedia, I believe the users of the site do a good job of vetting the information that’s there.
I do think it’s valid to criticize the US broadly, and I likewise think it’s valid to criticize China when they appear to be doing mass internment and “re-education” of their minority groups.
I’m aware of what it is. I like to use it to learn about things that generally have agreement among internet users. Why do you think that your sources aren’t being used to edit the pages on WP? (Genuine question)
Things that generally have agreement among internet users of Five Eyes countries, who are heavily influenced by the propaganda of imperial core states that are run by the capitalist class of those states.
Whether or not my sources are being used on Wikipedia hadn’t occurred to me. Why would it?
I am inviting you to consider this question!
It’s self-evident why not: My sources run counter to the imperial core’s narrative. Specifically the United States government’s narrative. The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing terrorist cells in Xinjiang, and once those efforts failed, it concocted and promoted this genocide narrative. Antony Blinken is still pushing this slop, while aiding and abetting an actual genocide in Palestine.
The blueprint of regime change operations
I guess my main issue with your argument is that I’m not convinced of the reliability of the sources you’ve cited regarding the situation in Xinjiang.
Despite your criticisms of Wikipedia, I believe the users of the site do a good job of vetting the information that’s there.
I do think it’s valid to criticize the US broadly, and I likewise think it’s valid to criticize China when they appear to be doing mass internment and “re-education” of their minority groups.
It seems the sources you deem reliable are largely the same sources that Wikipedia, MB/FC, AFM, and the RAND Corporation deem reliable. I have a lot of thoughts about the media and about media literacy.
They usually do a decent job, less so when reality rubs up against cultural hegemony.
Sure, there are no sacred cows.