and now the compromise is to beat on China :)...
LOL! China posing as "victim" is a joke... as China has knowingly addressed its opportunities and fostered its own risks... in full awareness of the structures that exist... both in the "overt" structures... and the in amorphous in "opinion" etc.
It should not be a surprise that China evidences weaknesses in their address to that... here... as lacking it as an element in their own actionable concern... naturally prevents an excess in concern re others... which "excess" in China, fails to attain "relevance" in other context ?
But, otherwise, the implication re it being some unique feature the U.S. has invented or perfected, to foster some foreign point of focus to distract people from the domestic source in disasters being sustained ?
China's controlled media... ensures they have no need for... and thus totally lack... art in the effort. The "mob" winning one recently in China... only evidence that lying to people has limits in the "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes" issue. Propagandizing "others responsibility" is no where more obvious today than it is in China, and Russia... Russia posing a NATO that appears mostly incapable of defending itself, on the verge of disintegration... and having no interest in "conquering Russia"... as "an existential threat"... What a joke.
Which it is, of course, for Russians... an existential threat... only in the sense that what they have become now isn't sustainable if people are allowed to freely exercise choice... without that element of "media control"...
China... turns the jingoism dial up and down as it suits them... with full enough control over media that what's popular... is intended as a reflection of state policy creating and enabling that...
The U.S. not "different" in that element of seeing utility in propaganda applied in... not just the invention of "others" as the source of problems one has fostered... rather than those problems being owned by and attributed to the the current ruling party...
But, different, still, in (supposedly) having a free press that doesn't exist to enable that... but requires that any such effort must pass basic tests of legitimacy... to be "reasonable" at least ?
China... making its own choices... in positioning to have "beat on China"... be reasonable enough.
And, China's making that pretty easy...
It's obvious its been "in the hopper" for a while... but, was purposefully set aside... tucked away, as delayed... in relation to Covid origins issues and what is known... vs. what China prefers others "know"...
The Senate voting on "discussing that, openly", recently... not an assertion of fact, quite... but, a shift to "let's talk about it"... as a shift in policy after it WAS "we don't talk about that"... ?
So, that "function" we're discussing... has greater depth than assumed... as "choice" in assertion, or "choice" in withholding it ? Might be seen as "using up reservoirs of good will"... to many. My own view, of course... is that it shouldn't happen here... given we have a free press... and don't believe government should control what we do, or do not, talk about...
I get why the CCP feels threatened by the lab leak "theory"... which is no reason to avoid the discussion ?
And, sure... the discussion will highlight participation by a lot of compliant idiots who prefer being lied to, and believe the world is dominated by "conspiracy theories"... but no conspiracies, ever ? LOL !!!
Every political movement... every politician... knows well enough, even within a party, much less between them, there real divisions: "true believers"... and partisans with differences in ideas... a few radical outliers... and there are sycophants... who don't care about policy, or ideas, at all... but attach to the root of power (and $) as parasites... who perceive risk in challenging the source of the flow that causes them comfort. And, they will go to great lengths to "do what is required" to sustain that "flow" or "position"... whether or not it conflicts with the core raison d'etre, of the system, the party... ethics, morality or reason ?
Killer chameleons... or merely fearful adherents to "status quo"... sycophants will always adhere to "power" (or, $)... or the root of it they touch... in right or wrong... and resist seeing truth... particularly truth about what that means they are... and what their purposeful blindness engenders, as... whatever the risk...
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ? Upton Sinclair, or, asH. L. Mencken: "Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced.” Or " Don’t ask a plastic surgeon to compliment you on your youthful appearance" ?
That dominates much of our recent discussions... even seen as "attachment to monarchy" in euro-centric culture... the origins of the (attachments to) shared errors in capitalism, communism, as about accepting rule by kings... as still requires Disney to present "progressive" policy in "empowerment of women" as requiring "multi-cultural princesses, succeeding"... ? It doesn't matter that, in real terms, its ridiculous ?
And, clearly, shouldn't isolate that element... recurring now, "post balloon incident"... from China's other efforts in seeking to extend its "local" control in China... to other places... by extending local means across boundaries into efforts trying to impose similar control in others jurisdictions ? And, no risk in that, right ?
Which also makes the point that... yes, you can "other" that guy for being a bad actor... but, doing so by fabricating fictions... not the same thing as simply removing the "withhold" that has been applied in tolerating those too obvious excesses that should not have been tolerated...
So, yeah, much better to be in position to adopt the universally accepted moral position in justifying... whatever... than to be the one serially caught with hands in others cookie jars ?
while India being cultivated more fervently has been the conduit for Russian oil.. again the hypocrisy is tangible :)
I don't see how that element is "tangible hypocrisy"... rather than "an optimal outcome"... as converting the opponents attempts at "escape" into accelerating "preferred outcomes" ?
I might agree with you that, given the cadres in leadership... its far more probable as an "unintended consequence" than a deliberate objective of policy. Soros, again... in panic over (the natural result of his policy preferences) empowering 'the wrong team"... making the point, there, here... that it is far less about "the national interest"... anywhere... than it is about seeking to impose control... everywhere ?
I don't for a second believe that Soros et al... "oppose" China... rather than seek to use and mimic it to enhance their own interests...
Your binary system always seems to need a bogeyman for unity :)
Yeah. Whatever... what you are seeing... and trying to convert to an "unique" accusation... has nothing to do with any system in particular.
But, a universal truth... that we "mostly" agree more than we disagree... it being a necessity of our condition, as capable of thought, that if you agree with another... you have simply not dug deeply enough into what you agree on and why. Finding difference and fostering division on that basis... not rocket science... But, also, not the only possible approach to "management" of difference in thought ?
But, the real pathology emerges only in [the ignorant] insistence that the "other" must be (denied rights, denied participation, denied legitimacy, "controlled", etc., or) converted to "the truth". Whether that means Spaniards (or Canadians) cultural genocide in the America's... or Microsoft's "technologically enhanced" versions of the same ?
|
