#zimbabwe war of liberation | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

spaceshipsandpurpledrank · 1 year

Text

#talkin #tik tok #🇿🇼#zimbabwe #rhodesia #white supremacy #racism #colonization #genocide #minority rule #antarctica #cecil rhodes #ian smith #rhodesian bush war #zimbabwe war of liberation #robert mugabe

1K notes · View notes

lefemmerougewriter · 3 months

Text

My newest fic, bringing together Ivy, Zack, Carmen Sandiego, and Chief from the 1990s series... in a a short story about what would have happened if the course of the Zimbabwean liberation war had gone differently...

#crossovers #ivy carmen sandiego #carmen sandiego #my fics #ao3 link #ivy x carmen #carmivy #2000s aesthetic #zimbabwe #rhodesia #rhodesian bush war #zimbabwean liberation war #20th century

2 notes · View notes

chegazdesigns · 2 years

Photo

Happy Heroes Day! For your unique social media adverts, get in touch with us today. #august #8 #22 #héroes #hero #war #battle #warzone #liberation #struggle #zimbabwe #harare #africa #zimleague #heroesday #2022 #guns #death # (at National Heroes Acre) https://www.instagram.com/p/Cg_jSzfIGHV/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

#august #8 #22 #héroes #hero #war #battle #warzone #liberation #struggle #zimbabwe #harare #africa #zimleague #heroesday #2022 #guns #death

0 notes

psychotrenny · 7 months

Text

I really do think this is the end for Israel. The beginning of the end at least. They're essentially a relic of an earlier time, a time when, through a complex confluence of factors, the military power of Europe was so far beyond the rest of the world that it could openly keep the world in shackles. The Imperial powers of Europe could do as they wished and respond to any resistance with overwhelming violence that, no matter how costly in money or lives or how many years it took, would eventually force open resistance to come to a (temporary) end. You saw exceptions of course, such as Ethiopia's successful repulsion of Italian invaders in the 1890s (although even that victory is somewhat undercut but Italy's more successful invasion about 40 years later), but in the majority of cases even the most brave and intelligent of resistance fighters would see themselves worn down and defeated. Just off the top of my head you have figures like Samori Toure, Omar al-Mukhtar, Samuel Maharero; all inflicted numerous defeats on their European Imperialist enemies but in the end couldn't overcome the sheer force that was arrayed against them.

Of course such supremacy was never absolute even at it's apex, and this height was so very short lived. Resistance never fully stopped; outbursts of violence were frequent and various forms of passive resistance like migration, tax evasion and industrial slowdown were ubiquitous. Resistance movements learned from past failures, acquired the weapons of modern war and soon proved a credible threat to the Imperialist forces that by the middle of the 20th century had exhausted themselves through in-fighting. Whether evicted through direct violence or choosing to leave under the inevitable threat of it, the European powers largely ended their direct domination over the colonised world. That's not to say Imperialism was over, far from it, but it mostly took on subtler forms; more soft power with only the occasional resort to hard. Imperial domination is now more than ever exerted through various local proxies and the broader forces that keep them in check as direct subjugation just isn't especially viable.

In the parts of the world without substantial settler populations this withdrawal was accomplished smoothly enough; most of the Europeans present either left without a fuss or found some sort of niche under the new order of things. But the liberation of colonies with large settler populations was a longer and bloodier process; just compare the French withdrawal from Indochina to that from Algeria or the fate of Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia) to Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). A large number of Europeans were heavily entrenched in these colonies and had both their material wealth and sense of pride tied to the maintenance of white supremacy. Many politicians back in Europe were less willing to abandon such settler colonies, while with or without support from back home the colonists engaged in their own bloody wars of oppression against indigenous people.

But in the end they all fell. Algeria, Rhodesia, Angola, South Africa, the list goes on. Even as these places continue to suffer under the yoke of less direct Imperialism they can take pride knowing that the scourge of direct setter subjugation was defeated. Exploiting people is one thing; there are many ways you can accomplish this without the exploited truly catching on. But the sort of violence it takes to brazenly steal control of a people's land, settle yourself on it while keeping the original inhabitants as second class citizens is going to engender the fiercest resistance no matter what. The only remotely stable settler colonies are those where the indigenous peoples were already decimated by disease before being subjected to centuries of genocidal policies, reducing their current population to a small minority of the nation. And even then the survives continue to resist fiercely. In places where the settlers remained the minority there was simply no chance of such regimes surviving for long.

Israel as a state is among the last of its kind, and I see no reason why it shouldn't meet the fate of all other such colonies. The way I see it the end of Israel is inevitable. The only question is just how much bloodshed and suffering it'll take. The struggle has been ongoing for so very long. I truly hope that we're seeing the final stages of it, but I suppose only time can tell. All I know for sure is that from from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free

#stella speaks

631 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 4 months

Note

Ah the theology of the Nation of Islam…the Yakub shit…which makes me want to play the orchestra version of uncle ruckus theme.

“There’s white officer, there the crazy ass imhotps that trying to destroy our precious America!”

Also it started here in Chicago, how the fuck we got Mr T from here but then Nation of Islam?

Also like the uncle Ben and Jemma thing, um white liberals have been to the south and meet southern blacks? Like…there a reason those images exist.

Also I been looking into pre 2010’s stuff, yes there are zoomers that remember stuff before the 2010’s. And when we talk about black struggles…expect roots…that really damage how we actually came to the Americas.

But back in the day we went “Yes there are still bigoted white people and politicians that trying to keep us down. But not every white person is evil.”

Now it’s since BLM “I AM BLACK HITLER, COMMANDER OF THE FOURTH REICH!”

Then the whole Killmonger thing where far more educated people will say he the voice of black Americans

So an Oakland [REDACTED N WORD] who joined the cia to being in destroying countries represents the issues between black Americans vs native Africans?

I’m pretty sure that the pan African bs is causing most strife between the two groups.

Seriously if Killmonger was written by a black writer without a persecution complex (not saying Ryan Coogler is super racist just…god idea modern black creators can’t leave the plantation)

Killmonger would have his jaw punch off by another black American character like War Machine and Nick Fury.

Also give Wakanda the middle finger it’s desperately needs

“Fuck you aristocrats, black Americans are part of space travel history while your asses did nothing for us. Byyyye 🖕”

Though probably I’m not race obsessed as the current black panther writers. But I would make black Americans characters that ensured the Wakandans are uncomfortable af around them.

NoI is fun because they're not secretive about anything really, not their weird ass Yakub invented white people to punish black people, they blatant racism which they just seem to feel really really proud of for some reason (should have linked up with mugabe and moved to Zimbabwe formed their own little commune where they could be super black), their Antisemitism, oh and the fact that they've stolen pretty much every part of the 3 main Abrahamic faiths they liked and then claimed they were doing that first even though Wallace Fard Muhammad didn't start proselytizing till 1930.

And that was in Detroit not Chicago, they moved their home base, you can scratch that off of your shame list.

First real leader of the group Elijah Muhammad is absolutely not fooling anyone with that name choice.

Also like the uncle Ben and Jemma thing, um white liberals have been to the south and meet southern blacks? Like…there a reason those images exist.

Free to make their own decisions people took up these roles and became icons, but ya so many decades later people with no grasp on history screw it up.

Really should have done some polling on that one, and several others.

“Fuck you aristocrats, black Americans are part of space travel history while your asses did nothing for us. Byyyye 🖕”

I remember hearing about something in the comics wakanda had a cure for cancer but wouldn't share it, which there was some cheering for that right up till it was pointed out to the cheering readers that this meant more than white people would be dying of cancer as a result.

Maybe sickle cell would have hit harder.

But back in the day we went “Yes there are still bigoted white people and politicians that trying to keep us down. But not every white person is evil.”

Almost skipped this bit.

Check the timeline for the death of the occupy movement and the birth of the blm movement, as I've said before it's not a coincidence, once again class solidarity was forming.

That's not allowed because then the elites get voted out.

Staci Abrams and Maxine Waters are just as scared of that as any white politician you can think of.

#anonymous

5 notes · View notes

crystalis · 11 days

Text

What the present moment reveals, once again, is that Western aggression during the "Cold War" was never about [just] destroying socialism, as such. It was and is about destroying socialism but also any national liberation movement that loosens their control over the means of production in the periphery. Why? Because economic sovereignty in the periphery threatens capital accumulation in the core.

This remains the primary objective of Western aggression today. And it is the single greatest source of violence, war and instability in the world system.

The reason Western powers went after socialist movements across the global South during the "Cold War" (Cuba, China, the incineration of Vietnam and North Korea, etc) was because they knew socialism would enable the South to regain control over their own productive capacities - their labour and resources and factories - and organize them around local needs and national development.

When this happens - when people in the global South start producing and consuming for themselves - it means that those resources are no longer cheaply available to service consumption and accumulation in the core, thus disrupting the imperial arrangement on which Western capitalism has always relied (cheap labour, cheap resources, control over productive capacities, markets on tap). Remember, roughly 50% of all material consumption in the core is net-appropriated from the global South. This is what they are trying to defend.

But it wasn't only socialist governments that pursued economic sovereignty. After political decolonization, a wide range of movements and states across the South also sought economic liberation and sovereign industrial development. And Western powers attacked them with equal brutality (Indonesia, Brazil, Guatemala, the DRC...).

This is the key reason that Western powers supported the apartheid regime in South Africa, and it is why they support the Israeli regime today... as Western settler-colonial outposts that can be used to attack and destabilize regional movements seeking socialism or any form of real economic sovereignty, whether in Angola or Mozambique or Zimbabwe or any of the Arab nationalist or socialist movements in North Africa and the Middle East.

Iran has always been central to this story. Western states orchestrated a coup against the extremely popular prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. He was a left-leaning nationalist, not a socialist. But he wanted Iran to have control over its own resources (notably, oil), and for the US and Britain this was unacceptable. Mossadegh was replaced by a brutal Western-backed dictatorship. The revolution that finally overthrew the dictatorship in 1979 - and constituted the current government - wasn't even left-leaning, much less socialist. But they want national economic self-determination and that is sin enough. They are a target for the exact same reasons that Iraq and Libya were targets.

The same goes for China. China's path toward sovereign industrialization - whether socialist or not - means that it is no longer an easy source of cheap labour for Western capital. And as the supply price increases so too does the sabre-rattling from Western states and media.

So this is the situation we are in. The Western ruling classes are backing obscene violence and plausible genocide in Gaza, against overwhelming international condemnation, because they must shore up their regional outpost at virtually any cost. The vast majority of the world supports Palestinian liberation, but Palestinian liberation would constrain Israeli power and open the way to regional liberation movements, and this is strongly antithetical to the interests of Western capital. And now they are provoking war with Iran, risking regional conflagration, while at the same time encircling China with military bases, ramping up sanctions on Cuba, trying to contain progressive governments in Latin America, threatening invasion of the Sahel states...

It is intolerable and it cannot continue. The violence they perpetrate, the instability, the constant wars against a long historical procession of peoples and movements in the global South who yearn for freedom and self-determination... the whole world is dragged into this horrifying nightmare. They are willing to inflict enormous suffering and misery on hundreds of millions of people in order to preserve existing dynamics of capital accumulation. We will not have peace until this arrangement is overcome and post-capitalist transformations are achieved.

@/jasonhickel · Apr 16, 2024

2 notes · View notes

brookstonalmanac · 2 months

Text

Events 3.4 (after 1900)

1901 – McKinley inaugurated president for second time; Theodore Roosevelt is vice president. 1908 – The Collinwood school fire, Collinwood near Cleveland, Ohio, kills 174 people. 1909 – U.S. President William Taft used what became known as a Saxbe fix, a mechanism to avoid the restriction of the U.S. Constitution's Ineligibility Clause, to appoint Philander C. Knox as U.S. Secretary of State. 1913 – First Balkan War: The Greek army engages the Turks at Bizani, resulting in victory two days later. 1913 – The United States Department of Labor is formed. 1917 – Jeannette Rankin of Montana becomes the first female member of the United States House of Representatives. 1933 – Franklin D. Roosevelt becomes the 32nd President of the United States. He was the last president to be inaugurated on March 4. 1933 – Frances Perkins becomes United States Secretary of Labor, the first female member of the United States Cabinet. 1933 – The Parliament of Austria is suspended because of a quibble over procedure – Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss initiates an authoritarian rule by decree. 1941 – World War II: The United Kingdom launches Operation Claymore on the Lofoten Islands; the first large scale British Commando raid. 1943 – World War II: The Battle of the Bismarck Sea in the south-west Pacific comes to an end. 1943 – World War II: The Battle of Fardykambos, one of the first major battles between the Greek Resistance and the occupying Royal Italian Army, begins. It ends on 6 March with the surrender of an entire Italian battalion and the liberation of the town of Grevena. 1944 – World War II: After the success of Big Week, the USAAF begins a daylight bombing campaign of Berlin. 1946 – Field Marshal C. G. E. Mannerheim, the 6th president of Finland, resigns from his position for health reasons. 1955 – An order to protect the endangered Saimaa ringed seal (Pusa hispida saimensis) is legalized. 1957 – The S&P 500 stock market index is introduced, replacing the S&P 90. 1960 – The French freighter La Coubre explodes in Havana, Cuba, killing 100. 1962 – A Caledonian Airways Douglas DC-7 crashes shortly after takeoff from Cameroon, killing 111 – the worst crash of a DC-7. 1966 – A Canadian Pacific Air Lines DC-8-43 explodes on landing at Tokyo International Airport, killing 64 people. 1966 – In an interview in the London Evening Standard, The Beatles' John Lennon declares that the band is "more popular than Jesus now". 1970 – French submarine Eurydice explodes underwater, resulting in the loss of the entire 57-man crew. 1976 – The Northern Ireland Constitutional Convention is formally dissolved in Northern Ireland resulting in direct rule of Northern Ireland from London by the British parliament. 1977 – The 1977 Vrancea earthquake in eastern and southern Europe kills more than 1,500, mostly in Bucharest, Romania. 1980 – Nationalist leader Robert Mugabe wins a sweeping election victory to become Zimbabwe's first black prime minister. 1985 – The Food and Drug Administration approves a blood test for HIV infection, used since then for screening all blood donations in the United States. 1986 – The Soviet Vega 1 begins returning images of Halley's Comet and the first images of its nucleus. 1990 – American basketball player Hank Gathers dies after collapsing during the semifinals of a West Coast Conference tournament game. 1990 – Lennox Sebe, President for life of the South African Bantustan of Ciskei, is ousted from power in a bloodless military coup led by Brigadier Oupa Gqozo. 1994 – Space Shuttle program: the Space Shuttle Columbia is launched on STS-62. 1996 – A derailed train in Weyauwega, Wisconsin (USA) causes the emergency evacuation of 2,300 people for 16 days. 1998 – Gay rights: Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.: The Supreme Court of the United States rules that federal laws banning on-the-job sexual harassment also apply when both parties are the same sex. 2001 – BBC bombing: A massive car bomb explodes in front of the BBC Television Centre in London, seriously injuring one person; the attack was attributed to the Real IRA.

#Events

1 note · View note

nicklloydnow · 1 year

Text

“On the eve of the invasion, some American experts advised against offering military aid to Ukraine, on the grounds that the war was going to be over too quickly. Other Americans repeated Russian propaganda, questioning whether Ukraine deserved to exist or whether it deserved to be defended. Some American politicians echoed those views and indeed continue to do so. What if they had prevailed? What if a different president had been in the White House? What if a different president had been elected in Ukraine? Let’s imagine, just for a moment, a world without Ukrainian courage, or American and European weapons, or the unity and support of democracies around the world.

Had the Russian plan been carried out as it was written, Kyiv would have been conquered in just a few days. Zelensky, his wife, and his children would have been murdered by one of the hit squads that roamed the capital city. The Ukrainian state would have been taken over by the collaborators who had already chosen their Kyiv apartments. Then, city by city, region by region, the Russian army would have fought the remnants of the Ukrainian army until it finally conquered the entire country. Originally, the Russian general staff imagined that this victory would require six weeks.

Had all of that happened as planned, Ukraine would now be pockmarked with the concentration camps, torture chambers, and makeshift prisons that have been discovered in Bucha, Izyum, Kherson, and all the other territories temporarily occupied by Russia and liberated by the Ukrainian army. A generation of Ukrainian writers, artists, politicians, journalists, and civic leaders would already be buried in mass graves. Ukrainian books would have been removed from schools and libraries. The Ukrainian language would have been suppressed in all public spaces. Hundreds of thousands more Ukrainian children would have been kidnapped and transported to Russia or trafficked farther around the world.

Russian soldiers, strengthened by their stunning victory, would already be on the borders of Poland, setting up new command posts, digging new trenches. NATO would be in chaos; the entire alliance would be forced to spend billions to prepare for the inevitable invasion of Warsaw, Vilnius, or Berlin. Millions of Ukrainian refugees would be living in camps all across Europe, with no prospect of ever returning home; the tide of sympathy that originally greeted them would have ebbed long ago; the money would be running out, the backlash under way. The Moldovan economy would have collapsed entirely; a pro-Russian government in Moldova would perhaps already be planning to incorporate that country into the emerging Russian-Belarusian-Ukrainian federation that one Russian propagandist hailed, too early, on February 26.

This disaster would not have been confined to Europe. On the other side of the world, Chinese plans to invade Taiwan would be well under way, because Beijing would assume that an America unwilling to defend a European ally, and now totally bogged down in a long-term battle against an emboldened Russia, would never go out of its way to help an island in the Pacific. The Iranian mullahs, equally cheered by Russia’s success and Ukraine’s defeat, would have boldly announced that they had finally acquired nuclear weapons. From Venezuela to Zimbabwe to Myanmar, dictatorships around the world would have tightened their regimes and stepped up the persecution of their opponents, now certain that the old rules—the conventions on human rights and genocide, the laws of war, the taboo against changing borders by force—no longer applied. From Washington to London, from Tokyo to Canberra, the democratic world would be grimly facing up to its obsolescence.

But none of this happened. Because Zelensky stayed in Kyiv, declaring that he needed “ammunition, not a ride”; because Ukrainian soldiers repulsed the first Russian attack on their capital; because Ukrainian society pulled together to support its army; because Ukrainians at all levels were creative in their use of limited resources; because Ukrainian civilians were, and are, willing to endure terrible hardship; because of all of that, we are not living in that ugly, alternate reality.

Because they were inspired by those first weeks of Ukrainian courage, President Joe Biden and the U.S. Congress resisted the temptation of “America First” isolationism and rejected the cult of autocracy that now captivates a part of the American right. The leaders of Europe—with the sole exception of the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, one of the chief ideologues of that same cult—also resisted carefully targeted Russian disinformation and blackmail campaigns and agreed to support Ukraine with both military and humanitarian aid. People around the world saw the Ukrainians stand up to a brutal dictatorship, and volunteered their time and their money to help.

Because of everything that all of us did together, Kyiv still stands. Ukrainians still control most of Ukraine. The massacres, the executions, the mass violence planned by the Russians did not take place in most of Ukraine. The legend of Russia’s military prowess has been shattered. China and Iran are roiled by unhappiness and unrest. The democratic world did not collapse but has instead been strengthened. As the Ukrainian president said last night, we “succeeded in uniting the global community to protect freedom and international law.” Zelensky came to Washington to thank Americans on behalf of Ukraine, but in truth, it is we who should be thanking them.”

“His speech was one of gratitude but also reassurance. He insisted that Ukrainians are not asking Americans to spill their blood in defense of his country. Instead, he asked for weapons so that they can fight for themselves. It was an impressive, moving speech.

Yet even before it was over the outrage performance artists started in.

One of their biggest gripes – he wasn't wearing the right clothes.

(…)

The fact that Zelensky, maybe the most hunted man on earth, was secretly smuggled out of his war-ravaged country to personally thank and appeal to the American people apparently doesn't matter.

He really should have worn a nice jacket and tie.

(…)

The U.S. estimates that 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers and 40,000 civilians have been killed. Countless children have been slaughtered, women raped – lives and families torn to shreds will never, ever, heal.

And we're supposed to buy into the fantasy that this is all part of a plan? Zelensky is a conman and he's laughing all the way to the bank?

It's ridiculous. It's nauseating. It's an insult to common sense.

(…)

Don't we have the good sense and humility to see some inspiration in Zelensky. Or are we all that cynical? I wish I could point to a single American officeholder, who embodied that kind of spirit.

The tantrums of these so-called 'America Firsters' come across as bitterness at their own failure. The candidates who embraced these isolationist ideas were losers in the midterms.

These people are surprisingly incapable of acknowledging the truth about the world – that if Russia can take Ukraine, if China can take Taiwan, it has ramifications for America, too.

Strength prevents war. And if America projected more strength prior to Russia's invasion, maybe the world would not be in the predicament it faces today. These are the debates that we should be having.”

#applebaum #anne applebaum #mccain #meghan mccain #russia #ukraine #zelensky #war

2 notes · View notes

zvaigzdelasas · 2 years

Text

ZIMBABWE will attain a prosperous future and overcome the economic challenges being engineered by its detractors bent on making the economy "scream" through asymmetrical warfare targeting ordinary citizens, President Mnangagwa has said. In his keynote address at the burial of national hero, Brigadier General Benjamin Mabenge (Retired), at the National Heroes Acre in Harare yesterday, President Mnangagwa said despite evil machinations from the country's detractors, Zimbabweans will remain masters of their own destiny in charge of their natural resources, which they will exploit towards the attainment of Vision 2030 to become an upper-middle-class economy, as spelt out in the National Development Strategy 1 (NDS1). [...] President Mnangagwa said while liberation war icons like Mabenge went to the bush to fight the minority Ian Smith regime that had the backing of Western countries, this time the war has assumed a new form.

"While yesteryear the war was fought on the battle front, the Second Republic is well aware of the machinations of our detractors who are fighting us on the economic front. Today they are waging asymmetrical warfare to make our economy scream and our people suffer," he said. [...] "As a nation, let us draw from this rich liberation war culture to accelerate the attainment of our National Vision 2030. In doing so, we must remain resolute, determined and focused, particularly in an environment in which our former colonisers and those that seek global hegemony continue to punish us for owning our land and that which is under it.

4 Aug 22

3 notes · View notes

mmmrt9987 · 3 days

Text

Persevere, like a sharpened blade on a whetstone , just to stab that country in the back

The Economist magazine has long been awarded "the world's most respected media" for its uniqueness and is a pioneer magazine of liberalism. Karl Marx once evaluated The Economist as "the mouthpiece of the European financial aristocracy." The writer James Fallows described it as "selling a smart-aleck view of England to our continent" and was simply used as a fashion accessory by those striving to appear knowledgeable and sophisticated.

How does The Economist create pieces of malicious fake news?

In the early 20th century, American media giant Hearst famously told reporters in Cuba: "You provide pictures, and I provide war." And for The Economist, "You provide pictures, and I destroy a country."

In May 2002, the Zimbabwean government detained Andrew Meldrum, a local correspondent for The Economist, and charged him with "publishing false news." Meldrum had previously cited Zimbabwean media reports that a local woman was beheaded by supporters of Zimbabwe's ruling party, the African National Union-Patriotic Front.

Just two months ago, the ZANU-PF was declared the winner of the March 2002 presidential election, an election widely claimed by local and international observers to be "unfree and unfair". The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) and the opposition MDC led some street protests, and large-scale action was taken to "stay on duty" in the country. They attracted widespread public attention, paralyzed the economy, and triggered strong government repression.

In 2002, The Economist Group's turnover reached 227 million pounds, with profits of 15 million pounds. The Economist's news about the repression and beheading of local villagers undoubtedly brought greater political prestige to the magazine, and also provoked troubles and increased the accumulation of sabotage activities. Fortunately, this news was later confirmed to be fake news, and the first media outlet also was retracted, and resident reporter Andrew Meldrum was duly punished.

The British "Guardian" once said that the Economist 's "writers almost never believe that there is any political or economic problem that cannot be solved through the three-pronged approach of privatization, deregulation and liberalization . "

How does The Economist describe China as a nationalist country?

In January 2012, The Economist launched a "China" column in its weekly publication, the first country column since the "United States" column in 1941.

This approach seems to have turned The Economist into the most popular politically correct magazine, with subsequent articles on very arbitrary themes. Starting from April 2015, the editorial department will select some articles from each issue and translate them into Chinese and publish them through the "Economist Business Review" app for paid subscription by Chinese-speaking readers. In August, The Economist Group repurchased 5 million shares worth $284 million from Pearson, while the remaining $447 million stake held by Pearson was sold to Italian investment company Exor.

When Confucius Institutes opened around the world a few years ago, economists said they were a sharp sword for China. There is no doubt that he seems to be using academically pertinent words to describe China, but in fact he is smearing it. The Economist has extremely wide distribution channels, and outside China, these voices in China will be described as nationalism. , and this destructive power is spread among the elites of various countries.

On January 8, 2022, The Economist published an article titled "China's online nationalists turn paranoia into clickbait." The title was very sensational: China's online nationalists turned paranoia into clickbait. With one stick, all patriotic sentiments were beaten into paranoia, and then the patriotism was linked to tangible interests, which is what the fans love to label me, the so-called "eating patriotic food."

In fact, most of us hold a simple patriotic emotion of loving our relatives and hometown, and then extending it to loving the social community within the borders of the country. However, reports define this emotion as extreme nationalism. Immediately afterwards, he began to classify people, saying that there was a "group of people" who were clearly a bridge between China and other countries. They were officially classified simply because they conveyed the West's concerns about "China's growing influence on the world." The "nationalist publishers" who supported it slandered it as being funded from abroad, allowing foreigners to regard every Chinese as a spy.

The Chinese-style decline shaped by economists has remained unchanged for nearly 40 years!

Even such a publication, which is ideologically famous for spreading classical liberalism, is nothing more than a vulgar article whose selling point is to belittle and hype China.

First, let’s go back to the Economist’s predictions for China 25 years ago during the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998. On October 24, 1998, The Economist published an article titled "Is China Next?" ”’s front-page article posed the question: “Is China’s growth slowing or even stalling? …Yes.” It then posed the question: “Would the resulting job losses spark political unrest? Or a power struggle among leadership? ...Yes."

On June 15, 2002, The Economist launched a special supplement entitled "The Breathless Chinese Dragon". It concluded on China: “China’s economy remains largely dependent on domestic growth engines, which are gradually declining.

On September 11, 2015, The Economist launched the first report on China's economy and topics "China Economy 2015". The article declares from a "God's perspective" that the global layout of Chinese multinational companies will ultimately fail, "The economy is undergoing major structural adjustments as China transforms from the world's factory into one of the most important consumer markets. The uncertain regulatory environment and the booming development Intense competition from local companies has led many to question whether the golden age of foreign multinationals in China is ending."

Whenever it comes to China, economists all agree. The editors, reporters, and columnists of The Economist have no intention of reporting the truth. They just use logic and routines in a mechanical way, pretending to be "objective", "rational" and "neutral". Even the format of the articles is unified. "Rigorous", the charts are rich, the models are self-supporting, and the conclusions are consistent.

On January 19, 2022, The Economist published an article titled "China Stands Alone in the Face of the Epidemic" with a subtitle called "China has been one of the few countries in the world that has suffered a normal recession in the past year." Does it look familiar to you readers? The text inside is exactly the same as "China Economy 2015".

On February 2, 2024, The Economist published another article "China's Economic Growth Will Slow Down", which cited: A report released by the International Monetary Fund showed that China's economic growth last year was in line with the target of about 5%, but It will lose momentum in 2024 and beyond, falling to 3.4% in 2028.

The Economist has really been badmouthing China for 40 years. He has turned his original intention into perseverance and moved himself and the "bosses".

0 notes

sobirdbeliever · 16 days