Tuesday, June 15, 2021

Boeing-Airbus trade row set to end after 17 years

 

The US and the EU have agreed a truce in a 17-year trade dispute over subsidies for Boeing and Airbus.

Under the agreement, both sides will remove taxes on $11.5bn (£8.2bn) of goods, including wine, cheese and tractors, for five years.

Those tariffs, imposed by both sides as punishment in the escalating dispute, had already been suspended in March while they tried to resolve matters.

In March the US suspended tariffs on UK imports arising from the dispute.

US President Joe Biden had a summit with EU leaders on Tuesday, where he is trying to bolster support for his more assertive stance towards Russia and China, and move away from Trump-era trade rows.

"I think we have great opportunities to work closely with the EU as well as Nato and we feel quite good about it," President Biden said.

Airbus said it welcomed the truce, adding that the agreement "will provide the basis to create a level-playing field which we have advocated for since the start of this dispute".

"It will also avoid lose-lose tariffs that are only adding to the many challenges that our industry faces," the planemaker added.

 

 

Boeing-Airbus fight

The dispute between the US and EU has escalated over many years, with both sides accusing the other of unfairly propping up their flagship planemakers.

In 2019, the World Trade Organization ruled that the EU had illegally provided support to Airbus, clearing the way for the US to respond with tariffs worth up to $7.5bn (£5.4bn) in annual trade.

Roughly one year later, in a parallel case, it ruled that the US benefits to Boeing also violated trade rules, authorising the EU to hit the US with tariffs worth roughly $4bn.

Since then, both sides have taken steps to remove the assistance found at fault.

The US and the EU have taken a much more conciliatory stance in the 17-year dispute since President Biden took over from predecessor Donald Trump, who imposed tariffs on the EU.

 

 

 This meeting has started with a breakthrough on aircraft," European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen said. "This really opens a new chapter in our relationship because we move from litigation to cooperation on aircraft - after 17 years of dispute... Today we have delivered."

President Biden had a meeting with EC President von der Leyen and the EU's chairman Charles Michel, who represents EU governments.

"We're facing a once in a century global health crisis," President Biden said on Monday, while adding: "Russia and China are both seeking to drive a wedge in our transatlantic solidarity."

 

 

 

US Trade Representative Katherine Tai discussed the aircraft dispute in her first face-to-face meeting with EU counterpart Valdis Dombrovskis on Monday ahead of Tuesday's US-EU summit.

Freezing the trade conflicts would give both sides more time to focus on broader agendas such as concerns over China's state-driven economic model, diplomats said.

The EU and the US are the world's top trading powers, along with China, but Donald Trump sought to sideline the EU.

After scotching a free-trade agreement with the EU, the Trump administration focused on shrinking a growing US deficit in goods trade.

President Biden, however, sees the EU as an ally in promoting free trade, as well as in fighting climate change and ending the Covid-19 pandemic.

In December, the UK said it would voluntarily suspend its tariffs on US goods imposed as parts of the Boeing dispute. The US responded in kind in March.

UK officials said they hoped for compromise talks, casting the measure as an example of the benefits to the UK's ability to act as an independent trading nation following Brexit.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57484209 

 

 

 Italian parmesan had been affected by tariffs

 

 

 

 


 

The New Secession Crisis

The Democrats have already left the Union.


It was appropriate that news of the Democrats’ plans to pack the Supreme Court broke in April, just a couple days after the 160th anniversary of the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, the shots that began the Civil War. 

Unlike President James Buchanan, who dithered in responding to obvious Confederate aggression, the newly inaugurated Abraham Lincoln acted decisively upon taking office. He informed South Carolina Governor Francis Pickens that he would be resupplying the fort, forcing South Carolina’s hand. Lincoln’s actions did not start the war—they made it clear that war was already underway. From that point on, Americans, even those who had previously wished to ignore what was staring them in the face, were awakened to the reality of their situation. 

The dispute between Lincoln and Pickens that led to the attack on Fort Sumter was not simply a political struggle over who should control the regime but a larger political struggle over which regime it would be. Ultimately, it was a question of whether we would be a nation for free citizens or one that held men and women in bondage. 

Today’s Republicans, like Lincoln, find themselves in a regime-level conflict with the Democrats. The Democrats are firing again and again on our Constitutional order, our history, and our traditions—our metaphorical Fort Sumter, if you will—but unlike our forebear Lincoln, our elected leadership seems either to be aiding the insurgent Left or, at best, feebly invoking constitutional provisions and principles, as if our opponents have shown that their behavior can be in any way constrained by these things. We need to channel the spirit of Lincoln rather than Buchanan to win this struggle. 

This does not mean we should forgo our work within the current system, but we must acknowledge that whether we wish it to or not, the regime as constituted may not long endure in its current form, and we must prepare ourselves accordingly.

The Indictment 

The Democrats have already seceded from America’s historic conception of nationhood in many respects:

THEY have attacked, on a relentless and increasingly hysterical basis, white Americans, who as the overwhelming majority population, were the primary developers of America’s cultural, intellectual, and political heritage, with all its successes as well as its shortcomings. In doing so, they attack the traditions, history, and values developed by those generations of Americans that historically bound together Americans of all races, religions, and backgrounds. 

THEY have occupied our nation’s capital with thousands of troops as if the American people were a foreign foe. This was done in response to a nonexistent threat on the pretext of a shocking but solitary riot, wherein everyone who died was a Trump supporter and none of the so-called “insurgents” was armed. They have since held many of those participating, even peripherally, in prison for months, often in solitary confinement, on absurdly inflated charges, as a political punishment and a warning to future dissidents.

THEY have engaged in bureaucratic and judicial nullification of our laws, particularly on immigration—perhaps the most important element in determining who makes up the American polity. Donald Trump ran on the platform of toughening up immigration policy. It was his defining issue. 

Yet the Left made a mockery of the rule of law, using the bureaucracy to throw up procedural roadblock after procedural roadblock to Trump’s agenda, while left-wing judges issued blatantly absurd rulings using invented doctrines to block Trump’s rescission of Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals order and accuse the administration of a “Muslim ban” that, in fact, was based heavily on an earlier Obama Administration effort. 

THEY have campaigned for decades to neuter the Second Amendment and disarm Americans, based on a misreading of constitutional rights and an empirically unjustified paranoia about white men and guns, pushed relentlessly in their corporate media. Terrified of urban violence, but unable to acknowledge this because of their own political taboos, affluent white leftists have sought to train their rhetorical and legal fire on groups with relatively low rates of crime, pushing ineffective policies that do not keep us safe but do keep us under their control. 

THEY have attacked us through their Big Tech proxies, damaging our ability to speak freely in the new public square, coordinate political action, or share information with each other outside of a tightly-controlled corporate media apparatus. 

This censorship campaign started with popular but more politically marginalized figures such as Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos and moved, boiling the frog slowly, to deplatforming the sitting president of the United States. Thousands of right-wing dissidents, many with large followings, have been effectively removed from public discourse for political reasons, often with only the flimsiest proceduralist justifications. When Project Veritas conducted devastating undercover exposes on the misbehavior of quasi-state corporate media, in which key figures from these entities actually directly admitted they are engaged in propaganda, the group was banned from social media.

THEY have pursued race-based reparations/wealth confiscation from one set of Americans to another based purely on skin color in blatant contradiction of the Constitution’s promise of equal protection under the laws. Many of our existing welfare systems are, on a net basis, race-based wealth transfers. But to racialize such transfers explicitly represents a dramatic escalation in the Democrats’ war on the equality guaranteed to us in our founding documents. 

THEY have turned the media into a propaganda arm of the ruling political party, using their media proxies to engage in a full-time war against Trump’s policies and any policy they oppose. Journalists have abandoned all pretenses of fairness and balance. During the election campaign, they censored or refused to report on stories, such as Hunter Biden’s possible involvement with his father in corrupt dealings with the Chinese government, that would negatively affect Democrats. This was done in conjunction with the coordinated demonization of the opposition candidate

THEY have used instruments of the state such as the IRS (under Lois Lerner) the FBI (Russiagate) and the Department of Defense (attacking Tucker Carlson) and numerous other agencies to attack political opponents. Political allies of President Trump were investigated and prosecuted by the government in ways that were transparently focused on taking down the duly elected president.

THEY have blatantly rigged the election process—changing of rules in violation of state law, manipulating debate rules and polls, and relentlessly pushing for an unconstitutional federalization of state election laws. 

THEY have engaged in asymmetric street violence against us. For the Left, their violence is speech, and our speech is violence. One-third of “very liberal” whites believe violence can be justified in pursuing political goals, vs. just 4 percent of “very conservative” whites. They have enabled their armed and violent wings to cause billions of dollars of damage during the George Floyd and Antifa riots, making them the most expensive civil disturbances in history, while criminalizing the much smaller and far less significant street forces on the Right such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, further using their control of the state legal apparatus to label their opponents as “domestic terrorists.” 

THEY have removed entire groups of Americans who are not in their privileged demographics from roles in government leadership. Biden tweets about a cabinet that looks like America, when his cabinet of 25 has no whites of Protestant origin, a group that encompassed almost every one of the founding fathers and even today makes up about 40 percent of the electorate. Meanwhile, in the civil service, the Democrats are taking pains to out Trump supporters and ban them from government jobs. Even the military is now falling under their assault. 

THEY have erased our history—tearing down our statuesrenaming our schools, and revising our curricula to focus on a radical and racist doctrine of critical race theory. 

THEY have corrupted our jury system—with Representative Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Joe Biden flagrantly involving themselves in a local jury trial. The specter of mob violence hung over the Derrick Chauvin trial, as was clearly evident from the juror who spoke on the record, while other jurors blatantly broke their oaths of impartiality to obtain the required verdict. 

THEY have locked us in our homes on the basis of often-arbitrary requirements and lack of evidence and enriched themselves dramatically in the process. Meanwhile, the most stringent lockdown proponents from Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan to Gavin Newsom in California have been found flagrantly violating their own lockdown orders. Furthermore, thousands of left-aligned “public health” professionals, many of them directly on the government payroll, advocated for the Black Lives Matter and Antifa protests and riots, during the heart of the pandemic, claiming that racism was a public health crisis. 

THEY have attempted, most importantly, to change our fundamental structures of governance. In trying to add Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. (which is specifically excluded from statehood in the Constitution) as states, they have attempted to fundamentally and unilaterally alter the congressional balance of power. They have attempted to end the Senate filibuster (a 183-year-old tradition of our governance) and pack the Supreme Court, by amending the 152-year-old Judiciary Act in a blatant attempt to remove the influence of the last branch of government they don’t control. 

That they have not yet been able to accomplish all of these desecrations is due only to a couple of “moderate” Democrats remaining in the Senate. But the Right cannot stake America’s future on the continued benevolence of a couple of Democratic politicians. There is no doubt that with a few additional seats in Congress, the Democrats would not hesitate to change these laws, further cementing their secession from our mutual polity. 

And So? 

While we should not abandon our attempts to make positive change in the current system, we cannot rely solely on proceduralist maneuvers to attempt reconciliation with people who make it clear they want to defeat and destroy us. We must begin to relocate physically to welcoming local geographies and rebuild our capacity for independent action by creating parallel institutions to the existing corrupted ones. My Claremont Institute colleague Michael Anton has suggested some ways in which fundamental internal political reorganization of our states and localities could head off a dire crisis. 

We must aggressively challenge executive orders and unconstitutional laws within the boundaries of states we will control and begin to selectively sidestep enforcement of draconian federal laws that are odious to our values, the plain language of the Constitution, and to the concept of American liberties. 

There are, of course, good people on the other side of the aisle, including, for many of us, family and friends. But it is a time for choosing. Those good people remaining on the Left must decide to which type of polity they aspire. If they wish to urge their leaders to turn dramatically from their current course and reconcile with us, we should meet them in a spirit of compromise. But, if they wish to cast their lots with our current overlords and their increasingly totalitarian designs, we must tell them that while they are welcome to govern themselves they are no longer allowed to govern us. 

It will be overwhelming to oppose an enemy that controls virtually every single institution of society. There are indeed insurrectionists in Washington, D.C., the problem is that they are currently running the country and the bureaucracy, having imprisoned a few sad-sack political opponents who did not understand the rules of the game being played. 

The growing and energetic majority of Democratic leaders have already seceded from America—from its culture, its history, its government and its institutions. 

Lincoln lost Fort Sumter, but he, and America, eventually would triumph in the broader struggle. In 1861, America’s opponents made it clear and they viewed the war as existential. Lincoln responded with firmness and determination, a determination that would eventually lead to victory. In 2021, the Democrats have made clear that they see their struggle against us as an existential one, and that there is no tactic they will not use in search of total victory.

We need to match their resolve with our own.


Kamala Harris Suggests Biden Has Dirt On The Clintons



WASHINGTON, D.C.—In a cryptic tweet this morning, Vice President Kamala Harris reached out to Hillary Clinton and suggested that Biden may have dirt on the Clintons. 

"We can't imagine why she would do this, or what dirt Biden could possibly have on an impeccably virtuous moral leader like Hillary Clinton," said every single news anchor in perfect robotic unison. They then went back to their breaking story on why bird watching is racist.

When asked for comment, Kamala Harris responded, saying: "HAHAHAHAHA ha ha ha ha ha HA!" 

Investigators are trying to uncover further information about what the Biden team has uncovered regarding Hillary Clinton, but we were unable to ask the investigators more after they all decided to get into a van, tie themselves up, and drive themselves into the Potomac river.

We also reached out to President Biden, but he was unavailable for comment.


A Pox On Retroactive Taxes

 


Article by Richard A. Epstein for the Hoover Institution


A Pox On Retroactive Taxes

One staple of legal philosophy is the prohibition against retroactive laws. The late legal theorist Lon Fuller spared no anger in denouncing these laws as “monstrous,” because “to speak of governing or directing conduct today by rules that will be enacted tomorrow is to talk in blank prose.”

Nonetheless, large governments are often hard pressed to fund their ambitious spending programs. And so the Biden administration proposes to increase the capital-gains top rate from 23.8 percent to 43.4 percent to pay for its $6 trillion American Families Plan, which includes about $1.8 trillion for child care, education, and paid employee leave. But as its Treasury Report makes clear, it fears that the steep capital-gains rate increase will induce massive selling before the effective date of the statute in 2022. It therefore proposes an unprecedented step of imposing the higher capital-gains rate on any transaction that took place after late April, when that tax hike was first proposed.

But Treasury misfires badly. Sales of capital assets are good for the economy because they allow individuals to shift from weaker to stronger investments. The inefficiency comes from forcing premature transfers. Yet the massive rate increase proves that high rates, even when applied on a prospective basis, will distort the allocation of capital, depress overall share prices, and ensure that the new tax will fall short of its revenue goals, which are better achieved through durable tax cuts. But the Biden administration plainly ignores these drawbacks for long-term wealth creation in its relentless request for revenue today.

The Biden administration’s dubious strategy is highly questionable for yet another reason. There is no doubt that this bald threat will deter many individuals from making various capital gains transactions at some real financial cost of their own. Indeed, this provision has already been met with serious resistance, including from David Solomon, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, who has warned that the government should be “very, very cautious” about this tax, given the risk of “a chilling of investment activity.” Republican Senator John Thune has also denounced the retroactive tax as “terrible policy,” noting how it frustrates the plans that individuals have made under the current law.

The Biden administration hopes that by giving notice to the world of its intentions, it can dilute the opposition to the retroactive tax. The ploy is, however, deeply problematic. To be sure, notice is generally of value because its gives people the opportunity to mitigate their losses, which they can and would do if the tax increase were only given prospective effect. But this proposed rule offers no avenue of escape to wary taxpayers because the concept of notice is taken far beyond its proper use. Normally, notice lets taxpayer adjust their actions. This cannot be done with retroactive laws.

The Biden administration’s use of notice, however, carries a more sinister aspect because it attempts to legitimate state coercion. By way of comparison, think of a robber who announces that anyone who walks the streets at night will be robbed of his wealth. That notice might persuade sensible people to stay home. But the correct response is to arrest the individual who made the illegal threat, so that it is once again safe for innocent people to walk the streets. Thus, if the government were to give notice today that it may at some future time condemn property at a price that reflects only its current market value, it should nonetheless be required to pay full market value at the time of condemnation, for otherwise the government, through its unilateral declaration, creates a zero-cost option to purchase property at below its fair market value.

If the government wishes to enforce that option, it should be required to purchase at market rates an option to condemn the property from its current owner at its current price, which protects the landowner and curbs the government’s appetite to obtain something for nothing. That costly option will be exercised only when the gain to the government exceeds the property owner’s loss, which is what an efficient system requires.

At present, it seems unlikely that the Biden plan will pass in anything like its present form, which is probably why markets have continued to rise on the expectation of greater economic growth in the post-COVID era. But it is still worth asking how it is that these retroactive taxes came into such prominence and vogue. As is so often the case, the best explanation for the change in attitudes lies in the displacement of the classical liberal mindset in favor of the progressive views on the subject.

The classical liberal position always sought to find the middle ground between two untenable extremes—a government too weak to raise revenue, preserve order, and control monopoly power on the one side; and a Leviathan too strong for individual liberty to survive on the other. To maintain the right balance, two sets of safeguards were envisioned: structural limitations associated at the federal level with separation of powers, and the protection of private property and economic liberties. These ideals were imperfectly respected until the New Deal revolution of 1937, at which point they fell into rapid desuetude with the rise of regulation at both the federal and state levels.

The prohibition against retroactive laws was part of the general arsenal that guarded against excessive government. As late as 1935 in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co., a sharply divided Supreme Court struck down a New Deal statement that required the railroads on a retroactive basis to fund pension plans for workers who were let go for cause or who had retired before the passage of the statute. A far better way to handle any perceived difficulties of private pension is to use general revenues, which would radically alter the willingness of the Congress to pass such statutes.

Yet that case, and the attitude that it represents, was de facto overruled in 1976 in Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., which retroactively imposed extensive obligations on operators to deal with pneumoconiosis, or black lung disease, on behalf of those miners who had left employment prior to the effective date of the statute, and to whom the company had fully discharged all of its legal obligations. Again, the retroactive application of the rule violates Lon Fuller’s prescription, and the result is hardly justified by the court’s observation that “legislative acts adjusting the burdens and benefits of economic life come to the court with a presumption of constitutionality” and are “not unlawful solely because [they] upset otherwise settled expectations.” That last phrase sounds a warning bell: settled expectations within a given community create the needed stability for commercial transactions to take place.

By 1994, the court, armed with the Turner Elkhorn line of cases, upheld in United States v. Carlton the government’s decision to take back a narrow tax benefit that it had specifically and unwisely conferred on a small class of estate-tax payers, which astute tax planners quickly exploited. Rather than trying to narrow the scope of retroactive application, the Supreme Court wrote a broad opinion that allowed Congress to backtrack from its conscious and prudent decisions when it did not like how matters turned out—often because of its own financial mismanagement. 

In two key decisions from the 1980s, the Supreme Court held that Congress was entitled to impose new obligations on firms participating in government-sponsored pension guarantee programs, provided it let those firms withdraw for any reason at any time. When the programs started to go broke, Congress imposed financial penalties on these withdrawals in violation of the original deal. Once again, settled expectations did not matter. In rapid succession, the court rejected the claim that these new obligations violated either the due process clause in PBGC v. R.A. Gray & Co. (1984) or the takings clause in Connolly v. PBGC (1986) because the firms that participated in the program had “sufficient notice” that Congress had engaged in similar activities in these heavily regulated areas.

Thanks to the current line of Supreme Court cases, there is an ever-present risk that government will abuse its legislative discretion. Private parties must now anticipate government misdeeds or face the consequences—all of which weaken the stability of contract and property rights on which the success of the country depends. To be sure, the massive implications of undoing Biden’s retroactive capital-gains tax are a far remove from the specialized provision in Carlton, but it will take a major change of views to bring sound constitutional principles to the fore. It is not just individual taxpayers who suffer from arbitrary power, but the entire system of productive exchange.

https://www.hoover.org/research/pox-retroactive-taxes 


Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


North Korean Defector Delivers a Shocking Rebuke of America's Woke Culture


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

When a North Korean defector goes to an American, Ivy League university and feels like she’s back in her totalitarian home country, perhaps the country’s education system has got some problems?

That’s the takeaway from Yeonmi Park, who left North Korea at age 13 to defect to South Korea. She is speaking out, giving her commentary on what she experienced at Columbia University after coming to America in 2016 as part of a larger settlement program. Her first encounter with woke-ness was not a pleasant one.

This per Fox News.

One of several hundred North Korean defectors settled in the United States, Park, 27, transferred to Columbia University from a South Korean university in 2016 and was deeply disturbed by what she found.

“I expected that I was paying this fortune, all this time and energy, to learn how to think. But they are forcing you to think the way they want you to think,” Park said in an interview with Fox News. “I realized, wow, this is insane. I thought America was different but I saw so many similarities to what I saw in North Korea that I started worrying.”

Park was chastised for daring to like Jane Austen novels and other classical literature. You know, because that’s just horrific or something.

Those similarities include anti-Western sentiment, collective guilt and suffocating political correctness.

Yeonmi saw red flags immediately upon arriving at the school.

During orientation, she was scolded by a university staff member for admitting she enjoyed classic literature such as Jane Austen.

“I said ‘I love those books.’ I thought it was a good thing,” recalled Park.

“Then she said, ‘Did you know those writers had a colonial mindset? They were racists and bigots and are subconsciously brainwashing you.’”

You have to love the teeth-gnashing about having a “colonial mindset” from people attending an Ivy League university in one of New York’s richest areas. Clearly, the students there are connected with the true struggles of the world and haven’t benefited at all from the progress of their forefathers, right?

It’s all just so stupid, and Park, of all people, understands what real tyranny is. Instead of experiencing the freedom of thought that she was expecting after arriving in the freest country in the world, she was told to fall in line with a social justice ideology that seeks to stoke divisions, not stimulate new ideas. It’s insane, and it’s a sad testament to how worthless our university system has become.

Park also shared her experience getting corrected for saying “he” and “she,” as well as the general anti-American sentiment in all of her classes. In the end, she saw a group of adult babies whining about their supposed “oppression” while having never truly known any in their lives. Remember, the Ivy League schools are almost exclusively made up of people from well-off families who wouldn’t know tyranny if it slapped them in the face.

“These kids keep saying how they’re oppressed, how much injustice they’ve experienced. They don’t know how hard it is to be free,” she admonished.

“I literally crossed through the middle of the Gobi Desert to be free. But what I did was nothing, so many people fought harder than me and didn’t make it.”

I worry about the country’s future. I really do. Is this really going to be the next generation of leaders? And if so, how in the world does the nation survive this idiocy that has become so pervasive in higher education? Unfortunately, the answer is likely that it likely doesn’t.


STUDY: Facebook Lets Genocidal Communist China Influence Over 751,000,000 Followers


Article by Ale Schemmel in mrcNewsBusters


STUDY: Facebook Lets Genocidal Communist China Influence Over 751,000,000 Followers

Facebook has had no reservations about censoring conservative accounts. Yet, it allows accounts of state-controlled propaganda outlets from the genocidal regime of China to flourish. Forty accounts on Facebook, amassing over 751 million followers, are managed by Chinese state-controlled media outlets. For comparison, 751 million is over six times (6.39x) more followers than CNN, Fox News, The New York Times, ABC News, NBC News, The Washington Post and CBS News have combined (roughly 117,500,000) on Facebook.

Facebook has taken down disinformation networks tied to Iranian state-controlled media and removed accounts belonging to Russian state-controlled media. It has even removed media accounts not labeled state-controlled media — albeit not very many — purportedly linked to China’s government and to China-based hackers. But Facebook has given Chinese state-controlled media a pass to push propaganda no matter how outlandish the claims made in their posts.

Thirty-seven of the 40 Facebook accounts identified by the Media Research Center as belonging to Chinese state-controlled media have corresponding accounts on Twitter. There they were labeled “state-affiliated” media. The MRC identified only 23 out of the 40 accounts that Facebook labeled state-affiliated accounts on its platform — a blatant violation of its policy on identifying accounts run by state-controlled media outlets.

  • A seven-month long investigation by the Associated Press and Oxford Internet Institute found China’s rise in influence on Twitter and Facebook has been propelled by inauthentic and manufactured user engagement. 
  • Facebook has allowed Chinese state-controlled media to push inaccurate and dubious claims with little to no repercussions. China has used its arm of state-controlled media agencies to curate Facebook posts that dispute Western criticisms against the genocidal regime. Frequently, China has also used its posts to stir discord in American politics.
  • China has used its state-controlled media presence on Facebook to rationalize, justify and legitimize its human rights violations against various religious and political minorities. A large portion of these posts are devoted to rebuking accusations of egregious human rights violations against the country’s Muslim minority Uyghurs living in China’s Northwest Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. 
  • Facebook has also allowed China to used its state-controlled media presence on the platform to push propaganda aimed at Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protesters and activists. A number of posts have also been used to build support around China’s authoritarian crackdown in Hong Kong.

China Uses Facebook to Gaslight the World 

The U.S., Canada and the United Kingdom have all called evidence of China’s “human rights violations and abuses” against Uyghur Muslims “overwhelming.” But Facebook accounts run by China tell a different story. Chinese state-controlled media have pushed a narrative on Facebook justifying its regime’s genocidal actions toward Uyghurs, who are predominantly Muslim.

Chinese state-controlled media used Facebook to gaslight the world on its crimes against humanity, which include arbitrary imprisonment, mass surveilance, torture, forced sterilization, coerced abortions, forced labor and persecution of Uyghurs and members of other religious, ethnic and political minority groups.

“#China’s de-extremism measures have pulled many people back from the brink of terrorism,” read a post from Chinese propaganda outlet Global Times. The post accused the “U.S.-led West” of killing terrorists “without taking any effective measures to save them,” insinuating that China does more to protect human rights than its accusers. Another post, this one from China Global TV Network (CGTN), rationalized China’s genocidal actions: “Yes, What Xinjiang did to fight terrorism does not conform to Western values, but it worked.”

Even Facebook’s own employees have voiced concerns that the company has been used as a conduit for Chinese propaganda, The Wall Street Journal reported. That problem centered on Facebook advertisements from Chinese accounts that purport to show the economic success and happiness of Uyghurs living in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.

China Uses Facebook to Push Disinformation About Human Rights Abuses 

Facebook’s employees were incensed “Over China’s Ads Portraying Happy Muslims in Xinjiang.” A worker at Facebook declared in an internal company message board: “It’s time our platform takes action to fight misinformation on the Uighur genocide,” according to The Journal.

Facebook accounts run by Chinese state-controlled media have used videos, images and commentary about Uyghurs to construct a narrative of happiness and economic achievement. China has also used its state media’s presence on Facebook to justify its arbitrary detentions and other genocidal actions on Facebook by framing them as help. A post from China Plus Culture retold the alleged story of “a young Uyghur woman” who “walked away from a life of violence and extremism thanks to one of China's vocational education and training centers.”

A video embedded in another post from China Plus Culture chronicled a young Uyghur woman’s time in one of China’s so-called “vocational training centers.” The woman remarked in the video that throughout her time in the camp, during which she was forced to perfect her Mandarin speaking skills and learn about Chinese law, her “thinking has improved.”

China Daily, another state-controlled media outlet on Facebook, curated a post celebrating the purported success of China’s “vocational education and training centers” in Xinjiang. The outlet claimed in its post that the centers “have been effective in eliminating conditions that foster terrorism and religious extremism,” according to an unnamed white paper. In a different post another one of China’s mouthpieces, CGTN, attempted to justify the genocidal nation’s arbitrary detention, and deflect accusations of forced sterilization. “After graduating from a vocational training center in Kashgar, northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Tudigul Nur landed a job in her native village. She had a daughter after graduating, who will soon turn a year old,” claimed CGTN in the post.

Facebook posts from accounts run by Chinese state-controlled media have been used to discredit accusations that China is using techniques of forced sterilization to keep the Uyghur population low. Other posts aim to discredit and deflect accusations that China is forcing Uyghurs into abusive labor programs and forcibly separating Uyghur children from their families.

Chinese state-controlled media has also tried legitimizing its crackdown on Uyghurs by depicting them as terrorists, and attempting to portray communist China as the saving grace that rescues the minority from lives of poverty and Muslim extremism. “Even children have to learn violence from terrorists in Xinjiang,” said a Facebook post from Chinese mouthpiece China Global Television Network America (CGTN-America). The post appeared to show a man — allegedly a member of the Uyghur separatist group known as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) — teaching a child how to shoot a sidearm.

Omer Kanat, the Executive Director of the Washington-based Uyghur Human Rights Project, called “China’s exploitation of the imagined ‘ETIM’” a real threat that has led to “20 years of state terror directed at Uighurs,” according to The Journal. Other posts from Chinese propaganda accounts on Facebook claim ETIM is “[t]raining child terrorists on China's frontier.”

China Uses Facebook to Promote Authoritarian Crackdown on Hong Kong

China has also used its massive following on Facebook to attempt to paint its authoritarian crackdown on Hong Kong in a positive light. “It is totally untrue and biased to say that the Hong Kong National Security Law has had a chilling effect on the exercise of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong," alleged China Daily in a story linked to a Facebook post.

The post rebuked European criticisms of China’s authoritarian crackdown against Hong Kong. However, “[m]ore than 50 of Hong Kong’s most prominent pro-democracy activists” were arrested for attempting to “run an unofficial ‘primary’ election to pick opposition candidates” for Hong Kong’s 2020 elections, according to the BBC.

China claimed the activists were attempting to “overthrow” the government, the BBC reported. A post from Chinese propaganda outlet CGTN said the accused had committed “conspiracy to commit subversion” for simply attempting to pick opposition candidates to run against Beijing’s candidates.

Chinese propaganda accounts also created posts meant to frame the democracy protesters in a poor light. “Hong Kong protesters threw objects from an overpass, requiring police officers to fire tear gas, even though children and the elderly were present,” read a post.

 

https://newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/alec-schemmel/2021/06/02/study-facebook-lets-genocidal-communist-china-

influence 


 


Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


This Is Life Under State Media

 


Article by Matt Purple in The American Conservative


This Is Life Under State Media

The legacy press scoffed at the lab-leak theory for months. Now they minimize it while running cover for Dr. Fauci.

Everyone understands the Soviet Union tried to cover up the Chernobyl disaster, but what’s less known is that they’d already pulled it off once before. In 1957, an accident at a plutonium production site near the remote city of Kyshtym in the Ural Mountains saw the spread of radioactive particles for tens of thousands of square miles across the USSR. Nearby population centers were evacuated (slowly) but it wasn’t until the late 1970s that a defector began to reveal the true scope of the incident.

The Soviets, as should be apparent, were not the first people you’d want watching over your nuclear reactor (or fixing your car or…). Still, you have to hand it to the commies: at least when they lied they were acting in the interests of their own glorious motherland. It never would have occurred to them to cover up the truth about a deadly emergency on behalf of a rival power. Yet somehow that’s the corner our elite media have backed themselves into. By scoffing for months at the possibility that the coronavirus originated in a Chinese facility, by continuing to paper over that possibility now, they’ve effectively relegated themselves to water carriers for Beijing.

Drip…drip…drip…go the revelations surrounding the so-called lab-leak theory, as fresh testimony and documents force us to reassess what we thought we knew about the pandemic. Scientists have now admitted that lab-leak is perfectly valid, while a handful even say it’s more plausible than zoonosis, the previously regnant idea that the virus was passed to a human by an animal. In the Wall Street Journal, two researchers declare that the coronavirus bears the genetic fingerprint of a gain-of-function experiment. In the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, writer Nicholas Wade points to the presence of a so-called “furin cleavage site” in the COVID-19’s spike protein, which is unlikely to have evolved naturally, which the Wuhan Institute of Virology has inserted into viruses before.

Into the sunlight has come news that three researchers at the Wuhan laboratory in question became mysteriously sick in the fall of 2019, exhibiting symptoms consistent with COVID-19. Emails from Dr. Anthony Fauci’s inbox released earlier this month show he was apprised that the coronavirus looked “engineered” in January 2020 only to reverse course shortly thereafter. And on their heels comes a classified scientific report from May 2020 that warned the pandemic could have escaped from a lab.

From within the scientific community come whispers that those who lent credence to a lab leak were suppressed and silenced. Katherine Eban at Vanity Fairnotes that a science-free letter published in the prestigious Lancet journal effectively cast the theory as xenophobic and stigmatized dissent. Ian Birrell at UnHerd documents further corruption at the leading scientific periodicals, saying they slow-walked lab-leak research and that one reason may have been Chinese funding. Jamie Metzl, a World Health Organization advisor and a self-proclaimed “progressive Democrat,” accuses the Lancet of “thuggery” and calls for the publication’s editor-in-chief to resign.

Drip…drip…drip…and surely if there’s a leaky spigot then this can’t really be like the Soviet Union, right? It’s not like CNN, NBC, and the Washington Post have blacked out the lab-leak theory, and Vanity Fair is very much a mainstream publication. But outright censorship is rarely how media suppression works in 2021 America. Reporters today wouldn’t ignore a Kyshtym meltdown; they would bury it, relegate it to page A21, freight it with disclaimers about “right-wing conspiracy theorists.” That’s what’s happening here. Open to the front page of any legacy news publication, turn on any newscast, and you’ll learn all about the G7 summit, infrastructure negotiations, the Capitol riot, plateauing vaccine rates.

But nothing about the biggest story in the world right now, perhaps the biggest story of my lifetime. Consider: China may have manufactured a virus that killed close to four million people and then covered it up. That this is even a possibility is chilling; in the wrong hands it could constitute a casus belli. What happens to our diplomacy now that we know Beijing at a bare minimum lied early and often about COVID? What about a scientific establishment that appears corrupted by political correctness and groupthink? What does this mean for public trust?

You’d think the press would want to seriously pursue these questions with—pulling a name out of a hat here—Dr. Anthony Fauci. Yet during an interview last week with Chuck Todd, that ridiculous lawn gnome standing guard in the front yard of the Biden administration, a discussion of lab-leak quickly devolved into softballs about the irredeemable idiocy of Fauci’s right-wing detractors. And Fauci was only too peached to play along: “You’re really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci,” Dr. Anthony Fauci chided his critics, “you’re attacking science!” The two are one and the same, you see. That Todd had just been faced with the epidemiological equivalent of a dirty cop screaming “I am the law!!” did not seem to faze him. Farcically, he’d used an earlier answer from Fauci as an opportunity to bring up Russia.

I’m not saying Todd had to karate-kick Fauci in the teeth and I agree that some of Fauci’s critics have been overheated. But given all the revelations swirling at present, imagine what an actual practicing journalist could have done with that interview. And what is state media if not media that protects agents of the state? There isn’t a government spokesman in existence who could have defended Fauci better than Todd did.

At least ABC News’s Jonathan Karl admitted last week that reporters had previously neglected lab-leak evidence. The question now is why so many of them are still doing it. It’s true that America has an “adversarial press,” but the adversary these days isn’t so much lies or corruption or the powerful; it’s a perceived choir of conservative whackjobs who somehow keep on being proven right. Those of us who wince at the yellow and scream-o nature of some right-wing media should be nonetheless grateful it exists. Otherwise we might have to wait another 20 years for the truth to come out.

 

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/this-is-life-under-state-media/ 







Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Dems Shocked, Disappointed To Learn The New Israeli Prime Minister Will Still Be A Jew



WASHINGTON, D.C.—Top Democratic lawmakers expressed deep dismay after learning that Israel, having at last ousted the villainous Netanyahu, plans to replace him with another Jew. 

"Another Jew? I mean, are you kidding me?" said Ilhan Omar. "That has to be like, eight Jews in a row now as prime minister. Israel really can't find one Hamas guy, or one ISIS guy out there that can do the job? And people want to try to tell us they haven't established an apartheid state. Ridiculous."

Although still head of the most popular party in Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu has become something of an international pariah for continuing to insist that his country ought to exist. His twelve years as prime minister have been marred by several refusals to have all the Jewish people lay down their weapons and die. As word spread that a coalition government would finally oust Mr. Netanyahu, the entire United Nations along with America's Democratic party began hoping that the new leadership would reconsider accepting Jewish annihilation - but it was not to be.

"Heard it's another Jew," sighed Rashida Tlaib. "I can't say I'm surprised. My entire life, Israel has just gone from one Jew to the next. Israel is one of those free, capitalist countries, so you have to expect that kind of bigotry. Would have accepted any self-loathing non-religious guy, though deep down I had hoped for a lemming that would simply lead them all into the sea."

Sources say the new coalition government will set a historical first by including the main party representing Arabs who reside in Israel. The Arab inclusion within Israel's ruling coalition prompted outrage from Representative Ocasio-Cortez, who likened it to black Americans running on the Republican ticket. "It's like, enjoy apartheid much? I just can't believe Middle East Arabs would work together with Jews. It's like black people here working with police to help make communities safer, it's so triggering. Of all people, those Arabs should know better-- it will only be more of the same 'we have a right to live' and 'we need missiles to stop Hamas from bombing nursing homes'. Classic Jew moves!"