- Examination shows that the crisis that the Western military forces are stepping up to fight barely exists
- Words like “Hitler”, “genocide”, and “concentration camp” are being used deliberately in a multi-faceted campaign to demonize the Chinese in the most extreme way
- One day an obituary will be written for the “Uyghur genocide” lie and shame should follow, says a top geopolitical analyst in the first of a three-part series.
“The way wars are reported in the western media follows a depressingly predictable pattern: stage one, the crisis; stage two, the demonization of the enemy’s leader; stage three, the demonization of the enemy as individuals; and stage four, atrocities.”
Phillip Knightley, author of The First Casualty, quoted in the Guardian
THE QUOTE ABOVE perfectly sums up today’s news regarding the west’s incestuous media campaign for Cold War 2.0 against China and Russia. It is somewhat sobering to realise that the paragraph is more than two decades old. It was written in 2001. Clearly, Western methods of war-mongering change little.
This article will focus on the demonization and associated campaign of media-driven mass hysteria to deliver the required objective pertaining to China. A key element is the alleged genocide of the Uyghur populace of Xinjiang in the west of that country.
Stage one: A crisis that needs urgent military action is announced
Stage one is The Crisis. What is the crisis in this case? The Western media warns repeatedly of China’s military expansionism around the world.
Let’s look at the facts.
China has to date just three actual bases, and two more planned or under construction.
In comparison, China’s chief accuser America has 750 bases around the world.
We can deduce from this comparison that “Chinese military expansionism” is plainly not the existential crisis that audiences are being told it is. Unless of course there is a very large degree of insecurity within the minds of the strategists!
Actual versus perceived
A perhaps more realistic “threat”, also pushed by the media, is China’s naval capabilities. That area of discussion also includes some myths, which will be explored in a different article.
But for now, it is sufficient to point out that China has more ships but far less actual vessel tonnage. Is there a genuine risk or imminent crisis here? In the eyes of the U.S. strategic planners there most certainly is, if China’s naval growth is allowed to reach a tipping point.
There is absolutely no question that the People’s Liberation Army Navy is growing rapidly in size and capability.
However, the key point is this: the U.S. has an extensive and established global supply network across hundreds of bases and ports and airfields globally.
The Chinese on the other hand have, well, as pointed out, just three at the moment.
Consequently, this “crisis” is an engineered perception, although it could develop into an actual threat. The Chinese could reach a point of equilibrium with the U.S. navy in the next five to ten years.
Yet it’s not just about matching numbers. One needs to think of the Chinese strategy as defensive rather than offensive, in light of China’s very limited number of overseas military bases.
Thus we need to focus on the “near home” capabilities of the now militarized island assets in the South China Sea. The issue is not the projection of power but denial of access. That is the strategy which is the real point of contention within the American strategic community.
The west is facing the grim prospect of losing the ability to hold monthly (or more frequent) sailing regattas along China’s coastline!
Moreover, China could render the US 1st Island Chain containment strategy defunct, or at least greatly reduced in effectiveness, by punching through it with a reunification of Taiwan with China.
Stage Two: Demonization of the leadership
Let’s move to stage two of Mr. Knightley’s hypothesis: the demonization of the leader of the perceived enemy. This is a critical element of narrative building and consent manufacturing. The most popular contrast is with despotic leaders of old, but within reach of modern memory. Hitler has been and still is the favoured persona.
Below are just a few examples of the mainstream media likening China’s leader Xi Jinping to Hitler, an outrageous claim, but shockingly common.
Having essentially facilitated the initial labelling, the mainstream media can sit back and allow a rampant unchecked social media to take the helm. There we find labels such as Xitler, a crude-sounding play on Xi’s family name combined with Hitler’s. By likening the two, it becomes only natural to take the next step towards “genocide”: a word strongly associated with Hitler.
Stage Three: The demonization of the enemy as individuals
This third stage requires somewhat latent, subliminal messaging to be used, and is more diffuse than the process employed against the leadership. We are, after all, talking about the process of labeling an entire race as an enemy.
A familiar mantra trotted out on social media is “we don’t hate the Chinese people, we hate the Communist party”. But, as many people have noticed, all you have to do is continue the discussion and the difference usually disappears.
One subtle method used is to alter the name of the “Communist Party of China”, or CPC, to the “Chinese Communist Party”, or CCP. This introduces the word “Chinese”, seeding of the notion of a race, as opposed to a nation, or country, as being the problem – that is, the enemy.
Another example of this linguistic skullduggery is the adoption of the terminology ‘Chinazi’, which was extensively used and displayed by the mainlander-hating localists during the Hong Kong protests of 2019 and 2020 (see picture below). Again it is another example of latently giving a fascist and Nazi impression to a country and people.
Sports wins are matters of pride for Western countries but are portrayed as evidence of mistreatment of children in China (right) who are groomed to win “at any cost”.
In Hong Kong in 2019, violent activists repeatedly destroyed shops and restaurants owned by Mainland China immigrants in clear acts of bigotry stretching over many months, yet these acts were and still are whitewashed by the mainstream media as “pro-democracy demonstrations”.
From the initial stages of the pandemic, Donald Trump and his lieutenants continuously referred to Covid-19 as the “Wuhan Virus”, or the “China Virus” to remind listeners about who to blame for all their problems.
This has been followed by a daily diatribe of anti-Chinese sentiments emanating across the mainstream media and then flowing into social media, often using unsourced allegations couched in ambiguity and vagueness. These level serious accusations at the Chinese with little or no substance, and usually lack verifiable evidence.
The objective is to purge pro-China voices, moderates and even anti-war voices. Yes, this program has been orchestrated and is far from organic. Dare to challenge them and you will be silenced, or worse, they will come after detractors and carry out coordinated character assassinations to destroy credibility and squash reason.
As biased as the mainstream media is, the situation is even worse on social media. ASPI, a think tank funded by arms manufacturers and five eyes governments, has the job of “policing” the statements that can be uttered on Twitter.
Basically, anyone daring to speak out against the aggressive warmongering and manufacturing of lies and deception by the media and their cohorts in the governments and think tanks and social media is considered fair game.
So that’s stage one, the establishment of a “crisis” that needs urgent military action; stage two, the demonization of the leader; and stage three, the demonization of the people.
NOW TO STAGE FOUR
Stage four deals with the identification of “the enemy” with shocking “atrocities”.
We’ll look at that topic in the second part of this article.
Phill Hynes is an Asia-based geopolitical analyst
Image at the top based on a picture from Aiony Haust/ Unsplash