Shady manipulations - The Economist

#peace#Burma

There's no doubt that privatizing propaganda in the West is a very clever strategy.Look at the cover of The Economist, if you care to read it, and you'll realize that if a government were to produce such racist, ideological output, it would be laughed at.Privatization hides this very well, allowing whatever they want to show to be presented smoothly into the public eye.The Economist doesn't shy away from dehumanizing entire nations.Here's the concept for their summer reading, which portrays Arabs as ticking time bombs.

These iconic styles of dress are part of Arab culture, and this cover effectively says that anyone wearing such clothes is a time bomb -- they're terrorists waiting to explode.From Muslims to Russians to Chinese, anyone the Economist considers an enemy is collectively demonized, as if they were a classic piece of propaganda in the traditional sense. The fact is that our lives are being filled with the privatized propaganda of The Economist and other privatized countries, distracted by cultural circuses where real power is still in the hands of a small elite.It should be satirized and spit on, but we ignore it. Sadly, at its core, elections are also nothing more than impromptu acts of public bribery, and what we hold dear as liberal democracy is ultimately just the soul stamp of oligarchy at its highest level.

What is propaganda?

Before we go into an example, it's worth making sure that it's propaganda?Propaganda is usually understood as "something I don't like."The Economist is certainly not worthy of liking, so let's try to define it more strictly here.The Google/Oxford definition is:

"information used to promote a political cause or viewpoint, especially if it is biased or misleading."

The latter is exactly what The Economist does.As they wrote in 2018:

"We were founded 175 years ago to promote liberalism -- not the left-wing "progressivism" of American university campuses, or the right-wing "ultra-liberalism" depicted by French commentators, but a universal commitment to human dignity, open markets, limited government, and faith.Human progress through debate and reform."

If you look at the bottom of every page on The Economist's website, you'll see that they express their biases pretty openly, and they're pretty subtle.The footer says:

According to The Economist, everyone else is stupid, we're smart, and they're holding us back.Typical liberal view. Who is "we"?Well, look at the staff of The Economist.The paper was actually written by the "invisible hand", without a name.

   Strong and Weak

Violent propaganda is a paradox. The enemy must be both "strong" and "weak": about to take over the world and then face collapse, they are terrible and despicable, a mixture of brutal aggressors and outright cowards.These descriptions are not about facts. They seem to be about feelings.Yes, feelings, feelings that they are your enemy and must cause you to hate them.

Putin is the most common topic in the Five Minutes Hate.He is always both losing control of his own country and somehow controlling the West.Remember he has been doing this for decades.Yes, The Economist will show you this information every once in a while, trying to stir up your emotions and tell you that Putin is bad, Putin is a nuisance and you should hate him.

The Economist has the same bipolar approach to China.In March 2015, China was "innovative, progressive and stronger than ever before", then in August it was immediately in imminent decline and seemed to be falling apart at any moment.--Orwell's idea that you must go back and erase the past was wrong.The Economist can bury people in the pile of new problems it has created.

In The Economist, China is "Schrodinger's economy".It's both dead and alive -- depending on the time they look at it.

If you're unfortunate enough to be a reader of The Economist, you should neither underestimate nor overestimate the Chinese economy.Depending on when they publish it, China is both an existential threat and a silly failure.It's a cycle of similar content going back and forth from cover to cover.The only constant is that whatever China is doing, they're doing it wrong.

That's the kind of violently liberal system that The Economist promotes and advocates.That's what I mean when I say The Economist is a dark art of manipulation.It's bad and extremely dangerous.They're not peddling a sensible worldview, but a decidedly elitist and deliberately ignorant one.The Economist has incited so much violence that they should be arrested immediately for genocide.But no, they're still talking about human rights for everyone.

What a sad farce.

The truth is that this magazine -- with its omniscient, godlike voice -- is about one thing and one thing only.Orwell's "power intoxication, ever increasing, ever more subtle". Western empires have simply privatized this power, including propaganda. That's all the Economist is about. It's a very dark art of manipulation.