The Grayzone has downplayed or denied the Chinese government’s human rights abuses against Uyghurs, published conspiracy theories about Xinjiang, Syria, and other regions, and published disinformation about Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which some have described as pro-Russian propaganda. Grayzone staff Blumenthal and Aaron Maté acted as briefers on behalf of the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations at UN meetings organized by Russia.
Yes, I’m well aware of Wikipedia’s opinion of The Grayzone & Blumenthal & Maté, and I’m familiar with its garbage English-language entries on Xinjiang & Syria & the war in Ukraine.
Lets take the Uyghurs/Xinjiang as an representative example. The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing terrorist cells in Xinjiang, and once those efforts failed, it concocted and promoted a genocide narrative. Antony Blinken is still pushing this slop, just last month.
We see here for example the evolution of public opinion in regards to China. In 2019, the ‘Uyghur genocide’ was broken by the media (Buzzfeed, of all outlets). In this story, we saw the machine I described up until now move in real time. Suddenly, newspapers, TV, websites were all flooded with stories about the ‘genocide’, all day, every day. People whom we’d never heard of before were brought in as experts — Adrian Zenz, to name just one; a man who does not even speak a word of Chinese.
Organizations were suddenly becoming very active and important. The World Uyghur Congress, a very serious-sounding NGO, is actually an NED Front operating out of Germany […]. From their official website, they declare themselves to be the sole legitimate representative of all Uyghurs — presumably not having asked Uyghurs in Xinjiang what they thought about that.
The WUC also has ties to the Grey Wolves, a fascist paramilitary group in Turkey, through the father of their founder, Isa Yusuf Alptekin.
Documents came out from NGOs to further legitimize the media reporting. This is how a report from the very professional-sounding China Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) came to exist. They claimed ‘up to 1.3 million’ Uyghurs were imprisoned in camps. What they didn’t say was how they got this number: they interviewed a total of 10 people from rural Xinjiang and asked them to estimate how many people might have been taken away. They then extrapolated the guesstimates they got and arrived at the 1.3 million figure.
Sanctions were enacted against China — Xinjiang cotton for example had trouble finding buyers after Western companies were pressured into boycotting it. Instead of helping fight against the purported genocide, this act actually made life more difficult for the people of Xinjiang who depend on this trade for their livelihood (as we all do depend on our skills to make a livelihood).
Any attempt China made to defend itself was met with more suspicion. They invited a UN delegation which was blocked by the US. The delegation eventually made it there, but three years later. The Arab League also visited Xinjiang and actually commended China on their policies — aimed at reducing terrorism through education and social integration, not through bombing like we tend to do in the West.
The Grayzone pushes back on US narratives and that’s basically what that summary is saying while trying to make it sound nefarious without actually stating what is bad or incorrect. And journalists looking to eat while publishing that kind of work do often look for outside funding, including by designated Enemy Nations ™. And Blumenthal has some real stupid opinions.
But at the end of the day, the real question is whether their articles are useful and accurate. Are they correct about this case? Are you misled by a false emphasis?
It’s not like major news organizations don’t have the same kinds of issues.
Where are you getting this from, your own ass? It seems that NATOpedia mentions no such thing, and they seem to love shitting on China.
About that source,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone?wprov=sfla1
Yes, I’m well aware of Wikipedia’s opinion of The Grayzone & Blumenthal & Maté, and I’m familiar with its garbage English-language entries on Xinjiang & Syria & the war in Ukraine.
Lets take the Uyghurs/Xinjiang as an representative example. The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing terrorist cells in Xinjiang, and once those efforts failed, it concocted and promoted a genocide narrative. Antony Blinken is still pushing this slop, just last month.
.
The blueprint of regime change operations
The Grayzone pushes back on US narratives and that’s basically what that summary is saying while trying to make it sound nefarious without actually stating what is bad or incorrect. And journalists looking to eat while publishing that kind of work do often look for outside funding, including by designated Enemy Nations ™. And Blumenthal has some real stupid opinions.
But at the end of the day, the real question is whether their articles are useful and accurate. Are they correct about this case? Are you misled by a false emphasis?
It’s not like major news organizations don’t have the same kinds of issues.
The word you want to search is “CanSinoVac.”
And AFAICT that’s not even the vaccine this article is talking about, anyway.