Video: 台灣省長蔡英文在過去一年半面對全球新冠病毒祇攪政治聯合西方帝國妖魔化中國拒絕醫療科學今天自作自受全民埋單,還要人民賠上多少條性命 During the past 18 months, Taiwan Provincial Governor Tsai Ing-Wen ignored COVID19, ignoring medical advice and science, consumes all her time energy working with Western Empires and US to demonize her motherland. Now her people is paying the ultimate price, COVID19 out of control and people are dying. https://vimeo.com/555635697 https://youtu.be/HzaRcW_9nxw https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/499627057927291/?d=n
Video: Who Can Bring Peace To The Middle East in 2021? 誰能在2021年為中東帶來和平？In ancient China, most insurgents packed their revolting ambitions with religions. The most famous civil war between Qing Dynasty and the theocratic Taiping Rebellion from 1850 to 1864 was a good example. No one, including the Chinese missionary who enlightened the rebellion leader with a Christian brochure, believed a hybrid religion could lead to the biggest massacre ever in history. It is believed that during the 14 years of civil war, more than 50 million Chinese people lost their lives. 在中國古代，大多數叛亂分子用宗教來包裝他們的反抗野心。 在1850年至1864年清朝與神權主義的太平天國之間最著名的內戰就是一個很好的例子。 包括中國宣教士在內的所有人，沒有一本基督教小冊子對啟蒙運動領袖進行啟迪的人，都認為混合宗教可能導致歷史上最大規模的屠殺。 據信，在內戰的14年中，超過5000萬中國人喪生. Many people wonder why China banned Falun Gong in China Mainland. The main reason is that the cult was used to initiate a regime change in China. The leader of Falun Gong is living in the United States, and it is still being paid by some countries’ taxpayers to undermine China. 許多人想知道為什麼中國在中國大陸禁止法輪功。 主要原因是該邪教組織曾在中國發起政權更替。 法輪功的領導人目前居住在美國，某些國家的納稅人仍在向其報酬以破壞中國. https://vimeo.com/555528848 https://youtu.be/NZtv8WGYLbE https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/499479677942029/?d=n
Video: After I arrived in China 17 years ago, I found out China is not what Western fake news medias have promoted. It is a free and dynamic country. 我不是老外｜來華17年 這名加拿大音樂人寫歌唱出「中國心」！大公文匯全媒體記者盧靜怡廣州報道：「When I 吃飯, I only 吃 with 筷子；When I 看書, I read 老子 and 孔子；Because I 喜歡、愛上 everything 中國」。這段又中又西的奇特歌詞，出自一首歌曲《The 中國est 老外 in all 天下》，作者是生活在廣州的80後加拿大音樂人戴偉(David Clink)，整首歌表達着他對中國文化的深切喜愛。來中國17年的他，一邊從事英語教學工作，一邊進行他熱愛的音樂製作。來中國之前，戴偉原以為「中國社會可能有點壓抑」，但僅僅生活一兩天他就知道那是西方媒體營造的刻板印象。作為在華17年的外國人，戴偉眼裏的中國充滿多元價值，風氣自由，同時非常安全，衣食住行都十分便捷，一部手機就能「走天下」，各種中國傳統文化和風俗習慣也令戴偉驚奇和着迷。如今，戴偉已經完全融入中國生活，發自內心地熱愛他生活的這個國家，「能真切地感受中國，真是特別好的體驗！」 https://vimeo.com/555508005 https://youtu.be/tQUsUikVJYY https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/499446114612052/?d=n
Battling behind the scenes: US pressuring WHO on coronavirus origins tracing by Leng Shumei, Zhang Hui and Chen Qingqing May 26 2021
Photo taken on Jan. 22, 2020 shows an exterior view of the headquarters of the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, Switzerland.
Upholding the true spirit of science, valuing facts and advocating for solidarity rather than confrontation in face of the pandemic should be a major lesson learned from the past year and shared at the ongoing 74th World Health Assembly (WHA), however, the US, exploiting its return to the WHO under the Biden administration, is turning the pivotal meeting, supposed to summarize the virus-fight experiences, into a battleground between science and politics.
By hyping the extremely unlikely hypothesis about the origins of COVID-19, misquoting preeminent experts in origins studies and coming up with groundless reports that have been refuted by Chinese officials and experts repeatedly, the Western media, along with some US politicians and government agencies, are now putting scientists in an awkward and embarrassing position, as some have been struggling to find more facts about the virus in a highly politicized environment, according to people familiar with the matter.
Washington has called for a new round of studies to be conducted with independent and international experts at the WHA on Tuesday as Andy Slavitt, White House senior adviser for the COVID-19 response, was quoted as saying in the Wall Street Journal that “we need to get to the bottom of this and we need a completely transparent process from China. We need the WHO to assist in that matter. We don’t feel like we have that now.”
It is no surprise to some observers that the US delegation brought up again a request to return to China to conduct origins studies, given it was one of the tricks of the former US president Donald Trump in shifting the blame to China for his own failed pandemic handling, and blaming China on the question of the virus origins is one way to reach this goal.
Just hours before this year’s WHA began on Monday, the WSJ ran a story citing an undisclosed US intelligence report that indicated three researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick in November 2019, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses, fueling the debate about the origins.
Dutch virologist Marion Koopmans, a member of the WHO-China joint team on the origins study earlier this year in Wuhan, Central China’s Hubei Province, said a follow-up trip could be helpful to gather additional research on the origins of the disease, comments made after the US called for a new round of studies, according to Reuters.
Koopmans said the team would be eager to carry out additional research in China in a number of areas and it was awaiting the outcome of WHO discussions, Reuters said.
While some observers wonder whether the latest remarks of the scientist, who took part in the earlier origins study in Wuhan would be taken by some Western media and officials as backtracking on her words and even an implication about the interference of the Chinese government in their earlier field studies, the Global Times learned from some people familiar with the matter that both Chinese and foreign scientists who took part in the study have been facing growing political pressure in recent months.
Battle behind the scene
Koopmans clarified in an email to the Global Times on Wednesday the follow-up studies on the coronavirus origins she called for should be a combination of studies that start where the WHO-China joint team left off, so that means studies in China and outside of China.
The studies should look at regions outside China that have reported “viral sequences very early, in 2019, like Northern Italy,” as recommendations in the joint study report called for studies in regions where viruses are almost identical to the first detected viruses from Wuhan, Koopmans said.
She also said there is also a need for more surveys of bats, particularly in China’s neighboring countries.
The suggestion is in line with a joint WHO-China report following the studies in Wuhan, which further suggests that animals in livestock farms in Southeast Asia could be “linked to early human cases” and that further study on these farms is needed.
An expert from the China-WHO joint team acknowledged to the Global Times on Monday that the latest WSJ report about the Wuhan lab is purely political, which echoed US government’s attempts to further smear China’s efforts in the anti-epidemic fight and continuing its “shift-the-blame” strategy.
As early as March before the report of the investigation in China was released, Chinese experts involved in the issue reached by the Global Times said that they felt palpable “political pressure” on the international experts. A Chinese expert from the joint team told the Global Times in an earlier interview that the Chinese side did not know “exactly who is putting pressure on the international experts,” which could be coming from several countries.
The invisible “pressure” formed following the US’ signal of their return to the WHO in January after the Biden administration took office and later in February, it announced it would pay the millions of dollars it owed to the WHO, a Chinese professor on US studies who preferred not to be identified, told the Global Times on Wednesday.
Subsequently, there were unexpected “interludes” that kept occurring between China and WHO cooperation, which used to move smoothly in 2020 during the US’ absence in the organization, he said.
It was not only the experts from the joint team feeling the pressure from the outside, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO chief, also made some comments about the matter that aroused discontent from the Chinese side.
After Tedros commented earlier in April that further investigation is needed on the hypothesis of a “lab leak” being the origins of the COVID-19, a theory that has already been determined by the WHO-China joint expert team as being extremely unlikely, an anonymous Chinese expert on the WHO-China joint team told the Hubei Daily that he was “surprised and unsatisfied” by Tedros’ comment, calling his comment “irresponsible.”
China has called for the return of the US to the World Health Organization (WHO) with a “serious, earnest, transparent and responsible” attitude to contribute to international cooperation against the pandemic, but the US seemingly is making the issue more complex and a political struggle as “the US and China are split” over the origins and “experts call for new research in China” made the headlines in Western media on Wednesday following the assembly’s discussion over the investigation into the origins of the virus the day before.
In the past two months following these moves, international cooperation in tracing pandemic origins had grown into a game between politics and science, a source close to the issue told the Global Times under the condition of anonymity, noting that he can understand that some foreign experts and WHO officials showed change in their expressions and attitude to China over affairs related to the trace to the origins of the virus, as it is hard to strike a balance in this game.
What’s next?
In a reply to the Global Times inquiry on Wednesday, the WHO said it is reviewing the recommendations from the virus origins studies report at the technical level.
“The technical teams will prepare a proposal for the next studies that will need to be carried out, and will present that to the Director-General for his consideration,” read the reply.
Feng Zijian, Deputy Director-General of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China’s CDC) who is also an expert on the WHO joint team, told an earlier briefing on March 26 that the source-tracing work of the WHO-China joint team in Wuhan, part of the global work of studying the virus origins, has been finalized with a consensus that this scientific work cannot be done overnight.
He emphasized that the WHO-led origins-tracing work requires efforts on a global scale, of which China is just a part, and that is the consensus of the Chinese and the foreign experts on the joint team.
With more evidence of early cases emerging in other countries, including the US, Spain, Italy, France, Brazil and India, some even earlier than the cases reported in Wuhan, several preeminent Chinese public health experts have called for the WHO to follow the evidence trail and continue carrying out global field studies in the coming months.
According to the clues, reports and researches, the COVID-19 pandemic was spotted in various places around the world early in the second half of 2019, Zhao Lijian, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian told a routine press conference on Wednesday.
China takes the origins-tracing work seriously with a responsible attitude, and has made positive contributions that are widely recognized. If the US side truly demands a completely transparent investigation, it should follow China’s lead to invite the WHO experts to the US, open Fort Detrick and biolabs overseas to the rest of the world, and disclose the detailed data and information on the unexplained outbreaks of respiratory disease in northern Virginia in July, 2019 and the EVALI outbreak in Wisconsin, the official noted.
“We urge the US and other relevant countries to cooperate with the WHO in a scientific, open and transparent manner,” Zhao said.
Jack London wrote of exterminating Chinese, the genocide of “lesser breeds,” and the supremacy of the white race. Sep 20, 2017
Acclaimed novelist Jack London was a white supremacist who advocated for the genocide of “the lesser breeds.” Credits: Photo by Darryl Barnes
In 1951, Jack London Square officially became Jack London Square. The famed author spent much of his childhood along Oakland’s bustling waterfront, working as an oyster pirate and sailor before venturing off to new lands. He would go on to write The Call of the Wild, White Fang, and The Sea Wolf — classics you were surely forced to read in high school. Those books also do little to paint a full picture of the man behind them.
London’s other works, however, reveal his complexity: He advocated for the assassination of political leaders, fought for socialism, and, ultimately, was full of hypocrisies. They also depict someone who was undoubtedly, openly, and horribly racist.
One of the best examples is “The Unparalleled Invasion,” his science-fiction short story published in 1910. The story begins in China, where society has prospered and the population has exploded — so much so that there are more Chinese people in the world than Anglo-Saxon. To that news, London wrote, “the world shivered.”
In response to a rise in Chinese immigration, the United States and other Western countries conducted mass biological warfare, sending scores of deadly diseases to China and destroying its population — an act that London described as though it were a heroic feat. A year later, the West arrived, sentencing any remaining survivor to death and creating a glorious colony for white people: “the sanitation of China.” The end.
His 1911 novel Adventure includes a white man who “rode pick-a-back on a woolly-headed, black-skinned savage.” Enough said.
Perhaps the most blatant, though, was his 1901 essay “The Salt of the Earth,” in which he establishes that “the salt of the Earth” are English-speaking Anglo-Saxons, “a race of mastery and achievement.” He goes on to say that white people murdering those of other races is purely natural selection — non-whites are destroyed once they come into contact “with superior civilization,” he wrote. In the face of population growth, he advocated for genocide of “the lesser breeds.”
Maybe folks weren’t familiar with the breadth of London’s work beyond seafaring adventures and triumphant dog tales back in 1951 at the time of Jack London Square’s naming, but they certainly should have been aware by the ’90s. Yet the life-size bronze statue of London, sitting at the foot of Broadway overlooking the water, wasn’t erected until 1996.
It’s still a noted highlight of any tour of the Jack London district. Little bronze paw prints lead visitors there, as well as to a replica of a cabin London graced with his presence next to Heinhold’s First and Last Chance Saloon, where London was also purportedly a regular. The Oakland tourism website is chock-full of references to London, who gets mentioned in the same breath as Gertrude Stein and Tom Hanks as Oakland’s most notable former residents.
Perhaps, given his upbringing and the times, London’s views were inevitable. In 2010’s Wolf: The Lives of Jack London, biographer James L. Haley details how London’s mother was a crazed racist who found it humiliating to live near Black people.
Court of Arbitration for Sport fails again in Sun Yang case 體育仲裁法院在孫陽案中再次失敗 by Rick Sterling May 26 2021 @ricksterling99 rsterling1@protonmail.com
The deck is stacked – Although Sun Yang has a strong case and much evidence to support his defence, he will have to overcome a panel that could be considered as influenced by pervasive and growing anti-China propaganda. By selecting a Panel which is entirely European and American educated, the Court of Arbitration for Sport has failed a basic test of fairness. 結果早已被內定-儘管孫楊有很強的辯護力和足夠的證據來支持他的辯護，但他將不得不克服一個小組，該小組可能被認為受到反中宣傳的廣泛和不斷增長的影響。 通過選擇一個完全由歐洲和美國教育的專家小組，體育仲裁法院未能通過公平的基本檢驗.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) will hold its second hearing into a case involving the Chinese swimmer Sun Yang Sports this week, from 25-27 May. The ruling of the first Panel was overturned by the Swiss Supreme Court (Swiss Federal Tribunal) because it was conclusively demonstrated the President of the first hearing was biased. The case will be followed closely in the sporting world and can be seen as laden with geopolitical ramifications. For background on the case see here and here and here.
If an American swimmer was having a controversial case adjudicated by a panel of three judges, would you consider it fair if none of the judges spoke English? Would it seem biased if all of the judges were from Asia?
That is the situation facing Chinese swimmer Sun Yang in this second hearing before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). According to its own website, there are numerous qualified adjudicators who speak Chinese. Yet it has again chosen to NOT have a Chinese speaker on the hearing team. They have again chosen a panel which is exclusively European and this time, where every panelist is associated with the United States.
More than Racist Tweets
Franco Frattini… The previous CAS decision was overturned by the Swiss Federal Tribunal because the Chairman of the panel, Franco Frattini, published tweets considered racist. It was embarrassing to have a CAS Adjudicator lashing out on Twitter about a ‘yellow faced Chinese monster’. It was also embarrassing that he quietly mocked Sun Yang’s mother.
But these revelations were only the tip of the iceberg. The first Panel was biased against China in a geopolitical sense. Frattini was formerly Italy’s foreign minister, supporting both controversial military action in Iraq and the overthrow of the Libyan government. This is evidence of an attitude in favor of western aggression. In 2004, the UN Secretary General said the invasion of Iraq was illegal and contrary to the UN Charter.
Another member of the panel openly supported the US campaign to overthrow the government of Venezuela. This evidences a similar attitude in favor of US aggression. The third panelist was the counsel for The Philippines in a dispute with China. It is not hard to see how this could also be construed as suggesting bias.
The new panel appears similarly biased. The jurists in the new CAS panel are:
• Jan Paulsson from France. He studied at Harvard and Yale and taught at the University of Miami. He has served as counsel for numerous oil corporations in their court fights against countries seeking damages, e.g., Chevron vs. Ecuador, Conoco Philips vs. Venezuela, Total vs. Argentina. Always on the side of the oil corporation. This suggests possible pro-corporatist bias against populist governments, such as China.
• Bernhard Harotiau from Belgium. He studied and was a visiting scholar at Columbia University in the US. He is former vice chairman of the Center for American and International Law in Dallas Texas.
• Hans Nater from Switzerland. He studied at Harvard and practiced law in New York.
Studying in the US means an Arbitrator is likely to have friends and contacts in the US. It also means they are likely to be influenced by US media and sentiments. Of course there are exceptions to this, but there is strong possibility of subtle or not so subtle bias. Would CAS have selected a panel entirely educated in Russia?
Politicisation of sport in the USA One might ask: What difference does it make if they all worked in the USA? This is hugely significant because the US government has politicised sports to an incredible degree.
Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov… In 2020, the US Congress passed the ‘Rodchenkov Act’. With this law, the US now claims extraterritorial rights to punish anyone in any country deemed to be involved in doping and harming a US athlete. The US will be prosecutor, judge, and executioner.
What could go wrong? Even the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has expressed alarm at this power grab. It warns, ‘No nation has ever before asserted criminal jurisdiction over doping offences that occurred outside its national borders – and for good reason’.
The Congressional act is named after the Russian doping expert, Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, who was transformed from villain to hero when he moved from Russia to the USA. Of course, the passage of the Rodchenkov Act doesn’t automatically signal bias against China. But many are suspicious about the US’s attempts to become the world’s anti-doping police, especially since its own professional sports are not held to the same standards as those set by WADA.
As another example of the politicisation of sports and anti-China hysteria, political leader Nancy Pelosi has called for a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in China. She suggests it is a “moral” imperative. Another US Democratic Party leader is calling for postponement of the games so they can be moved to another country. This illustrates a US political bias against China and Chinese sport in particular.
The US establishment seems desperate to stop China’s rise; hence the effort to prevent China holding a successful Olympic Games. In this context, it is naïve to expect an impartial hearing for a Chinese athlete before a US-centric Panel.
WADA vs. FINA It is seldom mentioned that this hearing is not just against Sun Yang. It is also against the international swimming federation, FINA. The reason is because FINA held a hearing to review the controversy and determined that Sun Yang was NOT guilty of an anti-doping rule violation. The FINA panel agreed (PDF below) that the test team was not properly accredited. They also determined the Doping Control Officer (DCO) failed to give an appropriate warning to Sun Yang as required. This is necessary because an anti-doping rule violation can be life altering and career ending. In Sun Yang’s case, this did not occur.
The World Anti-Doping Agency, based in Canada, did not like the FINA panel decision in support of Sun Yang. Hence the long and expensive case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
The deck is stacked Although Sun Yang has a strong case and much evidence to support his defence, he will have to overcome a panel that could be considered as influenced by pervasive and growing anti-China propaganda. By selecting a Panel which is entirely European and American educated, the Court of Arbitration for Sport has failed a basic test of fairness.
Court of Arbitration for Sport fails again in Sun Yang case 體育仲裁法院在孫陽案中再次失敗 by Rick Sterling May 26 2021 @ricksterling99 rsterling1@protonmail.com
The deck is stacked – Although Sun Yang has a strong case and much evidence to support his defence, he will have to overcome a panel that could be considered as influenced by pervasive and growing anti-China propaganda. By selecting a Panel which is entirely European and American educated, the Court of Arbitration for Sport has failed a basic test of fairness. 結果早已被內定-儘管孫楊有很強的辯護力和足夠的證據來支持他的辯護，但他將不得不克服一個小組，該小組可能被認為受到反中宣傳的廣泛和不斷增長的影響。 通過選擇一個完全由歐洲和美國教育的專家小組，體育仲裁法院未能通過公平的基本檢驗.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) will hold its second hearing into a case involving the Chinese swimmer Sun Yang Sports this week, from 25-27 May. The ruling of the first Panel was overturned by the Swiss Supreme Court (Swiss Federal Tribunal) because it was conclusively demonstrated the President of the first hearing was biased. The case will be followed closely in the sporting world and can be seen as laden with geopolitical ramifications. For background on the case see here and here and here.
If an American swimmer was having a controversial case adjudicated by a panel of three judges, would you consider it fair if none of the judges spoke English? Would it seem biased if all of the judges were from Asia?
That is the situation facing Chinese swimmer Sun Yang in this second hearing before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). According to its own website, there are numerous qualified adjudicators who speak Chinese. Yet it has again chosen to NOT have a Chinese speaker on the hearing team. They have again chosen a panel which is exclusively European and this time, where every panelist is associated with the United States.
More than Racist Tweets
Franco Frattini… The previous CAS decision was overturned by the Swiss Federal Tribunal because the Chairman of the panel, Franco Frattini, published tweets considered racist. It was embarrassing to have a CAS Adjudicator lashing out on Twitter about a ‘yellow faced Chinese monster’. It was also embarrassing that he quietly mocked Sun Yang’s mother.
But these revelations were only the tip of the iceberg. The first Panel was biased against China in a geopolitical sense. Frattini was formerly Italy’s foreign minister, supporting both controversial military action in Iraq and the overthrow of the Libyan government. This is evidence of an attitude in favor of western aggression. In 2004, the UN Secretary General said the invasion of Iraq was illegal and contrary to the UN Charter.
Another member of the panel openly supported the US campaign to overthrow the government of Venezuela. This evidences a similar attitude in favor of US aggression. The third panelist was the counsel for The Philippines in a dispute with China. It is not hard to see how this could also be construed as suggesting bias.
The new panel appears similarly biased. The jurists in the new CAS panel are:
• Jan Paulsson from France. He studied at Harvard and Yale and taught at the University of Miami. He has served as counsel for numerous oil corporations in their court fights against countries seeking damages, e.g., Chevron vs. Ecuador, Conoco Philips vs. Venezuela, Total vs. Argentina. Always on the side of the oil corporation. This suggests possible pro-corporatist bias against populist governments, such as China.
• Bernhard Harotiau from Belgium. He studied and was a visiting scholar at Columbia University in the US. He is former vice chairman of the Center for American and International Law in Dallas Texas.
• Hans Nater from Switzerland. He studied at Harvard and practiced law in New York.
Studying in the US means an Arbitrator is likely to have friends and contacts in the US. It also means they are likely to be influenced by US media and sentiments. Of course there are exceptions to this, but there is strong possibility of subtle or not so subtle bias. Would CAS have selected a panel entirely educated in Russia?
Politicisation of sport in the USA One might ask: What difference does it make if they all worked in the USA? This is hugely significant because the US government has politicised sports to an incredible degree.
Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov… In 2020, the US Congress passed the ‘Rodchenkov Act’. With this law, the US now claims extraterritorial rights to punish anyone in any country deemed to be involved in doping and harming a US athlete. The US will be prosecutor, judge, and executioner.
What could go wrong? Even the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has expressed alarm at this power grab. It warns, ‘No nation has ever before asserted criminal jurisdiction over doping offences that occurred outside its national borders – and for good reason’.
The Congressional act is named after the Russian doping expert, Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, who was transformed from villain to hero when he moved from Russia to the USA. Of course, the passage of the Rodchenkov Act doesn’t automatically signal bias against China. But many are suspicious about the US’s attempts to become the world’s anti-doping police, especially since its own professional sports are not held to the same standards as those set by WADA.
As another example of the politicisation of sports and anti-China hysteria, political leader Nancy Pelosi has called for a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in China. She suggests it is a “moral” imperative. Another US Democratic Party leader is calling for postponement of the games so they can be moved to another country. This illustrates a US political bias against China and Chinese sport in particular.
The US establishment seems desperate to stop China’s rise; hence the effort to prevent China holding a successful Olympic Games. In this context, it is naïve to expect an impartial hearing for a Chinese athlete before a US-centric Panel.
WADA vs. FINA It is seldom mentioned that this hearing is not just against Sun Yang. It is also against the international swimming federation, FINA. The reason is because FINA held a hearing to review the controversy and determined that Sun Yang was NOT guilty of an anti-doping rule violation. The FINA panel agreed (PDF below) that the test team was not properly accredited. They also determined the Doping Control Officer (DCO) failed to give an appropriate warning to Sun Yang as required. This is necessary because an anti-doping rule violation can be life altering and career ending. In Sun Yang’s case, this did not occur.
The World Anti-Doping Agency, based in Canada, did not like the FINA panel decision in support of Sun Yang. Hence the long and expensive case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
The deck is stacked Although Sun Yang has a strong case and much evidence to support his defence, he will have to overcome a panel that could be considered as influenced by pervasive and growing anti-China propaganda. By selecting a Panel which is entirely European and American educated, the Court of Arbitration for Sport has failed a basic test of fairness.
Video: Fort Detrick Coronavirus Conspiracy 2021 UPDATE. More evidence has surfaced. When will we get a proper investigation? 美國德里特里克堡冠狀病毒陰謀2021年更新。 更多的證據浮出水面。 我們什麼時候可以進行適當的調查？https://vimeo.com/555137285 https://youtu.be/cdKI5qOF_a8
How American Journalism Became A Mouthpiece Of The Deep State
The intelligence community uses the media to manipulate the American people and pressure elected politicians.
The Washington Post’s David Ignatius MAY 24, 2021 by PETER VAN BUREN
Reporters joke that the easiest job in Washington is CIA spokesman. You need only listen carefully to questions, say, “No comment,” and head to happy hour. The joke, however, is on us. The reporters pretend to see only one side of the CIA, the passive hiding of information. They meanwhile profit from the other side of the equation, active information operations designed to influence events in America. It is 2021 and the CIA is running an op against the American people.
Leon Panetta, once director of CIA, explained bluntly that the agency influenced foreign media outlets ahead of elections in order to “change attitudes within the country.” The method was to “acquire media within a country or within a region that could very well be used for being able to deliver a specific message or work to influence those that may own elements of the media to be able to cooperate, work with you in delivering that message.” The CIA has been running such ops to influence foreign elections continuously since the end of WWII.
The goal is to control information as a tool of influence. Sometimes the control is very direct, operating the media outlet yourself. The problem is this is easily exposed, destroying credibility.
A more effective strategy is to become a source for legitimate media such that your (dis)information inherits their credibility. Most effective is when one CIA plant is the initial source while a second CIA plant acts seemingly independently as a confirming source. You can push information to the mainstream media, who can then “independently” confirm it, sometimes unknowingly, through your secondary agents. You can basically write tomorrow’s headlines.
Other techniques include exclusive true information mixed with disinformation to establish credibility, using official sources like embassy spokesmen “inadvertently” confirm sub details, and covert funding of research and side gigs to promote academics and experts who can discredit counter-narratives.
From the end of WWII to the Church Committee in 1976, this was all dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Of course the U.S. would not use the CIA to influence elections, especially in fellow democracies. Except it did. Real-time reporting on intelligence is by nature based on limited information, albeit marked with the unambiguous fingerprints of established tradecraft. Always give time a chance to explain.
Through Operation Mockingbird the CIA ran over 400 American journalists as direct assets. Almost none have ever discussed their work publicly. Journalists performed these tasks for the CIA with the consent of America’s leading news organizations. The New York Times alone willingly provided cover for ten CIA officers over decades and kept quiet about it.
Long term relationships are a powerful tool, so feeding a true big story to a young reporter to get him promoted is part of the game. Don’t forget the anonymous source who drove the Watergate story was an FBI official who through his actions made the careers of cub reporters Woodward and Bernstein. Bernstein went on to champion Russiagate. Woodward became a Washington hagiographer. Ken Dilanian, formerly with the Associated Press and now working for NBC, still maintains a “collaborative relationship” with the CIA.
That’s the tradecraft. The problem for America is once again the tools of war abroad have come home, just the same as when post-9/11 the NSA turned its antennas inward. The intelligence community is currently operating against the American people using established media.
Some of it can’t be more obvious. The CIA always planted stories abroad for American outlets to pick up. To influence public opinion they lied to journalists in the run up to the 2003 Iraq war. The agency works directly with Hollywood to control movies about itself.
Turn on any of the advocacy media outlets and you see panels of former CIA officials. None however is more egregious than John Brennan, former director, who for years touted Russiagate when he knew from information gathered while he was still in office that it was all fake. Brennan probably leaked the foundational lie alleging Trump was dirty with Russia to the press in January of 2017 as the kickoff event to the info op still running today.
Brennan’s role is more than speculation. John Durham, the U.S. attorney leading the ongoing “how it happened” Russiagate investigation into the intelligence community, has requested Brennan’s emails and call logs from CIA. Durham is also examining whether Brennan changed his story between his public comments (not under oath: say anything) and his May 2017 testimony to Congress (under oath: watch out for perjury) about the dossier. Reporter Aaron Mate is less delicate, laying out the evidence Brennan was “a central architect and promoter of the conspiracy theory from its inception.” Even blunter is Senator Rand Paul, who directly accuses Brennan of trying “to bring down a sitting president.”
How that worked helps show how info ops intertwine with covert ops. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report shows the FBI unleashed a full-spectrum spying campaign with the primary document of the information op, the Steele Dossier, as an excuse. Dossier author and ex-British intel officer Christopher Steele also created a textbook information loop to publicize his work, secretly becoming his own corroborating source.
The Horowitz report also shows it was a 5 Eyes team effort; Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, a man with ties to his nation’s intel services, arranged a meeting with Trump staffer George Papadopoulos to set in motion FISA surveillance. British GCHQ monitored Trump officials and passed info to the NSA. The op used CIA assets, shadowy academics Stefan Halper and Joseph Mifsud, as dangles. There was even a honey trap with a female FBI undercover agent inserted into Israeli-arranged social situations with a Trump staffer.
It was all based on nothing but disinformation and the American press swallowed every bit of it to falsely convince a vast number of citizens their nation was run by a Russian asset. Robert Mueller, whose investigation was supposed to propel all this nothing into impeachment, ended up exercising one of the last bits of political courage Americans will ever see in walking right to the edge of essentially a coup and refusing to go one step more.
The CIA is a learning institution, and it recovered well from Russiagate. Details can be investigated. That’s where the old story fell apart. The Steele Dossier wasn’t true. But the a-ha discovery was the realization that since you’ll never formally prosecute anyone, you don’t need to bother with evidence when you can just throw out accusations. The new paradigm let the nature of the source—the brave lads of the intelligence agencies—legitimize the accusations. Go overt and let the unexpected prestige of the CIA as progressive heroes substantiate things. It worked.
So in December 2017 CNN reported Donald Trump, Jr., had advance access to the WikiLeaks archive. Within an hour, NBC’s Ken Dilanian and CBS both claimed independent confirmation. It was a complete lie. How do you confirm a lie? Ask another liar.
In February 2020, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) briefed the House Intelligence Committee the Russians were election meddling again to favor Trump. A few weeks earlier, the ODNI briefed Bernie Sanders the Russians were also meddling in the Democratic primaries in his favor. Both briefings were leaked, the former to the New York Times to smear Trump for replacing his DNI, the latter to the Washington Post ahead of the Nevada caucuses to damage Sanders. Who benefits is always a good question. The answer was Joe Biden.
In June 2020 the New York Times stated the CIA concluded the Russians “secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan — including targeting American troops.” The story ran near another claiming Trump had spoken disrespectfully about fallen soldiers. Neither was true. But they broke around Trump’s announcement about withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and were aimed at discouraging pro-military voters.
Earlier this month the Washington Post, citing anonymous sources, claimed the FBI gave a defensive briefing to Rudy Giuliani in 2019, before he traveled to Ukraine. Giuliani supposedly ignored the warning. The story was “independently confirmed” by both NBC and the New York Times. It was totally false.
We are left to wonder how all these media outlets keep making the same mistakes with sources and only in disfavor to Trump, et al., and never the other way. They have become a machine as trustworthy as the spies they rely on.
The American system always envisioned an adversarial role for the media. One of the earliest challenges to freedom of the press was the colonial-era Peter Zenger case, which established the right of the press to criticize politicians free from libel charges. At times when things really mattered, men like Edward R. Murrow worked their craft to preserve democracy. Same for Walter Cronkite reaching his opposition to the Vietnam War, and the New York Times reporters weighing imprisonment to publish the Pentagon Papers.
In each of those instances the handful of reporters who risked everything to tell the truth were held up as heroes. Seeing the Times fighting for its life, the Washington Post co-published the Pentagon Papers to force the government to make its case not just against a rival newspaper, but the 1A itself.
Not today. Journalism is devoted to eliminating practitioners unwilling to play the game. Few have been targeted more than Glenn Greenwald (with Matt Taibbi as runner up.)
Greenwald exploded into a journalistic superhero for his reporting on Edward Snowden’s NSA archive, founding the Intercept to serve as a platform for that work. Then something very, very odd made it appear the Intercept outed one of its own whistleblower sources. Evidence suggests the source was a patsy, set up by the intel community, and exposed via Matt Cole, one of the Intercept journalists on this story. Cole was also involved in outing CIA officer John Kiriakou as a source on torture. Whistleblowers were made to think twice before turning to the Intercept.
Greenwald’s later criticism of the media for accepting Deep State lies as truth, particularly concerning Russiagate, turned him into a villain for progressives. MSNBC banned him, and other media outlets ran smear stories. He recently quit the Intercept after it refused to publish his article on Hunter Biden’s ties to China unless he deleted portions critical of Joe Biden.
Greenwald wrote
the most significant Trump-era alliance is between corporate outlets and security state agencies, whose evidence-free claims they unquestioningly disseminate… Every journalist, even the most honest and careful, will get things wrong sometimes, and trustworthy journalists issue prompt corrections when they do. That behavior should be trust-building…
But when media outlets continue to use the same reckless and deceitful tactics — such as claiming to have “independently confirmed” one another’s false stories when they have merely served as stenographers for the same anonymous security state agents while “confirming” nothing — that strongly suggests a complete indifference to the truth and, even more so, a willingness to serve as disinformation agents. After decades of success abroad with info ops, the CIA and others turned those weapons on us. We are seeing the Deep State meddle in presidential politics, simultaneously destroying (albeit mostly with their cooperation) the adversarial media while crushing faith in both our leaders and in the process of electing them. Democracy has no meaning here.
Peter Van Buren is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, Hooper’s War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the 99 Percent.
Johnson Choi Biz 