From: intraphase@gmail.com

White Marxist Open New Concentration Camp
https://youtu.be/IRlIll0ZjpY



Freedom Is Not Free

[]


Chinese Accept Britain As New Colony. https://thenationalpulse.com/news/ex-deputy-mayor-john-ross-pushes-ccp-propaganda/

John Ross, former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone’s self-admitted “closest political adviser” and “best friend,” has adopted the Chinese name “Luo
Siyi” and frequently contributes to Chinese Communist Party-run media to denigrate the U.S.
and U.K. while exalting the regime, declaring he “hopes to be able to witness
China break the pattern of American domination.”

London’s millennium-era Director of Economic and Business Policy is the latest Western-based politico requisitioned by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a propagandist.

Ross – who has also contributed to Britain’s left-wing Guardian newspaper – has penned a whopping 200+ articles for Chinese media and collaborated on numerous television interviews with China Global Television Network (CGTN), a registered foreign
agent in the U.S.

The former advisor – who fashions himself as Livingstone effective Deputy Mayor – routinely peddles conspiracy narratives, suggesting the U.S. and U.K.
“coordinated” the pro-democracy Hong Kong protests, and even going so far as to claim the CCP
is responsible for “the world’s greatest contribution to human rights.”

But Ross’s connections to the CCP run deeper than political commentary.
A ‘PROFESSOR’ OF PROPAGANDA.

Formerly a “visiting professor” at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, “directly under the administration” of the regime, Ross is now a “Senior Fellow” alongside many former high-level CCP officials at Renmin University of China’s (RUC)
Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, an institution also funded entirely by the regime.

RUC frequently peddles anti-America content with lectures such as “the end of
America’s innovation” and hosts a Masters program tailored for the advancement of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), part of the CCP’s quest for global dominance
by making countries subservient through infrastructure investment laden with debt-trap diplomacy.

Ross is unsurprisingly an advocate of BRI, casting its expansion into Europe as
“win” and likening criticism to “propaganda attacks.”

He’s even called former CCP leader Deng Xiaoping, responsible for the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, his “idol.”

Recounting his “unequaled contribution to human well-being,” Ross describes
how a portrait of Xiaoping almost moved him to tears:

“You may even hear my voice slightly waiver because the first time I went
to Shanghai, and I saw the great big portrait of Deng Xiaoping in the Municipal
Hall I was so moved because I knew he’s been there because I knew what not merely what a
great theorist leader of China he was, but what an enormous contribution he made to human well-being.”

And the advisor to Livingstone – who was known during his time as mayor as “Red Ken” – even wrote Amazon China’s “number one best-selling book on economic policy,”

A Big Game? Analysis of China’s New Destiny, featuring chapters including “Chinese dream, not a dream” and “when the United States “leads” the world.”
A PANDEMIC PROPAGANDIST.

Ross has parroted the demonstrably false CCP pandemic narrative, claimed: “China was the one country in the world which had no advance knowledge, it forewarned the entire world and was the most successful country in getting the virus under control.”

Ross has argued in Chinese state media outlets the world should “learns lessons from China’s successful handling of this crisis,” branded President
Trump’s coronavirus response as “costing many lives,” and suggested “anti-China propaganda
brings catastrophe to the West.” In reality, China spawned the virus, silenced doctors who raised concern about its spread, and compelled the World Health Organization to delay notifying other countries of its human-to-human transmission and pandemic
potential.

He’s a staunch defender of the global supply chain, insisting it will “hold
firm” despite coronavirus, alleging “the US can’t produce for fundamental
economic reasons, the types of products which it gets from China.”

Ian Bremmer has no substantial evidence China covered up but ample evidence
Trump messed up. But would puncture US myths if truth admitted – China far better fighting #coronavirus than US. Therefore regrettably Ian Bremmer abandons ‘science’
part in being a political scientist

— John Ross (@JohnRoss43) April 19, 2020

He’s taken this unfounded message to Russian state media, appearing on RT to discuss “what other countries should learn from China.”
A PERSONAL BLOGGING PROPAGANDIST.

On his personal website, Learning From China, he’s published articles including “why China has made the world’s greatest contribution to increasing human rights,” later circulated on Chinese state media.

He’s even classified “China’s human rights record is better than the U.S.”.

In reality, China’s human rights record is abysmal: working conditions are comparable to slavery, religious and political minorities are routinely repressed, and foundational freedoms for democracy such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and
the rule of law are nonexistent.

Ross has even lauded China for making “great progress is the environment,” and “leading” the world in that respect, despite the country consistently accounting for the world’s largest share of greenhouse gas emissions and disproportionately
polluting air and water.

Running dogs like Ross are essential in the CCP’s quest for global dominance,
covering up the regime’s missteps and mistakes while pushing their disinformation and lies to the detriment of not only the US but the world write
large.


[]


Centrist Resigns From New York Times - Letter Of Resignation https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

Dear A.G.,

It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The
Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various
occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the
Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong
Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina
Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali
Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been
learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery,
but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those
of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are
chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the
first rough draft of
history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist;
I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.”
Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.
My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if
this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action.
They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that
this is wrong.

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously
praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The
Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through
the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become
the norm.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is
excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived
as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids
pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered
to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line
is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.

It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of
Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl
Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite
who believes in lizard Illuminati.

The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is
lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice
is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.

Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views.
Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if
they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job
in a contracting
industry.

Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at
the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at
the paper of record.

All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors
paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that
goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.

For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards
and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions
that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day.
“An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more.
America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper.

None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated
reader of their work. But
I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to
that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”


[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)