The Economist, the influential neo-conservative British magazine, attacks not only all those it considers enemies of the American and British empires, especially China and Russia, but also all those who do not clearly subordinate themselves to the interests of the axis of Western world domination led by Washington and London.
In addition, the magazine, like other like-minded Western media, applies completely different reporting standards. If the media were to report on their own heads of state in the same way as they do on the heads of state they detest in Moscow, Beijing or Singapore, the coverage would look something like this:
Here’s another example of when we do it versus when they do it:
These media outlets must have a widely circulated guide of “positive terms and descriptions” and “negative terms and descriptions” for just about everything under the sun, probably created by Washington: positive for the US and its allies, negative for China, other enemies and their allies. So very transparent.
What their manipulated media consumers didn’t learn in this particular case is that it’s not even Chinese restaurants selling “fake meat” as the BBC story claims! It’s a US-based company selling this meat to US-branded food retailers operating in China.
Normally, when someone finds a cure that beats cancer, he or she should rightly be cheered. But the Western media, dependent on the huge advertising budgets of “Big Pharma”, which has no interest in losing its huge cash cow (expensive cancer drugs), is alarmed when China does so, as this Bloomberg report shows:
A decade ago, The Economist and other Western media described an existential threat to our planet: in 2013, it was China’s carbon emissions. In 2024, the new threat is China’s lead in green technologies!
Not to mention the fact that a large proportion of Chinese emissions come from the production of goods for North American and European consumers. Western reporting simply ignores this when it comes to Chinese emissions.
And what is new is that the “yellow peril” from the East is now also coming in the form of electric vehicles that are hitting the planet like missiles, if you believe the Economist:
Moreover, China incurs very “high costs” for everything it does – at least according to the Western media. Ideally, it should do nothing or do what the West tells it to do.
Of course, there was never a headline like “China has lifted over 800 million people out of poverty, but at what cost?”
Aside from the fact that the Chinese economy is in a more or less disastrous state in Western news coverage, what else can we expect (and hope for) from China? Here are some headlines:
1990. The Economist: China’s economy has come to a halt
1996. The Economist: China’s economy will face a hard landing.
1998. The Economist: China’s economy entering a dangerous period of sluggish growth.
- The Economist: The great fall of China
2016: The Economist: Hard landing looms for China
Such headlines can be read constantly in the Economist and other Western media, even if the wishful thinking driven by deep ideological convictions is called into question by the facts presented by the IMF, for example:
While the bad “news” from China’s economic front is no longer taken quite so seriously, there is still the story of the genocide of the Uighurs in China, launched by the “Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation” in Washington – founded by a bipartisan law signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, which is particularly directed against China. (Incidentally, today’s China has little to do with a communist dictatorship and much more to do with its time-honored meritocracy, as I have explained in detail in this article. You won’t find that out in the Western mainstream media).
The original widespread accusation of the physical extermination of the Uyghurs was conveniently transformed into cultural genocide due to a lack of evidence. The Western narrative is now that minorities in China are being forced to give up their languages and cultures in order to become quasi Han Chinese.
The Xinjiang traffic police are warning drivers in the photo above that driving on this side of the road is prohibited and violators will be fined. In Xinjiang, Uyghur and Chinese characters suffice instead of English. This is what “cultural genocide” looks like, as it is described in the West. The Economist’s fake report on the alleged systematic suppression of minority languages in China was exposed in this article.
The “brutal oppression” of the Tibetans is also regularly discussed in the Western media, but not from the time when they had to fight for their daily survival as serfs under the slave rule of the Dalai Lama. In the meantime, China has invested billions in Tibet, and the Tibetans, without the Dalai Lama, a Western hero who used to be paid by the CIA when it waged a covert war in Tibet for two decades, have achieved a relatively high level of prosperity that is far removed from their former abysmal poverty.
As for the “cultural genocide” propagated by the West, the Red Guards destroyed indeed a large number of temples and monasteries throughout China, not just in Tibet, during their rampage during the Cultural Revolution. Yet according to research by Gregory Adam Scott, a specialist in Chinese culture and history and professor at the University of Manchester, many of the destroyed buildings were later rebuilt. Moreover, even Han Chinese living in Tibet have to learn Mandarin and Tibetan in Tibetan schools, not only Tibetans.
If the media find it increasingly difficult to portray China as the biggest polluter or to spread the horror story invented in Washington about the genocide of the Uyghurs, they can always invent other stories. For example, Winnie the Pooh is banned in China because, in the racist eyes of Western journalists, he resembles the Chinese head of state Xi Jinping, who allegedly feels threatened by the toy bear. This brazen lie was spread by the BBC, CBS News, Der Spiegel and the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, among others. I have refuted it in this article with clear evidence.
The following screenshot from my investigative article shows that the Chinese, who are supposedly oppressed by Xi Jinping, can conveniently order Winnie the Pooh on their electronic devices and have it delivered to their homes.
It is not only the way in which biased Western mainstream media report on ideological opponents in the East that says a lot about the media themselves but also what they prefer not to report on.
For example, the investigation of British crimes by academic researchers is not a topic for the Economist and other Western media. Research findings are only published in non-Western mainstream media:
Inevitably, Singapore also found itself in the Economist’s crosshairs for committing the sin of remaining neutral in Washington and London’s intense efforts to impose another century of humiliation on China.
Singapore’s Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam responded succinctly to the unobjective and derogatory articles by the London demagogues in a short message on “X” (formerly Twitter).
“The Economist can’t resist sneering at us. It’s an instinct lodged deep in the unconscious of the British commentariat class. They can’t stand that a people they were accustomed to lecturing are now doing better than they are, across the board.
Take governance: DPM Lawrence will be our 4th PM in 59 years. Meanwhile, in the UK Mr. Rishi Sunak is their 4th PM in 4.9 years.
Mr Boris Johnson, when he was PM, accepted a holiday worth ₤15,000, and ₤50,000 for renovations of his residence, from donors. In Singapore, anyone who did what Mr. Johnson did would have been charged in court.
On the economy: We started as a British colony, with a per capita GDP of USD 500, Now, it is more than USD 80,000.
According to a recent Forbes report, we have the fifth highest GDP per capita in the world by PPP (purchasing power parity) terms. Well ahead of the UK.
Or our media: the Economist refers to our ‘docile press’. It obviously prefers a situation like in the UK, where one person can control major media outlets, and have politicians pay court to him, and where media owners can influence who gets elected, and who becomes PM. A similar situation in Australia was described, by a former Australian PM, as a cancer on democracy.”
New York Times Magazine headline screenshot
Minister Shanmugam mentioned Rupert Murdoch, the media oligarch who owns a sizable portion of the media in the UK and Australia and who heavily influences and “democratically” decides on political decisions and leadership roles.
The minister also opposes other Western countries that want to turn Singapore into an extended conflict zone for their own interests, such as Israel.
Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam told the Israeli embassy to take down a “completely unacceptable” Facebook post because it could threaten the safety of Jews in the country.
The post by the Israeli embassy read: “Israel is mentioned 43 times in the Quran. On the other hand, Palestine is not mentioned even once. Each and every archeological evidence – maps, documents, coins, link the land of Israel to the Jewish people as the indigenous people of the land.”
Here’s how Shanmugam, a practicing Hindu, explained his demand to take the post down:
“The post is wrong at many levels. First, it is insensitive and inappropriate. It carries the risk of undermining our safety, security and harmony in Singapore. We look after the safety of everyone in Singapore – majority and minorities – including Jews and Muslims. Jews in Singapore have very little concern for their safety and security but posts [like this] can inflame tensions and can put the Jewish community here at risk. The anger from the post can potentially spill over into the physical realm.”
This is remarkable in that Singapore’s ministers are among the most intelligent and capable in the world. It is an open secret that Singapore’s successful model is a role model for the East Asian countries of South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and China.
And with that, the minister orders Israel to stop disseminating anti-Palestinian discourse for the benefit of themselves, that is Israeli diplomats, as well as other Jews, as it would incite antisemitism.
He also said something else that is equally noteworthy and appropriate:
“It is wrong to selectively point to religious texts to make a political point. Even worse, in this current situation, for the Israeli embassy to make use of the Quran for this purpose. Also this post is an ASTONISHING attempt to rewrite history. The writer of the post should look at UN resolutions, see if Israeli actions in the past few decades have been consistent with international law before trying to rewrite history.”
As they are unfortunately not quoted in the Western media, it is as self-explanatory as it is obvious that these Singaporean voices of reason are not heard (let alone understood) in the West. This may be seen as a further indication of the decadence the collective West has chosen for itself.