On Media, Trump and the Impending War with China

Mike Whitney Interview with Hua Bin

I had an interview with reporter Mike Whitney recently and Mike’s article was published on Unz Review, which published my Substack articles as a columnist.

I thought it was interesting for my Substack readers on a range of topics from western media report on China, US China technology comparison, Trump, the so-called Uyghurs “genocide” in Xinjiang, war between US and China. Those parts in bold are highlights called out by Whitney.

For those unfamiliar with Unz Review, it is a great source of news and analysis from the “alternative media” and features many of my personal favorite thinkers such as Michael Hudson, Ron Unz, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Ron Paul, Alastaire Crooke, Pepe Escobar, Philip Giraldi, and more.

Here is the text of the interview and you can also check it out on www.unz.com

1– How do you explain the relentless anti-China bias in western media?

Hua Bin– I used to read the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times and the Economist almost daily for 20 years. Their coverage of China was always off the mark, in not downright misleading, for someone who live and work in the country.

But starting from Trump’s first presidency, the anti-China bias became epidemic and their reports and analysis patently dishonest, often outright laughable in the cartoonish depiction of a country that no doubt has been the most improved and successful in the last half a century. I switched to social media and the so-called alternative media for news and information.

In my view, the anti-China bias is multi-faceted and a mixed of malice and incompetence. Malice outweighs incompetence by a fat margin. After all, the reporters and analysts are generally intelligent. You can only understand their reporting as intentional distortion and misinterpretation.

There are probably an inexhaustible number of reasons for such bias but I’ll just highlight a few –

First, western media suffers from a broad-based ignorance about China. Few mainstream reporters on the China beat can speak or read Chinese. Many are not even based inside China, including WSJ, NYT, BBC, and Fox.

The general knowledge among western reporters is shockingly poor about Chinese history, its political and economic system, and its technological and economic policies, even among those with long tenure and impeccable pedigrees. This is a judgement I already formed even before the western media turned openly hostile in mid 2010s.

Second, there is deep intellectual laziness with the western media today. This is not specific only to China. You can see it in its cartoonish good vs. evil reporting on Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Hamas, Hezbollah, Yemen, and more. Sloganeering and narrative shaping far exceed factual reporting. Labels like authoritarian and revisionist get thrown around with abandon. Simple concepts for simple minds. Western media propaganda used to be more subtle and effective. Right now, you have to be blind not to see through it.

The situation is even worse when it comes to China reporting. China has a complex political and economic system hard to find a parallel elsewhere. Instead of studying and analyzing what happens in the country, western media tend to go for the easy answers with superficial analysis and wishful thinking. The result is your typical media hack job fit for a 30-second TV soundbite that bears no resemblance to reality.

I have written a few pieces about Chinese GDP, China’s tech progress, Xi Jinping’s achievements, Made in China 2025 plan, etc. All are based on open-source data, much from western sources. Using common sense and basic critical thinking, I have drawn a completely different set of conclusions from mainstream western media. This goes to show the intellectual laziness and bad faith.

Third, western media these days are more government propaganda apparatus than independent fourth estate. Their reports about China are shaped by the media owners and their governments to conform with a pre-determined narrative. Media dishonesty has long been a feature of the western press ever since Operation Mockingbird, the CIA media penetration campaign in the late 1940s and revealed during the 70s Church Committee hearings.

The symbiotic relationship between the media and the deep state has never changed. The false narrative machine is constantly adapted to manufacture consent and serve political purposes for the ruling class.

When it comes to China, all the western narratives follow the same synchronized pattern of disinformation and smear tactics, whether it’s the 6/4 1989 student protests in Beijing, Xinjiang Uyghur “genocide” (we’ll talk in more details later), 2019 Hong Kong riots, Taiwan, Tibet, South China Sea, African debt trap (how the west describes Belt and Road Initiative) and more. You can see identical boiler-plate scripts from different “independent” media, illustrated by the common refrain “unprovoked Russian invasion”.

The objective is not to report facts, provide balanced analysis but to put adversaries of the west in a negative light and question their illegitimacy.

Western media is very proficient with this type of manipulations. You cannot keep up with the velocity and volume of lies coming out from a synchronized system of disinformation. Most readers are just overwhelmed and don’t have the time and resources to find alternative views. Once you indoctrinate someone, it is quite easy to continue to feed lies to them.

As I said, media practices are uniform in the west today, not specific to China. They do the same on domestic issues, constantly reinforcing bias and amplifying misinformation.

The western education system these days is also similarly geared to dumb down the population with the objective to minimize their critical thinking and analytical skills. The enlightenment concept “marketplace of ideas” doesn’t exist anymore.

The target of such media malpractice is the poorly informed domestic audiences of the west since most of the global majority give little credence to western media after decades of lies and falsehood.

Ignorant and ill-informed populace is easier to govern. And in a deindustrialized economy, you don’t need highly educated workforce for service industry jobs. The function of the education and media system is to produce a small elite and a large ignorant commoner class, who are entertained not informed.

Fourth, a critical part of the anti-China media playbook is to marginalize sympathetic and rational voices. I said most western reporters are ignorant about China but there are many journalists and scholars who are knowledgeable and have very balanced and objective views.

Those include John Pilger, Chalmers Johnson, Martin Jacques, Chaz Freeman, John Ross, Rebecca Fannin, Kerry Brown, Ezra Vogel, Michael Hudson and our own Ron Unz. Among business tycoons, Charlie Munger and Ray Dalio are remarkably insightful about China. Even Henry Kissinger, the foremost imperial strategist, was quite objective and wise about China. He was very perspective in his massive 2011 book On China.

The problem is those voices are not heard by the general public. They don’t get invited to “China expert” panels on cable TV; they don’t get quoted, let alone published, in think tank “China reports”; and they don’t show up at congressional hearings.

The peculiar western “democratic” form of censorship is to deplatform alternative perspectives that are not in lockstep with official narrative. You can shout all you want to an empty room but it doesn’t change mainstream opinions. That’s why I read my favorite journalists like Sy Hersh and Matt Taibbi on Substack now.

Lastly, racism plays a seldom spoken and very real role. The rise of Japan in the 1980s also triggered an avalanche of negative press. The west never liked competitors but competition from an alien race is one step too far.

This is hardly exhaustive and there are many other reasons for this anti-China media such as the need to create a bogeyman for the perpetual war machine, media echo chamber, knee-jerk reaction to “red commies”, etc. But we don’t have space to go into them all.

2– Does the United States still have ‘an edge’ on China technologically?

Hua Bin– The Chinese government and Chinese science and technology community still characterize China’s technological progress as “catching up to the west”. My personal view is more optimistic, based on analysis of leading indicators such as patents, talent pool, R&D investment, efficiency, etc.

When I talk about technology, it’s not limited only to computer software or AI as many people think these days. I am talking about technology in its totality – both software and hardware, both emerging tech and legacy tech, both civilian and military technologies.

On a high level, I think 1) the US still has an edge in several legacy technology areas that China is trying to catch up; 2) China and the US are ahead of the rest of the world in critical technologies for the future. They are neck to neck in some fields, but China is ahead in more areas than the US; 3) China is progressing at a faster rate than the US.

Let me expand a little bit. I’ll organize my comments regarding civilian tech and military tech separately. I’ll also address AI separately.

I base my analysis on my own experience as a tech executive and investor for 2 decades as well as the readings and research I have done on the subject so by definition, they are limited to the extent of my knowledge and cognitive abilities.

I follow tech development quite closely for 20+ years through Wired, Nature, Tech Crunch, MIT Technology Review, Interesting Engineering, the tech sections of major newspapers (especially South China Morning Post which has terrific tech coverage about China). I also follow tech reports from McKinsey, Rand, CSIS, the US DoD, etc. I’ll skip the Chinese publications as they are less familiar with your audience.

Of course, there are many classified military and sensitive civilian technologies on both sides so making comprehensive comparison is difficult, if not impossible. Those would include quantum technology, nuclear weapons, nuclear fusion, directed energy weapons, space weaponry, cyber warfare, deep space exploration, etc.

So, I base my general observations on open-source information. Here they are:

1) The US still has an edge over China in several legacy technologies. Those include jet engines, large passenger planes, fracking, biopharmaceuticals, semiconductor chip design and manufacturing (here I include US allies since many key semiconductor technologies are dispersed among a handful of nations). China leads in several legacy tech categories, for example, rare earth processing and production, infrastructure related technologies (such as tunnel boring, bridge building, smart port terminals), steel making and ship building technologies, etc. Note that I’m discussing technology leads, not just production leads.

Generally, the US has a software and IP advantage in technology while China is stronger in hardware and manufacturing.

2) China and the US each lead in some key future tech fields. By future critical tech, I mean technologies that are still in R&D or early adoption stage and more progress is expected before they mature and get deployed more widely. China has clear edge over the US in telecommunications (5G, quantum communication, high speed internet, optical communications), new materials (composite materials, nanomaterials), future mobility (EV, high speed rail), and green energy (nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, battery, energy transmission). China also leads in space tech – space station, satellite navigation (Beidou), quantum communication satellite, lunar exploration, space-based solar power, and heavy rocket technology.

US is stronger in biopharmaceuticals and vaccines, quantum computing, and supercomputing (though this may be because China doesn’t disclose supercomputer related data anymore). US also leads in small satellite launches and satellite internet. This lead comes mainly from Space X with its Starlink constellation. China’s biopharma has been closing the gap at a fast pace, now accounting for one third of global new biopharma developments though still behind the US. On satellite constellations, China is catching up but still has a long way to go.

3) In AI, China and US are mostly neck to neck. The US has an edge in LLM foundational models (though the lead is closing) and AI chip making (GPUs). China excels in embodied AI (e.g. robot, drone, humanoid), facial and voice recognition, and BCI (brain computer interface). Both are neck to neck in natural language processing and generative AI.

4) For military tech, the US leads in nuclear aircraft carrier, submarines and long-range stealth bombers (B2, B21). China leads in hypersonic missiles, radar/anti-stealth detection, military robotics, and unmanned aerial and underwater vehicles (drones, unmanned submarine and warship, etc.) China is also leading 6th generation fighter development with prototypes flying and the US still at concept-approval stage. China has an edge in near-space domain with stratospheric airships, high attitude balloons, high altitude drones. Both are developing defensive and offensive space warfare technologies, but most details remain classified.

As for nuclear weapons, I personally believe China has a tech edge in land-based systems, with its modern D41 and D31AG ICBMs compared with the US Minuteman III which entered service over 50 years ago. In submarine-based nuclear weapons, the US is ahead of China but probably at par or behind the Russians. I don’t think airborne nuclear delivery systems, in the medium to long term, will be as critical part of the nuclear triad as land and deep sea based systems since survivability of aerial assets will be questionable with improving stealth detection technologies, making deep penetration less likely.

5) China is progressing technologically at a faster pace than the US. I discussed various reports from Nature and ASPI on my Substack articles and clearly China is taking the lead in more and more scientific areas.

Trump’s nominee to head the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Michael Kratsios warned in written testimony to the US congress that “China has emerged as both our preeminent geopolitical rival and our most formidable technological and scientific competitor,” “The shape of the future global order will be defined by whomever leads across AI, quantum, nuclear, and other critical and emerging technologies. Chinese progress in nuclear fusion, quantum technologies and autonomous systems is faster and press home the urgency of the work ahead”. Kratsios served as the US chief technology officer in the first Trump administration.

On a related topic, it’s worthwhile to note China and the US have also taken different paths in innovation and technological development. The US relied predominantly on initiatives of private businesses and universities. China has a mixed public plus private approach, often called Whole-of-Nation approach. US innovation efforts focus on deep science and foundational technologies that are both capital and top talent intensive. Chinese innovations are more focused on application and commercial adoption. Chinese innovations rely on smart engineering, efficiency, and a large talent pool.

As China invests more heavily in R&D going forward, it’s also focusing more on foundational deep science as well. Use AI as example – the US approach is private sector driven, capex heavy, focused on brute compute, and monopoly profit incentives through proprietary IP and closed system. It is a high-cost, high margin, and high entry barrier approach. Chinese approach is a mixed private public partnership with both private and public funding, low-cost large-scale adoption (over 260 million AI users in China as of now), and open source IP sharing. Chinese AI innovations are application focused and driven by speed, scale, and affordability. The US innovation ecosystem is driven by a small number of large corporations with deep pockets while the Chinese ecosystem is far more dispersed and decentralized. This is why the best AI and humanoids (embodies intelligence) in the US come from Microsoft/OpenAI, Meta, and Tesla while from both startups like DeepSeek and Unitree and incumbents like Alibaba in China.

Lastly, one must view the competition for technological supremacy in very long-time horizon. R&D prowess is a leading indicator but doesn’t equate tech power here and now. A nation needs to have the industrial base and a scalable market to translate R&D output into useful products and services. The most important question in this war for tech supremacy is who will lead in 10 years? And who is innovating and progressing faster? The foundation of tech supremacy is talent, basic S&T education, funding, and long-term commitment. On this front, as China has clearly gained momentum, I have little doubt China will outcompete the US in the long run.

To read more on Chinese tech, I would recommend Rebecca Fannin. She has been following the Chinese tech scene for years and written several insightful books on the subject.

3– If hostilities broke out between the United States and China over Taiwan, who would win?

Hua Bin– I have written a Substack article on a future US China war over Taiwan. “Comparing War Readiness Between China and the US”.

Conclusion first – I have no doubt China will win the war over Taiwan. This happens to be the conclusion of numerous war games published by the US military itself over the years.

I look at 5 key areas to compare the two countries’ war readiness and predict the outcome – 1) capacity to sustain a high intensity war; 2) geography; 3) military posture, doctrines, and capabilities; 4) will to fight; 5) track record.

Briefly going into each area, here are my arguments:

Subscribe to New Columns

1) Capacity for war: the wars in Ukraine the Middle East in the last few years have shown modern high intensity wars between peer belligerents will be long, expensive, and above all, highly dependent on war production and logistics. Such wars of attrition come down to a battle of industrial capacities and supply chain resilience – just like in WW2, the US won the war by outproducing Germany and Japan. Today, China has a 3:1 advantage over US industrial capacity. In fact, China alone has as much industrial capacity as the west combined. Its supply chain is by far the most robust in the world. For war production, Chinese surge capacity is order-of-magnitude higher than the US. Chinese military industrial complex is state owned and produce for purpose while the US arms industry is privately owned and produce for profit. The cost differential is even higher than quantity differential. In fact, Chinese industrial and supply chain superiority over the US is comparable to the US superiority over the axis powers during WW2.

There are several good analyses you can refer to on this subject, including an European originated report titled Military Alliance and Economic Capacity: Measuring NATO’s Economic Standing, written by Philip Pilkington, a very perceptive macroeconomist.

2) Geography. A war in the Taiwan Strait will be fought around China’s shores or near abroad – possibly Japan and the Philippines. Much of the action will happen in a radius that is covered by Chinese intermediate range missiles and land-based bombers and fighters. The nearest US territory will be Guam, 4,800 kilometers away. The US does have military bases in Japan, Korea and the Philippines. But it is not clear these countries will take the risk of joining the war in face of certain destruction. Even if they do join, a war in Taiwan for the US is an expeditionary air and maritime war, akin to ships attacking a fortress. In military history, ships lose to fortress due to natural advantages of the defensive side, logistics and resupply.

3) Military posture, doctrines, and capabilities. Chinese military posture has always been oriented around homeland defense and Taiwan reunification. The explicit mission of the PLA is to ensure the success of a war in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea. Its war doctrine is called Anti Access Area Denial (A2AD). The essence is to deny enemy access to the theater of war and inflict unacceptable losses for any intervention.

The A2AD system is well honed and composes of 1) a large arsenal of cruise and ballistic missiles, many with hypersonic capabilities that cannot be defended against with today’s technology; 2) space-based intelligence and targeting assets; 3) manned and unmanned air, ship and submarine assets; 4) multi-domain networked warfare. In short, a high-tech system of systems war fighting technologies and capabilities. China has assembled all the elements and trained for years to conduct such a war. These assets bear no resemblance of anything the US military has fought against before.

On the other hand, the US military posture for the last 3 decades is off-shore offensive oriented. Its military doctrine emphasizes short wars which it can dominate with overwhelming fire power. Such a doctrine may work against weak low-tech opponents with no industrial base (even this assumption is being challenged in Yemen). But it cannot work for major power conflict. In fact, this pervasive doctrine is damaging to its war preparedness in the form of low stockpile of expensive ammunitions, high casualty aversion, and long supply and logistics chains.

None of the implicit assumptions in the US military posture and doctrine is valid in a China US conflicts: weak and technically inferior enemies; uncontested battle field and low intensity warfare where you can evacuate wounded and safely retreat; safe sanctuaries in rear bases where resupplies are unthreatened; immunity from counter attacks, especially US homeland; quantitative and qualitative superiority in weaponry and training; battlefield information and intelligence asymmetry from ISR platforms, space-based assets, and signal intelligence; and politically weak opponents with low morale and lack of general support from the population.

Some people argue the US military has been in war nonstop since WW2 and China hasn’t fought a war since 1979, so the US has the upper hand in experience. I think this is another deadly fallacy – the muscle memory developed by the US military in decades of low-end war is detrimental to a peer conflict and the Chinese military, though untested, doesn’t have bad habits and false assumptions to unlearn. In the kind of war neither party has experience in, the one with adaptability and flexibility is likely to gain the upper hand.

4) Will to fight. One often overlooked aspect of war in today’s military discussions is the will to fight. It comes down to why soldiers putting their lives on the line. In a peer-to-peer situation, the party that can endure the most pain for the longest will prevail.

China is fighting for its territorial integrity and its national pride. It has the collective will of the population firmly behind it. China will easily mobilize the entire country behind the government and the military and have a whole-of-nation effort to win the war. The US is fighting to maintain its hegemonic rule in an imperialist adventure. The pain threshold of its society is much lower. This is why the US military is failing to meet its recruitments targets year after year. Put it bluntly, China is much more casualty tolerant than the US will ever be in a war at China’s doorstep.

Cost of failure calculation also differs completely. Just like in Ukraine where the Russians have totally different stakes than the Americans, for China, losing the war on its shore is an existential threat. No government can hope to retain its legitimacy if it backs down from a war when the barbarians are at the gate. For the US, it’s just a chess board move in the “great game”. Losing a war in Taiwan is a setback but doesn’t represent an existential problem. The late Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew summarized the stakes – “China will fight a second time, a third time until it wins when it comes to Taiwan and will never give up”. Can the US say that about its commitment?

5) Track record. The US has a very spotty track record in wars after WWII despite having a military budget that dwarfs the rest of the world. It practically lost every war except the 1991 first gulf war against Iraq. China was the first country that broke the US string of military successes when the Chinese army pushed the US back from the Yalu River to the 38th Parallel and fought the US and its allies to a standstill in the Korean Peninsula in the early 1950s. China did that when it had to send a poorly equipped peasant army after 4 years’ bloody civil war. China’s GDP in that time was less than 5% of the US, which was at the pinnacle of its military and economic power after WW2. The Americans will do well to remember that the coming war between China and the US won’t be the first time the two confronted each other on the battle ground. The comparative strengths of each party have also changed dramatically from 70 years ago.

At the end of the day, past US military dominance is simply exaggerated due to the weakness of the opponents it has been fighting – the military equivalent of a heavy weight boxer fighting a feather weight. The US military is untested as most other militaries in high intensity high tech modern wars. Even the Russia Ukraine war cannot be called a true high tech high intensity war of the kind that will be fought over Taiwan or the South China Sea. After all, the famous drone battles over Ukraine are fought with consumer-grade technology and parts from China that you can source from a big Shenzhen electronics mall.

China has been preparing for a military showdown with the US since the 1996 Taiwan Strait crisis and the 1999 US bombing of Chinese embassy in Belgrade. China has refused to be bullied or coerced by the US. A war in Taiwan is very likely analogous to what happened in the automotive industry – China with its modern kill chain will overwhelm US legacy systems the same way BYD does to Ford with EVs.

4– (Slightly, off topic) In your opinion, is there any reason to hope that Trump will take a more reasonable approach to China and try to work collaboratively on issues of mutual interest rather than continue to treat Beijing as an adversary that must be contained, encircled and defeated?

Hua Bin– No. I don’t think so.

I have been studying Trump since his first term and have read many books on him – Bob Woodward’s Fear and Rage, Maggie Haberman’s Confidence Man, Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury, and even Victor Hanson’s very favorable the Case for Trump. I think there is enough facts and evidence to make up my mind on Trump at this point.

My read on Trump is simple –

– Trump is a bully. His default mode with weaker parties is to bully them. What he has done with Ukraine, Canada, Greenland, Panama is his modus operanti. He uses insincere flattery with strong opponents but doesn’t believe in win-win solutions. For him, everything is a zero-sum game. For the US to win, China (and all other countries) must lose. You must out-bully a bully.

– Trump is an opportunist and a fraud. It’s very telling his closest mentor is Roy Cohn, as nasty a character as you can find in the US starting with his tenure as Joseph McCarthy’s counsel. Cohn was morally repulsive, exceptionally dark and unscrupulous, and he was a bigger influence on Trump than Fred Trump. As Cohn’s “apprentice”, Trump is a snake oil salesman and cannot be trusted. He won’t deliver on empty promises. There is no grand bargain with a dishonest person.

– He surrounds himself with sycophant China hawks and lives in an echo chamber. It is very telling that the team he has assembled in both terms are all hard-core China hawks. Their malice and hostility towards China are transparent. Trump may make insincere noises from time to time to improve relations, but nothing productive will come out of them.

– Trump is a racist. He and his base won’t accept a non-white nation as peer worthy of mutual respect.

– Also there is no common ground to cooperate on. It used to be areas like climate change, global health issues, or nuclear nonproliferation that could be subjects of US China cooperation. But Trump doesn’t believe there is such a thing as global public good. Barring an asteroid hitting the planet or an alien invasion, I cannot see the two countries can have common interests for trust building.

5– Can you settle this matter about the alleged “genocide” of the Uyghurs? The US maintains that the Chinese government is conducting a genocide against the Uyghurs, but the population data indicates that the number of Uyghurs in Xinjiang has steadily increased over the last two decades. (Note: According to data from China’s National Bureau of Statistics and the Xinjiang regional statistics bureau, the permanent resident population grew from 19.05 million in 2002 to 25.87 million in 2022. That’s an increase of about 6.82 million people, or roughly 35.8%, over 20 years.) So, the genocide allegation simply flies in the face of the actual statistical evidence which proves that genocide is NOT taking place. Can you shed a bit of light on this issue and explain why the US keeps reiterating the same tedious lie?

Hua Bin– The Uyghur “genocide” is one of the most disgusting and hypocritical lies told by the dishonest west, even by their very low standards. In most situations, I wouldn’t even dignify the charge with a response but since the question is coming from a friendly reporter, I can share a few basic facts to debunk the myth.

Virtually all the so-called evidence came from one individual – an anti-communist and Christian fundamentalist German zealot by the name of Adrian Zenz. His fictitious claims and lies formed the basis for the overwhelming bulk of western media reports. They got amplified by media outlets such as NYT, the Guardian, and BBC, USAID-funded think tanks and NGOs such as ASPI and World Uyghur Congress, and malicious anti-China politicians in the US like Mike Pompeo. More on Adrian Zenz later.

There are numerous social media reports and YouTube videos by foreign visitors to Xinjiang that shows the exact opposite of the genocide claims. The Uyghurs have full religious and ethnic language rights. They enjoy high government subsidies for healthcare, unemployment benefits and social welfare. Even during the 30 years when China adopted very stringent one-child policies, the Uyghurs, as with all ethnic minorities in China, were exempted from the policy, leading to a birth rate and population growth 3-4 times of Han Chinese. This explains the demographic reality you quoted.

Despite this inflammatory accusation of anti-Islam cultural and religious “genocide”, not a single Muslim country that forms the 57-country Organization of Islamic Cooperations have supported the west claim of Chinese genocide of Uyghur Muslims.

Utterly hypocritically, the US and its vassals in the west, who have killed millions of Muslims, wounded and tortured tens of millions under the false pretense of the 911 US/Israel false flag terror attack, have come out to be the advocate of Muslim human rights and pointed the finger at China.

The reports from heroic journalists and whistle blowers like Julian Assange, Sy Hersh, Chelsea Manning, and numerous others have shown irrefutable evidence of US killing of innocent civilians and the disgusting actions of US soldiers in Baghdad, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. The western media conveniently ignored and whitewashed these crimes.

The west rampage across the Middle East culminating in the destruction of Islamic countries from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and now Syria, for some strange reason, is never branded as genocide but China is accused of this heinous crime without evidence. The hypocrisy is so extreme that no one can take it seriously. Somehow, we are expected to believe the Muslim-killing west has turned into advocates of Muslim human rights all of a sudden and has conveniently identified its main geopolitical adversary as the culprit.

On top of this, the bona fide Israeli Jewish genocide of the Palestinian Muslims, broadcast live on TikTok, is considered justified and enthusiastically supported by the US and its lackeys in the west with bombs and money.

There was a serious Muslim fundamentalist problem among Xinjiang Uyghurs, mostly fueled by the Saudi-financed Wahhabi madrasas in the 1990s and 2000s. There were several terrorist attacks in China and a large number of Uyghurs joined terrorist groups in the Middle East. Even today, there are around 20,000 Uyghur ISIS and HTS fighters in Syria. The Chinese government imposed mandatory anti-terrorist education in the 2000s and 2010s in South Xinjiang among several highly penetrated Uyghur communities but the number never exceeded more than a few thousand.

Coming back to Adrian Zenz, the source of the lies about Chinese oppression against Uyghurs Muslims. Who is this fraud and liar?

Adrian Zenz is a German “researcher” whose works for Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a U.S.-based anti-communist organization. He also worked with military industrial complex think tanks like the Jamestown Foundation. To give you a sense of his “research” credibility, Zenz included Wehrmacht soldiers killed in the East Front as part of the invasion army against USSR during WW2 as, ready? – “victims of communism”.

In the 2010s, he started to describe himself as an independent researcher focused on China’s ethnic policies, particularly in Xinjiang. Having neither Chinese language skills nor ever visited China, he based his “research” on interviews with “Uyghurs dissents” from the Berlin-based World Uyghur Congress (WUC), an exile group founded by Rebiya Kadeer. Kadeer was a businesswoman in Xinjiang and was sentenced and imprisoned for a few years for corruption and embezzlement in Xinjiang before going to Germany. The WUC was funded by USAID, US State Department, German Marshall Fund, and NED, the CIA cutout.

Zenz used the accusations from such “impeccable” sources to form the basis of his accusations. According to him, leaked “secret Chinese government documents” (totally unverified and impressive with his intelligence gathering capability exceeding CIA and MI6), and some grainy satellite images were used as collaborating evidence to implicate Chinese government for setting up “reeducation camps” and using “forced labor”.

Zenz is also a self-described “Christian fundamentalist” who supports Israeli Zionist, out of whatever psychology that motivates Germany today to support Jewish genocide of Palestinians. It is sickening. Regardless, this fundamentalist religious nut and anti-communist zealot is widely embraced by the western media and politician as a credible source of information about the Uyghur situation.

I can prove 911 was a US and Israel false flag operation in order to start a war against Islam for the Zionists’ Eretz Israel plan with 100 times more hard evidence than Zenz can prove the Uyghur “genocide” lie.

And I can do it without funding from USAID and NED.

Just like the lies about Iraq’s WMD or “babies thrown out incubators” or chemical gas attack in Syria, this episode is another example of the immorality and dishonesty of the so-called “balanced and fair” western media. Sorry to be blunt but so many of the so-called journalists in the west today are despicable liars and unconscionable sociopaths.

As we discussed earlier, the mainstream media in the west is nothing but a propaganda bullhorn of their governments. At the end of the day, the main target of such disinformation and falsehood is their own populations, as most of the global majority have seen through its tricks and refused to be gaslit.

The western media is indoctrinating their readers and shaping their worldviews through lies to serve their agenda. It only perpetuates the ignorance and prejudice of the people in the west, eventually leading to the decline and fall of itself.