What to believe in a battle of propaganda

The rise of the the disastrous collusion of human-rights speak and foreign policy.

So, Sophia Bronwen and Marie Beaulieu had their responses, “Propaganda or experience” and “Falun Dafa,” published Dec. 5 and Dec. 8, respectively.

Both, coincidently, are residents of British Columbia and not satisfied with being propagandists for Falun Gong.

They now take up this role on behalf of the U.S. and its interventionist strategies around the world, as if it needed assistance in this regard.

Here we see the disastrous collusion of human-rights speak and U.S. foreign policy.

For Bronwen, the Chinese Communist Party runs a “bloody totalitarian fascist state” capable of eliminating displeasing speech in “three days,” through its expenditure of a billion dollars (annually?) on propaganda and, presumably, a sizable sum on its security agencies.

So effective is the Chinese Communist Party in its mind-bending games that a prior commentator in these pages and native to the People’s Republic of China is apparently unaware of his own brainwashing and is in need of a quick neurological re-booting.

I am sure Bronwen can suggest the best spiritual course of action.

For Beaulieu, the People’s Republic of China is, simply enough, a practitioner of “state terrorism.”

This is indeed fiery rhetoric and precisely the sort of stuff over which countries go to war.

Who, after all, would oppose liberating those living under the jack-booted heels of the brown shirts (or their sundry allies-in-terrorist methods around the world) ” certainly not the Bush crusaders.

Christopher Isett
University professor of Chinese history. Please send comments to [email protected]