Full-time Twitter performer and empire exposer Caitlin Johnstone is on Substack where she publishes almost a short piece a day. Sometimes she hits targets, other times she shoots blindfolded. Some of her pieces are built on facts and evidence, while others are ad hominem attacks, ideological assumptions, and all-or-nothing tribal missives. Sometimes they’re a mix of all of the above.
You won’t read much about other individuals here on this Substack unless they’re part of the global cabal terrorizing humanity, but her very recent attempt to paint Tucker Carlson as a media “propagandist” who unleashed a “psychotic rant” about China to “manufacture consent for war” is so littered with false assertions it necessitates some remarks.
Her title laughably claims Carlson is “as much a propagandist as anyone in the Mainstream Media.” One of Carlson’s recent monologues paints China as an emerging powerhouse that has been busily buying economic influence if not financial servitude of nations around the world. While using some hyperbolic language, most of what he argues is based on fact.
China’s belt and road initiative is a massive geopolitical strategic long-game of buying goodwill around the world rooted in China’s desire to expand to other hemispheres of influence, and secure natural resources for their industries and supply chains. They are not busily doing this for compassionate and ethical reasons, and Carlson’s assertion that this is “colonizing” other nations is not hyperbole. They are planting seeds of proliferation that all smart nations do that seek expansion, starting with state investment via private entities and loans, which will later be leveraged in any manner China desires, even militarily.
While the U.S. was accomplishing the same expansionist games post world war two using private sector investments, the CIA, IMF, and World Bank, soft coups, military coups, and later direct military force to maintain petrodollar dominance, the tactics of China are slightly different and the countries engaged in distinct means of power formation and dominance do not negate each other.