energy, artificial intelligence, green technologies, security, and humanitarian ties.

Original from Nuri Vittachi.

THREE SHOCKING THINGS in today’s attack on China in the UK Guardian:

1. The Guardian quotes what it says is a Tibetan group. But it’s not Tibetan—we traced its real address.

2. The paper hides any mention of that group’s funding—a fact that makes all the difference.

3. The paper highlights a quote from a woman in the United States—a woman who doesn’t seem to exist

Actually, there’s a fourth thing: when you see the name of the journalist who wrote it, that in itself tells a story.

.

ADDRESS OF “TIBETAN GROUP”
First, the report in the Guardian: “China is concealing scale of flood disaster, say Tibet campaigners”, the headline says.

The article is based on a statement from what the paper says is “a Tibetan advocacy group”.

Except it isn’t a Tibetan advocacy group. It’s a group listed at this address. [see video]

Let’s take a look. Oh it’s in Washington DC, right near the White House. What a surprise.

.

A U.S. GOVT OP
Who funds it? When we go through funding documents we see an intimate, long-term relationship with the US government, and particularly the notorious National Endowment for Democracy, a CIA spin-off which the US government itself described as a body which works around the world to “destabilize sovereign governments” – that’s from the 2027 budget proposal.

I note that it is associated with Radio Free Asia, which has nothing to do with radios, freedom or Asia. It’s an anti-China propaganda unit also from Washington DC.

Now if the Guardian had the honesty to include these facts, it would immediately tell the reader the correct way to interpret this report.

So why are these facts hidden? Why is it that the Guardian doesn’t want its readers to know the truth?

.

WOMAN WITH NO FACE
The paper then quotes “Maya Wang” of Human Rights Watch.

Maya Wang does not appear to exist. There are no photographs of her, no videos, and she makes speeches in front of various audiences but does not seem to allow photography.

Why? Her former contacts in Hong Kong tell me she uses the fake name because she is really Yatman Kern, wife of the infamous yellowface hoaxer Brian Kern.

.

OPPORTUNITY
Now, I’ve made that point publicly several times, and no one from Human Rights Watch has ever denied it. It would be easy to do.

So this is ANOTHER opportunity. If a person genuinely named Maya Wang works at HRW, please tell me. I am all ears.

Brian Kern became infamous when he pretended to be a Hong Kong-born Chinese and gave quotes to all the western mainstream media speaking on behalf of the Hong Kong people during the riots of 2019.

He was exposed as a white guy in yellowface by this reporter and the Grayzone. Here’s a headline: “Western Media's Fav Hong Kong 'Freedom Struggle Writer' is American ex amnesty staffer in yellowface.”

.

FOREIGN JOURNALISTS
The UK paper says foreign journalists are refused entry visas by the Chinese. Well, big deal. Chinese journalists are refused entry visas by the UK—that happens regularly. Why doesn’t the reporter cover that topic?

Let’s look at the reporter: Danny Vincent of Hong Kong. He’s been in the news in Hong Kong recently. That’s because he’s associated with the leadership of the Hong Kong Journalists Association.

That group used to represent Hong Kong Journalists, but is now seen as a group allied to western bodies hostile to China.

Too many international journalists produce work that OMITS KEY INFORMATION, misleading their readers.

This is the perfect example – it should be used in journalism schools.

Don’t be fooled. The truth matters.

Peace.

Source

The Indian-owned tanker had loaded cargo in the UAE, but U.S. Central Command reportedly hailed it using its OLD NAME. The crew did not realize the warning was meant for them and never responded.

CENTCOM allegedly treated the silence as a violation and targeted the ship.