 Hello, everyone. I'm Jim Garrison. I want to welcome you to this session of humanity rising as we begin our third of five programs on the theme that China is not our enemy. When we started in our first session, we provided an overview of the general situation as pertains to the escalating tensions between the United States and China. In our second program, we looked at some of the geostrategic realities of the Chinese situation. And the Pacific Rim. And what was startling I think for almost all of us is to learn that the reality is virtually the opposite of what we're being told. And this brings us today to arguably the most important session of our week and that is the session on propaganda. And propaganda is the essential foundation and container for war. And within this context it's worth just recalling one of the great insights of Voltaire Voltaire, who was around for the French Revolution said that if you can get me to believe certainties, you can get me to commit any kind of atrocity. And that it's at the heart of the power of propaganda, because whoever shapes our narratives, whoever develops the storyline that we believe to be true is to do almost anything based on what we think is really happening out there in the world. So the shaping of mass media, the controlling of who speaks and who does not speak is an essential criterion for the preparation of the public for war. Great breakthroughs in propaganda happen in the 1930s with the Nazis. You're all familiar with Joseph Googles and Adolf Hitler's mastery of propaganda. And what they learned and what they executed with amazing power was what they called the big lie. The most effective propaganda is not just simply slight distortions of the truth. The most effective propaganda is when you actually turn the truth on its head. And if you've read George Orwell's 1984. That is what he talks about as the essential methodology of the Ministry of Truth. When you lie, you call it truth, and you bombard the public without ceasing until they have no other alternative but to believe that that is the case. And once that's accomplished, you can get them to do virtually anything. We've seen it time and time again over the decade since the Second World War. As both the communist nations and the capitalist nations refine the instrumentality of propaganda, but most particularly the mastery was exercised by the United States, which has been in perpetual war. For the last 75 years, and therefore has refined the instrumentality of propaganda to a level of sophistication that is quite extraordinary. And we can unpack it all today in this session. The issue of propaganda warrants its own five day program. And we're going to touch on it today through a number of vantage points, and we'll continue the conversation over the next couple of days and then in subsequent programs. But as we look at the news. When you're watching BBC, when you're watching CNN or MSNBC or Deutsche telecom or any of the mainstream news outlets, entertain the notion that what you're being told, particularly about Ukraine. What's very specifically about China is the opposite of what's actually taking place. And it's our failure to understand that that constitutes the major part of our predicament in discerning truth from falsehood. The propagandists are very good at what they do. And here that I want to thank Jodi Evans, the co founder of code pink who is the co moderator this week with me and code pink is co sponsoring with humanity rising and ubiquity university. Thank you so much for the program on China, as it has previous summits on Ukraine. So Jodi, thank you so much for a stellar group of presenters so far and I'm very excited to have the presenters today on the domain of propaganda. I turned the program over to you. Thank you Jim and thanks for that introduction that was awesome. I can't wait to do anything now, you know, I want to remind everyone that, you know, Monday I said that I started this campaign, because what I saw and heard was that it sounded just like what was happening at the beginning of the, you know, what the drive to the Iraq war was, which was lies and hate. You know, inside of propaganda were also driven to hate, which we're paying the price of because it is literally ripped up the shreds of the culture the connectivity of society here in the United States. So we can't be surprised at where we find ourselves. Yes, welcome to our day three. Yesterday was so full of information and humanity when we took that deeper dive into China. And as I said it was rather shallow but I left with such such full of beauty. So I'm very excited that again today we have Mika back to talk to us about the propaganda piece. You know, and, and I'm so grateful to Mika because I think what it helps us see is what. It looks like from somewhere else from not our own minds. And it's it's hard to really sit with that your mind has been manipulated for a very long time. And just living in an empire is its own manipulation that we need to be aware of. Because it means we don't think like the rest of the world. There's a laziness to our thinking. There are assumptions and, and it has a kind of greed inside of it and a hubris. And so, you know, I really encourage you to open your mind and listen because when we live inside of an empire. Exceptionalism that we buy into flattens our thinking and think, you know, think about that. But in that flattening of the thinking it makes this easier to manipulate. So, those of you that weren't with us yesterday I just want to introduce Mika again because she's quite amazing. She's an educator and a researcher and part of the pan Africanism today's secretariat, which coordinates the regional articulation of the International People's Assembly. And is also part of the no Cold War Coordination Committee, a peace platform promoting multilateralism and maximum global cooperation, of which Code Pink is a member. She's also part of Dongxian, an international collective of researchers interested in Chinese politics and society and host the crane and Africa China podcast. So I turn it over to you Mika. Thank you so much for joining us this morning. Thank you so much Jody and thank you for the hosts of this program for allowing us to have these very necessary and urgent discussions, and particularly in the moment that we're sitting in so I'm going to jump straight in and what I want to raise is when we're talking about propaganda, we have to understand it as part of what some call the soft power, you know, landscape and apparatus that even though it's called soft power in kind of political realist theory. It has a lot of hard elements because soft powers considered you know it's about persuasion or co option at most, but not necessarily as coercive as soft power. And as hard power, when in fact it has a lot of hard power elements and coercive elements to it. So, I want to talk about US soft power and its role in African and specifically South African media and what's, you know, has been called the agandistic policies it's had. But before that I can just say, you know, very openly, we always have to ask the question on who controls the media and what interest lies behind their control. If you look in the case of South Africa, for example, the biggest and almost monopolistic control of the media landscape in South Africa is an a company called Naspers. And Naspers was founded in 1915 as the basically the media infrastructure for the nationalist Africana party so basically the white supremacist colonial settlers, who then in 1948 would become the leaders of South Africa and initiate what we know as apartheid. So, the richest one of the richest South African media moguls basically inherited a media apparatus that was founded on principles based on white supremacy racial segregation and class division. So, that infrastructure doesn't just because you know, we've moved into a quote unquote more democratic period. The foundations of that infrastructure doesn't change the fact that they are implicit in its structure, forms of inequality forms of prejudice, and that it made its wealth largely you know racial exploitation and class exploitation of the working class masses in South Africa. But that's one that in Africa if we, aside from kind of smaller groups owned by some Africans the major ones come out of a historical inheritance of colonial media infrastructure. So that's more endogenous, but broadly speaking, the likes of BBC France 24 Euro news various forms of US media still largely control directly or indirectly the mainstream media cycle in Africa. For example, there is a big syndication platform called African news, and it's largely owned by a French company that operates through the Euro news syndicate. So, when we are looking at and using that kind of media which I go to it just to check out what some of the media highlights is, but implicit in their reporting is a vision of the world and an understanding of politics that serves a certain type of interest particularly a Western ideological and hegemonic interest. So that's just a media landscape broadly because you can't understand how we receive and conceptualize our relationship with China without understanding that the media landscape is entirely under a Western monopoly, whether it's financially or discursively. It's steeped in a long history of being controlled by Western powers and historically colonial Western powers. And to the present in terms of soft power media basically operates to further US foreign policy interests. So what are those US foreign policy interests right now. Last year in November, December, early December, we saw the US hosted the US Africa leaders summit. In January, we saw, I think it was like January and between January and March we saw four high level US government representatives visiting Africa, including US Vice President Kamala Harris, who had a trip in March. And with all of this, we're kind of seeing a new scramble or re, I won't call it a scramble but a scrambling for Africa after the kind of vacuum that the Trump administration left as many of you know he called the Africa a continent of shithole countries something along those lines. So during his period of administration, basically Africa was put on the back burner. But with the increasing relationships and collaboration that we've seen between the African continent and China. And we spoke about this yesterday that you know, China is now Africa's biggest bilateral trader. The third of the energy sector has been created by Chinese financing and construction. There are a lot of different forms of bilateral trade relationships that range from infrastructure to healthcare to energy to transportation etc. So, in the last since 2000 when the forum on China Africa cooperation was established, we've seen two decades of a skyrocketing in their relationship between the African continent and China. Of course, now, following the Trump administration being pushed out. We now see this, as I said scrambling to reassert a US foreign policy presence in Africa. And it comes as no surprise of course because of the different shifts that we've seen in terms of China's economic and political influence growing political influence across the world. But importantly, and this is where I want to talk about this and I think this is where Jodi and others have been doing excellent work over the last few decades around the question of a militarized foreign policy and the way the US operates in geopolitics in the world is through coercion and force. And I want to jump back to I mentioned this yesterday those who were here in the conversation but for those who weren't is in August last year. The US published a new foreign policy strategy document for Africa. It's a 17 page document. And in this document, it features 10 mentions of China and Russia combined, including a pledge to and I want to quote them counter harmful foreign actors on the continent. So once in their document, they talk about sovereignty, not once they talk about supporting an African sovereign development project, not once they center it on the developments in Africa. So despite and many US officials have said it before blinking himself said it that he kept saying repeating this line of Africans are free to choose who their partners are that the US is interested in bolstering development. But if you look at the document and in blatant statements made by Blinken, it unabashedly displays that the US isn't interested in an autonomous relationship with Africa, and in Africans pursuing their sovereign development. But they're basically framing it around US hegemonic ambitions to reassert themselves as the main economic competitors on the continent, as well as the kind of biggest political influence. And of course I think this is also underpinned by the fact that since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, more and more African leaders have shown a position of absension, or what we would call non alignment in many UN resolutions and the first UN resolution around condemning Russia, almost half the continent abstain showing a policy of we don't want to get involved in another US led aggression in the world, or NATO led expansion across the world. And to in the following ones like the resolution on sanctions on Russia. Most African leaders have shown a position of non alignment. And I think this is an important opportunity that I'll talk about towards the end of this, but it's just important to say that US foreign policy, specifically one that's geared towards war militarism and control. We have, you know, 29 permanent US foreign bases in Africa, and this includes a network doesn't include a network of 60 outposts and access points. So the continent is has a strong US military foreign project, but this foreign policy based on a military expansionism is fundamentally what informs the information warfare, which the US is now trying to reconnect and and and reinsight and we saw this and there was a an act a bill that was passed called the competes act, which the US Senate passed in March of last year, which it says is to address US tech comms foreign policy national security education, a whole range of things but basically this is a pledge of $500 million for an agency called the US agency for global media, which is explicitly framed in combat combative and aggressive terms. And is, most again, aiming at foreign partners in Africa, not necessarily to assist Africa in its own pursuit of its own interests, but to target the so called, you know, malign forces, which is how they characterized Russia and one of the bills which that that that form of legislature, I forget the full name but it basically would mean that any African national country that did any trade with Russian businesses would basically face some form of economic sanctioning or embargo from the US. So one is that you can't understand the conversation about China and how we need to battle the propaganda that is false is inaccurate is decontextualized and is not sustainable or nor is it helpful. This current moment when we are facing issues of climate change issues of world hunger issues of endemic poverty and we need to be producing more platforms for cooperation and collaboration, not competition and aggression. But we can't understand how we then battle those things if we don't understand that the media is fundamentally connected to a foreign military policy foreign military policy that ultimately is to is aims to retain a US economic and political hegemony in geopolitics globally. Then the last aspect I just want to briefly talk to before I guess we go back to opening up the discussion is that various civil society organizations media organizations as I mentioned have been geared to explicitly undermined and undermined China's development and development cooperation agreements in Africa while promoting US and Western allies as their prime partner. And we saw this in one example I can give us just after the competes act was passed. A couple of months later, an independent Zimbabwean journalist, basically reported that the US Embassy was funding educational workshops that encouraged journalists to target and criticize Chinese investments and Chinese businesses, and the local organization that's involved in these programs was called it's called the always these strange little intermediaries local intermediaries called this one was called information for development trust, which if you go and look up on the National Endowment for Development, their grant site you will see that the National Endowment which is a US NGO, but actually essentially a governmental arm that basically has been funding various civil society organizations explicitly to fight against the US's so called enemies. And this, as I'll say lastly, this is not something new. The US media strategy has been developed over decades. And one example is the fact that any D itself has funded various operations, let's take the example of South Africa, where there was a big daily newspaper called the city press, which was chosen for just circulating newspaper among black people, and the US government, these old documents that have now been declassified, basically was using it, not only to when we're saying serve its own interests, but also had an explicitly anti communist campaign. I want to quote from one of the grant documents that was given to this newspaper so that it could infiltrate and and shape the consciousness of the black majority in South Africa in the 1980s. Now I want to read from the grant is it. It is hoped that a concrete discussion of democratic values will help counter the strong Marxist campaigns now being used to coerce South African blacks in the black townships, pointing the way to democratic forms of government being desirable and achievable. An important aspect also of understanding it's not just simply also about China and China's economic influence it's that this rise has been facilitated through socialist construction through a communist politics. So, there is also a historic anti communist push that comes from the US despite the fact that South Africa is actually home to one of the, to the oldest Communist Party on the continent, the South African Communist Party which was founded in 1921 it's over 100 years in the South Africa is no far near to a very dynamic left political landscape, but what we're seeing today is almost a re igniting of this anti communist propaganda separatist, but they're using the same old structures or at least structures that are used in these historical processes to reinvigorate them. And I mean, I'll end with the one thing that the co founder of the National Endowment for Development, Alan Weinstein said in the early 1990s that then I quote he said, A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years in the CIA. So his own words he said this in the 1990s, talking about how the CIA operated in the 70s in Latin America in Africa undermining various radical governments. So this is all again to say that a lot of the propaganda that is get towards get into Africa has historical foundations and anti communism has historical foundations in US hegemony, and largely is undermining a lot of the processes that are happening in Africa, specifically around our sovereignty. And I will say that the mood of African leaders, despite their limitations in terms of serving the interests of their own people on the international stage, there is a little bit of an opening that might allow us to advance an agenda for peace, because I think it was like a couple of months ago at the Munich Security Conference, the Namibian Prime Minister, for example, when she was asked about the country's decision to abstain from the UN General Assembly's resolution to condemn Russia. She basically said that, and I want to quote her, we are promoting a peaceful resolution of the conflict so that the entire world and all the resources of the world can be focused on improving the conditions of people around the world and the extent of being spent on acquiring weapons, killing people, and actually creating hostilities. And she talked about how the money could be better that's going into arms, could be better served to utilize or better serve to promote development, not only in Ukraine in Africa and Asia and many parts of the world. I think the likes of the president of Senegal, Makisal, he spoke at the UN General Assembly last year, also saying that we already suffer a historical burden of colonialism. We don't want to be pulled in to support a US hegemonic and coercive interest that doesn't actually serve the peoples of the world. This is all to say that even though the tentacles of US imperialism are rooted in the African continent. A lot of the opportunities that have emerged through the rise of China and its different form of geopolitical collaboration cooperation has given us a little bit more confidence in the African continent to make more independent decisions. And though there's still a lot of work to do because of the legacy of Sinophobia, anti-communism has still created certain limitations, especially around peoples to peoples exchange and cooperation. I think we're seeing right now an opening that might give us greater possibilities to build networks that are based on principles of anti-imperialist global solidarity. Mika, thank you very much. That was very illuminating. I'm just struck by the fact that even with the capacity of the US to engage in such a pervasive propaganda that the African nations nevertheless are proving themselves to be more and more impervious. To being influenced in this kind of way. And I know that that more and more African countries are siding with Russia and with China. The BRICS organization, Brazil, Russia, India and China that, you know, 10 years ago with just four countries now have dozens and dozens of African and Asian countries wanting to join. Because the, as the United States has been engaging in essentially perpetual war around the world. The Chinese have been very skillfully in a very low profile way, developing a completely different framework for international cooperation based on cultural exchange and trade. And I think what we, we see is the beginning of a tipping point as more and more countries are seeing the US in Ukraine for exactly what it is US expansionism. Meaning that the Russians are standing up to that are in support of that from a kind of a neocolonialist point of view because so much of the world has seen this over and over again. And I realizing that this is the moment to really begin to take a stand. And the, the, the center of gravity is more and more around China as it as it emerges as a very important and credible counter force now to what the US is seeking to achieve. And so I would just would love to have your, your, your sense of what I just said, and also how you're viewing the, the emergence of China in Africa as a counter to what the United States is doing. Sure. Great question. Thank you. So, as many might know, one of the important elements of China's foreign policy approach is non interference and kind of respecting the sovereignty of nations borders nations territories, as well as their kind of policy frameworks. So in the last few decades we've seen, you know, China has increased its relationship signed you know memorandums of understanding with various countries when the form on China Africa cooperation was formed in 2000 they were around 30 something countries, and now almost all African countries are on board and part of that. And what the last 20 years have meant, though it has a longer history and anti colonial solidarity and struggles is there's been a strengthening of diplomatic relationships. For example Africans, they're most of their diplomatic visits that they make in the home I have made in the last, I think, between 2009 and 2018 so almost 10 years in that time, they made like, I think was almost 200 visits between China and Africa and high level visits so one is that there's a sense of respect that I think China gives to African leaders that we don't see with us or Western leaders. I'm sure many of you, you will call when, when the Queen of England died. That wasn't a happy dream I had when she died. Although Western leaders were, you know, given private cause and all the African leaders were like bust in on, you know, like a little, not not saying that African leaders should have or any leaders should have luxury transportation but a lot of African leaders get more respect basically in the diplomatic framework and they get to have high level relationships whilst often they've been like junior partners of the West so that's one to is that even though African leaders are showing and I would say more than anything right now these are non alignment I want to try to be realistic that no one is coming out like the way in Krumah or Lumumba or, you know, Thomas Ankara, who talked about debt and said, we shouldn't be paying back any kind of debt because debt is colonial construct and it's a form of reconquest based on the historical exploitation and a need to resubordinate us because you can't subordinate us through chains you now have to do it financially he's talking about this in the 80s. We don't have those voices who are really, you know, speaking truth to power sadly. And we have to recognize there's a level of opportunism for certain leaders that they benefit from being like, Okay, I have two choices now I can juggle it. But the hope is that now given choices within our countries domestically. And we have the opportunity as people's organizations to put pressure for different choices to be made, and not to have to always capitulate to the West. And I think that also gives working class organizations, trade unions, etc. More opportunity to push for an agenda that advances the interests of their people. And lastly, what I was going to say was that one of the limitations that we have in the China Africa relationship is, whether it's because of our different, I don't know epistemological backgrounds, or linguistic differences. We still have ways to go in terms of telling our stories and that's why I'm so grateful that Jody is pushing for these kinds of moments and discussions is because I'll say this frankly, sometimes China suffered from not being able to tell their own stories in a way that's connected to at least our foreign audiences international audiences, when they have beautiful, amazing, incredibly powerful, you know, factual phenomena that the world would, you know, love to hear but there's been a bit of a static monolithic form of sharing of stories that I think undermines the authenticity and strength of their experiences, and to that, because of a lack of ownership in Africa of media and, you know, most media houses that are owned by local Africans on most of them. Media moguls who have, you know, our venture capitalists on the side so they're looking for click bait and everything like that so we also in Africa need to create more dynamic media platforms where we can create different types of storytelling. This is based on solidarity that is based on wanting to understand reality for what it is. Because sadly, you know, the biggest newspapers in South Africa, for example, the headliners always some you know tabloid salacious type of thing because they need to sell newspapers. So, there is ways to go for us in reclaiming space and that's part of the battle of ideas. Now just one quick follow up question and then Jody want to invite you to make any comments you would like. And that is you spoke with the National Endowment for development. Is that this different than the National Endowment for democracy. It's a different organization because I know about the NED the National Endowment for democracy. You know they spent $5 billion developing the made on revolution in Ukraine so called orange revolution and we're working hand in glove with the CIA and Joe Biden and the National Endowment for democracy has to overthrow the then existing regime in Ukraine and bring in an anti Russian pro NATO government as was discussed by Victoria Nuland on YouTube as it turned out. The National Endowment for democracy has been working all over the world in in undermining democracy in order to serve the, the foreign policy interests of the United States, but I didn't know so much about the National Endowment for development. No, no, no, sorry, it is democracy. It was a, it is the same organization as the National Endowment for democracy. Apologies, apologies, it was just a slip, because you know a lot of these words have been hollowed out through these, you know, the NGOization of politics where democracy development none of them mean anything, you know. So that was my, my, my mistake, same, same group. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's consistent with what I was saying earlier and with with Jody that the most effective propaganda is when you literally turned the truth on its head. The National Endowment for democracy you think, oh wow, the US government is supporting democracy. And that's what they say, but what they're actually doing is subverting democracy in an orchestrated way with US military and intelligence agencies, in order to get local groups or government changes or coup d'etats or electoral manipulation to eliminate democracy so that they can actually be useful tools of US military and corporate interest. So I just wanted to make sure that we were both talking about the same organization, because the NAD is is infamous around the world for as an example of how you turn truth on its head. You're under the guise of truth, you're engaging in all kinds of systematic falsehood. But Jody, why don't you come in at this point and make whatever comments you would like and then I know you have some additional things that you want to say about propaganda as well. I'm going to make it just two things I'd love you to share, because I think it's an example of the ignorance, you know, in US intelligence but you could do this better than me I only know like this and veil of it but the fact that the ANC leader of Africa. You know, the US thought they owned. And, you know, like it had a very ownership type, feeling around this, you know, has been very vocal around, and I know we're getting off of China but I think this is a good example of how you were talking about the, the actual relationships getting in the way of the propaganda this is an important piece, but historically, why is South Africa and ANC leader so much closer to Russia than the United States because I think that also has to do with relationship and then I love you to share that story of our friend from Zambia about the visit of the, the vice president of the United States if you could just share those two things because I think when we're looking at this it's it's that, you know, what you started with him it's like, if we can disrupt your actual humanity if we can take you away from this relationship and put you in lies. We control you in that why zone instead of the place where actual common sense and your guidance is so I think those are two good examples. Sure. So, as you said in terms of relationships. What I think the US has a very short term memory. I'm just suffering from serious short term memory loss because when it comes to, you know, we have lived fewer years free than the years of colonialism, right. And so for many are anti imperialist anti colonial partners. Like Russia, like China, it means a lot to us. The Soviet Union, as early as you know the 1930s was providing education, political training various forms of solidarity and support on how to think and organize our way out of colonialism. The SACP as I mentioned, who was part of also the kind of alliance with the amc in the fight against colonialism and apartheid, many of them were formed through their relationship with the Soviet Union and how the Soviet Union helped to support various National Liberation Projects and processes across the continent. So one is that we have, yeah, these historical relationships that you can't just be, and they have shifted like in the 2000s. I mean, after the sadly after the fall of the Soviet Union. There was a, as a you all well know, there was a very a period of where where a lot of international relationships suffered because the political and economic project was at an all time low in in what became Russian. But one is that I think, not only do we think about our historical relationships, we have to understand it in terms of the bulwark against imperialism, because I think some people are characterizing these relationships almost nepotistically like you're going to stick with your family. But in fact, it's about thinking about what are true enemies versus those, you know, conflicts we might have between different states or differences of opinion, versus what is the true enemy of progress, what is the true enemy of humanity, and that's US imperialism. And so I think that having that kind of long view and broader view is what has enabled these relationships to continue. Then the other, as you said, what the anecdote I wanted to share is that I think we're in a moment in which, if we work really hard, we can push towards the, you know, I want to say the right side of history I mean the left side of history. But where history will absolve us as Fidel Castro said, because it's more and more clear what the priorities of the US is versus what the priorities of those who truly support the global self is and the anecdote that I shared yesterday was that when Kamala Harris went to visit Tanzania, part of her, I think it was three or four countries Ghana was one of them her trip to to Africa was when she went to Tanzania, she went and visited the memorial of the US Embassy bombing in 1998. The US Embassy was bombed in 1998 by groups who associate themselves with extremist groups but who had done so because of the huge US push to destroy the Middle East and to recapture the oil states essentially for their own, you know, economic interest. So that Kamala Harris going there of all places was to honor the kind of US is a supposed moral higher ground that it always punts across the world that it somehow has the better ethical position when it does not and be is a distortion of what the priorities of African people are. On the other hand, when the last Chinese high level visit that went to that region went to Memorial in Zambia of the Tanzania Zambia Railway line, which was constructed between 1968 and 1975 constructed and financed by the Chinese government at a time in which they had very limited resources for any kind of development projects. They had over 50,000 Chinese workers and engineers who throughout the period in total were working there. They built, you know, thousands of miles of railway, all in you know, relatively labor intensive processes not the same kind of machinery and technology we have today. And I think it was at least 160 Chinese workers died in the process because they had to go through mountains through rivers, like very intensive work. And so when China comes to the continent they go and honor the labor and the value added by ordinary working class people and the collaboration between workers of Africa and China. While the US goes to honor it's kind of moralization of its war efforts around the world. And I think that that perspective is something that we need to be clear about that the US office a very different foreign policy perspective from China and many others. Thank you Mika. Thank you for expanding our consciousness again today, and all you do to elevate and escalate our hearts and minds into peace instead of warmongering and serving the people so thank you so much. Thank you so much for opening up this platform and if anyone is interested in more of these kinds of conversations debates I host a podcast called the crane and Africa China podcast, as well as try continental and all the other groups that I work with no cold war don't offer various materials for you to see the facts and make up your own mind. Thank you so much. I know you have to go to another meeting now, but we hope to have you back you're a gold mine of important information so thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. So Jody, what additional comments would you like to make. Um, I had wanted to show a professor from Taiwan that could take us into, you know, a deeper look of like the how Taiwan is being used in this as a propaganda for this war on China. But we're kind of late in the program so I want to go back. And really, you know, look at propaganda over the last 70 years, because I think when you, you know, like with me if you can ground it in like what's true, then it kind of helps you understand what's happening now. And so, as I was able to look at what was happening in the propaganda towards China. I was looking through my lens of what I had seen happen with the rock. And one thing that doesn't happen in the United States is is the experience of the cost of war. And they say that one of the ways that the war was able to end in Vietnam was, you know, life magazines, photographers, sharing with us that actual human cost of war. We don't get that. And they knew it was wrong to show it because it would upset people. So during the Iraq war, sorry, during the Iraq war, you are not allowed to see caskets coming home. Those soldiers that gave their lives that everyone says they honor and celebrate were not even allowed to be honored. They were not allowed to come home. They were taken out the baggage side. People who were wounded were not allowed to share their stories I had to make a movie about them. So people could see what that really looked like. So we know the war, the lies that took us to the war in Iraq. We know there were no WMDs but we knew that before the war. We knew that from the White House they were lying about weapons of mass destruction and and Ukrainian cakes, because it got exposed by an ambassador. His wife got out it as a CIA agent, and someone in the White House had to go to jail about it. So it's just like, it's all so visible. The inspectors spoke passionately every day, saying there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He was the head of inspection for the UN, but the media wouldn't carry it. So I just want to, you know, remind us, take us back to our capacity to think about this. Both of Tonk's Tonkin incident did not happen in 1964, but it was an excuse for millions of deaths. It was a lie. The US claimed that the North Vietnamese boats like attacked a destroyer in international waters that justified retaliation. You know, and as Mika was saying, this was about stopping communism. Think of the McCarthy committee in Congress. We have another one in Congress right now. It's, it's the first ever committee in Congress attacking a country, the party, not the country, the communist, the Chinese Communist Party. You know, it's just reminding everyone that communism is about equality. Communism is for the workers. It's like, people pretend like it's a violence, which democracy, the United States democracy is. So when Jim talks about, it's the opposite. And that we lost that war, we lost the Iraq war. But the people lose it. The taxpayers of the United States lose it. But the rich and the weapons manufacturers win. So Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada in 1983, an invasion of Grenada that was justified, claiming that American citizens were at risk. I mean, an insane Grenada. Why? Because, oh my God, it could become Cuba. So destroyed, destroyed. I mean, I know so many people who had friends there that died. A literal destruction of innocent people. The Panama invasion in 1989 lies. Total lies so the United States could control the Panama Canal. The Kosovo intervention by NATO was about the expansion of NATO. It was, it was speak to anyone in the Balkans. That was a violence that is more trauma than they experienced in the whole war. Invasion of Afghanistan. We knew then we know now that the Taliban had offered off Osama bin Laden. They had offered him up, but instead we invaded Afghanistan. If you are a woman in Afghanistan right now, that is a horror. That is a horror. And I also want to bring it back to Obama. I went to Afghanistan in 2009 when he became president and I brought back 4,000 signatures from the women in Afghanistan, and I brought back stories. Stories of the women who were members of the parliament in Afghanistan begging not to do the escalation on Afghanistan. Afghanistan had been ignored by Bush. He had moved to Iraq. And what had happened in those years is that Afghanistan was healing from the invasion. And the Taliban was being reintegrated and peace was happening. And it was, it was lovely. And then the escalation. What war does is it rips apart the fabric of society. Iraq is destroyed from what it was the beautiful culture that it was. I think it's like 7 million people are refugees out of Iraq. So it becomes a rich, the rich and those educated leave. And you leave it to, you know, a chaos run by gangs. It continues to be a hotbed of violence. We leave behind hell. You know, Libya. That was a lie. I mean, that what they did to demonize Gaddafi, who like in Iraq, I want to say like in Iraq, it's a socialist country, people, everyone had housing, everyone had food, everyone had health care, everyone had education. But we were fed lies. And what that bombing of Libya has done to North Africa to the, the weaponizing of the Middle East by people with no, no relationship to power, but the taking down of power. It has destroyed whole communities has destroyed Mali. We need to understand the cost of these lies. We're talking about propaganda. But I want you to understand what it means and what it does, that there's somehow we, we talk about the word propaganda and lies and hate. But we don't understand these insidious violent roots that, you know, they're used for. And we're our hearts and minds are weaponized. That's a violence. And we continue to allow it. And so, you know, as we finish this day on propaganda. I want everyone to really feel into what that is that this country what it has done. I mean, I didn't even go back to the bombing of Iraq, you know, when it was about Kuwait, which was also a lie and it was driven by an ambassador in Kuwait who lied. You know, yellow ribbons around trees that that inside of all of us in the United States is a is a. I want to say there's a desire for violence at the core of this country is slavery and genocide and a continued investment and love of violence that people, mostly poor people, mostly people of color around the world have been the victim of and those that continue to speak out against war have witnessed it, have felt it, have known it. And they wouldn't want that to happen to any of you, because it's something you don't get over. So, as we have these conversations and want us to remember what it's about. I mean, I talked to women in Ukraine now, and they're hiding their husbands and their brothers and their sons and their fathers that all the men are have to go to the front lines. And then we just, you know, Jim can tell the story about a POW and Russia from Ukraine talking about not even knowing how to fire a weapon and being put on the front lines and seeing his fellow Ukrainians, you know, mowed down in less than six hours. And that's a brutality that we in the 21st century should know is wrong. We should know by now we knew 100 years ago when when you know it's like, what is wrong with us that we can be sucked in by this manipulation by this propaganda. You know, let's reflect on our own selves about what are those things that they that have been implanted in ours and us that allow us that 65% of our tax dollars are used for weapons. Tomorrow you're going to hear from someone who can say this better than me but it's China knows it loses in war and we heard from Mika African leaders know they lose in war. Why do Americans not know they lose in war, because we're not. We don't review what has been lost. We're not looking at the fabric of our society. We're not even looking at ourselves as warmongers, or the violence that we perpetrate around the world calling it democracy, a word that others in the world don't trust because of the violence it So I wanted to stay in the middle to be about propaganda, because it's a weapon. And it's a weapon that we get used by, and we become the violence and I think it's important for everyone to get that that not to be someone advocating for peace is to be used by the violence. And this week we're launching a new initiative at code pink after my week in Congress. A couple weeks ago, where the basically ever member of Congress said well, all I hear from our weapons manufacturers in the Pentagon I don't hear from the people. I don't hear a call for peace. We're launching a summer of peace, asking everyone in every way they know how to raise up peace and make it visible. I mean whether you paint a peace sign on your fence, or hang it in your window, or I hope that as a first act you do that. And as a second act you join our calls for Congress every day, or you, you organize people locally and engage in a piece march through your local farmers market. It's been drowned out. It's been, as members of Congress told me, you get buzz sawed when you talk about peace. But think about that. A member of Congress can't talk about peace, because they are literally buzz sawed by everyone around them. It's not safe to say peace. We've got to make it the citizens have to make it safe again and important again to ask and call for peace, because we're lost. We're very lost. And we need to know that. So I, I thank you for coming and learning and sharing. I want to say, you know, someone mentioned earlier about the Holy Roman Empire as the biggest owner of property. But this week we're also launching an ad. He's one of the owners and in the Catholic worker that features the Pope. I want to say he's one of the biggest voices for peace in the in the world right now. He has called for diplomacy for an end of this war. He's trying to be friends to be working for the planet. He's speaking for the planet and for the people. I think we all need to be speaking for the planet and the people, because we live in a time in history where this is about nuclear war. And Russia's already there. We know, you know, Jim said earlier in the week, we cannot push anyone that owns nuclear weapons to a place where they have to choose them. That is wrong. We heard in Congress, as we need peace voices. So come to code pink will support you will give you things you can hang in your window will give you talking points you can join us every day. As we call Congress, but they, we need pieces got to get loud. So join us and thank you. Jody, that was that was masterful. That was just simply a masterful expression from a deep heart. So I just want to thank you for all you do, and to appeal to all of us out there to do whatever we can to make peace. Thank you for that is honored and a pathway that is trodden. As we move into the future. And I think what you just said is a beautiful way to close out our session for today. Thank, thank you very, very deeply for everything that you and code pink are doing you're really literally on the front lines of the most critical issue in the world and I just want to salute you and honor you and your organization. I think all of us need to just think about what Jody just said everyone so we're going to close this session out. And I hope that we ponder deeply. I'm going to take a few words, and we'll convene again tomorrow for a deeper dive into some of these complexities and the realities that we need to honor about the great civilization that is China. Oh, I'm really excited. And just so everyone knows we have two Asian Americans, one from the West Coast and one from the East Coast to tell you what it's like, the hate on China for them here. And to, you know, to hear from, you know, this is, it's not about over there. It's happening right here the casual the casualties of this war have already happened, and they're Asian Americans in the United States. So, I just invite you to amazing people one the judge ones a professor to get an insight into your own country, and what's happening. Tomorrow on humanity rising day four of our five day program on China is not our enemy. Thank you, Jody. Thank you, Mika. We'll see everybody tomorrow. Thank you.