And there’s definitely some baseline xenophobia that guides this view.
Absolutely, I agree.
But even outside the US, we see countries doing atrocities that don’t receive remotely the same level of criticism or suffer any kind of uniform moral critique. The Saudis are good when doing genocide in Yemen, while the Iranians are bad when aiding the rebels. Meanwhile, Ukrainians are good when doing armed resistance against Russia, while Belarus is bad for aiding the invaders.
The paradoxical inconsistency is precisely the point. Because the Saudis and the Ukrainians are pro-American, the bourgeoisie cannot allow them to be criticized like the Iranians and the Russians. If they did suffer a uniform moral critique, that would undermine the Western masses' faith in the "rules-based international order." Bourgeois hegemony presents a highly one-sided moral condemnation of its enemies and excusing or even lauding its allies, and so individuals are conditioned to doublethink and accept the West as morally superior to its enemies. The bourgeoisie does this because of its material interests, obviously, they have no illusions about morality. But remember that most individual proletarians have false consciousness and understand the world in a moralistic way; we are taught to think like this, and unidirectional atrocity propaganda preys on that weakness.
The Uyghur genocide line is about shaming China for opposing a new Operation Cyclone in western China. Falun Gong organ harvesting stories are about promoting a group of Chinese ex-pats with significant wealth and an extensive political network in the California State House and the US National Congress. #SOSCuba trending on Twitter isn’t some organic outcry coming from a Floridian diaspora, but the most visible aspect of a military operation aimed at overthrowing the government in Havana.
Yes, yes it is. It is not organic, it is directed for the bourgeoisie's benefit.
This isn’t simple human rationalization, it is foreign policy made manifest through domestic propaganda.
I agree it is foreign policy made manifest through propaganda, but propaganda is not magical. Individuals, and the proletariat as a whole, have to be convinced that this foreign policy is correct, and rationalizing and moralizing enables this. I am not claiming that rationalization is the cause of the propaganda, not at all. Propaganda's origins are material, it is performed for the benefit of a class, and it is well organized. My point is that encouraging individual proletarians to rationalize and accept these contradictions is a weapon of false consciousness, one of many, wielded purposefully.
Chinese national policy has taken a hard left (or, at least, nationalist focused) turn since the end of the Deng Era. An increase in Chinese protectionism, a new competitiveness with the US over natural resources, a focus on Chinese sovereignty, and an internalization of the ownership of Chinese capital all break from American foreign policy in a way that shifts our international relationships. This is what drives American hegemons to villainize China.
Agreed.
If these policies ever change - or if DC elites ever reconcile with a multi-polar global economy as benign or beneficial - the media consensus on China will change with them.
I definitely think this is a possibility, that if China turns to the right the narrative will change. It happened once before, it could happen again. And for example, I think we're still in that phase with Vietnam overall, I don't often see much criticism directed towards them. But I do think Chinese policy is unlikely to turn right, and that if it did, there is a chance that the media consensus will not change, because China would still be too powerful to not seem threatening to the (Western) bourgeoisie. I'm sure the US was quite pleased when it saw Khrushchev undo much of Stalin's work and turn to the USSR to the right, but they didn't let up the pressure, they actually intensified it. It was still too threatening, especially when other countries were increasingly emulating their model and seeking their assistance. If China becomes significantly more influential than the US economically and geopolitically (which we seem to be in the beginning of), and especially if other countries attempt to implement policies similar to theirs, it may not matter to the West at all if China suddenly became more pro-market or if a multi-polar economy benefited them.
Absolutely, I agree.
The paradoxical inconsistency is precisely the point. Because the Saudis and the Ukrainians are pro-American, the bourgeoisie cannot allow them to be criticized like the Iranians and the Russians. If they did suffer a uniform moral critique, that would undermine the Western masses' faith in the "rules-based international order." Bourgeois hegemony presents a highly one-sided moral condemnation of its enemies and excusing or even lauding its allies, and so individuals are conditioned to doublethink and accept the West as morally superior to its enemies. The bourgeoisie does this because of its material interests, obviously, they have no illusions about morality. But remember that most individual proletarians have false consciousness and understand the world in a moralistic way; we are taught to think like this, and unidirectional atrocity propaganda preys on that weakness.
Yes, yes it is. It is not organic, it is directed for the bourgeoisie's benefit.
I agree it is foreign policy made manifest through propaganda, but propaganda is not magical. Individuals, and the proletariat as a whole, have to be convinced that this foreign policy is correct, and rationalizing and moralizing enables this. I am not claiming that rationalization is the cause of the propaganda, not at all. Propaganda's origins are material, it is performed for the benefit of a class, and it is well organized. My point is that encouraging individual proletarians to rationalize and accept these contradictions is a weapon of false consciousness, one of many, wielded purposefully.
Agreed.
I definitely think this is a possibility, that if China turns to the right the narrative will change. It happened once before, it could happen again. And for example, I think we're still in that phase with Vietnam overall, I don't often see much criticism directed towards them. But I do think Chinese policy is unlikely to turn right, and that if it did, there is a chance that the media consensus will not change, because China would still be too powerful to not seem threatening to the (Western) bourgeoisie. I'm sure the US was quite pleased when it saw Khrushchev undo much of Stalin's work and turn to the USSR to the right, but they didn't let up the pressure, they actually intensified it. It was still too threatening, especially when other countries were increasingly emulating their model and seeking their assistance. If China becomes significantly more influential than the US economically and geopolitically (which we seem to be in the beginning of), and especially if other countries attempt to implement policies similar to theirs, it may not matter to the West at all if China suddenly became more pro-market or if a multi-polar economy benefited them.