new

Are you interested in reading an explanation of the situation in Xinjiang? It is a complex one. Here it is, using many lib sources no less, just to be safe.

Approximately 50% of what you hear is outright propaganda, as we know the CIA’s affiliates churn out. We also see CIA assets pushing narratives on Reddit. The next 25% is poorly researched speculation by an evangelical end-timer, and the final 25% is an accurate description of the PRC’s response to far right, religious terrorism and separatism.

First, let’s just establish using safe, American sources that tens of thousands of Uyghur people went to fight with ISIS in Syria, then returned. Let’s also establish that there have been consistent terrorist attacks with significant casualties and that the CIA and CIA front-groups have funded and stoked Islamic extremism across the world for geopolitical gain.. We also know that Saudi Arabia along with CIA are actively pushing weapons in that area and have a program to radicalize muslims there with the same tactics they have used everywhere in the middle east in the last 40+ years.

Its also very important to note that unlike China, no western country has Muslims as a majority (or significant minority) of any region, nor are the Muslims rural, lacking formal education, and not integrated into the national economy (which is a failure of past Chinese policy I agree). This means that in the west any Islamic threat is necessarily limited to lone wolf terrorism, or the occasional cell, whereas in Xinjiang it’s plausible that a significant Islamic seperatist movement could take power if the CPC if it didnt do anything about it.

Also the west lacks a border with Afghanistan with tens of thousands of islamists, ISIS and fundementalists. That dramatically limits the external support any such movement could receive. China has that geographical issue and it adds another level of danger and instability in the area and potential escalation.

Now, we need to consider potential responses.

The CPC could give up and surrender Xinjiang to ISIS and radicalization that is happening in large scales. This option condemns millions of people to living under a fundamentalist Islamic State, including many non-Muslims and non-extreme Muslims. This option also creates a CIA-aligned state on the border, and jeopardizes a key part of the Belt and Road initiative, which is designed to connect landlocked countries for development and geopolitical positioning.It destabilizes the whole area further and also threatens the CPC’s legitimacy, as keeping China together, prosperous and united has been one of the most important mandates for the party.

The next option is the American option. Drone strike, black-site, or otherwise liquidate anyone who could be associated with Islamic extremism. Be liberal in doing so. Make children fear blue skies because of drones. When the orphaned young children grow up, do it all again. You can also throw a literal man-made famine in there if you want.). Millions of deaths and entire cultures and regions destroyed and destabilized.

The final option is the Chinese option. Mass surveillance. Use AI to target anyone who may be at risk of radicalisation for re-education based on the geographical position/areas, personal/family connections and social circle with islamist orgs or extremists. Teach them the lingua franca of China, Mandarin. Pump money into the region for development. When people finish their time in re-education, set them up with state jobs. Keep the surveillance up. Allow and even celebrate local religious customs, but make sure the leaders are on-side with the party.

There’s no evidence, including from leaked papers, that the goal of the deradicalization program is permanent internment or annihilation of Islam. In fact, the leaked CIA papers have Xi explicitly saying Islam should not be annihilated from China:

Mr. Xi also told officials to not discriminate against Uighurs and to respect their right to worship. He warned against overreacting to natural friction between Uighurs and Han Chinese, the nation’s dominant ethnic group, and rejected proposals to try to eliminate Islam entirely in China.

“In light of separatist and terrorist forces under the banner of Islam, some people have argued that Islam should be restricted or even eradicated,” he said during the Beijing conference. He called that view “biased, even wrong.”

As for permanent internment, we know from leaks that the minimum duration of detention is one year — though accounts from ex-detainees suggest that some are released sooner. with often taking weekends off.

There’s no stoking of inter-ethnic hatred or elimination of a specific culture; the CPC actively censors footage from terrorist attacks in China to avoid such an outcome. Xi doesn’t go on TV calling any ethnicity rapists or murderers. Uighur culture is actively celebrated in the media and via tourism. Xinjiang has 24,400 mosques, one per 530 Muslims. That’s three mosques per capita more than their western peers . Muslims in every other part of China other than Xinjiang (the majority of Muslims in China) face zero issues and just practice their religion freely. Kinda weird for a country that's islamophobic and wants to do cultural genocide

I’ve used some Chinese sources for detailed information in China that other sources don’t tend to have (like in-depth infographics on poverty reduction and the number of mosques per capita), but the key information is from American institutes and leaked Chinese documents and as a result even this account may be a bit overexaggerate and biased for he western side.

Of course there are human rights abuses in Xinjiang. There are human rights abuses everywhere, especially when implementing programs that give institutional power to people. One question to ask is what the driving factor behind those abuses are. State line and extermination policy? We can discern that by looking at the instructions and training given. Another question to ask is what the alternatives of the institutional policy are for China, and what human rights abuses, are avoided through the policy.

Could China’s approach be done better? Almost certainly. Are they exterminating or genociding muslims ? No. Is it the correct response to extremism at that scale? That’s for you to decide.

It is now males, rather than females, who suffer the vast majority of institutional discrimination

This post was originally submitted by u/Vwar. For new subscribers, here it is again. There are many useful links at the bottom of the post.

I don't believe that males have ever been privileged in the way feminists claim. But we are now at the point where the deck is stacked against males at every stage of their lives and in almost every major institution.

When a male is born he can have his genitals mutilated. Hundreds of baby boys die from this procedure every year.

Then comes primary school, where boys are often punished and even drugged for displaying natural boyish behaviour. Recent studies have also revealed that female teachers mark down boys by an average of 20 percent for the same work.

Huge numbers of boys are now being raised without fathers (including about 99 percent of school shooters, funny how we never talk about that), and since pedo hysteria has chased male teachers out of primary school, boys often don't have any male role models until much later in life.

Boys only clubs such as the Boy Scouts are being eliminated while girl only clubs remain.

Teenage boys are being introduced to blatantly misandrist concepts like "toxic masculinity," with nary a word about toxic femininity and nothing about the positive aspects of masculinity.

Next it's off to University, where there are a range of female-specific scholarships and programs even though women make up the majority of college students and young women are now out-earning young men. They are also portrayed as rapists in waiting, and there are entire departments (gender studies) devoted to demonising their sex. If a young man pisses off a young woman (eg dumps her after a one night stand) he faces the possibility of being subjected to a false accusation and a feminist Kangaroo court. Then it's bye bye academic career and social reputation.

If he wants to vote he will have to sign over his body to the state (selective service). After that, conscription is mandatory if the State wants it. In some countries, all males but no females are required to undergo a compulsory period of military service after the reach adulthood.

If he gets a woman pregnant he will not have the option of legal parental surrender. While a woman can just drop off the baby at a safe haven, the man is on the hook for 18 years of child support and will be locked up if he loses his job and can't pay.

In the workplace things are just as bad. Men perform almost all of the dirty and dangerous jobs and make up 95 percent of workplace injuries and deaths. If a white man wants to pursue a more respected career he faces racial and sexual discrimination in hiring due to corporate "diversity" measures and quotas. A recent study in ... I think it was Australia found that "blind hiring" practices (where the employer doesn't know the race or sex of the applicant) result in more straight white males being hired; this means that it is straight white men who are now suffering discrimination in the workplace.

With MeToo, a man can be fired from his job simply for making a woman uncomfortable. There have even been cases of men being fired for telling a naughty joke.

If he gets married and the wife divorces him through no fault of his own he will likely be treated like shit by the family courts unless he can afford a high priced lawyer. There are countless stories of men effectively being turned into indentured servants by their ex-wives; they live in poverty and seldom see their kids while the wife gets a new "baby daddy" and lives high on the hog. NOW, the largest feminist organization in the world, continues to oppose shared parenting even though every single study shows it to be in the best interests of the children, the father and even the mother.

He will receive less social support, less health care spending, and be relentlessly demonised in the media.

If a male is sexually assaulted by a woman he will probably not receive justice; the perpetrator will likely get a slap on the wrist even if the victim is a boy.

If he commits a crime or is falsely accused of a crime he will be treated much, much more harshly by the criminal justice system.

I could go on.

It is a myth that feminists think the sexes are equal. Their method of operation goes like this: if men are ahead in some area, that means women are being oppressed because the sexes are identical except for genitalia; however, if women are ahead in some area that's because women are superior. You can find this sentiment going back to the first wave. Elizabeth Cady Stanton claimed that women are "infinitely superior" to men.

The prison thing is perhaps the most glaring example of feminists not practising what they preach. If they were serious about equality they would be demanding either that men be treated with more compassion/leniency or that women be treated more harshly (or some combination of the two). Instead, they want women to be treated even more leniently, and some are even advocating for the complete abolition of female prisons.

Men are increasingly second class citizens not only in a social but legal sense. A study in the UK determined that if women were treated like men by the criminal justice system, fully half of all prisoners would be female. Women do NOT commit less crimes than men (though they do commit less homicides), they just don't get punished to anywhere near the same extent.

If feminism were an "equality" movement they would not be trying to privilege females in every single institution. They would be looking with a keen eye at areas in which males are disadvantaged and/or subject to institutional discrimination. They certainly wouldn't blame everything on some nebulous all-encompassing "patriarchy" that hasn't even been proven to exist.

Advocates of gender equality must reject feminism, and support men's rights.