The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of China’s growing control over Hollywood, and how this impacts upon the very survival of American culture.
In May, Small Wars Journal’s Darren E. Tromblay outlined the issue of China’s use of Hollywood. “China has a well-established respect for information warfare. Chinese companies have made a variety of acquisitions in the United States that it can leverage to influence U.S. decision-making. While certain aspects of this buying spree – telecom and media purchases – have made national headlines and prompted U.S. government inquiries, China’s entry into – and consolidation of its holdings in – the entertainment field provide a vector that has not been sufficiently scrutinized…Since 2012, Chinese entities have made a significant push into the U.S. film production and distribution industry. Chinese involvement in this area creates two primary concerns. The first of these is that, by gaining control of distribution, China can effectively diminish the impact of films that it deems to be objectionable to Beijing’s interests. China may take offense at any number of themes – ranging from portrayals of the country as an aggressor to glorification of protest and civil disobedience – that have filled U.S. movie screens. A second, complementary, concern is that China will develop the resources to produce content with thematic elements supportive of a “China solution”. Sympathetic, non-Chinese-produced, portrayals have already entered American theaters (one need look no further than the recent Disney nature flick, “Born in China”) – it is entirely plausible that Chinese producers will be able to capitalize on these sentiments with their own content.”
In the broad marketplace of ideas, it could be speculated that American audiences should be able to see through Hollywood’s sellout to Chinese censorship. The problem is that the ability to do so is hampered by a U.S. education system that has deemphasized the teaching of history and civics, and that has adopted anti-American curriculums that are, at times, even more hostile (and inaccurate) than those portrayed by China or other hostile regimes.
A National Association of Scholars report on the issue of public education’s “New Civics” outlines why young Americans are already primed to be susceptible to foreign propaganda that portrays America as an evil nation. It found that:
The animals were levitra purchase presented and sedated to echocardiographic critiques 7-15 days following the doses of 25mg, 50mg and 100mg. This drug can be taken with or viagra in uk without food. browse for source commander viagra The drug is to be kept under notice. A series of comprehensive medical check-up is performed buy canada viagra to remove signs of ageing, removing blemishes and to achieve flawless genes.
“What we call the ‘New Civics’ redefines civics…Rooted in the radical program of the 1960s’ …Though camouflaged with soft rhetoric, the New Civics, properly understood, is an effort to repurpose higher education. The New Civics seeks above all [dedicated] to …elevating international ‘norms’ over American Constitutional law, and disparaging our common history and ideals…Because middle schools and high schools no longer can be relied on to provide students basic civic literacy, the subject has migrated to colleges. But colleges have generally failed to recognize a responsibility to cover the basic content of traditional civics, and have instead substituted programs under the name of civics that bypass instruction in American government and history.”
A Federalist study agrees. “…a retired AP teacher named Larry Krieger took a look at the new APUSH [Advanced Placement U.S. history] guidelines that had started to circulate. He has examined the AP tests for decades because he coaches for the exams (and, not incidentally, has won awards from College Board for his AP teaching). What he saw alarmed him. He teamed up with American Principles Project fellow Jane Robbins, who is nationally known for her incisive criticism of Common Core…’The new Framework inculcates a consistently negative view of the nation’s past. For example, the units on colonial America stress the development of a ‘rigid racial hierarchy’ and a ‘strong belief in British racial and cultural superiority.’ Third, they noted that the new framework ignored pivotal figures and events in favor of less-important individuals and events that reinforce a leftist narrative of U.S. history: “It excises Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, and the other founders from the nation’s story. George Washington’s historical contributions are reduced to a brief sentence fragment noting his Farewell Address. Two pages later, the Framework grants teachers the flexibility to discuss the architecture of Spanish missions, suggesting it merits more attention than the heroes of 1776.” Krieger also conducted a meticulous dissection of the anti-American themes and anti-knowledge gaps in the extensive new curriculum framework. These include emphasizing exploitation, racial conflict, and economic determinism, and omitting the Pilgrims, all Revolutionary War battles, Alexis de Tocqueville, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and much more.”
Emmet Tyrell, editor of the American Spectator, has repeated an oft-heard refrain: “Culture trumps politics.” From the anti-American bias of the nations’ educational system to the new reign of Chinese values in our entertainment, the United States is in danger of losing its identity within a generation.