Chinese authorities banned a popular blogger known for his strong anti-Western comments, according to the South China Morning Post.
Sima Nan, who has more than 3 million followers on China’s social media site Weibo, has been banned across different platforms for a year, according to the paper, which cited two unidentified sources. Sima last posted on Nov. 5 to voice support for Donald Trump during the US election, saying his victory will be more beneficial for China.
According to the paper, Sima Nan is seen by many as “a symbolic voice on the nationalistic left.” He frequently accused groups or individuals of betraying China’s interests and colluding with the US. In 2021, he accused Lenovo Group Ltd. of selling state assets for less than they were worth and paying top executives unreasonably high salaries.
People on twitter are saying he’s actually a far-right nationalist hypocrite who owns properties in the US. Makes sense to ban him then ig; just one of those fake internet celebrities that they occasionally ban probably.
Known for espousing antisemitic tropes, Sima’s Weibo channel spread the notion that Jews colluded with the Empire of Japan to establish a Jewish homeland in mainland China during the Second Sino-Japanese War in what has been termed the Fugu Plan.
Reading through the specifics of what the guy’s said and done, clearly a good move
Thoughts? Sounds like a lame thing to do
Known for espousing antisemitic tropes,[11][12] Sima’s Weibo channel spread the notion that Jews colluded with the Empire of Japan to establish a Jewish homeland in mainland China during the Second Sino-Japanese War in what has been termed the Fugu Plan.[13]
In August 2022, he admitted to buying a house in California. This made him a target of widespread ridicule, with commentators saying “being anti-American is work, living in America is life” (反美是工作、留美是生活).[14] For unknown reasons, he was blocked in Chinese social media in August 2022.[15] His accounts were later reinstated on 27 August.[15]
On 4 July 2023, he attended the American Independence Day dinner hosted by the US Embassy in China where also met with US Ambassador to China R. Nicholas Burns. Sima’s attendance of the dinner was mocked by Chinese social media users who accused him of being hypocritical, as the day before the event he had criticized the US proposal to provide Ukraine with cluster bombs during the Russian invasion as “an act against humanity.”[16]
I mean, he sounds like a provocateur, probably looking to heighten tensions between the two powers. Antisemitic at that. Also, support for Donald Trump under the guise that he’ll be better for China? The best outcome for China is (somehow) becoming a partner with the US economically and having friendly relations. Problem there is neither party wants that. Under Trump, tensions will continue to be heightened between the two but also internal tensions in the US will also accelerate. Maybe this is what he means when he says Trump is good for China, but that’s a very nationalistic sentiment.
If you want to stop the spread of far right nationalism in your country this is one way you handle it. In America, we put far right nationalism on the same level as every other political thinking, except for left thinking, especially left economic thinking, which we demonize.
I imagine China cares a lot more about his criticism of China than they do about his criticism of the US. Makes for a more clickable headline though, I guess
The govt will ban voices that are pro-china as well as anti. The marker tends to be those who people will form behind and have the ability to create movements. It’s about keeping people atomised.
No it’s about not allowing traitors to the Chinese people to gain power. You can have and express nearly any opinion in China, as long as you agree it should exist and it’s people should flourish. If you post dissent that would harm the people or the state they control, you’re penalized.
They solved the paradox of tolerance by enforcing a base level of morality, fall behind it and you’re not really worth tolerating.
How do you define what “will harm the people?”
Deregulation, unscientific claims, advocating for negative public health decisions, advocating for war, advocating for other countries propaganda. It’s genuinely an easy thing to do.
If you advocate for, say, allowing private companies to operate essential services like medical care or water purification, you’re arguing to harm the people. We know both of those are terrible things to have privatized, we have the US as an example.
Because the state determines anything that potentially threatens the state as a “threat to the people” while not allowing the people to organise, especially with anything that may threaten the state.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees
The people are the state, the people organized once upon a time, you might have heard of it.
And yeah rebellion isn’t allowed. That’s a given, no idea why you think that’s a bad thing.
The descendents of the grand historian still making themselves as popular with authority as always
The interests of international capital are the interests of any particular state.
