> Mass media with global reach exists that is headquartered in, and has as much relationship to local arms makers as exists in the US media in countries whose a

> Mass media with global reach exists that is headquartered in, and has as much relationship to local arms makers as exists in the US media in countries whose armament makers are the competition to US armament makers, so that explanation seems inadequate and parochial. The basic tenet of the US military-industry has been destroying local arms makers in any way they can to replace them. What was done to German and British air defense industries during the Cold War are examples of them. Moreover, the majority of mass media have networked shareholders which include US entities. The immense pushing of US foreign policy in all mass media even in Europe is an indicator of how extensive the control is. > Pro tip: you’ll look less like a propaganda shill if you don’t start using contextually unusual and inaccurate labels Pro tip: Anglosaxon is a long-standing history and political science term. And those who are students of either won't stop using it because a certain segment of the Angloamerican public now has an aversion to the term because a certain enemy of their establishment used them. It describes a certain social, political and economic construct, and the term still remains valid today. If you are offended by such a widely used term in history and political science, heaven knows how much you would be offended by some other terms that are used in those sciences. Here is a 300-year old example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion