The United States(!) of A
There’s three broad options. Break it down, that’s what it is.
Two of those options have been declared as unacceptable by the PRC btw. Regardless of what the people of Taiwan think.
There are many paths and options to achieve that end, but there’s three broad options.
Your view about US foreign policy doesn’t change that.
US has also declared two of those options as unacceptable regardless of what the Taiwanese or the Chinese think.
Have they? Which two?
One only needs to take a quick glance at the latest think tank tweets at any moment in time:
The latest Hudson Institute tweet and article:
To prevent #China's #PLA from invading #Taiwan, @OfficerNagao explores three key elements to keep #China in check and explains what role #India can play to avert a Chinese takeover.https://t.co/9ajBf3i14u
— Hudson Institute (@HudsonInstitute) March 6, 2023
"... if Taiwan’s international status is high enough, it will be riskier for China to provoke its supporters. Thus, the rising international status of Taiwan could prevent a Chinese invasion. The recent visits of delegations from the US, Japan, and European countries show that high-level official visits raise the status of Taiwan ... India’s diplomatic support could raise the international status of Taiwan..."
Can finds literally 100s of think tank and news articles clearly detailing US activities materially changing the status quo, regardless of whether the US admits to it or not - we see it every day, all day.
And meanwhile also in that article:
"If the US, Japan, and Taiwan jointly cooperate with India, China will not be able to concentrate its military expenditure against Taiwan because it will need to respond to India. Cooperation with the three countries is beneficial for India too, in terms of its conflicts with China along the Himalayan border region. To raise the credibility of this idea, strike capability is key. Recently, not only India and the US, but Japan, Taiwan, Australia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and South Korea have all been improving their strike capabilities. China would be forced to spread out its defence capabilities and expenditures if it were surrounded by formidable strike capabilities. Cooperation between India and the US, Japan, Taiwan, and others could create a situation that will deter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan."
Also, the latest The Diplomat magazine tweet and article:
The South Korean and U.S. militaries announced Friday they will hold their biggest joint field exercises in five years later this month. https://t.co/aIOm6lpGrG pic.twitter.com/VqpEBdDHAf
— The Diplomat (@Diplomat_APAC) March 6, 2023
No escalation at all on China's doorstep by the US...totally friendly and cordial relations with China aimed at world happiness, peace and prosperity...nothing to see here...move on....
It's good to see South Korea and the US collaborating closely. Being in such a hostile environment, South Korea definitely needs strong allies and an equipped army to deal with any escalations.
That kind of military drills and cooperation is what’s making that region so hostile.
Flollo your view is one of advocating for tit-for-tat military escalation that only leads to one outcome unless it’s defused.
Kevin Rudd’s latest book sheds some good light on what needs to happen.
Do you consider that China’s stated policy of forceful (re)unification is in any way escalatory?
The US has not, historically, supported Taiwanese independence. The official position is actually aligned to what you outlined above.
China’s stated policy is peaceful increasing of ties and peaceful reunification.
China is the reactionary party to US aggression and initiation of each round of the tit-for-tat escalation.
gsco wrote:China’s stated policy is peaceful increasing of ties and peaceful reunification.
China is the reactionary party to US aggression and initiation of each round of the tit-for-tat escalation.
5th party congress stated that unification would be achieved by force.
Notions that the Chinese are not and haven't been geopolitically aggressive are based on fantasy.
Tibet? Korean War? Vietnam War? The almost war with the USSR? The ongoing low-level conflict with India? The ongoing outward aggression towards Taiwan and threat of invasion? The attempted annexation of virtually the entire South China Sea and Stated-backed violence towards fishing fleets of other nations in the area? All the economic coercion that's been going on and continues to happen?
No nation is more aggressive and violent than the US, but to say China is just "responding" is false. They have been using a slightly adapted version of the same hemispherical expansionist playbook the US began using in the 1800s. They're smart like that and more subtle than most nations. Make no mistake, the Chinese are intent on getting back to their glory days and achieving regional hegemony. Might be a good reason for Australia to suddenly stop saying we're part of Asia....
The US of course deliberately trying to keep them fenced in is obviously a driving factor. But, it does beg the question, realpolitik chat:
in a world ruled by animals, of which we are, can there really be two kings of the jungle? Or did the US just realise that, for mainly selfish but perhaps some mildly altruistic reasons, if there's just one big wolf/bear/lion/dragon that dominates all, that's not perfect but it's still better than two equally sized beasts going at and fucking up the whole place for everyone... You know, even in the most democratic of systems, there's a still a top dog that calls the shots. Food for thought.
gsco is too worried about offending the source of his precious money to worry about the facts,it's sickening to read such greedy dribble.
“a common political mistake in the West, the belief that it’s always an advantage for ambassadors to have long experience in China. Governments forget that, in the process of getting to know China and some of its powerful players, many succumb to Beijing’s subtle influence techniques, so that an ambassador may in practice serve as a conduit for Beijing’s messaging back to the Western capital.”
― Clive Hamilton, Hidden Hand: Exposing How the Chinese Communist Party is Reshaping the World
that’s a pretty bizarre statement DAW
My concern with what gsco is suggesting above (Aus back away from US and be independent) is that in a world with 1 or 2 great powers, all of the middle powers will come under the influence of one or the other. This is inevitable. Power abhors a vacuum, and so if we were to turn our back on the US, then it is reasonable to assume Chinese influence/defence cooperation/or worse would take it's place.
If this were the case, would the future for Australia be something like this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet
Or is wiki way off the mark in what's going on there? I could link a very pro Tibetan source describing what they say has happened, or an interpretation from the Chinese side, but for now the general wiki page will do. Is this an ethnic replacement?
My interest in much of this is spiritual, and it must be mentioned that China is the source and has harboured of some truly remarkable and precious traditions in this regard as well.
What about Switzerland VJ?
Bizarre?coming from the defender of everything chinese,pffft
I think you mean from the defender of Australia.
I see that Paul Keating is also having a blowup about some (more) ridiculously irresponsible Australia media "reporting" today (also see below). Actually my views are quite similar to his.
If we follow the US into war with China it will be last drinks for our peaceful, prosperous, abundant and free way of life, so I'd suggest everyone quit their jobs right now and get in as many surfs as they can before we become an even larger open-cut hole in the ground than we already are from our mining companies.
The Guardian wrote:Nine’s China war risk story is ‘news abuse’, Keating says
Daniel Hurst
Daniel Hurst
The former prime minister Paul Keating has taken aim at the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age over the papers’ coverage of national security threats facing Australia.In a strongly worded statement issued today, Keating said:
Today’s Sydney Morning Herald and Age front page stories on Australia’s supposed war risk with China represents the most egregious and provocative news presentation of any newspaper I have witnessed in over fifty years of active public life.
It is way worse than the illustrated sampans shown to be coming from China in the build up to the war in Vietnam in the 1960s.
Apart from the outrageous illustrations of jet aircraft being shown leaving a profiled red-coloured map of China, the extent of the bias and news abuse is, I believe, unparalleled in modern Australian journalism.
Nine and the journalists have been contacted to offer them a right to respond.
But the coverage to which Keating objects features a panel of five national security experts who have issued a statement labelled “Red Alert”.
They said they believed Australia “faces the prospect of armed conflict in the Indo-Pacific within three years”, with the most serious risk being a “a Chinese attack on Taiwan that sparks a conflict with the US and other democracies, including Australia”. The panel said it based its assertions on Xi Jinping’s aggressive stance and rapid military buildup. It also said Australia was not prepared for conflict, and the federal government was “reluctant to openly identify the threat we face: an increasingly aggressive Communist China”.
The online version of the story is headlined: Australia faces the threat of war with China within three years – and we’re not ready.
Keating is a longstanding critic of the current bipartisan consensus on Australia’s national outlook and policies such as Aukus. At the National Press Club in November 2021, Keating urged Australia not to be drawn into a military engagement over Taiwan, “US-sponsored or otherwise”, and said Taiwan was “fundamentally a civil matter” for China. He also referred to Taiwan as China’s “front doorstep”.
Taiwan’s ministry of foreign affairs responded to Keating’s intervention in 2021 by saying a crisis in the Taiwan Strait was “by no means a domestic matter between Chinese, and the security of the Taiwan Strait involves the stability and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific region, but also the global peace, stability and development”.
As mentioned, Nine has been contacted for comment.
Keating seems to be one of a small handful of sane, level-headed people on this.
"Keating seems to be one of a small handful of sane, level-headed people on this."
Another is Bruce Haigh, a former soldier and diplomat who is on twitter a lot and has written a number of articles on this. He hates AUKUS and ASPI.
There is speculation that Costello put this "Red Alert" out to distract attention from the disastrous LNP performance and polling and the Robodebt inquiry.
I've got no idea but I think if they do act, the Chinese wouldn't attack, they would blockade Taiwan and pressure them that way to re-unify and put the onus on the USA to attack, or not. I think that would be Xi's idea of a peaceful re-unification, Interesting times. If we get drawn into a Pacific war then we are fucked, no doubt about it and it will be us fighting against an enemy built with our coal and ore. Thanks Twiggy and Gina, and both sides of politics. Wasn't too long ago we were being told how to embrace China and the 'new Asian Century'.
@adam12 There is speculation that Costello put this "Red Alert" out to distract attention from the disastrous LNP performance and polling and the Robodebt inquiry.
Would not be surprised. Fark they are just being dangerous now, its one thing to bullshit about Labor, quite another to speak crap about a more powerful country such as China, our number 1 trading partner. Yep Australia would be fucked (well and truly!) if a war broke out with China. Really besides sleepwalking to one as a vassal of the USA, why would China want a war with Australia. Makes no sense.
Fear mongering went next level.
"Keating seems to be one of a small handful of sane, level-headed people on this."
keating just seems terribly desperate to preserve his legacy to me...
I love the guy (and hate the term) ...but... 'cognitive dissonace' ...seems appropriate...
Bruce Haigh seems to be fighting the good fight - for peace - as is Paul Keating.
The US “China attack Taiwan” global information and psychological warfare campaign, and its China economic-technology-military containment and rollback campaign, are in next level hyperdrive with no end in sight.
The world needs to stop and with clear eyes and a level head ask the question: “Is the China threat real or is it our actions that are making it real?”
It’s now beyond domestic politicisation and China-bashing point scoring, anti-China resentment and racism, political and national pride, political and economic ideology, media article clicks, multinational corporate profits, historical irritations and resentments, etc.
Level heads, facts and evidence, skilful diplomacy, tact and statesmanship need to prevail.
This is how we’re asleep at the wheel.
I love you too gsco...
you provide great in depth knowledge on a number of topics. and I sincerely appreciate you giving, what is often, a contrarian perspective on any number of topics, not just china...
but how the fuck keating, and you, can totally overlook certain recent events, is frustrating to say the least..
1. nearly every neighbouring country to china, take issue with their expansionism into the south china sea - including indonesia, who love the role as china's bitch...
2. you don't see building military bases, in said sea, as 'escalationary'?
3. whoever is responsible for 'the virus'... how the hell anyone can overlook china banning domestic flights from wuhan, when the virus first broke out, yet permitting international flights out of wuhan to continue, is beyond me...
that can only possibly be interpreted as an 'act of aggression'
....or at the very best, a total disregard for human life and any semblance of the responsibility of being a good (or even very below average) 'global citizen'...
Hi gsco, I do appreciate your posts as well, thank you for the in depth economic posts. I tend to disagree at times, that's a forum.
Re: Switzerland - they are all armed. They're armed to the teeth. Ie the citizenry. To paraphrase Yamamoto Isoruku: "There's a gun behind every blade of grass." That might go some way to ensure their independence.
Also, they tend to do the banking of the leaders of many nations... this might disincentivise things like invasion. I once read Lenin had about 10mil of gains stashed... And lastly, everyone loves a good watch and chocolate.
Syp, I was going to say the other day that you provided some great and deep insight into The Voice and indigenous Australian issues more generally.
Re your post, my guess is Keating can see the bigger picture that 100s of millions of lives are legitimately at stake. In the scheme of things he knows what are more like minor annoyances. He knows what fights to pick between countries and not to get one’s ego and pride caught up in tit-for-tax scenarios over things that don’t achieve national interests. He understands diplomacy, statecraft, and proper ways to wield influence and manage long-term relationships.
(Not saying I do btw.)
Did he just to pull the racism card.? Is that woke?The outrage is strong on here.
Gsco the libs have been politically point scoring last couple years no doubt with their anti CCP rhetoric. they saw a opportunity given the public sentiment at the time re CCP shitfuckery and they exploited it for their political purpose…. Eventually…when it suited.
The way you are carrying on however is thin skinned faux outrage. And it’s naive. . Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. CCP aren’t innocent. USA has form. And Australian government / opposition have been acted mostly in self interest tackling a highly complex situation in a juvenile fashion.
That said I welcome your input and others in your favour with your arguments holding the west to account. War is not an option.
velocityjohnno wrote:Hi gsco, I do appreciate your posts as well, thank you for the in depth economic posts. I tend to disagree at times, that's a forum.
Re: Switzerland - they are all armed. They're armed to the teeth. Ie the citizenry. To paraphrase Yamamoto Isoruku: "There's a gun behind every blade of grass." That might go some way to ensure their independence.
Also, they tend to do the banking of the leaders of many nations... this might disincentivise things like invasion. I once read Lenin had about 10mil of gains stashed... And lastly, everyone loves a good watch and chocolate.
Comparison with Switzerland is not relevant. Switzerland is surrounded by European Union and even though Switzerland is not part of the union, the attack on Switzerland would de facto mean an attack on the European Union. And there are many that would defend it.
Australia, on the other hand is a continent with only 25 million residents. Situated on the bottom of the planet and rich with resources. Surrounded by the ocean and can be attacked from any direction. We either need a massive military complex or strong alliances to defend ourselves if something goes south. So, I don’t think we can be Switzerland or anything like that. It’s a different set of circumstances.
Yep, I think a way more relevant historical parallel might be the Dutch East Indies in 1941 when they decided to stop supplying oil to Imperial Japan. There's a really good series on this on YT, will try to find.
They were an underdefended resource exporter that said no to a very militarised customer, in our region.
Here it is, multiple videos on this playlist, superb work by this fellow:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkwc6O1DGECndVDbh_QIDv8Uo0q-EbXa1
Note how the defence, and the ABDA force, was swept away, and fast.
They’re being very clear about it, we need to listen: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-07/china-us-surely-be-conflict-qin-g...
@VJ Agreed. This is the reason why I’m not on board with some of our politicians pursuing a ban on fossil fuel export in the name of climate change. Let me be clear, I’m not a climate change sceptic by any means and my position here didn’t come from some anti climate change angle. Every decision will have a multi variate impact and this one might lead to someone declaring that Australia has too many resources for its 25 million residents. This might sound like fantasy but I don’t see it that way. Certainly Kim Jong-un can easily rationalise a decision to attack Australia on this basis.
gsco wrote:They’re being very clear about it, we need to listen: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-07/china-us-surely-be-conflict-qin-g...
Taiwan is a very messy situation. The way I see it, Taiwan was always part of China (well, after the 17th century) with the exception of brief Japanese rule. Current Chinese government is internationally recognised which makes Taiwanese a separatist movement. The fact that it dragged in relative peace over decades doesn’t change that fact. So from that angle I believe it is an internal issue for China to solve. I would be very careful with getting involved into this situation.
The PRC / CCP has never exerted sovereignty over Taiwan.
I think the most curious thing about the china appeasers position is, it is like the last few decades didn't happen...
as bonza says, both parties bent over backwards to accomodate china, then we bent over forwards, to take some more... absolutely reamed, at all angles...
and 'the narrative' was all china china china, as 'the china century' unfolded...
where never an ill word was to be uttered at all publically... not even close... as cries of 'racism' (from both sides) shut down anyone who even dared considering preserving parts of australia for australians and the future... (shock horror!)
even so when, the mind numbingly dumb, deal of selling the darwin port off for 99 years or whatever went down
people could see where shit was heading... farmlands, airstrips, ports, uni curriculmns, and money hole houses for the chinese mafia...
no amount of greed was too much... regardless of our party in power
china enjoyed their 'silent invasion'
...and who could blame them? ...both parties couldn't bend over enough...
the media couldn't bend over enough either
it was a concerted compliance through every level of power in australian society
then a minor pushback occured - not a loving, give me more pushback - more a coarse, bogan toned, jaquie lambie style '...you two cannot be serious!!!' style pushback...
but the money machine rolled on...
with ever increasing senitivity - ever losing subtlety -cries of 'racism' coming from the embedded chinese infrastructure
then pre corona, china went all full wolf warrior... at a time when australia had essentially done nothing wrong really... pulled up haiwei possibly... (which was also mind numbingly dumb) but not much else really...
china went all full hissy fit, gloves off, ...before corona even hit!
then after corona, clearly things hit maximum low... but really, to this point, australia had accomodated their every whim - as all our major politicians sold us for a song...
I cannot, for the life of me, see how china could possibly see we were doing anything different other than looking after our own interests (as they do at every single opportunity!) but they carried on like a pork chop...
I personally think it was all a big act, an orchestrated hissy fit, to buy them, and their big plans some time... i cannot see it any other way...
maybe it was legit...
maybe they were really taken aback by our new found brashness...
maybe its the century of shame, and all the psychology that comes with that...
whatever it was, the love was well gone... the supposed 'symbiosis' was beyond worn out...
and that's well well before their behaviour around corona sunk some solid nine inch nails in the rotten coffin
does paul keating believe australia should remain inverted to their every whim indefinitely?
to appease their every sensitivity?
forever...
because of... 'the china century'
seems to me, bailing that abusive relationship, was the best thing morrison ever did
be it ever so belatedly, reluctantly, and ever so tactlessly...
economists now saying china dominance on 20 year delay...
morrison's tactless ignorance was a stroke of genius
I agree that we shouldn’t go to war over Taiwan. It would be abject policy failure by all sides.
But why would China? And why do you think that their self-professed right to unify though force is more valid than Taiwans right to self-defence. Taiwan possesses no offensive military capability that threatens China in any significant way.
If they’re confident in the inevitability of unification, why would they seek to impose this on the Taiwanese? If they care about the lives of ethnically Chinese people living in Taiwan (Taiwanese), why would they undertake military action against them?
Why shouldn’t the Taiwanese have the right to self-determination anyway? Is Taiwanese autonomy, or even independence, an existential threat to China? If so, how?
gsco mentioned a few days ago that Chinese people he knows don’t want to have to go to war over Taiwan (or something similar). That’s interesting but entirely irrelevant. They have absolutely no bearing or influence over the decisions of the CCP. Zero. Nada. Interesting contrast.
I’m for status quo by the way. And the right of Taiwan to make a decision on which way it wants to go. When it wants to.
Also, if you haven’t read it, here’s the link to US policy on Taiwan.
https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/#:~:text=We%20oppose%20a....
“ The United States approach to Taiwan has remained consistent across decades and administrations. The United States has a longstanding one China policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three U.S.-China Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances. We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side; we do not support Taiwan independence; and we expect cross-Strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means. We continue to have an abiding interest in peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States makes available defense articles and services as necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability -– and maintains our capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of Taiwan.”
etarip wrote:The PRC / CCP has never exerted sovereignty over Taiwan.
No it didn’t. And if it did we wouldn’t have this discussion. My point is, it’s not a far fetched theory to see this as Chinese internal issue. Territory itself is part of China. CCP was recognised as the only representative of Chinese people by UN in 1971 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resoluti... which gives them a legitimate claim to have control over the territory.
Taiwanese have every right to self determination but ‘legally speaking’ the case is sketchy to say the least. Only 13 countries recognise Taiwan and therefore have no diplomatic ties with China. It’s interesting to note that Solomon Islands and Kiribati withdrew their recognition in 2019 and coincidentally expanded their relationships with China. So, China is definitely out there expanding its influence. This theory that they are just responding to provocations and looking after their internal issues is also oversimplified and incorrect.
the narative!
gonna be a hell of a week for tucker carlson
some won't watch... because it's tucker carlson..
some will watch... and go... but but but, it's tucker carlson...
and some will watch... and go... my fucking god... the machine is so so broken...
(but we already knew that)
https://nypost.com/2023/03/05/house-speaker-kevin-mccarthy-gives-tucker-...
Seems like 2023 is the year for some blow back on those who span narratives too far into fiction and propaganda.
Covid
J6
Hunter
Russia gate
+ a few more.
One would hope some lessons are learnt and leaders might actually try to govern and news might become news again rather than focussing on manipulation so much.
But I doubt it.
You trust the integrity of the “fact-finding mission” of Tucker Carlson? After the recent Murdoch deposition?
Serious?
No, I’m serious. Are you serious?
Flollo, there’s an article / paper I read a few years back that explains the nuance of interpretation of the ‘One China’ policy from the perspective of a former senior diplomat. I haven’t been able to find it, but I’ll have another look. In the meantime, I’ll paraphrase what I remember.
The simple version of one-china is that the ‘winner’ of the Chinese civil war has claim to rule over the territory that constituted China circa 1949.
The other, more nuanced, approach is that the One China means that only one country can speak as the legitimate government of China. This, the PRC, ruled by the CCP is China.
The Republic of China (ROC), which is the ‘official’ name of China between 1900 and 1949, and was continued by the defeated KMT (nationalists) after they were pushed to Taiwan. (They actually held the UN seat for China until 1971)
Recognition of ‘One China’ extinguished the recognition of the Nationalist claim to ‘rule’ of China and identified that the PRC was China. There weren’t two Chinas.
This policy / recognition in Australia’s eyes did not cede any specific legitimacy over PRC claims over Taiwan itself, and did not extinguish the right to self-determination.
frog wrote:Seems like 2023 is the year for some blow back on those who span narratives too far into fiction and propaganda.
One would hope some lessons are learnt and leaders might actually try to govern and news might become news again rather than focussing on manipulation so much.
But I doubt it.
@frog - are you going to put ‘rigged election’ onto this list, in the interests of balance and consistency?
I don't trust anything
tucker clearly has his agenda, as do his critics...
but geez, that footage of cops escorting a qanon shaman terrorist through the halls of the capitol sure revealed how dangerous he was...
those cops are lucky to be alive
spine chilling stuff
I can see why the j6 committee kept such imagery away from the public eye
Any links to them escorting him. I’d like to see that. Was a crazy event. Only seen pics which I’d assume were frames or screenshots of footage.
etarip wrote:You trust the integrity of the “fact-finding mission” of Tucker Carlson? After the recent Murdoch deposition?
Serious?
No, I’m serious. Are you serious?
Miranda Divine....
Geez msm might be shit, but Murdoch and his minions are lying manipulating scum....
seeds wrote:Any links to them escorting him. I’d like to see that. Was a crazy event. Only seen pics which I’d assume were frames or screenshots of footage.
🚨BREAKING: Never before seen video of January 6 shows Jacob Chansley, the QAnon Shaman, being led through the Capitol by police the entire time that he was in the building. pic.twitter.com/rikoRMWezF
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) March 7, 2023
etarip wrote:You trust the integrity of the “fact-finding mission” of Tucker Carlson? After the recent Murdoch deposition?
Serious?
No, I’m serious. Are you serious?
My comment was not much about Tucker or even J6. It more reflected a view that the pendulum of balance for news coverage of many events in the past few years and the political positions taken on matters of importance have swung well away from a balanced middle position.
Covid is the most impactful of the list I mentioned where fear and group think among experts and the media pushed decision making into quite extreme solutions out of proportion to the risk to the majority of the population and made policy slow to change as facts changed.
On J6 - in my view a terrible day for democracy and the events were encouraged by trumpy. The events in some form were forseeable by Trump but he let it happen.
But I also think some pretty innocent bystanders outside the building in the crowd and some (foolish) people who wandered into the building almost like tourists wandering around taking photos have been treated like dangerous conspirators. There is some hysteria in the reaction and the investigation and some weirdness about how the Capital Hill police prepared for and acted on the day.
Tucker has released surveillance footage showing Capitol Police calmly escorting the so-called "QAnon Shaman," Jacob Chansley, throughout the Capitol complex, and even helped him find open doors.
Does that have deep meaning or implications? Not really. But it is interesting that a person presented as a lead conspirator on J6 was left to roam around the building and came within touching distance of nine police officers. He was more a clown in fancy dress roaring occasionally than Guy Fawkes.
A more balanced coverage might have pondered on such matters.
Tucker's stories will have their own slant of course but will reveal here and there how out of balance the longstanding coverage of the event has been.
Superfreak
That is bizarre. Was that before the chaos? They didn’t just escort him out with or without force?
seeds wrote:Superfreak
That is bizarre. Was that before the chaos? They didn’t just escort him out with or without force?
If you click on that Twitter link and scroll through the comments there is a wide range of footage , I’ve no idea of the timestamps for all this chaos. I’ve no doubt many were peaceful and many were itching for a fight . The bloke that got 4 years jail seems like a scapegoat and got stitched up .
Yeah I realise he got 4 years. Seems excessive if he was passive. He did become the poster boy lapped up by the media. I’ll have a bit of a scroll. cheers
Interesting article. not sure if this is true or not “ Jacob Chansley, the so-called “QAnon shaman” who was adorned on Jan. 6 in red, white and blue face paint, carried an American flag on a spear-tipped pole and wore a coyote-fur and horned headdress, pleaded guilty to obstruction. He was sentenced to more than three years in prison. Chansley, who says he is a practitioner of ahimsa, an ancient Indian principle of non-violence toward all living beings, was not accused of assaulting anyone. He was diagnosed in prison with transient schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression and anxiety.”
https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/lynching-the-deplorables
New footage released by Tucker shows the martyred police officer Brian Sicknick described to have been murdered by the mob on J6 enabling the word "deadly" to be labelled on J6 (but who died the next day of a stroke) walking around with a helmet on directing foot traffic after the fire extinguisher incident.
An example of the pendulum of bias in the narrative swinging back towards the middle.
Septic Tanks are going to Septic Tank