Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 12 February 2017 08:49.
TomDispatch: “Is President Trump Headed for a War with China?” All Options Are “On The Table” - Rajan Menon, 12 Feb 2017:
Forget those “bad hombres down there” in Mexico that U.S. troops might take out. Ignore the way National Security Adviser Michael Flynn put Iran “on notice” and the new president insisted, that, when it comes to that country, “nothing is off the table.” Instead, focus for a moment on something truly scary: the possibility that Donald Trump’s Washington might slide into an actual war with the planet’s rising superpower, China. No kidding. It could really happen.
Let’s start with silver-maned, stately Rex Tillerson, Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of state. Who could deny that the former ExxonMobil CEO has a foreign minister’s bearing? Trump reportedly chose him over neocon firebrand John Bolton partly for that reason. (Among other things, Bolton was mustachioed, something the new president apparently doesn’t care for.) But an august persona can only do so much; it can’t offset a lack of professional diplomatic experience.
That became all-too-apparent during Tillerson’s January 11th confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was asked for his view on the military infrastructure China has been creating on various islands in the South China Sea, the ownership of which other Asian countries, including Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei claim as well . China’s actions, he replied, were “extremely worrisome,” likening them to Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, an infraction for which Russia was slapped with economic sanctions.
The then-secretary-of-state-designate — he’s since been confirmed, despite many negative votes — didn’t, however, stop there. Evidently, he wanted to communicate to the Chinese leadership in Beijing that the new administration was already irked beyond measure with them. So he added, “We’re going to have to send China’s leaders a clear signal: that, first, the island building stops and, second, your access to those islands is not going to be allowed.” Functionally, that fell little short of being an announcement of a future act of war, since not allowing “access” to those islands would clearly involve military moves. In what amounted to a there’s-a-new-sheriff-in-town warning, he then doubled down yet again, insisting, slightly incoherently (in the tradition of his new boss) that “the failure of a response has allowed them to just keep pushing the envelope on this.”
All right, so maybe a novice had a bad day. Maybe the secretary-of-state-to-be simply ad-libbed and misspoke… whatever. If so, you might have expected a later clarification from him or from someone on the Trump national security team anyway.
That didn’t happen; instead, that team stuck to its guns. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer made no effort to add nuance to, let alone walk back, Tillerson’s remarks. During his first official press briefing on January 23rd, Spicer declared that the United States “is going to make sure we defend our interests there” — in the South China Sea, that is — and that “if those islands are in fact in international waters and not part of China proper, then yes, we are going to make sure that we defend international territories from being taken over by one country.”
And what of Trump’s own views on the island controversy? Never one to pass up an opportunity for hyperbole, during the presidential campaign he swore that, on those tiny islands, China was building “a military fortress the likes of which the world has not seen.” As it happened, he wasn’t speaking about, say, the forces that Hitler massed for the ill-fated Operation Barbarossa, launched in June 1941 with the aim of crushing the Red Army and the Soviet Union, or those deployed for the June 1944 Normandy landing, which sealed Nazi Germany’s fate. When applied to what China has been up to in the South China Sea, his statement fell instantly into the not-yet-named category of “alternative facts.”
Candidate Trump also let it be known that he wouldn’t allow Beijing to get away with such cheekiness on his watch. Why had the Chinese engaged in military construction on the islands? Trump had a simple answer (as he invariably does): China “has no respect for our president and no respect for our country.” The implication was evident. Things would be different once he settled into the White House and made America great again. Then — it was easy enough to conclude — China had better watch out.
Standard campaign bombast? Well, Trump hasn’t changed his tune a bit since being elected. On December 4th, using (of course!) his Twitter account, he blasted Beijing for having built “a massive military complex in the middle of the South China Sea.” And it’s safe to assume that he signed off on Spicer’s combative comments as well.
In short, his administration has already drawn a red line — but in the way a petulant child might with a crayon. During and after the campaign he made much of his determination to regain the respect he claims the U.S. has lost in the world, notably from adversaries like China. The danger here is that, in dealing with that country, Trump could, as is typical, make it all about himself, all about “winning,” one of his most beloved words, and disaster might follow.
A military clash between Trump-led America and a China led by President Xi Jinping? Understanding how it might happen requires a brief detour to the place where it’s most likely to occur: the South China Sea. Our first task: to understand China’s position on that body of water and the islands it contains, as well as the nature of Beijing’s military projects there. So brace yourself for some necessary detail.
As Marina Tsirbas, a former diplomat now at the Australian National University’s National Security College, explains, Beijing’s written and verbal statements on the South China Sea lend themselves to two different interpretations. The Chinese government’s position boils down to something like this: “We own everything — the waters, islands and reefs, marine resources, and energy and mineral deposits — within the Nine-Dash Line.” That demarcation line, which incidentally has had ten dashes, and sometimes eleven, originally appeared in 1947 maps of the Republic of China, the Nationalist government that would soon flee to the island of Taiwan leaving the Chinese Communists in charge of the mainland. When Mao Ze Dong and his associates established the People’s Republic, they retained that Nationalist map and the demarcation line that went with it, which just happened to enclose virtually all of the South China Sea, claiming sovereign rights.
This stance — think of it as Beijing’s hard line on the subject — raises instant questions about other countries’ navigation and overflight rights through that much-used region. In essence, do they have any and, if so, will Beijing alone be the one to define what those are? And will those definitions start to change as China becomes ever more powerful? These are hardly trivial concerns, given that about $5 trillion worth of goods pass through the South China Sea annually.
Then there’s what might be called Beijing’s softer line, based on rights accorded by the legal concepts of the territorial sea and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which took effect in 1994 and has been signed by 167 states (including China but not the United States), a country has sovereign control within 12 nautical miles of its coast as well as of land formations in that perimeter visible at high tide. But other countries have the right of “innocent passage.” The EEZ goes further. It provides a rightful claimant control over access to fishing, as well as seabed and subsoil natural resources , within “an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea” extending 200 nautical miles, while ensuring other states’ freedom of passage by air and sea. UNCLOS also gives a state with an EEZ control over “the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations, and structures” within that zone — an important provision at our present moment.
What makes all of this so much more complicated is that many of the islands and reefs in the South China Sea that provide the basis for defining China’s EEZ are also claimed by other countries under the terms of UNCLOS. That, of course, immediately raises questions about the legality of Beijing’s military construction projects in that watery expanse on islands, atolls, and strips of land it’s dredging into existence, as well as its claims to seabed energy resources, fishing rights, and land reclamation rights there — to say nothing about its willingness to seize some of them by force, rival claims be damned.
Subi Reef, being built into an artificial island-landing strip in 2015
Moreover, figuring out which of these two positions — hard or soft — China embraces at any moment is tricky indeed. Beijing, for instance, insists that it upholds freedom of navigation and overflight rights in the Sea, but it has also said that these rights don’t apply to warships and military aircraft. In recent years its warplanes have intercepted, and at close quarters, American military aircraft flying outside Chinese territorial waters in the same region. Similarly, in 2015, Chinese aircraft and ships followed and issued warnings to an American warship off Subi Reef in the Spratly Islands, which both China and Vietnam claim in their entirety. This past December, its Navy seized, but later returned, an underwater drone the American naval ship Bowditch had been operating near the coast of the Philippines.
There were similar incidents in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2009, 2013, and 2014. In the second of these episodes, a Chinese fighter jet collided with a US Navy EP-3 reconnaissance plane, which had a crew of 24 on board, less than 70 miles off Hainan island, forcing it to make an emergency landing in China and creating a tense standoff between Beijing and Washington. The Chinese detained the crew for 11 days. They disassembled the EP-3, returning it three months later in pieces.
Such muscle flexing in the South China Sea isn’t new. China has long been tough on its weaker neighbors in those waters. Back in 1974, for instance, its forces ejected South Vietnamese troops from parts of the Paracel/Xisha islands that Beijing claimed but did not yet control. China has also backed up its claim to the Spratly/Nansha islands (which Taiwan, Vietnam, and other regional countries reject) with air and naval patrols, tough talk, and more. In 1988, it forcibly occupied the Vietnamese-controlled Johnson Reef, securing control over the first of what would eventually become seven possessions in the Spratlys.
Vietnam has not been the only Southeast Asian country to receive such rough treatment. China and the Philippines both claim ownership of Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal/Huangyang Island, located 124 nautical miles off Luzon Island in the Philippines. In 2012, Beijing simply seized it, having already ejected Manila from Panganiban Reef (aka Mischief Reef), about 129 nautical miles from the Philippines’ Palawan Island, in 1995. In 2016, when an international arbitration tribunal upheld Manila’s position on Mischief Reef and Scarborough Shoal, the Chinese Foreign Ministry sniffed that “the decision is invalid and has no binding force.” Chinese president Xi Jinping added for good measure that China’s claims to the South China Sea stretched back to “ancient times.”
Then there’s China’s military construction work in the area, which includes the building of full-scale artificial islands, as well as harbors, military airfields, storage facilities, and hangars reinforced to protect military aircraft. In addition, the Chinese have installed radar systems, anti-aircraft missiles, and anti-missile defense systems on some of these islands.
These , then, are the projects that the Trump administration says it will stop. But China’s conduct in the South China Sea leaves little doubt about its determination to hold onto what it has and continue its activities. The Chinese leadership has made this clear since Donald Trump’s election, and the state-run press has struck a similarly defiant note, drawing crude red lines of its own. For example, the Global Times, a nationalist newspaper, mocked Trump’s pretensions and issued a doomsday warning: “The U.S. has no absolute power to dominate the South China Sea. Tillerson had better bone up on nuclear strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories.”
Were the administration to follow its threatening talk with military action, the Global Times added ominously, “The two sides had better prepare for a military clash.” Although the Chinese leadership hasn’t been anywhere near as bombastic, top officials have made it clear that they won’t yield an inch on the South China Sea, that disputes over territories are matters for China and its neighbors to settle, and that Washington had best butt out.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 21 September 2016 02:32.
TNO, “Abbott: Europe is Being Invaded”, 20 September 2016:
Former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott has warned that Europe is being “invaded,” that white nations are “losing their character” through mass Third World immigration, and that the invasion needs to be turned back at the borders.
In addition, he said, Turkey’s leaders have urged Muslims to take back parts of Europe and among the invaders are “soldiers of the caliphate bent on mayhem.”
The right-wing politician and her One Nation Party have been voted into Australia’s senate.
Australian politician and leader of the One Nation Party Pauline Hanson stands with supporters on election night
Sydney, Australia - Fresh on the heels of a federal election, Australia is preparing to welcome its most multicultural senate ever, a congress that will include three indigenous Australians and its first indigenous woman. But the senate will also feature Pauline Hanson, a controversial figure who has made a career campaigning against multiculturalism.
A former fish-and-chip shop owner from the northern state of Queensland, who seems to resonate with some blue-collar and rural voters, Hanson first came to prominence 20 years ago on a broad anti-establishment, anti-free trade, anti-immigration ticket when she became the country’s first independent female member of parliament.
In her now famous maiden speech to parliament in 1996, Hanson warned that “we are in danger of being swamped by Asians … [who] have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate”.
To some, Hanson seemed to be a reminder of an ugly white past Australia was trying to forget. Belittling her in the media became almost a national sport, most famously during a 60 Minute interview when she asked the presenter to “please explain” the word “xenophobe” because she didn’t know what it meant.
Roosh has an amazing amount in common with Alt-Right internet personalities. He plays on the paranoia, helplessness, and angst of a bunch of failures and channels it into modest financial gains that keep him from having to get a real job. It’s pretty much the business model of the Cult-Right. The Cult-Right are filled with fanboy’s eager to proclaim the genius of their own personal Jebus, and that is, I think, why there is so much overlap between the Alex Jones / Stephen Molyneaux / Roosh acolytes, the Alt-Right Richard Spennttthhher fanboys, and the troll Army of the Quadroon Streicher. Their followers are professional cult members who are used to receiving their validation impersonally from a minor internet celebrity.
3. Boi-nie Endorses Shillary
He waited as long as he could hoping for the FBI indictment, but once there was no chance of that, he finally compromised his principles as we all knew he would.
2. GRAPHIC PHOTOS: On Black Death Porn
If you were a visitor to Der Daily Interracial Cuckold Porn Stormer, I am sure you would not be reading this line right now. Instead, you would have broken your finger eagerly clicking on the link because it contained the words “black” and “porn”. But, since you are still with us, I can let you know that this article makes a valid point that the ‘Kwa is strangely comfortable with images of dead and dying black men in the Mass Media.
1. Rape-ity, Rape-ity, Raper Roosh
But perhaps things changed in the intervening months? Perhaps I needed to reevaluate my impression? To find out, I scanned through Roosh’s Twitter feed, checked out some of the articles he linked, and then captured screenshots of the one’s that made me laugh the most. Conclusion: He is just as laughable a figure now as then. Why? Well, let’s start out with this…
I’ll take things a rapist might say for $400. I cannot take credit for that joke, though I wish I could. It was from an episode of Cinematic Titanic.
Because those are basically the only options the West has left, right Roosh? You’re sure you aren’t an EBT-card-carrying member of the Alt-Right?
You tell us, because previously you decried the Alt-Right as a bunch of racist betas.
Because you look like one of the muds arrested in Rotherham scandal? And while we are on the subject ...
This one is funny to me, because it is so poorly thought out. You see, the problem is: What morality do men possess, if women evolved the way they did because men were a bunch of murdering rapists? But I am sure there are White disciples of this mud who so hate White women that they would defend this defamation, because remember - the Rotherham girls loved their rapists!
So that’s what I think about Roosh, and by extension his whole alpha-male of yo’ mama’s basement philosophy. The fact that this mud is funded by White fanboys so he can wander around in White countries like some typical Middle Eastern child sex predator doesn’t prove how alpha he is, but how beta his followers are.
A Chinese ban on interracial marriage is largely a step in the right direction, but it is troubling that the rule would not extend to men for a few reasons: they have a disproportionate male population which, like black women, tend to be shunned in interracial partner selection. Similar as with Muslims, this frustrated excess male population can create an explosive effect in interaction with other populations.
From a European man’s perspective, the Chinese situation is complicated, since it can relate to the Chinese banning of interracial marriage - to blacks in particular, recognizing that in terms of feminine qualities and those sublimated qualities necessary to create a reasonable and sufficiently complex civilization, that blacks are not offering anything near sufficient exchange.
China Bans Interracial Marriages For Females; No Plans To Restrict Men
The Supreme People’s Court of China today passed legislation that will ban Chinese women from marrying non-Chinese men, with the law coming into effect at the beginning of 2018. The policy had been fiercely debated for a number of months before it finally won approval from the required number of legislators earlier today. Civil rights groups in China have condemned the restriction, pointing out that it discriminates against women by still permitting males to enter into interracial marriages.
“We strongly urge the People’s Court to reconsider this new law, and repeal the legislation before it comes into force.” A small group of protesters staged a rally outside the courthouse in central Beijing today, but were soon dispersed by authorities. Following decades of the one-child policy, China is now faced with a shocking gender imbalance – for every girl below the age of 18 in China, there are now three boys. “The law was introduced in order to promote social harmony,” commented one of the People’s Courts legislators. “We need to ensure there are enough Chinese women available for marriage; otherwise there is a high probability of increased levels of rape and other violence.” One of the more controversial aspects of the new law is the fact that Chinese men are not banned from marrying women of other races. “Because we have such a shortage of women in China, we need to make sure Chinese men have as many opportunities as possible to find a bride.”
The news comes as a positive to matchmaking businesses that introduce prospective brides from neighboring countries, such as Vietnam and Thailand, to Chinese men. “I had feared that they might also ban men from interracial marriage,” commented the owner of a successful matchmaking business in China’s Fujian Province. “Thankfully common sense has prevailed, although by banning Chinese women from marrying foreigners, my business will have more competition.” Meanwhile, industry groups representing ESL teachers in China have also criticized the new policy. “The majority of teachers are male, and most end up wedding local women,” said a spokesperson for a chain of English-teaching cram schools in Shanghai. “If our teachers are banned from marrying Chinese girls, they may not stay in the country as long, and we risk losing talented staff.”
European men might see a bit more legitimacy obtaining to intermarriage with more civilized peoples - viz., Asians - casting it more in terms of the accountability necessary to sustain important qualities and quantities of native populations. However, while broaching European group delimitation with blacks, Jews and probably Arabs would entail prohibition in any number, broaching an accountable number and quality with any group would entail exclusion from citizenship. Nevertheless, Europeans are not primarily accountable to bear excesses and imbalances in Asian populations - the Asians are.
“Hundreds” of African invaders engaged in a widespread orgy of violence over the Christmas weekend in Melbourne, the capital and most populous city in the Australian state of Victoria.
According to local media reports—all of which deliberately failed to report on the race of the rioters—the incidents took place outside a train station in Melbourne’s southeast and outside a Carlton nightclub on Queensberry Street, North Melbourne.
In addition, a further brawl took place later at a police station when groups of the arrested Africans went on a rampage, attacking each other and wounding two policemen in the process.
The violence outside the Kananook Railway Station in Seaford took place on Sunday, December 27, with two large gangs of Africans—estimated at around 200 in total—battled it out with knives, baseball bats, stones, and at least one samurai sword and a machete.
One of the Africans was stabbed several times and admitted to the hospital with what was described as “life-threatening” wounds.
None of the controlled media coverage dared point out the race of the rioters, with only the News.com.au website making a slight reference to their origin by reporting that the fight was believed to have started in the car park of the nearby Frankston Basketball Centre during the “South Sudanese Australian Summer Slam” basketball competition.
However, CCTV and photographs of the fighting showed clearly that the perpetrators were Africans, despite the controlled media’s efforts to ignore that reality.
Police arrested 12 Africans, aged between 19 and 32, and detained them for questioning.
Officers were forced to use pepper spray to control the crowd, and four men and a woman were arrested and will be issued with penalty notices for riotous behavior.
Once again, the controlled media coverage refused to mention the race of the rioters, although their efforts at censorship were also once again undone by the video and still photography footage of the event.
According to the Australian Census Bureau, there are some 19,370 Sudanese-born Africans in Australia. Of that number some 5,911 live in Melbourne. Sudanese are by far the single largest black immigrant group in Australia.
If nearly 500 Sudanese were rioting over Christmas in these two incidents, this means that at least 10 percent of Melbourne’s Sudanese took part in the street violence in the space of one day.
It does not matter where they are and barely even matters when their economic circumstances are better: blacks will behave as blacks.