Drama and theater! The veil is lifting. Tech giants are useful, but they seem driven by parasites. The same can be said of legislative bodies, entertainment giants, and prosecutors going after the January 6 Capitol Insurrection.
Jessica Watkins has an interesting story to tell. Her defense of January 6 could convince the public that the prosecution is over-stating its case, looking to hang anyone and everyone possible as payback for the Capitol being breached. In acquitting those who occupied their legislative floor in 2014, Taiwan’s dignity far outshines that of America’s. To the US Supreme Court: You have a higher bar to reach, so to speak.
Social media takes a bumpy turn for the better. Australia’s social media law is somewhat vague, but mainly forces dialog. As understood by the Times, the Aussie law, along with the infamous ‘Articles 11’ of the EU law, aren’t aimed at the normal guy nor the pundit. Instead, they aim at huge tech giants who use AI to aggregate enormous numbers of new stories as one more added feature of their already behemoth-sized tech services. The infamous EU ‘Article 13’ law banning memes is another story. While Europe wants to tax links on Apple and Google, then ban memes for nearly everyone, Australia just wants Facebook and Google to have a conversation when they re-post part of a news story.
While the giants fight, originality steps up. In the approaching shadow of it becoming illegal to use any old music on YouTube, the need for original music spikes. Such laws were lobbied for by big entertainment companies; ironically it is big entertainment that now faces its fiercest competition from billions of ‘little guys’—who used to be their customers.
So, to the tech giants, tech-phobic lawmakers, copyright mongers, and prosecutors: Keep overreaching. Just keep overreaching.
The Hong Kong law currently going through Congress essentially de-escalates, yet therefore intensifies the Hong Kong issue. Rather than prescribing punitive measures if China escalates Hong Kong into military conflict, the law reassesses the unique standing that made Hong Kong so special in the first place. According to these new laws, if China asserts a policy that “Hong Kong is China” too much, then the US will agree and, more or less, remove the diplomatic relationship with Hong Kong. Then, Hong Kong would truly be “China” and no longer valuable to the world.
As for the Human Rights issues, Congress would need no extra law to intervene. The UN and the US already have enough on the books. And, Trump told Xi in no uncertain terms that there would not be a Tienanmen Square Part II.
Through it all, Western globalist fools are being exposed for what fools they are. While Beijing Communists plot the Sinicizaiton of the world, globalists believe that they must keep doing business with China, otherwise their incomes could be cut in half. They never consider that China’s goal of growth is not to grow the incomes of globalists, nor to cut incomes in half, but to take all the globalists’ money away, then brainwash them into Mandarin-speaking Communists.
For the globalists to rebuke Trump for his trade war would be like telling Moses to continue Israel’s slavery in Egypt so that Pharaoh doesn’t double their slave-labor workload. The Israeli slaves in Egypt didn’t need lighter slave work loads; they needed freedom. Some globalists still haven’t figured that out, but they will, thanks to China.
But, none of that will matter inside China, not this week anyway. Tomorrow, the Chinese will look at evidence of their perfection and greatness—a specific kind of evidence that persuades the Chinese more than anything else. In the midst of protests and trade wars, China is having a parade; and that is why China wants you to believe China should rule the world.
The biggest problem with analyzing Trump’s next move is speculation. Talk is talk, nothing more. America seems to be obsessed with talk far before action can confirm, acquit, deny, indite, prove, or disprove. We don’t know what Trump will sign into law on Immigration until he signs it. But, he seems to be wise to America’s priorities where talk and action are concerned. Once again, he plays the rhetoric-obsessed section of society like a harp. He makes an offer, he sends a Tweet, he proposes a bill, and everyone gets up and sings in concert.
Take the removal of Taiwan’s “ROC” flag from the US government website as an expanded example. By not having any flag there, the flag can’t be wrong. The original ROC flag has the symbol of the KMT-Nationalist party in the upper corner—the same party that lost both the presidency and the legislature for the first time in history during the last general election. Many have called for the flag to change. So, removing the flag from the website could mean that the US no longer supports the KMT-Nationalists. If Taiwan were to declare independence from the mainland, the US government wouldn’t have the “wrong” flag on the website, nor if China were to attempt an invasion. While China may be thrilled and Taiwan may be angry, much more was involved by replacing the flag with pure white. Maybe “surrender” was the message, though it remains unclear to whom the word would be directed, even if that was the direction. What does remain clear is that the US government website is more important than anything else.
Once again, this time in the international sphere, the Trump administration won the war of words, this time without using any. What will happen, however, always remains yet to be seen until it happens.
Liberal leaders’ ill preparation of their voters should be cause enough for suspicion. Ongoing disappointment is one of the best-kept secret evils of the two-party system. If Liberal leaders truly cared so much for their voters as their never ending empathy implies, they would have made sure that Liberal voters were ready for the inevitable losses associated with bipolar politics. But, they didn’t. Why?
Ill preparation from Liberal leaders isn’t the biggest cause for question.
The Republican compromisers in Congress over-reached. For decades, they have condescended and lectured their voters on “why having a majority means they must lose”. They didn’t seem to realize that, while Left-wing voters were sissified and setup for dismay this past election, Right-wing voters were strengthened and beat into confidence. As Tolkein writes of Morgoth, “his cunning overreached his aim; his words touched too deep, and awoke a fire more fierce than he designed.” Had the Republican Congress not passed so many Liberal laws on the Bush agenda–stiff FDA rules, the added bureaucracy of DHS, Common Core and centralized education, the Patriot Act, to name a few–the Religious Right would have gladly accepted his brother as the likely-to-lose nominee.
But, this raises the deeper question that Liberal voters also are just now considering: Why do Republican politicians, ostensibly controlled by so-called “Big Wall St. Money”, vote for Liberal ideas against the will of their voters? Wouldn’t that indicate that the so-called “Big Wall St. Money” wants Liberal things to happen? Given the evidence in plain sight, Liberal voters have every reason to question their own political talking points because those points all agree with “Big Wall St. Money”. It’s only a matter of time before they finish mourning their first failure and realize what they already knew.