You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘media’ tag.
Many thanks to Martin Geddes for coming out with two very important graphics explaining the Democrats and the media.
I am unfamiliar with Mr Geddes but appreciate the time he put into them. (Click on each one to enlarge.)
Outside of The Daily Caller, Gateway Pundit and Breitbart, most of the heavy lifting for President Trump and his MAGA agenda is done by citizen journalists, everyday people like you and me, whereas the Democrats have most of Big Media at their beck and call:
Note the colour codes. Twitter gives everyone in Big Media a pass. Citizen investigative journalists, not so much.
And it’s not just citizen journalists who are banned. On November 26, 2018, The Daily Caller reported that Twitter permanently banned an American veteran who had a radio show (emphases mine):
Conservative veteran and radio host Jesse Kelly was permanently banned from Twitter on Sunday for allegedly committing multiple violations of the Twitter terms of service.
In an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller’s Amber Athey, Kelly said Twitter informed him that he was banned with no warning and no explanation of what rules he allegedly broke.
That day, Kelly appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight (Fox News):
The article says that Twitter banned a feminist, too:
Last week, the tech giant banned feminist Meghan Murphy for questioning the ideology behind the transgender movement.
The good news is that Kelly’s Twitter account appears to have been reinstated. Result! Thanks go to the senators who support freedom of speech:
Despite that success and a few others, Twitter can and does stifle those who do not support the leftist agenda. On July 29, The Daily Caller reported that Republican legislators also fell foul of the social media giant:
Twitter’s censorship problem looks like it’s here to stay.
The company faced a sharp backlash last week after a Vice News investigation revealed that Twitter was hiding several prominent Republicans from its search bar.
Those affected included four House Republicans: Rep. Devin Nunes of California, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mark Meadows of North Carolina. All four are members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus. Democrats weren’t affected in the same way, Vice found.
Interesting, especially when the four who were censored are relatively young supporters of President Trump and MAGA. It’s as if Twitter doesn’t want Americans to know that younger legislators support the president. Why, that might influence others in that same age bracket to jump aboard the Trump Train.
The article says that Twitter claims their shadowbanning — hiding the congressmen’s accounts from the search bar — wasn’t to do with anything the congressmen tweeted, but rather their followers. Does the following sound totalitarian?
At the center of the company’s censorship problem is its decision to penalize “bad-faith actors,” who aren’t actually in violation of any rules but still threaten “healthy conversation.”
Much the sorting between good and bad actors on Twitter is done by an algorithm which takes into account criteria like whom you follow and tweet at, and who follows and tweets at you.
Twitter didn’t penalize the congressmen because of anything they said, but because the “wrong” accounts were engaging with their tweets, two Twitter executives conceded in a blog post Thursday. The Republicans were guilty of being followed by the wrong people.
Twitter has since restored the congressmen’s visibility on Twitter, but the underlying issue remains.
The company is still burying accounts it deems “bad-faith actors,” while remaining opaque about who does or doesn’t fit that classification — and which accounts follow or retweet you are still part of the criteria.
The Daily Caller attempted to find out more from Twitter, but the company did not reply.
Remember back in the old days, not so many years ago:
Twitter … once described itself as the “free speech wing of the free speech party” …
Earlier this year, Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey:
sparked controversy in April when he endorsed an article calling for a total Democratic victory the “new civil war.” He similarly raised eyebrows in June by apologizing for the sin of eating at Chick-Fil-A.
Moving along, the next graphic from Martin Geddes outlines the fundamental differences between the Democrats and Trump supporters:
Most people following my site will know that Q is a person or small group of people who probably work for President Trump. For over a year now, Q has asked readers via the Socratic method to analyse what has actually been happening in the United States behind the scenes over the past few decades.
Q’s slogan is ‘Where We Go One, We Go All’: WWG1WGA. In other words, we’re all in this together!
By contrast, the characteristics of the Democratic Party are all too destructive, corrupt — and, sadly, real. Please read them carefully.
The MAGA agenda welcomes everyone, regardless of race, colour or creed.
MAGA is a bit old school — a compliment — in that regard. We believe in freedom, duty, sacrifice and the ideals upon which America was founded. We remember and appreciate our history, good and bad. We like tradition and beauty.
Unlike the Dems, we’re not out to destroy. We’re out to conserve and, where necessary, rebuild with care and attention, in the way the Founding Fathers would have wanted.
Let’s hope the following video still shows by the time this post appears:
On Thursday, October 18, 2018, Tucker Carlson featured a video of a crazed leftist ripping up Ted Cruz (R-Texas) campaign signs in Houston’s middle class Montrose neighbourhood. The guy was jumping around and screaming directly into the camera.
There is a ‘zombie’ virus infecting raccoons in the US at the moment. Tucker asked whether it made its way to Texas.
Then he discussed the attacks — verbal and physical — on Trump supporters. Dan Bongino, a former NYPD policeman and retired Secret Service agent joined him. Tucker rolled footage of CNN’s discussion of the ‘bullying’ tactics of Trump supporters with mugs that read ‘Liberal Tears’ then showed a video of left-wing violence in Portland, Oregon. The two men wondered how CNN could be complaining about mugs when Antifa are tearing up the streets of a major American city.
Bongino says that the media are complicit in this crazed violence and the attacks on Trump supporters. The chyron at the bottom of that segment reads:
MEDIA: IF YOU DON’T BACK DEMS, YOU’RE EVIL
Seriously, the Dems are unhinged. They don’t mind Antifa. Legislators such as Maxine Waters and Tim Kaine encourage leftists to harass decent Americans minding their own business. The decent Americans’ sin? Supporting President Donald Trump.
This madness has been going on for two-and-a-half years, since Trump was running for president.
It started in Chicago, where Trump’s scheduled rally had to be abandoned in March 2016.
Democrats are the party of crime and crazed violence. Stop voting for them.
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018, President Trump appeared at a rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, in support of Republican candidate for Senate, Lou Barletta:
It was yet another high-energy Trump rally, inside …
… and outside:
Fortunately, jumbotrons were provided for those who could not get in:
Trump always thanks the crowds via Twitter:
This year, he is emphasising the importance of voting in the mid-terms (content — Trump’s speech — will be available if you click on the tweet, which will open in a new tab):
This is one of Trump’s new angles:
Millie Weaver of Infowars interviewed several self-proclaimed ex-Democrats after the rally. This is an instructive 10-and-a-half minute video, especially for my readers who do not live in the United States:
Most of the people interviewed had voted Democrat in several elections, had voted for Obama at least once and came to realise the Democrats were not making America great again. They came to realise that Donald Trump was the only candidate who spoke out and up for them. One teenage girl noticed that Erie was starting to look better again since he became president.
A union man said he supports Trump because the unions weren’t preserving American jobs for their members. He said that he had seen more and more jobs go overseas.
A teenage girl, possibly just out of high school, said that she started to research Trump because the negative coverage about him piqued her interest. She discovered that Trump wasn’t at all the person the media portrayed. Her mother says she managed to ‘red pill’ the whole family.
Others reported that they lost close relationships with family and friends for supporting Trump. How sad.
A black man said that he was sick of the identity politics that the Dems go in for; he judges candidates by what they say and do and refuses to support Democrats just because he is an ethnic minority.
A young university student says that he was left-wing until he started looking at the Dem stance on gun control. He says that the Second Amendment is fundamental to American rights as citizens.
More and more people are waking up to the dirty tricks that the Democrats play. On Thursday, October 11, The Hill reported that Tucker Carlson’s book, Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution, toppled Watergate journalist Bob Woodward’s Fear from the top spot on the New York Times best-seller list. That is excellent news indeed.
The president tweeted his congratulations at the weekend:
The Hill noted:
Carlson consistently finishes in the top 3 from a ratings perspective in the cable news race along with Fox’s Sean Hannity and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. In the third quarter of this year, Carlson averaged 2.78 million viewers.
Carlson’s one of the good guys. Unfortunately, most pundits, presenters and reporters in Big Media are anything but. LoveBreedsAccountability says that most media people are helping to inflame violence against respectable Americans:
The violent, angry grassroots Democrats we’re seeing attack people and break laws, are inspired and enabled by the media. And because they’re liberals, they’re that awkward combination of ridiculous, terrifying and hilarious that make for great campaign ads. So President Trump and the GOP are using those mobs as evidence of why you should vote Republican in the midterms. And it’s working. The midterms are shaping up to be a lot more competitive than anyone thought, and so the media is pushing back hard against the “mob” characterization.
The post included a video clip from the Washington Free Beacon‘s Andrew Kugle who observed that the media are now trying to excise the word ‘mob’ from their coverage:
There’s also this comment from another Twitter user:
Indeed.
Eric Holder, Obama’s first attorney general, is the latest to suggest violence against Republicans:
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana), who was shot and seriously injured at a practice session for the annual Congressional baseball game in June 2017, tweeted:
It took months for Scalise to recover from the injuries inflicted upon him by a shooter from Illinois. Therefore, he knows whereof he speaks.
The GOP has released a new ad with a montage of left-wing violence against not only Americans but also Canadians. Breitbart reports:
The new GOP ad also features a recording of a leftist man attacking a woman demonstrating against abortion in Toronto, Canada.
Democrats and their news media allies took umbrage with Trump’s aforementioned description of them, expressing support for left-wing and partisan Democrat activists who harass Republican politicians and their supporters.
However, this year has been very bad for Republicans, including women (emphasis mine):
Various Republicans have accused Democrats of inciting politically motivated violence — deliberately or negligently — through rhetoric. Sen. Rand Paul’s wife, Kelley Paul, recently told Breitbart News that she now sleeps with a loaded gun by her bed as a security precaution following threats against her husband, herself, and her family.
It cannot be emphasised how important it is for decent Americans to go out and vote in the mid-terms.
Vote Republican: the future of the United States and the world depends on it.
Yesterday’s post was about the Kavanaugh nomination and ritual defamation.
Ritual defamation is a term coined by Laird Wilcox, who researches political fringe movements and is the founder of The Wilcox Collection of Contemporary Political Movements, in the Kansas Collection of Kenneth Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas.
If you think this is being hypersensitive, here is House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) explaining that the Democrats ‘merchandise’ lies to the media about Republicans. Of the Wrap-up Smear, she says, ‘It’s a tactic’:
This is what Pelosi says in the video (emphases mine throughout):
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. You demonize, and then you — we call it the ‘wrap up’ smear, if you want to talk ‘politics’. We call it the ‘wrap-up’ smear.
You smear somebody, with falsehoods and all the rest, and then you ‘merchandise’ it. And then you (pointing to the press) write it, and they’ll say “See, it’s reported in the press, that this, this, this and this…” so they have that validation, that the press reported the ‘smear’, and then it’s called ‘the wrap-up smear’.
Now I’m going to ‘merchandise’ the press’ report, on the smear, that we made.
And it’s, it’s a tactic. And it’s self-evident.
Today’s post looks at Wilcox’s list of extremist traits, which the Democrats and others on the Left, including media, have been displaying since Donald Trump won the 2016 election. One can only hope that, with all its madness, it climaxed with the Kavanaugh nomination to the US Supreme Court, because it really does seem as if demons are everywhere across the pond at the moment.
All of Wilcox’s listed traits are pertinent to the climate in America at this time. I have supplemented them with illustrations from the Kavanaugh nomination process. Excerpts follow, so please be sure to read his essay in full:
1. CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.
Extremists often attack the character of an opponent rather than deal with the facts or issues raised. They will question motives, qualifications, past associations, alleged values, personality, looks, mental health, and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration …
2. NAME-CALLING AND LABELING.
Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hate monger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, un-American, anti-semite, red, commie, nazi, kook, fink, liar, bigot, and so on) to label and condemn opponents in order to divert attention from their arguments and to discourage others from hearing them out. These epithets don’t have to be proved to be effective; the mere fact that they have been said is often enough.
3. IRRESPONSIBLE SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS.
Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things, events, or persons are alike in some respects, they must be alike in most respects …
4. INADEQUATE PROOF FOR ASSERTIONS.
Extremists tend to be very fuzzy about what constitutes proof, and they also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply because of their before and after relationship). They tend to project wished-for conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of information that confirms their beliefs while derogating or ignoring information that contradicts them. They tend to be motivated by feelings more than facts, by what they want to exist rather than what actually does exist. Extremists do a lot of wishful and fearful thinking.
This is what happened to an ordinary American, Thomas Wictor, who tweets on politics. The Left does not like what he has to say, so one or more of their number reported him to the FBI (‘thread’ should be ‘threat’). He’s still suspended on Twitter:
5. ADVOCACY OF DOUBLE STANDARDS.
Extremists generally tend to judge themselves or their interest group in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view very generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith, but they demand proof for yours …
Robert ‘Beto’ O’Rourke is the Democrat candidate running against incumbent Ted Cruz for US Senate in Texas:
Now back to Judge Kavanaugh:
6. TENDENCY TO VIEW THEIR OPPONENTS AND CRITICS AS ESSENTIALLY EVIL.
To the extremist, opponents hold opposing positions because they are bad people, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, hateful, cruel, or whatever, not merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have competing interests, or are perhaps even mistaken.
7. MANICHAEAN WORLDVIEW.
Extremists have a tendency to see the world in terms of absolutes of good and evil, for them or against them, with no middle ground or intermediate positions. All issues are ultimately moral issues of right and wrong, with the “right” position coinciding with their interests. Their slogan is often “those who are not with me are against me.”
8. ADVOCACY OF SOME DEGREE OF CENSORSHIP OR REPRESSION OF THEIR OPPONENTS AND/OR CRITICS.
This may include a very active campaign to keep opponents from media access and a public hearing, as in the case of blacklisting, banning or “quarantining” dissident spokespersons. They may actually lobby for legislation against speaking, writing, teaching, or instructing “subversive” or forbidden information or opinions. They may even attempt to keep offending books out of stores or off of library shelves, discourage advertising with threats of reprisals, and keep spokespersons for “offensive” views off the airwaves or certain columnists out of newspapers. In each case the goal is some kind of information control …
Republican congresswoman Marsha Blackburn represents Tennessee’s 7th District and is running for US Senate, but a senior Google engineer deems her a ‘terrorist’ and ‘violent thug’:
9. TEND TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES IN TERMS OF WHO THEIR ENEMIES ARE: WHOM THEY HATE AND WHO HATES THEM.
Accordingly, extremists may become emotionally bound to their opponents, who are often competing extremists themselves. Because they tend to view their enemies as evil and powerful, they tend, perhaps subconsciously, to emulate them, adopting the same tactics to a certain degree. For example, anti-Communist and anti-Nazi groups often behave surprisingly like their opponents. Anti-Klan rallies often take on much of the character of the stereotype of Klan rallies themselves, including the orgy of emotion, bullying, screaming epithets, and even acts of violence …
10. TENDENCY TOWARD ARGUMENT BY INTIMIDATION.
Extremists tend to frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into accepting their premises and conclusions. To disagree with them is to “ally oneself with the devil,” or to give aid and comfort to the enemy. They use a lot of moralizing and pontificating, and tend to be very judgmental. This shrill, harsh rhetorical style allows them to keep their opponents and critics on the defensive, cuts off troublesome lines of argument, and allows them to define the perimeters of debate.
This is what happened. I feel sorry for the owner/executive chef:
12. ASSUMPTION OF MORAL OR OTHER SUPERIORITY OVER OTHERS.
Most obvious would be claims of general racial or ethnic superiority–a master race, for example. Less obvious are claims of ennoblement because of alleged victimhood, a special relationship with God, membership in a special “elite” or “class,” and a kind of aloof “highminded” snobbishness that accrues because of the weightiness of their preoccupations, their altruism, and their willingness to sacrifice themselves (and others) to their cause. After all, who can bear to deal with common people when one is trying to save the world! Extremists can show great indignation when one is “insensitive” enough to challenge these claims.
13. DOOMSDAY THINKING.
Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from failure to follow a specific course, and they tend to exhibit a kind of “crisis-mindedness” …
14. BELIEF THAT IT’S OKAY TO DO BAD THINGS IN THE SERVICE OF A “GOOD” CAUSE.
Extremists may deliberately lie, distort, misquote, slander, defame, or libel their opponents and/or critics, engage in censorship or repression , or undertake violence in “special cases.” This is done with little or no remorse as long as it’s in the service of defeating the Communists or Fascists or whomever. Defeating an “enemy” becomes an all-encompassing goal to which other values are subordinate. With extremists, the end justifies the means.
15. EMPHASIS ON EMOTIONAL RESPONSES AND, CORRESPONDINGLY, LESS IMPORTANCE ATTACHED TO REASONING AND LOGICAL ANALYSIS.
Extremists have an unspoken reverence for propaganda, which they may call “education” or “consciousness-raising.” Symbolism plays an exaggerated role in their thinking, and they tend to think imprecisely and metamorphically …
16. HYPERSENSITIVITY AND VIGILANCE.
Extremists perceive hostile innuendo in even casual comments; imagine rejection and antagonism concealed in honest disagreement and dissent; see “latent” subversion, anti-semitism, perversion, racism, disloyalty, and so on in innocent gestures and ambiguous behaviors. Although few extremists are clinically paranoid, many of them adopt a paranoid style with its attendant hostility and distrust.
18. PROBLEMS TOLERATING AMBIGUITY AND UNCERTAINTY.
Indeed, the ideologies and belief systems to which extremists tend to attach themselves often represent grasping for certainty in an uncertain world, or an attempt to achieve absolute security in an environment that is naturally unpredictable or perhaps populated by people with interests opposed to their own. Extremists exhibit a kind of risk-aversiveness that compels them to engage in controlling and manipulative behavior, both on a personal level and in a political context, to protect themselves from the unforeseen and unknown. The more laws or “rules” there are that regulate the behavior of others–particularly their “enemies”–the more secure extremists feel.
Think Big Government. Now we know why we have so many nit-picking laws on the books!
19. INCLINATION TOWARD “GROUPTHINK.”
Extremists, their organizations , and their subcultures are prone to a kind of inward-looking group cohesiveness that leads to what Irving Janis discussed in his excellent book Victims of Groupthink. “Groupthink” involves a tendency to conform to group norms and to preserve solidarity and concurrence at the expense of distorting members’ observations of facts, conflicting evidence, and disquieting observations that would call into question the shared assumptions and beliefs of the group.
Right-wingers (or left-wingers), for example, talk only with one another, read material that reflects their own views, and can be almost phobic about the “propaganda” of the “other side.” The result is a deterioration of reality-testing, rationality, and moral judgment. With groupthink, shared illusions of righteousness, superior morality, persecution, and so on remain intact, and those who challenge them are viewed with skepticism and hostility.
We don’t need examples for this, do we?
20. TENDENCY TO PERSONALIZE HOSTILITY.
Extremists often wish for the personal bad fortune of their “enemies,” and celebrate when it occurs. When a critic or an adversary dies or has a serious illness, a bad accident, or personal legal problems, extremists often rejoice and chortle about how they “deserved” it …
In 2013, the Telegraph had an article detailing leftists rejoicing upon Margaret Thatcher’s death. People tweeted that she would burn in Hell, while others announced they were throwing parties.
21. EXTREMISTS OFTEN FEEL THAT THE SYSTEM IS NO GOOD UNLESS THEY WIN.
For example, if they lose an election, then it was “rigged.” If public opinion turns against them, it was because of “brainwashing.” If their followers become disillusioned, it’s because of “sabotage.” The test of the rightness or wrongness of the system is how it impacts upon them…
This last one cuts both ways and, today, is hardly extremist on either side. President Trump and his supporters believe that the 2016 system was rigged against him. Everyday Democrats largely believe the system is no good because they do not hold the majority at present. However, as we see from occasional reports on voter fraud, the Left do everything possible to flout voting laws (e.g. sending buses and vans of voters from polling station to polling station on election day).
But, that’s okay, because the Kavanaugh SCOTUS farce will wake up an important number of Democrats. The late Andrew Breitbart received a similar political epiphany nearly 30 years ago:
It’s important for all of us to identify extremism where it exists, no matter how downplayed it is.
The New York Times is appealing to Americans to help them cover the 2018 mid-term elections:
Hmm.
In 2017, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas revealed a rich seam of anti-Trump and anti-Republican bias at the New York Times:
New Project Veritas video exposes New York Times (October 10)
Project Veritas ‘American Pravda’ series: second video (October 11)
American Pravda Part III — more from the New York Times (October 17)
American Pravda Part IV — Trump Derangement Syndrome at the New York Times (October 19)
Does anyone think that the New York Times intends to cover the mid-terms with integrity?
Those who are not convinced by the Project Veritas undercover videos might wish to read an article by Eric Zuesse for the Strategic Culture Foundation, ‘How the New York Times Lies About Lies: Obama v. Trump as Example’.
Eric Zuesse documents various events of the Obama administration and how the New York Times reported them dishonestly. His article begins with this (emphases mine):
Although the New York Times says that President Donald Trump lies vastly more than did President Barack Obama, the definite liar in that comparison — based on the factual record, to be presented here — is the New York Times itself. It lies in alleging this, which isn’t to say that either President lies more frequently than the other, but instead, that the Times’s calculation fails to count, at all, but instead altogether ignores, some of President Obama’s very worst lies — ones that were real whoppers. These were lies that were essential to his maintaining support among Democrats (such as the owners of this corporation, the NYT, are), and that would keep Democrats’ support only if they failed to judge him by his actual decisions and actions (such as the NYT’s owners do — or else they secretly know the truth on this, but prevent this truth from being published by their employees). Even to the present day, Obama is evaluated by Democrats on the basis of his lies instead of on the basis of his actions. He’s admired for his stated intentions and promises, which were often the opposite of what his consistent actual decisions and actions turned out to be on those very same matters, on which he had, in retrospect, quite clearly lied (though that was covered-up at the time — and still is).
Zuesse carefully details Obama’s biggest lies, which the newspaper ignored. He concludes (emphasis in the original, purple highlights mine):
None of these whoppers was included in the listing that the NYT presented in their 14 December 2017 article “Trump’s Lies vs. Obama’s”.
I am nonpartisan toward persons and toward political parties, and consider all of America’s Presidents since 1981 (if not since 1968, but with the exception of Carter) to be and have been loathsome people (not even well-intentioned), but ‘news’media such as the New York Times aren’t any more trustworthy (nor more honest) than these Presidents have been, and the pontifications from such ‘news’media (in both their ’news’-reporting and opinion-pieces) are just propaganda, mixtures of truths with lies — and more and more of the public are coming to recognize this disgusting fact, so these media’s pretenses to honesty and trustworthiness are having fewer and fewer believers. But these media claim that fake ‘news’ comes only from their non-mainstream competitors (some of which are actually far more honest than they). Preserving their cartel is crucial to them. And it’s crucial to the people who benefit from this cartel.
I mention this, because, recently, I got into a lively discussion with several people at an event about honest reporting about President Trump. To a man — and all have some of the best private school and university educations in the world — they not only read but believe whatever they read in the New York Times and other similar media outlets. They are not Americans, but they are firmly against the Republican Party and Donald Trump based on established media’s lies.
When I mentioned that they might want to peruse a site such as The Daily Caller to get another perspective, they sneered, calling it ‘fake news’. They’ve never even heard of, much less read, The Daily Caller.
This is a very sad state of affairs — great for the New York Times and parlous for those of us seeking objective reporting.
This photo montage speaks for itself.
For those outside of the United States, below are CNN’s Don Lemon, MSNBC’s Rachael Maddow, CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Fox News’s Tucker Carlson:
I do not know who put this together, but it speaks a thousand words.
Yesterday’s post discussed developments that immediately followed the US-North Korea Singapore Summit held on Monday, June 12, 2018.
Much went on with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s trip to South-east Asia and the US-Chinese trade war early in July.
Keep in mind this explanatory graphic about the relationship between North Korea and China from The Conservative Treehouse:
On July 7, the US state department’s impression of the two nations’ talks was different to that of North Korea, according to an unnamed North Korean official who called them ‘regrettable’. Townhall reported:
Just hours after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that his talks during the past two days with the North Korean government were “productive” and beneficial regarding “central issues,” the communist nation’s Foreign Ministry categorically disagreed, calling the meetings in Pyongyang “regrettable.”
The Associated Press reports that an “unnamed North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman” claims that the United States “betrayed the spirit of last month’s summit between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un by making unilateral demands” regarding denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.
The North Koreans issued a lengthy official statement along those lines, which ended with this:
If the objective situation does not stand in favor of the denuclearization against our wills, this would rather cast a heavy cloud over the atmosphere of developing bilateral relations which had shown its good movement in its beginning.
Should the headwind begin to blow, it would cause a great disappointment not only to the international society aspiring after global peace and security but also to both the DPRK and the U.S. If so, this will finally make each side seek for another choice and there is no guarantee that this will not result into yet another tragedy.
We still cherish our good faith in President Trump.
The U.S. should make a serious consideration of whether the toleration of the headwind against the wills of the two top leaders would meet the aspirations and expectations of the world people as well as the interests of its country.
The Conservative Treehouse pointed out (emphases mine):
Keep in mind that Secretary Pompeo was not permitted to meet with Kim Jong-un. If our ongoing thesis is accurate it is likely Red Dragon (Chairman Xi) is positioning the DPRK for maximum trade and economic leverage. It would be against Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping’s interests for Pompeo and Kim Jong-un to have a public display of agreement.
Until there is an empirical or factual reason to counter what seems like an obvious geopolitical strategy, we should consider all events through the prism that the primary leadership within the DPRK, the officials controlling Kim, are under the control of China.
The trade confrontation is China’s biggest geopolitical risk. The primary weapon China holds toward demanding terms from the U.S. would be their ability to change the dynamic in North Korea at any given moment. From this frame-of-reference things begin to make more sense.
On the surface it appears the U.S. is negotiating terms for a denuclearized North Korea; however, under the surface the bigger issue is the ongoing economic confrontation between the U.S. and China. The DPRK is Red Dragon leverage.
That day, Mike Pompeo had left North Korea for Japan:
He also met with foreign ministers Kong and Kang, from China and South Korea, respectively:
The US-China trade war also attracted attention.
US tariffs on Chinese goods went into effect on July 6. To mask what was really going on in their economy, the Chinese maintained that Americans did not support this policy:
In fact, the truth is that most Americans want tariffs on foreign goods:
The Rasmussen survey of March 12 says:
… 89% of American Adults believe it is at least somewhat important for the United States to have a major manufacturing and industrial base, including 63% who believe it is Very Important. Only eight percent (8%) say it is not very or Not At All Important to keep a manufacturing base at home. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
On July 6, White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Director Peter Navarro appeared on Fox Business to explain the American view of trade with regard to China. As The Conservative Treehouse explained:
Almost all of the financial media and economic punditry are intentionally obfuscating the underlying nature of China’s economic model.
China is a communist central government controlled economic system. Free-market principles do not apply when dealing with China; therefore trade strategies based on ‘free markets’ cannot succeed against the centralized planning of a communist regime.
Charlie Kirk, founder and president of Turning Point USA, active on university campuses, put it bluntly:
On July 8, Mike Pompeo met with Taro Kono, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan and Kang Kyung-wha, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea in Tokyo. The full State Department transcript of their press conference is here. Interestingly, some of the media correspondents there asked about the ‘abductions’ by the North Koreans of the Japanese (emphases in the original, video here):
FOREIGN MINISTER KONO: (Via interpreter) …
Now on the question of abduction, from Secretary Pompeo this time around the issue was raised, and I’d like to thank him for raising the issue at the meeting. Regarding the reaction from North Korea, I will refrain from making any comment.
As far as Japan is concerned, the U.S. and North Korean negotiations should advance furthermore, and we’d like to work in tandem with the international community so that Security Council resolution-based sanction can be solidly implemented regarding North Korea.
FOREIGN MINISTER KANG: … On the abduction issue, yes, my president has also raised this in two rounds of discussions with Chairman Kim, and we urge them to engage in bilateral discussions with Japan on this issue. After all, it’s a bilateral issue. We also have a couple of our nationals detained in North Korea, so it’s an issue that concerns us as well.
SECRETARY POMPEO: … I did raise the issue of the abduction of Japanese. I’ve done it at each conversation I’ve had with my North Korean counterparts, whether it was on my first two trips with Chairman Kim or on this trip with Kim Yong-chul. I’ve raised it repeatedly. I won’t go into any of the details about particular parts of that element of our discussion. Know that it is important to the United States; it’s part of our discussions each and every time we interact with our North Korean counterparts.
Pompeo and US officials also met privately with Kono and his delegation:
On July 9, the South China Morning Post reported that China responded to the imposition of tariffs by the United States with tariffs on American goods going into the country. The main thrust of the article, however, was that the Chinese government thought it would be a good idea to go easy on Trump (emphases mine):
After answering Washington’s 25 per cent levy on US$34 billion of Chinese goods with equivalent tariffs on US products, Beijing has directed state media to watch how they report on US President Donald Trump, mainland media sources said.
“It’s been said that we should not use aggressive language for Trump,” said one of two sources who declined to be named because internal directions often are regarded as confidential information.
Even though Chinese officials and state media have attacked the trade policies of the Trump administration, so far they have not laid blame on the US president or his officials – a move seen as an attempt to avoid antagonising Trump and further complicating negotiations.
While the Beijing directive may not have been issued across the board – two other state media sources said they were not instructed how to write about Trump with regards to trade – it mirrored one of the guidelines on an official propaganda instruction widely circulated on social media.
The edict called on media outlets not to make vulgar attacks on Trump to avoid “making this a war of insults”.
Breitbart had more. One way the Chinese are able to criticise Trump is by quoting Westerners:
Reuters’ sources also said they were “instructed not to mention the impact of the trade war on Chinese companies” because they don’t want to give the impression pressure against China might be working …
“China might need to restrict the market access of American companies. But to purge American companies that are already operating in China might be a very bad idea. Those companies generate jobs and revenue for China. Most Apple products are made in China. To do something to harm American firms that are already operating in China would be very stupid,” ventured trade expert Wang Jiangyu of the National University of Singapore.
The Communist Party People’s Daily provided an interesting example of the tightrope walked by Chinese media on Wednesday, publishing an article that attacked Trump for accusing China of sabotaging talks with North Korea but using a few Westerners plucked from Twitter at random to do it, rather than editorializing against Trump directly or quoting Chinese social media users.
That day, the tension surrounding Pompeo’s meetings with North Korea was still in play. Trump tweeted:
CNBC reported that, after leaving south-east Asia, Pompeo made an unscheduled trip to Kabul, Afghanistan, where he told the media:
“We still have a long ways to go. But that commitment that the North Koreans made, frankly that Chairman Kim personally made to President Trump, remains as when reinforced,” he said.
Pompeo also stressed that North Korea’s remarks were “mixed,” and represented an expression of Kim’s continuing “desire to complete the denuclearization to which he is so committed.”
Meanwhile, the North Koreans were still committed to strengthening ties with their fellow travellers:
On July 12, Trump received a gracious letter from Kim Jong Un …
… which Big Media ignored:
On July 15, the US and North Korea held meetings to discuss the return of American soldiers’ remains, the first since 2009:
Korean media reported:
The North Koreans agreed to transfer the remains already in their possession to the United States on:
July 27, which is the 65th anniv of the Armistice Agreement …
This was another result:
The Premium Times said that the head of the North Korean government occasionally grants amnesty. The last time was in 2015. This year’s is part of marking North Korea’s 70th anniversary:
The Communist Leadership in Pyongyang would grant amnesty to those convicted of crimes against the state in light of North Korea’s 70th anniversary, the state-run KCNA reported on Monday …
Similar to other instances in which amnesty has been granted, it remained unclear exactly which groups the announcement applied to and how many prisoners would be affected.
The following day, the Trump – Putin Helsinki Summit of July 16 included discussions about North Korea and China.
Two days later:
Trump tweeted:
He enjoys solving problems:
His 2020 campaign manager made an excellent point:
Tomorrow’s post will cover the most recent developments between the United States, North Korea and China.
