Dio Wang

[Dio Wang @SenatorDioWang]

I wondered why Australian Strategic Policy Institute @ASPI_org receives funding from US govt and military-industrial complex.

Then I realized it's actually 'American Strategic Propaganda Institute' subsidized by Australian tax payers.

Now supported by big tech @TwitterSafety

[Mick Lawless - Planetary Patriot 🌏 ⏳ 🐨 🇵🇸 @motorcymick]

Australia confirms its allegiance is to US/Israel dominance and terror, not human rights and the alleviation of pain and suffering

[Carlos @agent_of_change]

The Economist has published a revealing little story about the US’s clean-energy sector that neatly captures the whole logic of the tech war.

Over 2022–24, Chinese firms poured some $15.5 billion into US solar and battery manufacturing, building state-of-the-art factories that Americans could not build themselves. Then, in July 2025, Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” barred any company with Chinese links from the subsidies that make the sector viable, and designated Chinese firms “Foreign Entities of Concern”, alongside Iran, North Korea and Russia.

As a result, Chinese investors have been forced into fire sales: nearly $9 billion of assets cancelled, paused or sold off, some at massive discounts, snapped up by North American financiers.

So a Chinese-built solar plant in Dallas now flies the stars and stripes, while an executive effuses: “Never bet against the United States’ engineering and innovation.” It’s quite a boast to make about a factory you didn’t design, built with technology you didn’t invent, on assembly lines – as the Economist notes – “full of Chinese technology”.

US media never stops going on about Chinese companies “stealing” American technology, but the reality is the opposite. And of course it won’t have the desired effect. You can expropriate a factory, but you can’t expropriate the decades of patient state investment, industrial planning and accumulated know-how that produced it. The proof is in the detail the article can’t avoid: China still makes 95 percent of the world’s polysilicon, and the very executives celebrating US “innovation” are now demanding higher tariffs on Chinese inputs so they can “be globally competitive”.

Incredible. Having helped themselves to the fruits of Chinese investment, they now need protection from Chinese competition. That is not the confidence of a technological leader; it is the anxiety of a rentier.

[AWPR @WarPowersReform]

#aukus
Canada to get 12 new subs for 70 billion.

We pay 368 billion for 8 including 3 used.

"Canada has selected a German consortium to build a dozen cutting-edge submarines in one of the country’s largest-ever defence contracts"
https://t.co/mJtl9Yw4yg

[GregMarScience @GregMarSci]

Canada spends $70bill, gets 12 new subs & 50yrs maintenance

Australia spend $368bill, maybe gets 3 or 4 used subs & has to deal with ALL the AUKUS waste

Can we please dump this government and join Canada?

https://t.co/ObeOWJg3Zk

[Peter Cronau @PeterCronau]

How many missiles has the US fired into the Pacific — did Australia protest those?

🚀 Here are the dates that the US test fired nuclear-capable ICBM missiles 7,000kms into the mid-Pacific:

•2026: March 5, June tbc.
•2025: February 19, May 21, November 4.
•2024: June 4, June 6, September 4.
•2023: February 9, April 19, September 6, November 1.
•2022: August 16, September 7.
•2021: February 23, August 11.
•2020: February 5, August 4, September 2, October 29.
•2019: February 5, May 1, May 9, October 2.
•2018: April 25, May 14, July 31, November 7.
•2017: February 8, April 26, May 3, August 2.
•2016: February 20, February 25, September 5.
•2015: March 23, March 27, May 20, August 19, October 21.
•2014: May 22, September 23.
•2013: May 22, September 22, September 26.
•2012: February 25, November 14.
•2011: June 22, July 27.
•2010: June 16, September 17.
•2009: June 29, August 23.
•2008: May 22, August 13.
•2007: February 7, May 15, August 8.
•2006: February 16, June 14, July 20.
•2005: August 25, September 14.
•2004: July 23, September 15.
•2003: June 11, September 10.
•2002: September 18.
•2001: February 7, June 13.
•2000: June 8, September 27.

That’s about 70 or so from my count. Probably an undercount, btw.

👉 How many condemnations or protests to the American government were made?

#auspol @ABCnews @guardian @smh @SBSNews

[Robert Barwick @RobbieBarwick]

A minor detail that I'm not seeing in the Australian media reporting tonight. #abc730

[Jerry Sees China @Jerry_grey2002]

Does any Australian really think an american, based in Taiwan, is a suitable advisor to Australian government and media?

I personally don't. In fact, I think they should ask Chinese, or even Australians in China

And why doesn't Mrs Ibrahim use her full name on Australian TV?

[Dio Wang @SenatorDioWang]

@PeterCronau I wish our government understood SOVEREIGNTY the same way as Vanuatu’s government.

[Peter Cronau @PeterCronau]

Lobbing cruise missiles into mainland China from off the coast of China to protect our trade with China from China.
Check.

[Robert Barwick @RobbieBarwick]

A One Nation member insisted to me that Australians MUST support Australia in sport.

I asked what he thought should be done if someone of Italian heritage cheered on Italy over Australia? Should the cops arrest such people?

He said yes.🧐

This monoculture fixation gets stupid.

[Peter Cronau @PeterCronau]

There are three enduring pillars of Australia’s subservience to the US:
. we will give you our blood, our flesh, to feed in to the grinder
. we will give you our sovereign soil to place your bombs and missiles and bombers and killers, to launch your war
. we will give you our minds, our intellectuals, our so-called experts, our public mind, to be led to the charnel house by the paid-for lying media, like prisoners to the shower block.

ASPI is a cult that contains the combined evil of all this — plus offering the yachts, and cars, and luxury trips, and the huge houses, with which the arms industry entices the weak.

But the fightback to it all by the international family of activists is building to a gigantic rage at the injustice of it all — and they will ultimately prevail.

They will.

[Nury Vittachi @NuryVittachi]

HOW THE U.N. FOOLED THE WORLD ABOUT CHINA
Westerners took over control of a United Nations body to claim the Chinese locked up a million or millions of people—but they had no evidence.

The “MILLIONS” number was extrapolated from interviews with just 40 people, and they were not randomly selected, said Australian lawyer and researcher Jaq James from Geolaw Narratives.

These clearly untrustworthy findings were then amplified by mainstream media reports quoting people from US groups paid to demonize China—with their membership and funding hidden from readers, our own research shows.

The result is a massive scam on the world’s public. Four points:

.

1. THEY HIDE THE NEED FOR DERADICALIZATION
Point one: In mainstream reports about terrorist deradicalization efforts after the 9/11 attack, the 9/11 act of terrorism is mentioned.

Same with the deradicalization efforts after the 7/7 terrorism act in London.

But there were more than 130 brutal, acts of terror in China—that’s correct, more than 130 murderous acts in which large numbers of innocent people were killed by Uyghur separatists.

But these are simply not mentioned in typical reports. Only the response is mentioned.

By deliberately removing the huge number of acts of terror to which the Chinese are responding, western journalists make the Chinese look like they are taking arbitrary actions against the Uyghurs.

Yet the truth is that they were doing what westerners also did, responding to terrorist acts. [Image shows clip of “French re-education camps” headline] You can see how unfair that is.

.

2. ORIGIN OF ‘MILLION LOCKED UP’ CLAIMS
Point two: The first claim that China had arbitrarily locked up a million people was exposed by independent journalists at The Grayzone, as coming from an extrapolation from just eight people.

More damning still, that extrapolation came from CHRD, a notorious US-based demonization-of-China outfit funded by the US government.

The second claim that million people had been locked up came from the UNOHCR, the UN's human rights office. They took interviews from just 40 people and extrapolated what they heard to claim one million people had been unfairly locked up, as Jaq James’ research shows.

Ms James points out that the UN should have interviewed randomly selected individuals to get a fair picture. But by interviewing politically networked ones, they are guaranteed to get a biased image. Again, fundamentally unfair.

.

3. JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS
Point three: This UN department had a leader, Michelle Bachelet, known for her appetite for justice and fairness. This meant she struggled with her staff—westerners who really controlled the operation. She insisted that their report be released alongside a response from China.

Here we can see two reports – one from the UN group’s staff, and the response from China.

The staff report was just 48 pages long. China’s reply was 120 pages long.

How many western mainstream media outlets quoted the Chinese report, or even acknowledged its existence?

Zero. Not one.

Not. A. Single. One.

.

4. IN WHICH WE DESTROY THE FINANCIAL TIMES
Point four:
The mainstream media write-ups about this subject hid the truth from readers in a shockingly deceitful way.

Let’s take a look at a Financial Times article, which is fairly typical.

It reinforces the UN group’s dubious findings with evidence which comes from “human rights experts and activists” – in other words, people paid by the US government to demonize China. The writers do NOT provide their names, just calling them “experts”.

As Kyle Feranna said in his 2024 book:
“Western NGOs, ostensibly concerned with human rights, disproportion¬ately focused on alleged violations in China despite much worse abuses occurring elsewhere in the world.”

In other words, they weaponize human rights as tool to use against the Chinese.

.

GUANTANAMO BAY
Then we get a quote from “Rushan Abbas of the Campaign for Uyghurs”. The Financial Times hides from its readers the fact that Ms Abbas was at the notorious Guantanamo Bay – not as a Muslim victim, but on the US side there.

And the paper hides the fact that the Campaign for Uyghurs is financed by the NED, the CIA’s regime change spin off.

These are absolutely key facts which change the whole tenor of the piece – and the FT is cheerfully deceiving its paying readers by omitting them.

Abbas is quoted as saying, of the UN group’s western office staff, “without them, it would not have been released”.

This reinforces many reports which say that Commissioner Michelle Bachelet did not want to release such an unfair report, but her staff, mostly westerners, pushed the unfair report out on her last day.

.

ANONYMOUS SOURCES
Then the FT feature article quotes yet another person described as “an activist” and declines to provide his or her name.

Then we go to yet another unnamed “human rights” officer.

And then yes, a further unnamed “human rights” officer.

And then we get a quote from an unnamed “person with knowledge”.

And here we have another anonymous quote – a senior European diplomat. No name.

I mean, there are so many unnamed sources in this piece, it would have been rejected at any decent journalism school.

.
OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY
Now the FT piece breezily passes over a reference to the other side of the story by quote “China and 68 other countries”.

This is hilarious. So if you are a demonizer, paid by the US State Department, you can get as many column inches in the FT as you like, with your name and funding hidden.

But if you are 69 actual named countries defending China, giving the other side of the story—well, they’ll just mention it in passing.

.

THE REAL STORY
Now, right at the bottom of the article we actually have a named person – and he actually tells the real story.

“Bachelet was never really in full control of her office,” said Marc Limon.

Now any journalist worth their salt would realize that that is the key quote in the whole article – and they would ask – okay, if she was not in charge of that UN group, WHO WAS?

But the FT writers choose not to ask that awkward question.

They don’t want to know.

And they definitely don’t want their readers to know.

.

CLOSING LINE
The FT writers close the article with a line from a quote “Uyghur journalist” who actually is named. She is Nuriman Abdureshid.

So the reader is left thinking – oh, so they actually did manage to discuss this with someone in Xinjiang, someone with a name and a job.

But what the FT "journalists" omit to tell the paper's long-suffering readers is that Ms Nuriman Abdureshid is associated with a group called Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a Washington DC group which demonizes China to such an extreme extent that even other anti-China groups avoid them out of sheer embarrassment.

Do I have proof that Victims of Communism is backed by the government?

Well, the AI which has taken over Google tells us that Victims of Communism has received funding from the US State Department to deal with human rights issues.

Here’s what happens when we look up their funding to check the details.

[CLICKS LINK]

“SORRY YOU HAVE BEEN BLOCKED’.

Ah yes, the famous US “free speech”.

.

A QUESTION
I’m going to close with a question. Why is the political and media class in the west working so hard to fool the world about the Chinese? Why work so hard to demonize a country that is working hard to lift itself out of starvation level poverty? What don’t they want the world to know?

Could it be that China is actually doing something right?

Think about that – and we may all, one day, be on the road to peace.
.

[Andy Boreham 安柏然 @AndyBxxx]

Jaq James is back with a really info-packed short video about the UN report that people use against Xinjiang.

It turns out to be quite shit on further inspection. Shock horror!

WATCH:
https://t.co/cVaCcD8wOH

[Robert Barwick @RobbieBarwick]

Due to Australia joining the criminal invasion of Iraq & supporting the jihadist attack on Syria, it already had no moral authority to protest Russia's war with Ukraine.

Albanese supporting Trump's attack on Iran proved his hypocrisy, which has now cost us another $100 million.

[Robert Barwick @RobbieBarwick]

Pro-AUKUS experts seem to exist in an echo chamber and are surprised by alternative views.

So let me help.

Every country in the world recognises One China, as does the UN. Almost all recognise the PRC, a handful the ROC, but ALL recognise ONE.

It IS international law.

[Robert Barwick @RobbieBarwick]

Not true @karlstefanovic.

He cited 50 years ago - that was the end of 30 years of governments building 1/4 of ALL housing.

His government cut $ for public housing & in 2004 the Productivity Commission warned him his tax changes had turbocharged house prices, but he ignored it.

[Robert Barwick @RobbieBarwick]

Yesterday I testified to the AUKUS Public Inquiry about ASPI being a foreign interference operation, paid MILLIONS by the US and UK to incite fear about one country - China - so Australians would agree to pay HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS to the US and UK for subs.

Exhibit A:

[💧Michael West @MichaelWestBiz]

Juliet Lamont was raped and tortured by Israeli soldiers. this is her story, told by Andrew Brown.
#gaza #flotilla #auspol #IDF
https://t.co/cDagAsu0gK

[Robert Barwick @RobbieBarwick]

Breaking!

Former foreign minister Gareth Evans has told the AUKUS Public Inquiry that the strategic benefit of AUKUS to the USA is the subs base at Stirling, WA.

So the US can "interdict" Chinese energy supplies going through the Malacca Strait.

I.e. it's a threat to sea lanes.

[Robert Barwick @RobbieBarwick]

Why did every Australian government from Chifley to Rudd, 1945-2010, not allow permanent US military bases in Australia?

Because when you allow bases you give up sovereignty.

Gillard changed it, and now, as a US diplomat told me, Australia is effectively under US occupation.