Wednesday 24th of April 2024

gaslighting china…...

Since Nancy Pelosi’s purposeless diplomatic visit to Taipei on August 2, cross-strait tensions have soared between China and Taiwan. Pelosi’s envoy has effectively reduced U.S.-China relations to its lowest point since at least 1995—when diplomatic efforts between Washington and Taipei instigated a tit-for-tat military standoff between Washington and Beijing.

In response to Pelosi’s visit, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) launched an unprecedented series of military drills in six marine sectors around Taiwan. The drills included anti-submarine and sea assault operations and a simulated blockade of the island. Chinese fighters and warships crossed the Taiwan Strait’s median line every day that the drills took place.




The high point of Beijing’s response occurred immediately after Pelosi’s departure from Taiwan when it launched a rocket barrage over the island.

After the trip, U.S. officials and pundits redoubled their attempts to cast Beijing’s response as an unprovoked overreaction as they had done in the days preceding it. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s August 1 pre-visit statement is emblematic of the war party’s post-trip spin:

What I can say is this: this is very much precedent in the sense that a previous speaker has visited Taiwan, many members of congress go to Taiwan, including this year and so if the Speaker does decide to visit and China decides to create some kind of crisis or otherwise escalate tensions, that would be entirely on Beijing. We are looking for them, in the event she decides to visit, to act responsibly and not to engage in any escalation going forward.

Blinken’s statement, and the cacophony of hawkishness that echoes it, are classic examples of gaslighting.

In modern parlance the term “gaslighting” broadly denotes a pattern of manipulation that victims experience in abusive relationships.

Psychology Today defines it thusly:

Gaslighting is an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control. Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves. They may end up doubting their memory, their perception, and even their sanity. Over time, a gaslighter’s manipulations can grow more complex and potent, making it increasingly difficult for the victim to see the truth.

The phenomenon was professionally documented, perhaps for the first time, in a 1969 article published in The Lancet. Entitled “The Gas-Light Phenomenon,” the article examines three case studies in which families attempt to rid themselves of an unwanted member by convincing said member, and the target institution, that the member qualifies for admittance due to a mental condition the family manufactured.

The 1969 article named the phenomenon after the 1938 play “Gas Light,” in which a husband attempts to rid himself of his wife by “driving her into a mental asylum.” The story was later popularized by the 1944 film of the same name staring Charles Boyer, Ingrid Bergman, and Joseph Cotten.

The specific gaslit arguments that the hawks employ against China are as follows:

1. Beijing is overreacting.

On August 4, the National Security Council’s strategic communications coordinator John Kirby told reporters:

China has chosen to overreact and use the Speaker’s visit as a pretext to increase provocative military activity in and around the Taiwan Strait. We anticipated that China might take steps like this. (Emphasis Added)

Kirby’s statement itself betrays his desired narrative. He implies that Pelosi’s visit was a convenient pretext for Beijing to justify an increase in its military activity in the strait. This framing does not comport with reality. On the contrary, Beijing repeatedly warned against the visit. Even if Beijing was insincere in its warnings and was looking for such a pretext, Pelosi provided it.

Furthermore, Kirby himself admits that Washington anticipated Beijing’s reaction. Despite this, the White House took no action—formal or otherwise—to prevent Pelosi from going.

2. Pelosi’s visit has precedent.

The war party line, that Pelosi’s trip has precedent, is true—but only to the extent that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich did indeed fly to Taiwan in 1997 to meet with the then-president of Taiwan, Lee Teng-hui. That is where the similarity ends.

In truth, the 1997 trip occurred under very different circumstances.

For one, Gingrich visited Beijing and Shanghai before flying to Taiwan. Second, Beijing also opposed Gingrich’s visit to Taiwan. Chinese officials begrudgingly approved of the Taiwan stop only after Gingrich threatened to cancel the Chinese leg of his tour. Third, Gringrich’s visit occurred shortly after the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis–an event that began when President Clinton issued a visa to Lee Teng-hui to speak at Cornell University. After having just deescalated from the brink of war, it is likely that Beijing desired normal relations with the United States. Fourth, in 1997, the United States did not have the regular military presence in the Indo-Pacific that it now has. Fifth, Pelosi’s 2022 trip expressly considered “mutual security,” which in the Indo-Pacific can only mean confronting China. Finally, in 1997 the Chinese military only possessed a fraction of the strength it now does.

In his August 1 statement, Blinken stated “many members of Congress go to Taiwan.” This is also true, however, China always objects to these delegations and normally responds to them with military exercises.

3. Beijing’s military drills are a reckless and unprovoked provocation

The undeniable truth is that before learning of Pelosi’s visit, Beijing was not planning military exercises anywhere near the size and scope of those performed after her visit. Beijing repeatedly warned Washington of the dire consequences of the visit. Pelosi went anyway. Washington did nothing to stop her. Beijing directly cited the drills as a consequence for the visit.

This observation is not to say that Beijing is a completely innocent victim. It should not be conducting the drills, but there is no evidence to suggest that the drills would have happened absent Pelosi’s visit. Actions have reactions.

4. Pelosi’s visit does not contradict longstanding U.S. policy.

The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 expressly “terminate[s] governmental relations between the United States and the governing authorities on Taiwan.” The United States does not and should not have formal or informal diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

What is it called when the sitting Speaker of the House, the third in line to the presidency, has a meeting with the sitting president of Taiwan?

5. Pelosi’s visit is not a danger to China.

According to the One-China policy, Taiwan is China. This is official United States policy—at least on paper.

Through the decades, especially since the beginning of the Trump administration, the United States has been moving away from the One-China policy and its “strategic ambiguity” regarding the actions it will take to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion.

Pelosi’s visit is a late stage step toward a formal American repudiation of the One-China policy. Indeed, her delegation has likely ushered in a new era of militarization in the region, all of it likely foreseen—and perhaps desired—by the U.S.

Since Pelosi’s visit, two additional congressional delegations have visited the island. The first delegation arrived August 14 and was composed of Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass) and four other members. The delegation reportedly asked Taiwanese lawmakers how they felt about “strategic ambiguity” and if they would like the policy changed to “strategic clarity.” The delegation discussed regional security and increasing economic ties between Washington and Taipei.

The second delegation arrived in Taiwan on August 21 and met with Taiwanese officials about formalizing economic ties, mainly the production of superconductors. The delegation came in after the White House announced formal trade talks to occur this fall.

Increasing cooperation between the U.S. and Taiwan will further economic decoupling between both the U.S. and China and Taiwan and China. Economic ties between each are a major impediment to war. Furthermore, close military ties between the U.S. and Taiwan could give the U.S. a permanent military presence within China, as was the case before 1979. China will not allow this to happen.

American China hawks have used the above arguments to manufacture consent for increasing confrontation over Taiwan, including forthcoming “‘air and maritime transits’ in the Taiwan Strait” that could lead to war. Much like the Lancet’s case study, these hawks must convince the American public to distrust their own perceptions of reality to do so.

How else could anyone believe that Beijing’s actions came out of the clear blue sky?




FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW......................,



we expect better from 4C…...




Several weeks ago Four Corners gave us a special program about Xinjiang Uyghurs sent to prison-style camps and forced to learn Chinese. I watched it recently as a rebroadcast.

I was once sent to an Australian military camp to learn Chinese, at Pt. Cook near Melbourne. Conditions were fairly severe. Eight hours a day, five days a week. Much memorisation. Constant exams. Weekends off but travel restricted.

No one complained, even though the standard we reached was well below that expected of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Chinese is a difficult language. After a year of constant study we could barely put sentences together.

Yet if Xinjiang is to function as a part of China somehow the population there has to become reasonably fluent in the language, while retaining their own language.

Both the Chinese authorities and the Uyghurs deserve sympathy as they grapple with the language problem.

In Xinjiang there was a further problem. In the ABC program we were told about the 2009 riots in Urumchi, capital city of Xinjiang, with 200 citizens killed in cold blood. For some reason we were not told that the killers were all Uyghurs. And that the victims were all Han Chinese. This attack was followed by similar anti-Han killing incidents elsewhere in China.

One can understand some reasons for Uyghur discontent – cultural differences, Han Chinese flooding into Xinjiang province, the inability of non -Chinese speaking Uyghurs to get jobs in Chinese owned factories. But some Uyghur hostility also has roots in the East Turkestan liberation movement dating back to the thirties and designated as a terrorist movement by the US. The movement had long sought the Xinjiang separation from China, by force if necessary.

In this situation some crackdown by Chinese authorities was inevitable. And Chinese authorities sometimes are not gentle in their crackdowns, even with their own citizens, as we saw in recent Covid lockdowns. If they could imprison their own citizens for months on end to exterminate the Covid danger, is it too surprising if they set out harshly to suppress all and any suspected hints of Uyghur separatism in the wake the 2019 killings?

Nor should it be surprising that if they are going to lock up suspected separatists for extended periods then they will also use the chance to teach them Chinese.

Four Corners gave no hint of impartiality or balance in its choice of speakers. That is very typical of almost all Australian Media in dealing with China. None of the Westerners seemed to know or speak Chinese. None seemed to have direct experience of Xinjiang, a land where most Western visitors claim impressive progress despite the alleged harshness of the regime.

Special attention was given to one Adrian Zenz, an Austrian academic from the little-known, religion-oriented US Jamestown University which claims no involvement in Asian languages or studies. Zenz is a favourite source of information about alleged Chinese genocide in Xinjiang for Western anti-China agencies, yet seems to have no direct sources of information.

His main qualification seems to be a background in European anti-communist studies. He does not seem to be able to speak or read Chinese.

Surely Four Corners can do better than this.








better chips....

No country is working harder and faster in the microchip industry than China! Chinese scientists recently produced a new ACCEL microchip that uses light instead of electric current and is 3000 times faster than Nvidia's A100 chip! Chinese scientists are also working hard to break the next barrier and produce 5 nanometer chips! The semiconductor industry is heating up! Let's talk about it all in today's video.


China's New AI Microchip Just Destroyed US Sanctions Forever!