How to contain China

Sigh. A CCP brainwashed Stan Grant again on the weekend:

Why do we hear so much about the liberal global order, when the truth is, it never existed? It was never a global order and it was not liberal.

The phrase itself is a modern invention coming into vogue really only in recent decades, yet it is presented as holy writ.

In the past few weeks, this mythical order has been invoked as a means of dealing with a disruptive, authoritarian China.

Australia’s top diplomat, Frances Adamson, has said we need to reinforce a resilient, flexible and open system that can sustain peace in a more complex and competitive geopolitical era.

Adamson, the head of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, told the Australian National University’s National Security College that we have entered an uncomfortable period for liberal democratic nations like Australia, but that the solutions are still found in global order.

The promotion of this order accelerated after the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, a period of Western triumphalism when then US President George HW Bush talked about a new world order and, later, President Bill Clinton could lecture the Chinese Communist Party that it was on the wrong side of history.

This was hubris that assumed the supremacy and universality of liberal democratic values. Simply, it meant: get with the system or get left behind.

Singaporean former diplomat and political commentator Kishore Mahbubani said this thinking may have done some “serious brain damage to Western minds”.

Mahbubani says the 1990s marked the end of Western domination and a turn to the rise of Asia, particularly China.

Harvard University professor Joseph Nye has reminded us that “American dominance was never as great as some myths make it out to be”.

The world is not the West, and liberal values are not universally embraced.

…Eric Hobsbawm concluded his study of the 20th century, The Age of Extremes, with a warning: we may not know where we are going, but history has brought us to this point.

He said we cannot prolong the past: if we do we will fail. We must change, he said, or “the alternative to a changed society is darkness”.

It takes some serious delusion for this argument to stick:

  • there never was a liberal order;
  • so there is nothing to enforce or fall back on to fight Chinese bullying;
  • the liberal order was an “end of history” western fantasy;
  • so we should all embrace Chinese tyranny because it is inevitable and the alternative is darkness.

To reach these conclusions Stan has left a few bits of history out.

To deny that the post-WWII was anything other than liberal is preposterous. Most of it was governed by, and for the benefit of, the US, with the USSR fighting a rearguard action for communism in proxy wars across the globe. Overwhelming US force projection superiority was a form of empire and god help you if you didn’t agree.

Does that make it illiberal? In some ways. Especially as it fought the USSR in many “dirty” wars. But that’s how all international power works. Somebody is always forcing their worldview on somebody else. We’ve just been lucky enough to live through a period when he who carried the biggest stick was happy for us to run our own affairs so long as we did so with freedom at the centerpiece of our system.

And that order also penetrated China, eventually. Does Stan Grant not remember the crushed Maoist economy and the Cultural Revolution? After Mao, China liberalised immensely under Deng Xiaoping, so much so that Chinese youth dreamt of a democratic China, before being squashed by tanks in 1989.

Yet, even after the massacre, China did turn away from liberalism. It channeled it economically rather than politically. Which is why its wealth grew because it liberated the economic endeavors of a billion Chinese. Arguably, had Emperor Qianlong been so wise as to engage with an industrialising Britain in his court in 1793, liberalism might have brought China out of the dark ages 200 years earlier.

After 1989, China more or less followed the script of other economically liberalising but authoritarian Asian states, the Singapore model if you like, which fused Western liberalism with Asian paternalism and familial corruption (arguably Confucianism).

Even in 2008, many in China were still looking to liberal capitalism as their model. The GFC changed that as Wall St greed and treason gutted the US brand. That helped give rise to counter-reformation in the Chinese Communist Party and loyalist Xi Jinping, who in 2012 effectively ended any flirtation with political freedom that China might have had.

It was at that point that China also ended its blended liberalism/socialism political model. What rose in its place with Xi Jinping was fascism. An emperor and ruler for life, an unimpeachable Fuhrer, whose right it was to penetrate anywhere and everywhere into people’s lives. This was accompanied by pogroms and the cult of personality typical of fascistic leaders, crimes and punishments systematically deployed to control social order, as well as a distinct reversal towards central planning for the economy plus, today, martial and nationalist fervour and the propaganda mastery of “Xi Jinping thought”.

These are all characteristic of a form of communism where it becomes indistinguishable from fascism.

Perhaps the greatest historian of the twentieth century, Eric Hobsbawm, introduced definitions of political ideology that are helpful in what this means. The Age of Extremes argues that the twentieth century was defined by two wars of ideas. On the one hand, there was a struggle to define the post-enlightenment system in greater Europa between the reason-based organising principles of liberalism and socialism. On the other hand, these two were forced into contest against a more serious enemy, the pre-enlightenment system of fascism presented in Germany, Italy and Spain.

To cut a long story short, liberalism and socialism are humanist, with man at the centre of the universe. On the other hand, fascism is from the dark ages when voodoo ruled the world, leaders are chosen by a deity and they exercised its will, to rule with absolute power and ritual, usually with some poor ethnicity demonised as the ultimate enemy and other.

Both were hideously bloody struggles but it was much worse between pre- and post-enlightenment systems.

Today we face a similar contest, not between liberalism and Chinese socialism deploying the Singapore model. Such a pragmatic model of government would have no need for external enemies, wolf warriors and worldwide hostilities. If that were the case then I very much doubt we would be having this conversation at all.

No, this contest is between a liberal order created first by the British and inherited by the US, versus an illiberal turned fascist order emanating from China under Xi Jinping’s CCP which seeks to replace it.

This brings us back to Stan Grant who has entirely the wrong end of an ironic stick as he argues that anything other than compromise with an inevitable China is a fascistic and colonialist impulse. That the US enforced liberalism through the twentieth century doesn’t render it historically non-existent even if it complicates it. That’s the paradox and power of liberalism. It is large, it contains multitudes, even its own enemies and seeds of its demise, even Stan Grant. It is only fascistic ideologies that see history in absolutes.

So, if we are to rise above the ironic fascists at the ABC and their CCP alliance how should we do it? Ross Babbage chimes in:

Current tensions between Australia and the Chinese regime are often described as a trade war. It is much more than that. What we are actually seeing is a far-reaching sovereignty war.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is using a vast arsenal to coerce Australian governments to cede key parts of our political independence. Trade pressure is just part of a larger offensive.

This type of coercion has been a feature of the CCP’s campaigns to defeat domestic and international opponents for over a century.

First, we need to do our homework on China. We need to greatly strengthen national understanding of the CCP, its ideology, its practices, its track record and its future plans. We need to encourage deep expertise not only in our politicians and officials but also in the media, industry, trade unions and all important parts of our society.

Second, we must energetically strengthen our international competitiveness and our national resilience. Many industries and enterprises need to rapidly diversify their markets and their product mixes.

Third, we need to rapidly strengthen our military and para-military deterrence and defence capabilities. We need to move quickly to strengthen those capabilities that will provide high leverage in the types of crises we may face in the coming decade. Highly trained special forces are one capability that will have very important roles to perform.

Fourth, we need to do more to assist all of our Indo-Pacific neighbours and friends that are also confronted by the CCP’s coercive pressures. Australia should work closely with Japan, India and others to initiate a New Security Partnership. This flexible network would provide both political and practical support to Indo- Pacific countries of all sizes as they strive to maintain their sovereignty and independence. Above all, we need to ensure that no country is left standing alone.

More good work at Herald Sun:

Exclusive: The Five Eyes allies are quietly discussing a plan to fight back against China’s aggressive new trade tariffs by introducing joint retaliatory sanctions on Chinese goods and produce.

News Corp understands officials from some of the Five Eyes nations have been discussing how best to respond to China’s attempts to pressure Australia by harming some of our export markets, notably beef, wine and coal.

One option is that all five nations – Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand – respond with their own sanctions on Chinese goods and services.

A second option would be for Australia to respond with retaliatory tariffs on inbound products from China, and the four allied nations support the move by refusing to buy extra product from China if Beijing looked to make up its losses elsewhere.

Talks are at a preliminary stage, but the idea is gaining traction in Canberra, and is being seriously considered in Washington.

News Corp has been told the problem had been discussed at high levels within the Morrison Government, but that talks so far remained at the level of officials.

The discussions come as the Five Eyes alliance, formed decades ago as an intelligence-sharing agreement, continues to expand into diplomatic and economic policymaking, largely in response to concerns about Chinese aggression.

“Five Eyes co-operation is off the charts at the moment,’’ a source said, pointing out even the Social Services Minister Anne Ruston had a recent Five Eyes link-up with her fellow ministers.

It’s important to note that, again, we are not alone.

Not a bad start but not great either:

  • Give up understanding China. It is so good at capturing insiders with its giant bribe that it does more harm than good.
  • Strengthen international competitiveness is good. But that is where Morrison is at his weakest. All his policies do the opposite.
  • Strengthen the military is good.
  • Assist neighbors is good with much multilateral pushback.
  • Apply an export tariff to iron ore automatically proportional to China’s import tariffs on everything else.
  • Scrap the FTA and BRI.
  • Ban Chinese immigration and force Chinese media to be locally owned plus ban WeChat. The local diaspora needs protection.
  • Woo the US into turning Australia into a gigantic and bristling naval base.
  • Develop the Quad into an Asian NATO.

There is one more mighty task that is beyond Australia but some US president is going to have to take on it in due course. A treasonous Wall St, which already ruined the liberal democratic brand, will now invest into China and build liberal democracy’s arch competitor if it’s allowed. It must be reined.

These are the things that will contain the CCP to the South China Sea in the long term to protect our children’s freedoms from those that would take it from them now at the ABC.

David Llewellyn-Smith
Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)


  1. I cant think of enough insulting words to use about ole Stan.
    He seems to have had a giant anti Australian chip on his shoulder for many years.
    Its like he condemns and wants to tear down everything about this country despite all the advantages it has given him.
    Brain washed is frankly the nicest way to describe him.
    I think Australian hater is more accurate.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      Maybe Stan is just to dumb to realise he is holding “the wrong end of an ironic stick”
      I found his,
      “The phrase itself is a modern invention coming into vogue really only in recent decades, yet it is presented as holy writ”

      Is he talking about the “Liberal order” or all that Identity politics schtick he is always warbling on about.

    • Hernando da Silva

      Maybe infect Stan with a case of Covid-19, which is China’s gift to the world.

      Total infections worldwide now stand at 76 million.

  2. Does anyone else think its a hell of a co-incidence that the only vaccine to fail so far is the Australian one made at a university that is run by the Chinese government at a time this country is targeted with trade reprisals from that same government.

    • adelaide_economistMEMBER

      I actually thought it was more of a ‘coincidence’ that UQ was the focus of our hypersonic research and also strongly linked to various CCP influences but now that you mention it, yes, it’s also a rather interesting ‘coincidence’.

    • The bigger question is what were they thinking deciding to go ahead with using gp41 as a clamp protein?
      Used as a marker in rapid tests along with p24 and gp120 it was always going to affect HIV testing – which in itself is problematic.
      A real shame for all those who have toiled on the project, especially considering the vaccine itself had a good chance of being effective.

      • MountainGuinMEMBER

        Would the false positives have been time limited, say a few months, or for a much longer period? I’m still thinking that a vaccine with such a drawback would still seem great for the highly vulnerable. If the false positive was temporary it would also seem ok for wider deployment unless you are at high risk of HIV.
        I’m just a bit cautious that the standards being set may be higher than normal and may cost us time

        • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

          Would someone scoring a “False Positive” to HIV still be allowed to attend one of Reusa’s bareback relations parties?

        • lololol.
          The standards have been absolutely shredded. 5-10 years is a typical timeframe to conduct the process properly, covid turned up a year ago max, so I personally would be careful about being one of the first guinea pigs as in normal circumstance this would still be in early patient trial stages.

        • “I’m just a bit cautious that the standards being set may be higher than normal and may cost us time”
          lol. I think your fears of higher standards are misplaced.

    • The vaccine didn’t fail, the issue is the false positive with HIV detection test, opening it to anti-vacxxer claiming it’ll give you HIV.

  3. adelaide_economistMEMBER

    Stan convinces me more and more (not that I needed it) that there are talking heads in this country that will be blaming anyone but the perpetrator even as their own head slips into a noose. I think he and his ilk call it victim blaming when it involves aggression against those they aren’t happy for it to happen to.

  4. Not sure about the five eyes though.
    You think Trudeau (whos father wanted to cuddle up to USSR communists) or Ardern have any backbone?

    Only this week it emerged Trudeau has been training the Chinese army in cold weather warfare conditions. wtf.
    Ardern seems to enjoy being a comrade, she’ll go with the flow.

  5. I take it Stan received the cheque in the mail from an anonymous CCP-linked person or entity.

    What a cretin.

  6. The Quad is the best approach to go with in this region. Smaller countries will go along with them, and won’t be able to game them, or to be corrupted and used as Trojan horses by the CCP.

    Let’s face it, where the Quad goes, so goes Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam and NZ and most likely Philippines. China has N Korea, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar under its thumb now, and its hard to say how Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore will behave… my guess is the former three will go with the fattest cheque and the latter is fundamentally wobbly at best.

    • Thailand is playing it both ways but knows it has a lot to lose when getting too close with China. It is hard to believe that a predominantly Muslim Malaysia will accept China, even Thailand is battling Muslims in the south and there is no authoritarian threat. Dealing with the easily bribed PNG is a larger problem for us and protecting the Pacific community is essential.

      Great work from DLS and in my mind the standout chime by Ross Babbage reveals what will define our success:

      “Above all, we need to ensure that no country is left standing alone.”

  7. Stan Grant is a talking head. Watching MB at the moment is like watching the crowd at a Punch and Judy show.

  8. It’s a shame that the weaponisation of racism as a tool to quell debate has been so thorough that any talk of restricting immigration from our emerging enemy still needs to be crouched in terms of protecting those who’ve previously immigrated. When will we be able to address the issue directly and discuss the security risks inherent within providing harbour to possible enemies of Australia ?

    • boomengineeringMEMBER

      MATHIAS (part of his comment yesterday)
      China does two things well. It spys on its own people and it Builds things. Im willing to bet a lot of Australian Developers are Chinese and hooked in with the CCP. I bet this has a lot to do with the strength of Australias Pro-Developer Culture and while its being sold under the guise of greed and profit, behind the scenes its really a plan hatched to destabilise and invade Australia. If I was a Communist Nation bent on World Domination, I’d want to sell Capitalists back there own Greed. My guess is they are doing that and judging from what we’ve seen, I suspect its working far better then most Australians realise.

      We are disenfranchising Australians. That suggests to me, we are losing.

      Im not sure what to do most days. I just shut up, trade my markets and focus on me. Australia has never wanted me part of this Country anyway. I think I should be doing more for a Country I’ve always loved but I think Im too small for this. Im just one person. This stuff is huge. Australia has no plan. No unity. No dream. No vision. Total disenfranchisement and we dont even know where we belong anymore. The Boomers dont see the problem but judging from what I’m seeing, the rest of Australia has been totally wrecked. I dont understand how Australias Economy can be doing so well when in the Societys I see, everywhere I look, households are utterly wrecked. My moneys on all this falling to pieces in the future because I dont think households can sustain this.


      December 13, 2020 at 9:14 pm
      Well I’m a boomers and listening.
      Sad to inform you that our politicians have never been patriotic to Australia now or in the past. They should be deported to their country of aligience. Just take a look in the corner of our flag. To compound the problem delve into our true unfiltered history and you will realize to stay here legally by international law you must take Netherlands citizenship as the 1642 claim still holds.


      December 13, 2020 at 9:29 pm
      You can’t blame Lt Cook either as he was honest and wrote that he had no claim when planting the flag but on return the heiachy crossed his notes out .


      December 13, 2020 at 10:19 pm
      Your concerns are well founded as either way your stuffed. If you don’t accept Netherlands sovereignty of Australia then that sets a legal precedent for China to take sovereignty over us legally with impunity.
      Btw we have to hope they won’t follow our history of, ethnic cleansing, holocaust, slavery and apartheid.
      Btw 2 Our first permanent resident’s 1629 and many settlements soon after.

      December 13, 2020 at 6:36 pm
      China wants PNG now.

      That puts China within an oceans reach of Invasion Range to the Australian Mainland. Im sure its just a coincidence.

      Australians are the Meat in the Sandwhich. They are being squeezed by the Australian Government and squeezed by China. Im not sure Im smart enough to know how this will play out.

      I think we’ve put Australias Domestic Economy at risk and Im not sure how Australia will kickstart that motivation when we have disenfranchised half the nation.

      • I wouldn’t be too worried about international law. Laws are only as good as their enforcement and the international police don’t exist. The british had claim to australia because they had and used the military power to control it. Germany controlled all of europe in the 40’s for the same reason, the USSR eastern europe post ww2, same reason. If china has the military power to invade and no one with the capability stops them, then they will control Australia no matter what international law says. Who is going to stop them?

        • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

          Wow, an extreme wokester who actually knows this. Weren’t you complaining we went to wars with America we shouldn’t have?

        • boomengineeringMEMBER

          Yes that could be true as the Dutch vehemently protested the British landing on their wholly owned Australian soil but what was done about it
          Also brought to the Court of Versailles

          • It is completely true, at all levels. We have foreign ownership laws, but a FIRB that isn’t interested in enforcement, therefore the laws may as well not exist. ALL law is only as good as it’s enforcement.

            Edit: I think the Dutch might have had a fairly weak legal case, with people already here and all…

          • boomengineeringMEMBER

            Yes that’s why the French didn’t put any claims up as you can’t claim something that already owned ( by Aboriginals)
            On the other hand if the Aboriginal had to decide they would probably lean to the Dutch as they were good to them in the
            settlements of 1600s & 1700s, integrated, brought yams from South Africa and taught them how to cultivate.
            Btw no apartheid in SA before the English came

      • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

        The solution is simple. You force Australian Chinese to choose a passport. Send the rest home. You enact treason legislation that would shut the ABC, MSM and Trigobof up, you run a fine tooth comb through every onshore Chinese investment, and like DLS has said, invite the US to establish naval bases here etc etc etc.

        The solution is simple. The politics is the problem. As always, destroy the Labor party is the start of solving this. Put patriots into the senate to force LNP to do what’s in our kids interests.

        I’m glad this is unfolding. It’s waking a lot of Australians up to what they’ve been voting for. I put Labor at 100/1 of winning the next 3 elections. Near no chance.

          • @ EP
            I’d vote for conscript (compulsory) service, heck I’d even register to vote for that cause alone!

            @ BJW, here’s a few lines of code in BASIC for solution to your conundrum:

            10 IF medical pass = too high,
            20 THEN lower standards
            30 ELSE GOTO 10
            40 CLS
            50 END

        • kierans777MEMBER

          It’s beyond time to mandate that all property is owned by citizens. Either become one, sell, or have it confiscated.

    • working class hamMEMBER

      PC BS. When CCP agenda pushing mouthpieces don’t even realise what they are shovelling because their self righteous heads are firmly buried up each others a###s.
      Stan needs a reality check. This is Australia, which “should” be for Australians. A sovereign nation that protects its own interests and citizens above all others. If anyone wants to come here and adopt our values, (not the corrupt ruling class views) then your welcome and goodluck. But, it should be on Aust terms and at a level that doesn’t deteriorate our way of life.
      Racism is the CCP strawman for foreign sovereignty. It seems Stan and the likes of can’t see that, through arrogance or ignorance, same result.

    • Simple!couch in terms of carrying capacity or otherwise phrased as a sustainable level of population. That’s round 22 to 23 million, and let’s see how that holds in 2024.

      The covid economic hit in China cut back the Chinese pollution cloud north of s which sucks moisture carrying air from the Indian Ocean and monsoonal from our north to it, thus steadily reducing rain on east Aus since the late 1980s.

      This meant Sydney for a start got water in its reservoir previously expected to be low and unusable by Mayb2021 leaving that city dry. We might get a true old style pandemic in 2022 by cycle projections, otherwise we will get a steady re run and Aus cities out of water.

  9. Politics, so they say, makes strange bedfellows. On Line Opinion is one of the few other indie media outlets that is pushing back against “Let’s All Sing With Xi Jinping”.

  10. “Great work from DLS and in my mind the standout chime by Ross Babbage reveals what will define our success:

    “Above all, we need to ensure that no country is left standing alone.”


  11. With the kind indulgence of the readership.

    The Contararian in me suspects the China need not be contained in the long term,

    Just like its ideological parent,

    It will collapse under its own inconsistencies.

    • Philosophical inconsistencies and internal divisions are now well entrenched in the West.
      We stand to fail by our ‘own’ reasoning. Cause reality has become just mere narrative. @Ben which will collapse first?

      • Sure end of empire in USA but then look how the evil of UK has continued very effectively to leverage hell wide and far quite cheaply ever since.
        I have a different notion of fascism based on Mussolini’s version,as being governance by corporate and state hand in hand. Lots of it around.

    • The ussr collapsed as a true communist country, no local billionaires, no people exporting cash to buy foreign real estate or whatever. Strangely enough around the same time, China gave up communism for a capitalist economic system that they have dived headlong into. You may be waiting a very long time for that collapse.

      Remember communism and capitalism refer to ownership structure for property, not government type.

      • That’s quite wrong. Marxism set up pure communism where fruits of labour were taken by the centre. Thus making it easy to be allocated or taken by the chosen.

        The oligarchs were numerous in the 1990s as this was baked in the cake, they stayed or went, to UK, Israel and USA mostly favourite destinations with their money.

        Trillions laundered thru New York as widely alleged. Various entities and 2 counties asset stripped Russia so 85% wealth was taken out of Russia in the 1990s.

        Putin was pushed in based on his higher law thesis and he changed the law, preventing this continuing indefinitely. Thus hated by UK. Made an agreement, as he could not defeat them, with the powerful criminal lot so workable for Russia.

        By comparison, its appalling Aus is in such a terrible state, every year degenerating in every way.

  12. TheLambKingMEMBER

    You really have gone into full on wacko/extreme mode at the moment and are taking Macrobusiness with it. Do the other guys involved know this?

    You need to watch Utopia “On the Defense” to understand the crazy paradoxes you are suggesting. You are pretty much suggesting we start a full on war with China.

    And stop targeting the ABC! Why are you targeting them over other media organisations who have no different positions on China?

    Australia’s top diplomat, Frances Adamson, has said we need to reinforce a resilient, flexible and open system that can sustain peace in a more complex and competitive geopolitical era.


    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      ABC is publically funded, and don’t act in the interests of Australia. That can’t continue.

      • TheLambKingMEMBER

        ABC is publically funded, and don’t act in the interests of Australia.

        2 things:
        1) You are mistaking what you think are the best interests of Australia with what actually is in the best interests for Australia (like not inciting a war with China and inciting racial vilification.)
        2) The ABC is not there to provide a mouthpiece for the government or there to provide propaganda (even if that is in the interests of Australia). The charter has:

        The Charter directs that ABC services must reflect what is seen as the traditional role for a public broadcaster—to deliver policy objectives through the broadcast of programs that inform, educate and entertain. It must also address market failure, in areas such as the delivery of local content. Further, its programming must contribute to national Australian identity and reflect cultural diversity.

        -a balance that follows the weight of evidence;
        -fair treatment;
        -open-mindedness; and
        -opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.
        … Impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented.

        You are reading too much into what the ABC should and should not do. It is there to “inform, educate and entertain”, get off your high horse, and don’t expect it to act like Shy after Dark with “pushing agendas”.

        • The90kwbeastMEMBER

          “Don’t expect it to act like Shy after Dark with “pushing agendas”

          Except it does push an agenda, it has increasingly become left of centre and this is reflected in the articles and opinions published, when it should as a general stay as centered as possible on the political spectrum in order to therefore reflect the opinions of the majority.

          This is evidenced by the amount of lefty air/web space identify politics driven articles override discussions around topics of national interest.

          Nothing wrong with SOME articles published around certain minority groups, and bringing this to the wider public’s attention. In fact that is what I would expect of a public broadcaster. But it’s the frequency with which these articles are posted and when you only have so much air/web space, it is therefore to the exclusion of other topics that can be covered. It therefore in my view has an issue with bias by omissions and it needs to hold itself to a higher standard than it currently does. It is this that raises the eyebrows of everyone on the right, and increasingly the average centrist Australians who by definition are at the centre of the bell curve that the ABC is supposed to reflect.

        • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

          “ike not inciting a war with China”

          I agree and was one of few that said it. There isn’t reason to inflame. That is not diplomacy. My guess is LNP know the damage they’re doing to Labor.

          “and inciting racial vilification”

          Shouldn’t be a consideration in the big picture, and I truly believe exactly what ABC and Labor are doing is making it worse.

          “ABC is not there to provide a mouthpiece for the government or there to provide propaganda”

          I see ABC aren’t in Australia’s interests partly because they’re doing exactly that, along with being extreme wokesters.

          “inform, educate and entertain”

          With extreme bias, we’re better off without it. While omitting half the detail it is NOT INFORMATION, EDUCATION NOR ENTERTAINMENT. What it’s doing is indoctrinating our youth into voting 100% against their own interests and Australia.

          “its programming must contribute to national Australian identity and reflect cultural diversity”

          Contribute, or be the biggest pusher? They don’t contribute to national Australian identity, they actively undermine it.

          “You are reading too much into what the ABC should and should not do. It is there to “inform, educate and entertain”, get off your high horse, and don’t expect it to act like Shy after Dark with “pushing agendas”

          My high horse is always about what’s in the interests of Australia. Your high horse is your back pocket. It’s like a cancer that’s taken over the entire country, and is well on the way to destroying us.

          Have a no holds barred national debate, then put it to a plebiscite.

    • I’ve read a lot of stuff about avoiding a World War 3. It makes for a very interesting read.
      I have also read some of Paul Keatings dribble about ” Avoiding an Apocalypse “.

      It basically says, ” If we give in to China, then we will have peace and we wont have to be afraid of a world war 3 “. I dont think there is any harm in attempting diplomacy to avoid a war but what people need to realise, is this only gets worse. Australians seem to think if we give in that things just automatically get better. Did they get better for the Uyghurs in Re-Education Camps? What about Hong Kong or TIbet? If you consider living the rest of your life as a slave, having your organs harvested and being scum on Chinese shoes because “Your not Chinese” then you realise there is no easy option. Either its war or Australians spend the rest of there days in chains. Life will be hell. Suddenly, the price of war wont seem so bad.

      Im Australian. Im also stubborn. I enjoy my freedom, beautiful landscapes and lovely sunshine. If you tell me I cant be free, then I’ll jab it up your rear end with a hook on it. I’d rather be dead by war then dead by slavery. I think all these other people are just cowards and I dont think they realise what happens to cowards in war.

      What might seem like the easier path of resistance today is really just the removal of all your freedoms into subservience. You wont own property because the Chinese will own it all.

      Sure. I’d like to avoid Nuclear Armageddon too but Im not prepared to live as a slave for it. This is Australia. This is my damn country. Its not Australians attacking Chinese but Chinese attacking Australians. If we’re gonna die then we’re gonna die anyway. Better that then being a slave. You’ll know what it means to live in Hell and you’ll be wishing for death before the end. You’ll get no respect and I think thats what people dont realise. China only respects you today but once they get what they want, you’ll discover you have no value to them in there eyes.

        • “I’d like to avoid Nuclear Armageddon too but Im not prepared to live as a slave for it.”
          Sure, wont disagree with that but, we’re not there yet. So lets deal with things like sane people and try to learn from history. Grant’s piece was not accurately presented here so it might be good for people to read it in its entirety.

    • “And stop targeting the ABC! Why are you targeting them over other media organisations who have no different positions on China?”
      Plus many. I would also argue DLS has clipped Stan Grant’s piece (again) and left out important parts in what effectively is a summary of views. It is not providing an accurate representation of Grant’s position or what he is trying to say. For example:
      “Maintaining a liberal order, he argues, “completely misses the point”. He prefers a “free world” strategy that preserves liberty at home and abroad. It means pushing back against neo-authoritarians and that requires all “measures short of general war”.”
      Some substantial agreement with DLS’s position right there as you reach the end and he begins examining necessary responses to the changed environment. You just need to read the entire piece and deal with the nuance.

  13. Some recent abc coverage:

    Australia has pivoted its global trade strategy in the past, and it’s time to do it again

    For years there have been warnings about Australia’s overreliance on the Chinese market and the potential danger posed in the event of either an economic or political meltdown. That day has arrived and it’s time for a Plan B, writes Ian Verrender.

    • Excellent work by Mr Verrender. They’re not all traitorous vermin at the ABC…just most of them.

  14. As you can see from the Stan Grant piece, it’s the old lefty ‘USA bad’ thing which means instinctually he’s got to run interference for China.

    Maybe someone should send a memo to teh left that it’s possible to see both China and the US as carnts and you don’t have to whattabout all the time.

    In this instance better the carnt you know.

    • Unfortunately we chose not to develop that option. Maybe Israel will sell us a few on the down low, they seem like that sort of country.

  15. Stewie GriffinMEMBER

    “Yet, even after the massacre, China did turn away from liberalism. It channeled it economically rather than politically. Which is why its wealth grew because it liberated the economic endeavors of a billion Chinese.”

    It grew it’s wealth because a treacherous class of bankers and financiers were happy to give China access to America’s own internal domestic demand, so that even though it would transfer trillions of dollars of US Capital out of America and into China, destroying whole manufacturing industries and millions of job, impoverishing vast slabs of the country in the process, it would personally enrich them beyond anything seen since the days of Babylon.

    Never forget THAT is how China grew rich.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      This narrative needs to be more fully understood by the public before democratic action can be taken to rectify this treason that has been committed against the citizens of the western democracies by our own leaders and “Captains of industry”.

      The erosion of our national sovereignty is a direct result of organised money circumventing democratic decision making and accountability

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        OK,…Access to Western consumers should not have been given to the companies that treasonously sold out western workers to manufacture their goods there.
        Is that better.

        • Perhaps, but that would rule out 82% of US companies selling to US.
          The rest of them are MIC environment.

          China was meant to be a serf that produces and takes the risk whilst smart mob will shear $9 of the $10 of profits on intellectual basis alone, whilst chinese market would’ve been an insatiable market of debt slavery (you know, wealth extraction model like Uber – selling Aussies taxi service in Australia, produced and sourced from Australians)

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            The deal was the Chinese got to modernise their economy, the financiers, owners of capital and CEO elite got to cream fat margins and enormous bonus options making out like Assyrian Kings, while the average American got screwed.

    • kierans777MEMBER

      The ultimate and predicted conclusion of neoliberalism and the deregulation that made it possible. Thatcherism/Reaganism have a lot to answer for.

  16. I kind of see this all as an extension of the changing global order especially wrt which global powers profit from
    the Triffin dilemma.
    The Triffin dilemma basically tells us that the creator and supplier of Global liquidity profits from this position by the somewhat forced recycling of capital through it’s banking system and economy.
    We all know from comments back around the time of the GFC that the PBoC is acutely aware of the Triffin dilemma and even went as far as to publicly identify this dilemma as the leading cause of the GFC.
    OK so the dilemma basically says that there will be a positive correlation between in currency valuations (exchange rates) and the provision of liquidity (which is unexpected given that provisioning this liquidity requires that the country run a current account deficit), hence the dilemma
    In the post WW2 time frame the western alliance countries all profited from the Triffin dilemma and paid a sort of Tribute (through banking systems and various agreements especially for the purchase of military equipment) to the country providing this liquidity and security.
    March forward to today and we have China transitioning to a position of being the global liquidity creator but not really profiting from this position because post WW2 alliances result in these “Tributes” still being paid to the previous global liquidity creator (in this case the US)
    With respect to Australia we have a country that is profiting enormously from China’s yet it refuses to play the game in the way that China wants. China wont (and indeed can’t) let Australia get away with this duplicitous behaviour.
    Long term China needs the positive currency reinforcement that comes hand in hand with the Triffin dilemma, with this in mind China can’t accept that Australia plays both sides of the fence. It needs Australia to be 100% in China’s camp or 100% in the US’s camp, no fence sitting allowed.
    China’s to rise to the next level requires that western US Vassal states abandon the US and change over to a system of Liquidity which is China focused. There is no other way forward for China.

    • China kind of blew their wad prematurely though, by giving the entire world and example of what’s to come in hong kong. I’m not sure too many places are looking to head down that path.

      • Yep and this is the reason that China is having a bit of a liquidity crises at the moment.
        the liquidity crises is also forcing their hand on realizing the value that they can potentially derive from becoming a true global currency/liquidity provider. which is indirectly the reason that China needs to make an example of Australia.
        for those who think that this is just another road-bump, think again, it’s the beginning of a full scale decoupling.
        Australia wants this decoupling for Political reasons, China needs this decoupling for economic reasons and to set the bar for what China expects from aligned nations.
        When you think about it that way, decoupling is a win-win outcome.

        • A bit you did not include is that decoupling from US$ has begun the moment US begun to militarise US$ in early 90’s and it spun out of control in late 2010’s. This became unstoppable the moment the idea of alternative currency was born out of need. Additionally, US printing press has been running full on for too long and if the “out-of-thin-air” money (which is kept from the street atm by funneling it into special assets and upper echelons) reaches the street level, US$ will be worth less than the electrons depicting it. Inflation from printing presses going full steam is there, it is just in the assets and stocks.
          Based on the actual production of tangible products, CHina had the biggest chance to provide alternative “liquidity” and fill in the gap. They still have this capability and all they need to succeed is not to repeat the mistakes US have made in debasement of their currency and weaponisation.
          Sure there is some eery distrust in everything Chinese, that comes granted. Problem is that Chinese “liquidity” comes as a joint effort from multi-polar world. Also, as US (weaponised $, MIL, Pharma etc) antagonises the rest of the world, there will be no choice but to go elsewhere.

  17. The racial de-visioning and Woke victim creation myth is the other side of the migration flooding coin that is the work of the CCP
    its not a flaw its a feature of CCP strategy.

        • Wokeness is the illness of the westworld and if PR China can chose they’d do away with it and any benefits it inadvertently brings to them (but nope, immigration is not)

      • Sorry ham, its a pincer movement immigration on one side and creating division on racial lines on the other . classic Sun Tzu strategy

  18. I'll have anotherMEMBER

    The liberal order was so dominant in the 20th century that it managed to defeat the fascists, Nazis, socialists and communists at one point or another.

    So dominant that it had the power to wipe every other political ideology off the face of the earth and was comfortable not to.

    So dominant that still, currently, the US could take on the rest of the world combined, in a conventional war, and at least stalemate, if not come about with some half victory.

    So dominant that it invented, by means of its prosperity and highly educated populus and allowance of freedom of thought, space flight, GPS, computing, internet, robotics, AI, VR, etc etc.

    So dominant that it created the most comfortable time to be alive in the history of humanity.

    What total garbage this Stan Grant is spewing.