France tries to pass an extremely unpopular reform on its colonized island on the other side of the world, allowing french citizens to vote after 10 years of staying on the island, that just so happens to be the world's 3rd largest nickel exporter.
Locals, already fucked by years of colonialism and being economically disadvantaged, protested, and in the escalating violence, were suppressed by armed police, that killed 3 young locals. One policeman dies, days later in the hospital from a wound.
France locks down the airport and port with military, applies 12 days lockdown to the already curfew'd capital, and stations another 500 police men on top of the 1800, making for almost 10% of the population now, being french police.
Tiktok is banned, because it was said to be the main way protesters organised.
Their politicians claim no colonialism is happening.
This article sensationalises the violence of the protesters, and dryily describes that of the French state.
It is also ordered such that the heavier crimes against the people of the island, are placed after: a vapid introduction that "takes no sides", one mandatory extra click to "load the rest of the article", and a bunch of ads.
Im gonna keep adding this, because it keeps getting posted like this.
France declares state of emergency, bans TikTok in New Caledonia amid deadly riots
This is the actual headline.
Can you not cut off part of the headline in a way that makes it misleading?
Yes this is still a fucked up situation, but the modified headline makes it seem like all of France is in a state of emergency and banned TikTok nationwide.
The title is auto-populated from the site's meta information. The meta title is usually the same as the article title. In this case it's not:
<meta property="og:title" content="New Caledonia riots: France declares state of emergency, bans TikTok"/>
There's no conspiracy to report deceptive headlines; it's probably just an alternate title in the website code that wasn't changed with the other content after the article was already in print.
Also, where else has this been posted? I don't see any cross-posts.
Not saying its a conspiracy but its confusing either way. There were like 5 of these titles in the past 24h and at least 20+ posts about the topic in general.
Not a controversial stance for an European nation but the joint statement is interesting. Could this be a part of a deal for China to flip on Russia. Does China choose to stay with an ideological reactionary ally or move towards collaborations
I think it's much more likely this is an attempt to balance France's own ties with China to protect its substantial business interests inside China. As much as I would like to think China supports the Palestinians cause to this degree, I think it would take a lot more than this to get China to flip on two decades of its core Russia policy.
Anyone with eyes can see that the US definitely intends to come after China after Russia is "dealt with". It would take a lot of concessions to get China to throw aside its only major ally.
China is far better of allied with Russia than with Western Europe from an ideological perspective. France is still an active empire and it still acts as an administrator of neocolonial dominance. There is no reason for China to move towards Western Europe at all. It is Western Europe that must move towards China.
Its a joint statement but its definitely framed as "China taking the lead and France following" and not the other way around. I don't see this as a sign that China is moving away from its current relationships with Russia.
US is used to being able to wage economic war on other countries because traditionally it has commanded a far bigger economy. Now, US is faced with an adversary whose economy is already bigger in terms of purchasing power, and continues to grow much more rapidly than US is. On top of that, China is now a more important trading partner than the US for the majority of the world. Attempts to bully China are achieving the opposite of the intended effect. China's response has consistently been to make themselves less dependent on US, which is making China stronger.
It's because of China's sheer size. US sanctions on the DPRK, and — in the past — those on Vietnam and Zimbabwe have successfully kept those countries impoverished since they're much smaller.
I think it is time for China to leech off as much off USA and dispose and dissolve all relations with them, including a cutoff in academia spaces. This should provide a great blueprint for Indians, Koreans, Japanese, Singaporean and other Asian people to follow through, and utterly destroy and make USA a meaningless country.
Harvard conducted a study of Chinese sentiment for literally 15 years and found 95.5% approval among Chinese citizens of their national government and communist party.
Ask the Chinese why they spent millions for a foreign passport now. Not everyone dares to say the truth when watched by the big brothers. My Chinese friends in the UK won't even comment about politics on their Instagram public posts.
Maybe your Chinese friends are in the ultra-minority. Spare me your anecdotes. Read the Harvard study. 15 years of world-class research doesn't fold to your friends in the UK
scmp.com
Hot