AUKUS ABSURDITY

 

ABSURDITY

The AUKUS pact—a trilateral security agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—is being touted as a major strategic move to counter China and ensure freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific. But let’s strip away the rhetoric and examine the absurdity at its core.

The South China Sea is one of the world’s busiest maritime routes, and the claim that it’s under threat is laughable. Trade worth trillions flows through it every year, and no credible evidence suggests China is disrupting this flow. The region operates smoothly, with freedom of navigation unhindered by any state. The alleged threats seem more like a convenient bogeyman to justify the militarization of a region where tensions might otherwise de-escalate through diplomacy and economic cooperation.

Enter AUKUS, which promises to keep these supposedly threatened waters “safe” by deploying nuclear-powered submarines. Australia, a country with no prior experience in operating such subs, will spend over $360 billion on vessels that won’t even arrive until the 2040s. Think about that: billions of dollars sunk into a project that may be obsolete by the time it materializes. The geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific could shift dramatically over the next two decades, leaving Australia with an overpriced fleet of Cold War relics.

Meanwhile, the pact’s other members, the US and the UK, will commit to patrolling waters halfway around the world from their own shores. The UK, which struggles to maintain enough functional ships to defend its own waters, is now playing at being a Pacific power. The US, stretched thin with commitments across the globe, will add yet another theater to its endless list of foreign entanglements. It’s a logistical and strategic absurdity: nations with limited naval capacity in their home waters attempting to monitor one of the largest and most stable maritime regions on the planet.

What makes this even more ludicrous is the actual state of naval readiness among these nations. The UK’s Royal Navy is shrinking, and Australia’s maritime capabilities are limited at best. Both countries are doubling down on a fantasy of relevance in the Indo-Pacific while their own immediate security concerns remain under-resourced. It’s as if they’re buying Ferraris for a race that doesn’t exist while potholes riddle their driveways.

And let’s not forget the real winners here: defense contractors. The billions poured into nuclear submarines and associated infrastructure will line the pockets of those who profit from fear-mongering, not from actual security needs. Instead of addressing pressing issues like climate change, regional economic development, or humanitarian challenges, AUKUS squanders resources on a militaristic fantasy that serves no one but the military-industrial complex.

The AUKUS pact is a solution in search of a problem. The South China Sea is not under siege, freedom of navigation is not under threat, and the region’s challenges are better addressed through diplomacy and multilateral cooperation. Instead, we’re left with a theatrical display of power projection, a costly and unnecessary escalation that does little to enhance security and much to stoke tensions.

The absurdity of AUKUS lies not just in its premise but in its execution—a muddled, wasteful venture that exemplifies everything wrong with modern geopolitics. The world deserves better than this expensive charade.

"Call it AUKUS or call it what it is: a pact between an aging empire, a confused middle power, and a fading hegemon to piss off their largest trading partner."  😎

AUKUS ABSURDITY

Liberation Day 🇺🇸 Tariffs 📈

 

: How 'Liberation Day' Became Global Recession Day"

Ah, the grand spectacle of President Donald Trump's "Liberation Day Tariffs"—a masterstroke in economic strategy that has left the world both bewildered and bemused. Let's dissect this opus with sharp critique, analytical depth , global perspective and a dash of sardonic wit.

Trade Deficits: America's Favorite Boogeyman

In the hallowed halls of Trump's imagination, trade deficits are the monsters under the bed. The notion that importing more than exporting is akin to national self-sabotage is a charming oversimplification. In reality, these deficits often reflect a robust consumer appetite and are balanced by foreign investments. But why let nuanced economics stand in the way of a good scare tactic?

Economic Bullying: Making Friends the Trumpian Way

Slapping tariffs ranging from 10% to 90% on over 180 countries, including dear allies, is certainly one way to win hearts and minds. China, never one to mince words, labeled this move as "economic bullying" and "protectionist nonsense" . When your trade policy unites the world—in opposition—you might want to reconsider your approach.

Market Mayhem: Trillions Down the Drain

Unsurprisingly, global markets didn't throw a ticker-tape parade for these tariffs. The FTSE 100 took a nosedive to a one-year low amid whispers of an impending recession . Even the ever-optimistic Goldman Sachs upped the odds of a U.S. recession to 45% . But who needs stable markets when you have "economic independence"?

The Plight of Low-Income Nations: Let Them Eat Cake

Forcing impoverished nations to drop tariffs on U.S. goods is akin to demanding a pauper invest in a penthouse. With average daily incomes hovering between $1.50 to $3.50, the citizens of these countries aren't exactly queuing up for American luxury products. The logic here is as sound as a screen door on a submarine.

Domestic Backlash: Taxation Disguised as Patriotism

Back home, these tariffs translate to a stealth tax hike on American consumers. Estimates suggest an average increase of over $1,900 per household in 2025 . Nothing says "America First" like making everyday goods more expensive for the average Joe.

Conclusion: The Art of the Misdeal

In sum, the "Liberation Day Tariffs" are tour de force of economic misjudgment. Alienating allies, inviting retaliation, destabilizing markets, and burdening consumers—all in one fell swoop. It's a bold strategy, let's see how it plays out. One might suggest a more collaborative and informed approach to trade, but that wouldn't make for as entertaining a reality show,

As Warren Buffett aptly remarked, "Tariffs are... an act of war, to some degree."

Title:The American Lie: Bombs, Democracy, and the Empire That Never Stops

By:Unfiltered and Unfuckwithable

Let’s not pretend anymore. Every time the United States opens its mouth about "freedom" or "democracy," somewhere on Earth, someone is about to get their country flattened. This isn’t diplomacy. It’s a doctrine of deception—a morally bankrupt playbook that’s been recycled since World War II. The script never changes, only the targets do.

And now, the Empire is setting its sights on Iran. Again. Israel is clapping in the background, the American media is salivating, and the war drums are thumping to the same old beat: regime change.

Act I: The Playbook of Lies

Step 1: Demonize the leader.

Step 2: Claim oppression, terrorism, or nukes.

Step 3: Arm some rebels. Throw in a color revolution if you’re feeling spicy.

Step 4: Drop bombs in the name of peace.

Step 5: Leave the country in ashes.

Rinse. Repeat.

Iran: The Real Target Again

They say it's about women's rights, nuclear threats, and authoritarianism. What they don't say? It's about:

*Keeping Israel as the unchallenged regional hegemon

* Controlling the Strait of Hormuz and oil flow

* Preventing Iran from aligning with China and Russia

The U.S. doesn’t want a free Iran. It wants a compliant Iran—one that bows to Tel Aviv, Washington, and Wall Street.

The Israeli Puppet Master: Netanyahu’s Ring of Fire

For over 30 years, Benjamin Netanyahu has been the loudest voice in promoting war across the Middle East. His obsession? What he calls the "Ring of Fire"—a circle of nations around Israel that refuse to kneel. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Iran, Yemen, and Libya. One by one, the U.S. has helped neutralize or destroy these countries under the guise of security and democracy.

Netanyahu isn’t a bystander. He’s the shadow strategist, the regional fire-starter whispering into the ears of every U.S. president from Clinton to Biden. While the U.S. drops the bombs, it’s often Israeli intelligence and pressure that lights the fuse. From selling the lie of Iraq’s WMDs to constant hysteria about Iran’s nuclear program, Israel manipulates American foreign policy like a seasoned ventriloquist.

He knows if the region burns, Israel consolidates power. And America? It’s the hammer—Israel just swings it.

A Blood-Stained Timeline of Freedom

1953 – Iran (Operation Ajax)

PM Mossadegh was ousted for nationalizing Iranian oil. The CIA, with help from MI6 and even BBC Persian, staged a coup and installed the Shah—a Western puppet and brutal autocrat. The reason? British Petroleum was pissed.

1954 – Guatemala

President Arbenz dared to reclaim land from United Fruit Co. The U.S. called him a communist and sent in the CIA. 36 years of civil war followed. Hundreds of thousands dead.

1973 – Chile

Salvador Allende was a democratically elected socialist. Kissinger and Nixon couldn’t have that. They backed Pinochet, who turned Chile into a torture chamber. But hey, at least American mining interests were safe.

1980s – Nicaragua, El Salvador, Angola

Reagan's freedom fighters were war criminals. The CIA backed Contras who raped, tortured, and murdered in the name of capitalism.

2001 – Afghanistan

Twenty years. Trillions spent. Thousands dead. Taliban back in power. Nothing gained. But Boeing and Raytheon made a killing.

2003 – Iraq

The gold standard of U.S. lies. Weapons of mass destruction? Never existed. What did exist: oil, Halliburton contracts, and over a million corpses.

2011 – Libya

NATO bombed the country into medieval chaos. Gaddafi was executed in the street. Hillary Clinton giggled, "We came, we saw, he died."

2011–present – Syria

The U.S. tried to oust Assad using "moderate rebels," many of whom became ISIS. Half the country is displaced. And Israel drops bombs with impunity.

Yemen – Ongoing

Armed and funded by the U.S., Saudi Arabia has turned Yemen into hell. Famine. Cholera. Dead children. But it’s all good because the Houthis are "Iran-backed," right?

The Media: Accomplices in a Crime Syndicate

CNN, Fox, BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian—every single one of them has run cover for the Empire. They regurgitate intelligence leaks like scripture. They amplify anonymous sources. They call lies "exclusive reports."

Judith Miller sold Iraq. Anderson Cooper sold Syria. Every damn editor who let those stories run? Guilty.

The Real Reason Behind Regime Change

It’s not freedom. It’s never been freedom.

It’s markets. Pipelines. Strategic bases. And Israel.

Any nation that says no to the Empire is branded a threat. And the media choir sings:

 "He kills his own people."

 "Weapons of mass destruction."

"Terrorist state."

"Genocide."

Then come the sanctions, the starvation, and the stealth bombers.

A Final Word: The Blood Is Still Wet

When America says it wants to liberate you, build a bunker.

Iran doesn’t need democracy from a country that still locks up journalists, backs apartheid in Israel, and can’t keep its own cities from collapsing.

Let’s call it what it is:

"They hate us for our freedoms," said Bush, while burying Iraq under rubble.

"The world doesn't hate America for it's Freedom's. It hates America for pretending to have a conscience while bombing children" 🤬

The Empire is lying again. And this time, we’re watching.

 

Let Only Red Flowers Bloom” by Emily Feng

Emily Feng, NPR’s China correspondent, in “Let Only Red Flowers Bloom” writes a deeply personal, reflective piece that blends memoir with political commentary. It’s not just a report—it’s her attempt to reconcile her identity as a Chinese-American with the realities of modern China.

Fractured Loyalties: Emily Feng and the Western Gaze on China

Emily Feng’s “Let Only Red Flowers Bloom” is a beautifully written, emotionally loaded piece—a blend of memoir and indictment, threading together personal family trauma with pointed critiques of modern China. Feng draws on her grandparents’ persecution during Mao’s Cultural Revolution to justify a lifetime of suspicion and skepticism toward the Chinese state. Through her narrative, she walks the tightrope of inherited memory and Western liberal values, casting herself as both witness and conscience in the face of a rising authoritarian China.

But dig deeper, and Feng’s storytelling reveals more than just trauma—it exposes the ever-repeating pattern of diaspora voices reinforcing the West’s preferred version of China: morally compromised, politically repressive, and in need of constant correction from outside forces.

And that’s the issue.

Inherited Pain Isn’t Lived Reality

Feng writes with conviction, but her outrage is secondhand. Her grandparents lived through Mao’s purges—she didn’t. She came of age not in the shadow of Red Guards, but in the halls of Western academia and press rooms shaped by American exceptionalism.

What she has isn’t lived persecution. It’s the echo of it. And that echo, filtered through the lens of Western liberal democracy, gets repackaged as objective journalism. But it’s anything but.

Western Operating System in Chinese Skin

Feng’s worldview was programmed by the West. Raised in liberal democracies, educated in institutions built to uphold “freedom,” “rights,” and “individualism,” she does what many diaspora intellectuals do: critiques China not as someone trying to understand its evolution, but as someone measuring it against an imported set of ideals.

She sees the Belt and Road Initiative as economic aggression. She sees the handling of Xinjiang as state-sponsored oppression. She sees Hong Kong’s security law as the death of freedom.

But what she doesn’t see—or refuses to account for—is the reason China became what it is: a nation wounded, humiliated, and determined never to be subjugated again.

The Century of Humiliation: China’s Political DNA

From the Opium Wars in the 1840s to the Japanese invasion in the 1930s, China endured a century of systemic humiliation. Western gunboats forced open Chinese ports, flooded it with opium, and dictated unfair treaties. Foreign powers carved out spheres of influence while mocking Chinese sovereignty.

China's descent into warlordism, civil war, and foreign occupation wasn't the product of internal failure alone—it was engineered by Western greed and imperial arrogance.

When the People’s Republic of China was founded in 1949, it wasn’t just a political shift—it was a national survival instinct snapping back. Everything since then—tight media control, the obsession with internal unity, zero tolerance for separatism—is rooted in the bitter memory of being divided, colonized, and violated.

Feng and her cohort rarely interrogate this history. They don’t have to. Their audiences—NPR, The Atlantic, New York Times—prefer the story where China is always one step away from totalitarian collapse and the West gets to play savior...again.

The Convenient Villain: Xi Jinping

Feng’s critiques almost always orbit Xi Jinping. She paints him as the strongman, the censor, the architect of a new digital surveillance state. But this characterization isn’t insightful—it’s predictable.

Western media needs its villain, and Xi fits the bill perfectly. He’s confident, unapologetically nationalist, and doesn’t play by Western rules. That makes him dangerous in their eyes—not because he’s brutal, but because he’s effective.

What Feng sees as control, China sees as stability.
What she calls oppression, the Party frames as sovereignty.
And what she derides as “debt-trap diplomacy,” African and Southeast Asian nations increasingly see as infrastructure no one else would fund.

The Real Double Standard

Feng criticizes China with a fervor she doesn’t apply to the West. She writes about Uyghur camps but remains muted on Guantanamo Bay. She raises the alarm over state surveillance in Beijing but doesn’t mention the NSA’s dragnet on American citizens. She mourns Hong Kong's freedoms, but says little about Julian Assange rotting in a British cell.

This isn’t journalism. It’s ideological performance. A morality tale dressed in personal trauma, designed to resonate with Western audiences hungry to feel morally superior to a China they no longer understand.

Conclusion: Truth or Convenience?

Emily Feng doesn’t speak truth to power—she speaks comfort to empire. Her pen doesn’t challenge the Western gaze; it feeds it. She’s not a bridge between East and West. She’s a mirror, reflecting Western fears back to themselves under the soft light of human rights and journalistic integrity.

China, for all its flaws, has made a singular vow: never again. Never again will it be colonized, dictated to, or shamed into submission. That vow, forged in a century of humiliation, explains more about China's present than any diaspora memoir ever will.

So if Emily Feng wants to critique the system, that’s her right.

But let’s not pretend she’s doing it from a place of unfiltered truth.

She’s doing it from a stage the West built—and she’s playing the role it wrote for her.

“She may carry our name, but she speaks their language.”
— Unfiltered and Unfuckwithable