France locks down New Caledonia after unrest—and bans Tik Tok there

Originally published at:


There is a non-zero chance that China’s equivalent of the CIA has some sort of an involvement in those riots.


I just hope that crow research station remains in operation. Those New Caledonian crows are really astounding.


Why are the ever more pervasive propagandising & driving trollies efforts of hostile states seemingly so tolerated? The free speech argument can only be stretched so far. Ultimately it becomes a case of (to use an analogy) “We totalitarian states demand freedom over your airspace and we will act as we choose, but you western states are forbidden from ours.”

1 Like

Opaque algorithmic feeds are awful enough when I’m reasonably certain they are just driven by naked corporate interests. Layer on top an authoritarian state actor who has the power to put their thumb on the scale? No fucking way.

Timeline of people I subscribe to, in reverse chronological order please.


You only need to look at south america to see that western propaganda do exactly the same. Most leftist movements have been sapped of energy thanks to coordinated western (mostly US) efforts of financing (usually radical liberal) opposition, helping them operate propaganda channels unimpeded while orchestrating campaigns of character assasination for progressive leaders.

Combined with the financial restrictions imposed, it means any american country south of US who develops a conscience is usually sistematically destabilized “to preserve US interests”.

Or we can look at operation Gladius, to destabilize the left in Italy and left the way opened to, in the long term, the rise of the right because there is no effective opposition.

Or the long and complex character assasination campaign US led against Assange.

So, in short… every country does it, US spends millions to do it to their allies and neighbours, and is not that is tolerated, is that usually we cannot do much about it, except developing a totalitary regime to regain control of the narrative: which unless you’re very powerful -ie: China-, or you have the support of the ruling class -ie: Russia, is not going to work very well, and you’re going to be labeled as a “dictator”, “madman” and candidate for accidental deployment of freedom-loving troops near your palace.



Radical Liberal means something very different to what you are describing

The modern day equivalents are social democrats and social liberals.


Yeah, I think I mistranslated. I think what we call liberals is what you call libertarians in english?

Even libertarian is a matter of debate, because of Murray Rothbard stealing the word from the left.

US style capitalism is probably the best fit, although it is now a worldwide problem.

The problem is poor political education in the USA meaning that we now have words meaning the opposite of what they once meant. This is intentional, the whole point is to remove the possibility of alternatives to the status quo and reactionaryism. George Orwell called it Newspeak.


Azerbaijan is allegedly funding independence activists in retaliation against France’s support for Armenia.

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has repeatedly accused France of “neo-colonialism” and has actively supported independence movements and other countries’ claims over French territories across the world, including the island of Mayotte and New Caledonia.

Azerbaijan has even founded the Baku Initiative Group, bringing together 14 political movements across the former French Empire in the name of decolonization. The group issued a statement Thursday in which they accused Paris of “infringing upon the Kanak people’s right to self-determination by expanding the electorate to keep them a minority in their own homeland.”

1 Like

Honestly, I think this debate is mostly academic at this point, at least on this side of the pond. I never heard “liberalism” in a progressive, left-wing or socialist context. Social democrats tend to be center for us (So american dems closer to bernie sanders) and the ones that describe themselves as social liberals in general tend to be right of that (so your average american dem). In general, “Liberal” here is only applied in the economic sense and tend to mean Austrian-School, Hayek-Approved, Reagan/Thatcher/Pinochet-Loved style of economics.

Usually anyone willing to label themself “liberal”, at least in Spain, tend to talk a lot about privatizing public services and spout conservative nonsense (see: anything that someone like andrew tate would say).

We tend to describe these guys as this: “Liberal en lo economico, Fascista en lo social” (Liberal in the economic [sense], Fascist in the social [sense]). (There is also the NSFW version which replaces the second part with “retrasado en lo mental”. Won’t bother translate this)

Most left leaning, progressive people tend to use the “socialist” label more than “liberal”, or just use “left” label.

Of course, thanks to american propaganda, anything left of a social democrat is a russian commie in disguise so… :laughing:

ETA I think in any case the point is made. My original reply was mainly to point that propaganda has been used extensively and for long periods of time on both sides, and that there is no good way to combat propaganda, as it comes in many forms and will not always be blatantly obvious (are cop shows propaganda? superhero movies? singing contests? social networks?). Thinking that hostile states propaganda is tolerated is naive, and in general democracies tolerate very poorly any attempt to blatantly curb (as in: actively censor and punish) these kind of actions.

1 Like