All men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Right of Liberty. Welcome to follow @CPAJim2021 on X or Twitter,a platform seriously restricted in China. https://twitter.com/CPAJim2021
We offer direct advertising opportunities for brands, services, and causes aligned with:
Digital privacy
Free speech and liberty
Human rights
Independent investigations
Ad formats available:
🔹 Sponsored blog posts
🔹 Sidebar banner placement
Why advertise with us?
Loyal and engaged audience
Growing reach across web and Telegram
100% independent — no corporate censorship
Privacy-respecting: no trackers, no surveillance
Bank of America has publicly announced grants and institutional partnerships with several nonprofit organizations under the guise of “supporting Asian American communities.” While this may appear philanthropic on the surface, closer scrutiny reveals that the core beneficiaries—especially Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Los Angeles (AAAJ-LA)—have extensive ties to the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front system, raising serious concerns about foreign influence and corporate complicity.
Bank of America’s grant supports five AAAJ branches, including the highly controversial AAAJ–Los Angeles, headed by Connie Chung Joe. This organization has a documented pattern of:
Echoing CCP-aligned narratives by conflating criticism of the Chinese government with anti-Asian hate;
Defending individuals under federal investigation for espionage or IP theft, under the misleading framework of “racial profiling”;
Collaborating with CCP-affiliated groups that are part of the broader United Front system, including U.S.-based Chinese diaspora groups known for promoting Beijing’s political goals.
📌 Example: AAAJ-LA has co-hosted events with front groups known to be aligned with the CCP, using “anti-Asian hate” as a shield to suppress legitimate discourse on CCP espionage, censorship, and human rights abuses.
Bank of America not only funds this organization but also appointed its CEO, Connie Chung Joe, to its National Community Advisory Council (NCAC)—an entity that helps shape corporate policy and community strategy.
This move effectively gives a United Front-linked figure institutional access and influence inside one of the largest financial institutions in the United States.
This risks mainstreaming CCP-aligned political agendas within U.S. corporate policy under the banner of “racial equity.”
Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Los Angeles (AAAJ-LA), formerly known as the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, is a California-based nonprofit under the national AAAJ network that has publicly opposed the U.S. DOJ’s China Initiative, downplayed CCP-linked espionage cases as racial profiling, and co-hosted events with organizations tied to the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front Work Department; its CEO, Connie Chung Joe, a Columbia- and Stanford-educated attorney, was appointed to Bank of America’s National Community Advisory Council, giving her institutional influence despite AAAJ-LA’s consistent alignment with CCP propaganda tactics such as equating criticism of the Chinese regime with anti-Asian racism, deflecting scrutiny from CCP human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, and advocating against transparency measures targeting CCP-linked academic and political influence in the U.S..
Bank of America is also:
Tripling employee donations to AAAJ and other selected nonprofits for 90 days;
Lowering the donation matching threshold to $1, encouraging a flood of micro-donations;
Embedding United Front-aligned narratives within employee engagement and corporate social responsibility channels.
This essentially builds a self-reinforcing pipeline of funds and legitimacy for groups with foreign authoritarian ties—funded not only by the corporation but also by unwitting employees.
Bank of America is financing organizations that:
Serve as soft-power tools for the Chinese Communist Party, via the United Front Work Department’s overseas strategy;
Contribute to policy and public messaging that weakens U.S. counterintelligence and community vigilance against foreign threats;
Undermine authentic Asian-American civil society by crowding out voices critical of Beijing.
Immediate investigation into AAAJ and its affiliates under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA);
Demand that Bank of America disclose all foreign affiliations or funding ties of organizations it supports;
Require corporate accountability standards to ensure no funds are diverted to organizations linked to authoritarian regimes;
Educate the public and lawmakers on how “anti-racism” fronts are exploited to push foreign political narratives.
PropellerAds promotes itself as a leading global advertising network, but behind the flashy dashboard and big traffic promises lies a pattern of user frustration, opaque policies, and concerning data practices. Reviews—particularly from the Chinese-speaking publisher community—paint a picture of a platform that operates more like a black box than a partner.
Numerous users report sudden account terminations with no clear explanation. After investing in campaigns or loading funds, accounts are locked under vague “policy violations,” often with no refund or further communication. Appeals are dismissed with canned responses like “we cannot disclose the reason for policy decisions.”
As part of their Know Your Customer (KYC) verification, PropellerAds demands sensitive documents including passports, real-time biometrics, and residential leases. Several users allege their data may have been misused or shared improperly—raising serious privacy red flags, especially in jurisdictions with strict data protection laws.
The platform provides no public list of demand partners and offers little clarity on how publisher or user data is shared downstream. The helpdesk offers templated responses, often deflecting responsibility to “the policy department,” leaving users in the dark.
PropellerAds has been linked to malware-related campaigns in the past, with domains like onclkds.com and oclasrv.com implicated in redirect schemes and fake browser update popups. Although they claim to monitor and ban such activity, incidents have continued to surface over time.
While some users—often experienced affiliates or those with direct manager support—report good results, a significant number of small-to-mid-sized users describe PropellerAds as untrustworthy. The risks of account lockouts, lost funds, and data exposure make it a poor fit for anyone expecting stability and fairness.
PropellerAds may offer a vast network and competitive pricing, but its lack of accountability, heavy-handed KYC demands, and history of questionable practices make it a hazardous choice for advertisers and publishers alike. Until the platform improves its transparency and user protections, caution is strongly advised.
In recent years, Australia stood out as one of the few democratic countries willing to challenge the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on global issues of consequence—particularly regarding human rights abuses, economic coercion, and the origins of COVID-19. However, under the current government, that momentum has not only slowed—it has reversed.
The present administration’s posture toward Beijing reflects a worrying blend of passivity, appeasement, and strategic naivety, couched in diplomatic language about “stability” and “economic cooperation.” Yet stability with authoritarian regimes is rarely stable. It often comes at the cost of truth, freedom, and accountability.
The prior government made history by calling for an independent international investigation into the origins of COVID-19. This was not merely about blaming China—it was about safeguarding the world from future pandemics by ensuring transparency and accountability.
Yet, the current government seems unwilling to uphold that legacy. Despite mounting evidence—including the U.S. Congress uncovering serious questions about the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and its potential links to the Chinese military (PLA)—Canberra has fallen silent.
Is this silence strategic? Or is it complicity?
In contrast to their predecessors, today’s officials appear ready to “move on”—even if that means ignoring evidence, abandoning calls for accountability, and potentially burying Australia’s own past commitments to justice. More disturbingly, certain government-linked voices suggest Australia might even "share the burden of responsibility" for the pandemic with China—a position that would place Australia on the wrong side of international law, and possibly even in the dock of a future tribunal.
At the same time, troubling patterns in scientific collaboration have emerged. There is credible evidence that Australian scientists have co-authored research papers with institutions directly linked to the Chinese military, such as:
The Third Military Medical University
The Academy of Military Medical Sciences
The People’s Liberation Army General Hospital (301 Hospital)
And entities under the Joint Logistics Support Force, a unit personally reorganized and empowered by Xi Jinping.
These are not mere civilian hospitals. They are integral parts of China’s wartime logistics system, involved in everything from biomedicine to battlefield readiness. Any scientific cooperation with such institutions—especially in areas like virology, genetics, or epidemiology—raises serious ethical and strategic concerns.
Has the Australian government thoroughly assessed the risks of these partnerships? Or does it consider such collaboration politically acceptable under the banner of "engagement"?
If Australia continues on this path—silencing calls for accountability, maintaining ambiguous scientific ties to military-linked Chinese labs, and prioritizing trade over truth—then it must also prepare for the consequences.
In the event that a future international tribunal holds China accountable for pandemic-related misconduct or human rights violations, will Australia be able to stand apart as a voice for justice?
Or will it be seen as a silent partner, an enabler, or worse—a co-defendant?
Real diplomacy defends values as well as interests. The current Australian government must reconsider its trajectory before it undermines the country’s hard-won credibility on the world stage. Australia must not become the Western democracy that traded moral clarity for market access.
It is time to choose: complicity with tyranny or solidarity with truth.
在中国工厂车间和监狱劳改系统中，计件工资制度已经被普遍采用，成为数千万劳动力的日常现实。在看似公平、透明的数字激励下，一种严重扭曲的劳动逻辑被悄然合理化。这种制度表面上给予劳动者“多劳多得”的自由，但实质却是一种对个体价值、自由意志和真实市场机制的系统压迫。
本文认为，计件工资制度并不天然等同于自由市场机制，尤其在一个国家强力干预、资本垄断、契约不对等的体制环境下，这种制度往往变成了压迫劳动者意志、转嫁企业风险、强化剥削效率的工具。
计件工资制度建立在一个简单前提之上：每一件产品的价值是均等的，因此劳动者的报酬也应按件统一计算。这种逻辑貌似效率至上，实际上完全忽略了劳动者主观状态、产品本身在不同情境中的真实价值差异。
劳动的强度与难度在生产过程中并非线性递增。一个工人在早上精神饱满时完成的前十件产品，与疲惫时强撑完成的最后十件，并不具备相同的身体与心理代价。边际付出递增、边际回报固定的制度，正是扭曲的开始。
同时，产品的实际市场价值是由最终消费者的主观评价决定的，并非由工厂中“生产了多少件”所决定。以件计价，只是管理的权宜之计，而非价值的真实体现。
官方与企业常以“多劳多得”为口号，声称计件工资保护了工人的收入选择权。但事实是，在一个高压生产文化、欠缺工会代表、信息极不对称的体制中，所谓的“自由选择”，多半是逃无可逃的伪装。
工人若不完成最低任务件数，就可能遭遇罚款、羞辱、被调岗、失业，甚至“被自动辞退”。一些地方工厂更在用工合同中规避法定最低工资责任，仅以件数为考核标准。
在这种环境下，劳动不再是个体自我实现的途径，而是一种不得不接受的生存工具。人不再是劳动的主宰，而沦为数字化任务的延伸物。
真正的市场机制，基于的是多方自由协商、选择退出的权利和对失败的责任承担。而在计件工资主导的劳动模式下，这些机制全部被架空。
工人不能决定生产什么、为谁生产；
不能与雇主协商定价；
无法通过个人判断调整策略；
更无法根据市场信号独立行动。
他们不过是执行命令的器械，是效率指挥棒下的工具人。
尤其在中国的出口加工体系中，这种制度与全球企业订单相结合，放大了廉价劳动力的价值抽取过程。件数计价看似市场逻辑，实则是计划经济逻辑与剥削机制的完美合谋：国家主导的产业结构控制下，个体选择完全被挤压在“干得快”与“干得死”之间。
在中国监狱系统中，计件劳动更是以“改造”为名，压榨为实。即使在表面更“自由”的工厂中，那些来自农村或外地的务工者，往往也处于类监禁的用工环境：封闭式管理、超长工作日、准军事化考核和对工资的层层扣押。
这不是自由的劳动交换，而是一种制度性的压迫与操控。
我们必须认识到，计件工资制度并不天然代表市场经济，它更可能是高度集中控制之下的管理手段。它消解了人的判断、主观能动性和契约平等，最终只剩下“效率”两个字。而效率一旦脱离了自由的基础，只会成为剥削的代名词。
真正自由的劳动制度，必须让个体拥有选择任务、参与定价、决定退出的权利；必须承认价值来源于主观感知，而非数字产出；必须容许失败和创新的空间，而不是用件数捆绑所有人生。
当“自由”变成强制工作的遮羞布，当“市场”沦为压榨的工具时，我们就有责任拆穿这个幻象——因为它从来都不是真正的自由。
When mainstream economists critique tariffs, they usually argue that tariffs distort markets, raise prices for consumers, and hurt economic efficiency. From the viewpoint of traditional economic theory, trade barriers are almost always seen as harmful interference in what should be a free flow of goods and capital.
Yet, contrary to this widespread narrative, the Trump administration’s imposition of tariffs did not choke off the U.S. economy. Instead, during his term, the economy experienced notable growth, record-low unemployment, and a revival in manufacturing and investment. How can this paradox be explained?
By applying the framework of Austrian economics—a school of thought emphasizing the importance of institutions, capital structure, and the entrepreneur’s discovery process—we gain a richer understanding that challenges orthodox assumptions.
Austrian economics does not blindly endorse free trade under any circumstances. Its defense of market order rests on voluntary exchange between parties operating on equal institutional footing.
However, international trade with countries like China often takes place in a distorted setting characterized by:
Currency manipulation and artificial exchange rate suppression;
Heavy government subsidies to favored industries;
Forced technology transfers and intellectual property pressures;
Lack of transparent and enforceable property rights;
Political interference shaping market outcomes.
In such environments, what is called “free trade” is often a euphemism for asymmetric competition where one side operates under market rules and the other under political advantage.
Trump’s tariffs acted as a corrective institutional measure against these distortions, restoring some balance by forcing foreign exporters to internalize the true costs of their state-supported advantages.
Mainstream theory suggests tariffs cause deadweight losses by raising prices and reducing consumption efficiency. Austrian economics urges a more nuanced view:
Economic efficiency depends on the accuracy of price signals. If prices are distorted by foreign subsidies or currency manipulation, tariffs may help restore more truthful signals about scarcity and cost.
In this sense, tariffs can be understood as a filter removing “false signals” imposed by unfair trade practices, allowing entrepreneurs to make better-informed decisions about investment and production.
Entrepreneurs are the driving force in Austrian economics: they spot opportunities, allocate resources under uncertainty, and drive market coordination.
When foreign competitors use dumping or unfair subsidies to flood the market, domestic entrepreneurs face “false scarcity” and may abandon industries prematurely.
Trump’s tariffs exposed these hidden opportunities by shielding certain sectors, allowing American entrepreneurs to rediscover viable markets, invest, innovate, and hire without the distorting pressure of subsidized foreign competition.
Austrian economists emphasize the time structure of capital—how production unfolds over multiple stages and periods.
Long-term economic growth requires a well-structured capital base, including machinery, skills, and supplier networks. Decades of outsourcing and offshoring have hollowed out American capital structure, making the economy overly dependent on short-term consumption and financial flows.
By incentivizing domestic production and investment, tariffs helped rebuild this capital structure, fostering sustainable growth rather than ephemeral consumption booms.
While Austrian economics champions limited government and market autonomy, it recognizes that competing institutional frameworks can threaten market order.
Trading with a country that operates a fundamentally different, non-market economic system introduces systemic risks to the domestic market’s institutional integrity.
In this light, tariffs become a defense mechanism, preserving the institutional conditions necessary for true market processes to function.
Critics highlight the growing fiscal deficits during the Trump years as evidence that tax cuts and tariffs were fiscally irresponsible.
Yet, Austrian economics focuses less on headline deficits and more on whether government resources are being misallocated away from productive, voluntary exchange to politically driven transfers.
If tariffs help maintain or restore market function by preventing destructive foreign subsidies, then the short-term fiscal cost may be outweighed by longer-term gains in market vitality and capital formation.
Trump’s tariffs should not be dismissed as mere protectionism or anti-market interference. Instead, from an Austrian economics viewpoint, they represent an institutional correction in a global economy rife with asymmetric rules and distortions.
By filtering distorted price signals, reactivating entrepreneurial discovery, and protecting domestic capital structures, tariffs contributed to the conditions that enabled America’s economic revival.
This analysis challenges conventional wisdom and invites a more careful consideration of how trade policy interacts with real-world institutional complexities beyond textbook models.
