You’ve clearly been spoon-fed the standard Western “bad China” bedtime story, and you’ve swallowed it whole without ever questioning the source or the intent. Your little laundry list of accusations reads like it was copied straight from a U.S. State Department press briefing — selective, ideologically loaded, and conveniently stripped of any context that would show the hypocrisy of your own side.

You parrot “Communist China” like a Cold War relic, as if the label itself is proof of guilt. Meanwhile, your own governments are propping up warlords, funding coups, and arming human rights abusers in every corner of the globe — but that somehow never makes your list. Why? Because your outrage is not your own; it’s been outsourced to the propaganda you consume.

Border disputes? Every major power has them — the U.S. still has unresolved ones with Canada, Mexico and The Bahamas. Backing regimes you don’t like? Your governments have bankrolled juntas, monarchies, and full-blown dictatorships for decades — from Saudi Arabia to Pinochet’s Chile — yet you save all your righteous anger for Beijing.

You throw in unverified claims, like “North Korean soldiers in Ukraine” or “daily territorial violations” in Taiwan, and present them as fact, when in reality they’re Western media talking points designed to manufacture a moral panic. No context, no nuance — just “China bad” on repeat.

And here’s where your thinking really shows its cracks: you’ve been conditioned to believe that propaganda against your geopolitical “enemy” is truth, the same way that for generations your world insisted that Black people were genetically inferior, closer to primates, and intellectually lesser than whites. The same system that once justified slavery, segregation, and colonialism on fabricated racial science is now feeding you its next target — and you’ve lapped it up just as obediently as those before you.

Fickle is too kind a word. You’ve let yourself be programmed to see China as a uniquely destabilizing force, while your own side does the same — and worse — with impunity. That’s not independent thought; that’s intellectual outsourcing to the highest bidder.

> Chinese Embassy Engagement with
> Bahamian SMEs or diplomatic optics?

Are these announcements merely positive narrative presented publicly, concerns have emerged regarding the Embassy’s effectiveness in engaging with local stakeholders. A prominent Bahamian development group, spearheading a major Redevelopment Project, has expressed frustration over the Chinese Embassy’s lack of responsiveness. The group reports having sent 12 detailed emails to Embassy officials over the past 12 months, including follow-up communications specifically addressed to key Embassy personnel. Despite assurances in a June email indicating a promised response, the group has yet to receive any substantive communication from the Embassy.

This discrepancy raises questions regarding whether the Chinese Embassy’s publicly advertised initiatives truly reflect an earnest commitment to comprehensive local stakeholder engagement, or if they are primarily aimed at generating positive diplomatic optics.

The Bahamian development group's experience underscores the importance of consistent and effective communication between diplomatic missions and local business leaders, especially in fostering meaningful international partnerships and ensuring the practical implementation of announced initiatives.

As the Bahamian delegation prepares to depart for China, the Embassy's future actions will likely be scrutinized by local stakeholders, who are keen to see tangible benefits from these diplomatic exchanges translate into concrete support for their enterprises and local development.

> Reflecting on Her Legacy

Nicki Kelly leaves behind an enduring legacy—not only in her published work, but in her courage to speak truth to power, her passion for journalistic integrity, and her role as a cultural trailblazer. She will remain deeply missed by the media community and the Bahamian public, whose collective voice she helped to shape.

***Rest in peace, Nicki Kelly—your voice and legacy endure.***

> “Expulsis Piratis, Restituta
> Commercia”? – A Mockery of the Motto
> as Modern Buccaneers Strike Again in
> Paradise

More than three centuries after Governor Woodes Rogers supposedly cleansed the Bahama Islands of piracy, an increasingly bitter legal battle is casting doubt on whether the notorious spirit of exploitation ever truly left Bahamian shores—or whether it simply shed its cutlass and flag for boardrooms and balance sheets.

The irony is chilling. Beneath the golden crest once emblazoned with the colonial motto “Expulsis Piratis, Restituta Commercia”—“Pirates Expelled, Commerce Restored”—today’s Bahamas may well be witnessing the opposite. A place where commerce is indeed flourishing, but the pirates have never truly left. They’ve simply bought in.

For Roger Stein, the insult is not just exclusion, but exploitation. For The Bahamas, the injury may be far more profound: the erosion of trust in doing business fairly on these shores.

As the matter proceeds through the New York Supreme Court, the region—and especially Bahamian authorities—would do well to reflect on what this case signals about who profits, who protects, and who polices the conduct of developers using the Bahamas as a playground for billion-dollar games.

Because if contracts can be torn up in silence, and goodwill can be turned against its bearer, then we must ask again:

Are we sure the pirates are gone?

"It’s the same horror story repeated by every Bahamian entrepreneur: proposals go unanswered, attempts to meet with officials are stonewalled, and suddenly a project strikingly similar to your own is announced by others. This has been the consistent experience under both PLP and FNM administrations. There is a wall of silence and corruption that suffocates innovation—and it is unjust, unethical, and fundamentally un-Bahamian."

https://chatgpt.com/s/m_68880578e084819…

**Sometimes, it’s necessary to restrain yourself in the face of ignorance—pause, exercise patience, and offer a bit of education instead.**

For those willing to learn—and if intellectual curiosity hasn’t been completely extinguished—let it be made clear:

These Bahamian surnames are of Haitian (French) origin. Their presence is a testament to the rich, interwoven history of migration, colonialism, and cultural evolution across the Caribbean.

Bahamian Surnames of French/Haitian Origin:-
* Dupuch.
* Bastien
* Dorsett
* Moncur
* Delancey
* Laroda
* LaFleur
* Deveaux
* Duvalier
* Le Mance
* Jean
* Pierre
* Chea

These names form part of The Bahamas’ overlooked French-Caribbean heritage—shaped not only by British rule, but also by Haitian resilience, Loyalist diaspora, and wider colonial movement. To dismiss or erase their origins is not only ignorant—it is historically incorrect.

I understand that reading may not be one of your strengths, but I challenge you to make the effort and look up "Caonabo." His historical connection to both The Bahamas and Haiti might surprise you—if you can manage to reason beyond your apparent racial bias. The facts are there for those willing to confront them. Try engaging with history, not just prejudice.

I hear you Sickened—loud and clear. The very idea of Robert aligning with the PLP certainly raises eyebrows, especially for those who view the party as having long exhausted its moral and political credibility. But let's not forget our own history. Hubert Ingraham, once the PLP’s rising star, crossed the floor and transformed the FNM into a potent political force—shaking the very foundations of Bahamian politics and offering the people a viable alternative. He didn’t just switch parties; he redefined the conversation.

Today, we are again at an inflection point. Bahamian politics is in crisis. The FNM is directionless, leaderless, and hollowed out of conviction. Meanwhile, the PLP is trapped in a fog of public mistrust, where corruption and cronyism have become synonymous with its brand. Yet, amid this political vacuum, the appetite for change remains very real. And sometimes, change does not come in the shape we expect.

If Robert were to enter the PLP—not as a loyalist, but as a reformer—it could provoke the kind of disruption that many had once hoped Brent Symonette would deliver. That never materialized, of course—Brent became a symbol of lost potential and political timidity. But Robert, with his intelligence, independent mind, and unfiltered candor, might not follow that path. His entry could rattle the establishment, awaken a dormant electorate, and—"if leveraged correctly—force internal reform. It could even position him as a serious contender for Deputy Prime Minister, or more ambitiously, for the top post itself."

Now, as for standing beside Sebas—yes, the optics are tough. Very tough. You're absolutely right to raise that. There's a real cultural and ideological dissonance there, and it would be naive to pretend otherwise. But politics is rarely clean. What matters is not the lineup on stage, but the principles that one brings to the stage. If Robert stays true to his convictions, refuses to compromise with rot, and anchors his every move in service to the Bahamian people—then perhaps the very thing that now feels so troubling may instead become a stepping stone toward redemption for our politics.

Ultimately, no matter what jersey one wears—FNM, PLP, or otherwise—what Bahamians are desperate for is real leadership, decency, and delivery. If Robert can offer that, then perhaps, just perhaps, he can bring new life to a broken system.

> Historic Political Tremor

***Dupuch-Carron’s Potential PLP Candidacy Rivals Ingraham's FNM Defection***

A Dupuch running on a PLP ticket marks a seismic rupture in Bahamian political tradition—one that reverberates beyond MICAL and echoes through the corridors of power. From Sir Etienne Dupuch’s trailblazing anti-discrimination motion to the family's staunch affiliations with the UBP and later the FNM, the Dupuch legacy has long stood apart from PLP orthodoxy. Now, with Robert Dupuch-Carron entertaining candidacy under the very banner his lineage once stood against, the moment is being likened to the most significant political realignment since Hubert Ingraham’s defection from the PLP to the fnm.

plp Chairman Fred Mitchell and senior FNM officials have chosen silence—an eloquent indicator of just how delicate, and potentially transformative, this development may be.

If even traditional FNM-aligned families are now weighing the PLP as a viable vehicle for representation and delivery, the message from voters is unmistakable: performance now outweighs pedigree. Across MICAL and the southern Bahamas, the call is for real, measurable progress—improved infrastructure, reliable emergency services, and long-term development strategies. To remain competitive, the FNM must do more than reference its legacy; it must reconnect with neglected communities, field candidates rooted in both place and purpose, and present a governing vision built not on nostalgia but on delivery.

If not, this political “earthquake” will not be a momentary tremor—but the first rupture in a generational shift that redraws the Bahamian political map at the FNM’s expense.

-

***"Torch Out”***

-
***When lifelong supporters begin to say “the torch is out,” it is more than a slogan—it is a verdict. The FNM’s symbol, once seen as a bright beacon of hope, reform, and forward motion, now risks becoming an emblem of unmet expectations and broken promises. For many stalwarts—myself included—this is not mere disappointment. It is a reckoning.
The torch once lit the path to a better Bahamas. But today, amid silence, stagnation, and missed opportunities, that flame flickers dangerously close to extinguishment. If the FNM has any intention of reigniting that fire, it must re-engage the Bahamian people with clarity, courage, and competence—starting in the very communities now drifting away.
Until then, “Torch Out” will echo not as a whisper, but as a declaration—the people have moved on, and they are not waiting in the dark.***

Both major political parties are complicit. Rather than addressing this, they distract the public with immigration debates and climate rhetoric. This isn’t about policy—it’s about protecting corporate profits while overbilling Bahamians.

The real question—why are we paying more for less?—must be at the centre of the next election. *If politicians won’t answer it, then they don’t deserve to lead.*