We were going to have a trade negotiation with China. Instead, the State Department funded a bunch of homosexuals trained at Western-backed schools and universities in Hong Kong to start Antifa style riots against the cops.
The media has yet to make clear what the Hong Kongers were supposed to be rioting about. The initial protests developed from a situation involving a man who killed his girlfriend in Taiwan and then fled to Hong Kong and couldn’t be extradited. The government of Hong Kong introduced a law which would prevent such situations from happening in the future.
The media of Hong Kong is largely controlled by the CIA and the State Department, as is the case with virtually every country in the world that allows a free press and doesn’t watch it very closely. This media argued that the extradition law was a plot by the mainland Chinese government to extradite people from Hong Kong to face unjust courts in Beijing. The law didn’t allow for that, meaning it would be illegal to do that before or after the law was passed. I’m sure it was all very confusing to anyone who tried to take it seriously.
They had five demands, the first of which was the withdrawal of the bill. Two through four were about the riots themselves, saying the police should apologize for calling them riots, the cops should be investigated and the cops should drop charges against people arrested for starting fires, breaking windows and throwing bricks at cops. The fifth was that the entire structure of the government, as created by the British, be abolished and replaced with direct democracy. (I want to stress: this body they were calling for to be abolished is the “second system” in the “One Country, Two Systems” structure. It was created by the British, and is alternatively what they claim to be seeking to uphold when they are not demanding that it be abolished.)
After the initial riots, the extradition law was tabled, the government of Hong Kong agreeing to leave the “girlfriend murderer” loophole open for the time being. However, the riots did not stop, and the demand of abolishing the fundamental structure of the government and replacing it with “direct democracy” was not ever elaborated on.
The obvious goal of the demands was to be nonsensical, so there was no possible grounds for negotiation, so that the chaos would continue indefinitely. Eventually, it appeared that they were demanding that Hong Kong once again become a British colony, though that was never directly stated. Ultimately, it was evident that the rioters were exactly what they appeared to be: violent antifa terrorists without a clear agenda other than to cause chaos.
The rioters were extremely organized, with gas masks and strategies to maximize the carnage. They were also brutal. They would mob attack any nationalist they found, and sometimes just attack random old people on the assumption that they were probably nationalists.
At one point, they lit an old man on fire for disagreeing with their anarchist agenda.
They would also break into malls and set things on fire.
The leaders of the riots were regularly meeting at the US embassy and flying to Washington, D.C. to plan the best ways to disrupt the city. Joshua Wong, the main figure in the riots, had meetings with both Nancy Pelosi and Marco Rubio.
In the entire Western world, the riots were aggressively supported by both left and right, and the entire media. They claimed that it had something to do with freedom.
Even internet right-wingers were supporting it, such as the neocon extremist Paul Joseph Watson, who traveled to Hong Kong to help the Antifa carry out acts of violence. He even put on the Antifa attack mask (this was 8 months before coronavirus).
Moreover, it was being heavily shilled on /pol/, and the protesters themselves, presumably at the direction of the CIA, held up posters of Pepe the Frog and spray painted his image on walls.
Last month, after a solid year of riots, Hong Kong passed a Beijing-backed law against public assembly, so that the government had a legal mechanism to prevent these endless riots, where the police were prevented from using any kind of serious force or restricting public assembly. (Before the US government began funding and directing these anarchist riots, Hong Kong was among the safest and most peaceful cities in the world, so they had a lot of protections on freedom of assembly and restrictions on the use of police force to quell protests.)
It should probably just be noted here for the sake of the public interest that the Hong Kong security law is not anywhere even close to as restrictive as the measures the Western world is currently implementing to ostensibly fight the coronavirus, which just adds yet another layer to the absolute absurdity of all of this.
The security law ostensibly threatens the “one country, two systems” policy of China on Hong Kong. Now, Nathan Law, a 20-something homosexual leader of HK Antifa who has “fled” to Britain, is saying that what China needs to do is bring back the “one country, two systems” policy and repeal this law. He appeared on BBC this week to make that demand, while also demanding that the West help him accomplish this.
Do you see how this works? They were rioting because the police called their riots a riot. They were demanding their half of the “One Country, Two Systems” system be abolished. Now they’re protesting the law that was passed to stop their rioting. The original riots themselves, which again were about an extradition law to deal with a “girlfriend murderer” loophole, are forgotten, as this agenda just rolls forward. This is very similar to the technique that women use in nagging men: the response to the complaint becomes the new complaint. It does not belong in serious discussions about important real life geopolitical situations.
The American, British, Australian and Norwegian government are presently claiming that they need to accept millions of “refugees” from Hong Kong, which is one of the top three richest cities in the world, because ostensibly, not being allowed to throw bricks at cops, start fires in the mall, and burn old men alive is a human rights violation. The same Jewish media outlets that shut down the Daily Stormer is complaining that there is no free speech in Hong Kong because of this law, and people must become “free speech refugees” by moving to Britain (where a 12-year-old boy was recently arrested for making a joke on the internet).
This week, President Trump signed an executive order to punish China for not allowing Hong Kong Antifa what could be termed the “right to riot,” a new crime which is now apparently on par with torture and mass murder.
It’s quite fascinating that we have Antifa rioting in America to transform our nation into a communist hell at the same time that in China, a virtually identical group with the same general political identity, style of dress and tactics is moving the entire geopolitical landscape. Supporting a completely astroturfed, violent “rent-a-mob” to start fires and throw bricks, while making outrageous and/or incoherent demands that cannot possibly be negotiated on, is a core tactic of 21st century warfare.
The New York Times is very happy that the rambling evil racist orange man did something good for once:
China on Wednesday sharply criticized President Trump’s moves to strip Hong Kong of its preferential trading status with the United States and clear the way for new sanctions on officials and companies there, vowing to retaliate with punitive measures of its own.
The response from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing promised to continue a pattern of tit-for-tat punishments that have accompanied the sharp downward turn in relations between the two countries on a variety of fronts, from trade to technology to human rights.
China was swift to criticize Mr. Trump’s latest actions, which he announced at a rambling White House news conference on Tuesday. Those moves, along with his remarks, underscored the extent to which relations with Beijing have become intertwined with the American presidential election.
Mr. Trump said he had issued an executive order revoking the special trading status that Hong Kong had enjoyed for more than two decades, following the Chinese government’s imposition of a sweeping new national security law there. The law came into force on June 30, and its chilling effect on political freedoms in the city — which, under a formula called “one country, two systems,” is supposed to have a high degree of autonomy from China — has already been evident in a series of arrests and police raids.
Mr. Trump also signed legislation, adopted overwhelmingly in May by Congress, that authorizes the administration to impose sanctions on officials or institutions, including banks, that were found to have undermined Hong Kong’s semiautonomous status.
His executive order, besides revoking the territory’s special trading status, calls for sanctions against people deemed to have been involved in a variety of acts in Hong Kong, including arrests made under the new security law and actions that undermine democratic processes or limit the news media’s freedoms.
Donald Trump and the New York Times join forces to fight for freedom of speech.
And I have lived to see the day.
Officials in Beijing had clearly anticipated the moves, but they reacted harshly nonetheless.
“The act on the United States side maliciously denigrates Hong Kong’s national security legislation, threatens to impose sanctions on China and gravely violates international law and basic rules of international relations,” the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement posted on Wednesday morning in China, not long after Mr. Trump finished speaking.
“It is gross interference in Hong Kong affairs and China’s internal affairs,” the ministry said.
The impact of the new powers detailed in the American law and Mr. Trump’s executive order remain to be seen. Congress has authorized similar measures before, only to have the administration delay imposing them as it weighed other foreign policy considerations, including Mr. Trump’s signature trade deal with China.
That’s the heart of the matter: this weird, confusing codswallop negatively affects the trade negotiations. In fact, it probably makes them impossible. That was one of the things that Donald Trump ran on, which we all supported. It was probably the third most important of his agendas, after ending immigration and wars.
When he spoke of Chy-nuh in 2016, he was not talking about how important it was for Antifa to be able to riot in Hong Kong. He was talking about trade.
But now, apparently, he is so emotionally moved by the plight of the Hong Kong rioters that he is throwing it all away in the name of helping them to continue to riot.
Bird’s Eye View
Let’s just take a step back here, and figure out what exactly it is that we’re being told by the government and media in this country. Let’s just take all of their premises at face value. We will accept that these riots are actually protests which are actually for freedom, as the Western media and government are saying.
Then, we have these bulletpoints:
- Donald Trump wanted to do a trade deal with China that would help American workers by bringing jobs back to the country.
- Hong Kong protesters rose up to fight against the government because they needed more freedom.
- It is very important that the United States defend the rights to freedom of the people in this Chinese city.
- We must punish the Chinese for not letting their own people be free enough.
- Punishing the Chinese will harm the ability to do a trade deal, which will in turn harm American workers.
- Millions of Chinese immigrants have to come to the West, because in China they don’t have freedom, and it is very important that we provide freedom to Chinese people.
This is the core argument being presented: you have to suffer because it is a moral duty of the US government to give freedom to Chinese people.
The obvious question is: Why?
You see: even if you take this all completely at face value, they are telling us that the freedom of people in China should be prioritized over the interests of the American people, and they do not explain why. They act as though it is simply to be taken as a given that there is no price too high to pay for the people of Hong Kong to be free.
I don’t know about you, but I do not believe that the problems of the people of Hong Kong are my problems. In fact, if we were to be frank, I would have to admit that I do not care at all if people in Hong Kong have freedom or not. I do not consider it to be my responsibility or my problem. I could go my entire life without ever measuring the level of freedom that people in Hong Kong have, and be perfectly fine. Yet, for some reason, the American media and government are telling me that the Chinese having freedom is possibly the most important issue on earth, second only to Black Lives Matter.
It is my view that the government of a country should prioritize the interests of its own people over the supposed interests of a foreign people. The idea that the entire government and the media agree that it should be taken for granted that the freedom of Chinese people should take priority over the wellbeing of American workers is actually incomprehensible to me.
In the middle of the crisis America is currently dealing with, an economic collapse and a communist revolution, I think it is fair to assert that any individual who would put some trivial and wholly undefined concerns of a foreign people before the concerns of the American people is a traitor.
Of Course, It’s Not About a Moral Duty to Freedom
Apparently, a lot of people either genuinely do feel strong emotions about the freedoms of the Chinese people, or “humanitarian intervention” has become an institution of our society, to the point that people accept it as an objective fact of reality that every time the government and media raise ethical concerns about something happening in a foreign country, it is the duty of the American people to put these concerns before their own national and personal welfare.
I take a pretty hard stance on the issue of normies: I think they will more or less go along with absolutely anything at all if it is presented to them as being the official position of the establishment of their group (Republican or Democrat in this case). You also have the fact the masses of people really do not like Chinese people very much, and this is being framed as “we really care about the freedom of the Chinese in Hong Kong because Chinese people are bad.”
But we have right-wingers who are thinking people who are supporting this. Paul Joseph Watson has Venn diagram overlap with the Daily Stormer. I saw people on the Stormer-adjacent site, the Gamer Uprising forum, supporting this thing in Hong Kong. Those people have probably stopped supporting it now that it’s been revealed that their support for it is leading to millions of Chinese immigrants into the Anglosphere, but the fact remains: people went along with the idea that it was really important for the American people to give some vague form of freedom to people in Hong Kong.
Here is the truth: the US government doesn’t care about morality. When they invoke morality, human rights, the freedom of foreign peoples, all of this stuff, they are actually lying, and they have a different agenda.
Let me try to make this a little bit clearer. I don’t want to assume that this is obvious and people understand it when clearly so many people have struggled with it.
Imagine that the Antifa currently rioting in America were flying Chinese flags, singing the Chinese national anthem, meeting with the Chinese government officials at the Chinese embassy in America, and actually flying to Beijing to meet with high-level Chinese government officials. Imagine that it was public that they were receiving money from China, and that all of them went to schools which teach a Chinese curriculum. Imagine that they were calling on the government of China to intervene in America to help them. Then, imagine that the Chinese government was talking nonstop about how important it is to them, ethically, that the Antifa rioters have freedom. Imagine that Xi Jinping was giving speeches about it, and that he signed an order to punish the US government for their treatment of Antifa.
Would you look at that and believe that the Chinese government was just really concerned about human rights? Because that situation I just described would literally be an exact parallel of what is happening now in Hong Kong.
Trump Might Start a War with China
I hate to bring this up, because I’m trying to avoid anything too negative about Donald Trump in the run-up to this election, because everything is riding on it. But there is a chance that if it looks like Trump is going to lose the election, he will kick start a massive World War against China.
Clearly, this is all going somewhere. The media now never talks about anything other than China, and these trade deals were something really important to Trump (I don’t believe he is concerned about the rights of freedom in Hong Kong). So, be aware that the government might stage some kind of false flag event as an excuse to start a war with China in the run-up to the election.
I’ve thought about this very extensively, and I believe a World War would be better than a Joe Biden victory. But you need to be aware that something is going on here, and something might happen with this.