[BicCherry]

Deng XiaoPing original vision for HKG- China reunification was for the two to unite as one country and establish the best of the 2 systems. Subsequent Chinese leaders betrayed his vision by suppression of democracy in HKG which caused the wealth inequality situation in HKG to go out of control.

ccp china need to be heroes before taking hong kong back...

So china first make hong kong poor, then the rich chinese will bow to ccp china...

Only communist china has the final say...

Look at how china took tibet and mongolia... Soon china will "liberate" hong kong from western and rich oppressors...

And how u plan to orchestrate that?

Today HKG maybe even may have 5G data broadband and one of the highest internet networked places in Earth and has very high GDP if not costs of living as well.

Every kid has an Instagram account and their life experience are publicized daily to their followers who number in the thousands and live across 4 corners of the world.

Those kids, whilst seeming to operate like a disparate mob, are ideologically actually quite well united and two of Beijing attempts of injecting spies have been exposed to the world by the HKG students who have equal if not greater ability to publicise Beijing dirty laundry to the world: first the undercover HKG police and next the pro Beijing news reporter who was obviously there with the intention of collecting negative propaganda against the student protestors. That clown of a reporter was made to 'wear' his own blue "I love HKG police" T-shirt (found in his own backpack) and get mocked by the angry crowd.

Today's HKG economy is built on innovation and technology, likewise it's lifestyle and all will certainly fail if HKG comes under martial law and is over run by the PRC People's Armed Police.

PRC plans for OBOR, Xinjiang, Tibet, Mongolia, Taiwan, peaceful economic rise and expansion will all be called into international disrepute and suspicion when HKG students spill the beans about PRC brutality being more reminiscent of Europe's Medieval times/ dark ages.

The current CCP/PRC is guilty of destroying Deng XiaoPing (DXP) original blueprint of HKG and China benefiting symbiotically for 50 years towards year 2047 peaceful reunion. This blueprint has been destroyed and betrayed by a corrupt and incompetent leaders like XJP after DXP passing. China's Glory days of raising 600 million out of poverty will be considered past glory and China would be on the path to a breakup (like USSR) under self serving and incompetent rulers the likes of XJP and his ilk. Historical mistakes of one party communist dictators like Polpot and Mao Tse Tung may even repeat themselves with the death and decimation of 25% of population or 50 million (whichever higher) from hunger, starvation and murder under a military government rule.

HKG is not Xinjiang/ Tibet and reunion with Taiwan will be an even greater challenge built upon the peaceful reunification with Hong Kong. China's meddling in HKG has backfired and China should only mediate at best at this moment and either provide $$$ injection to solve HKG public housing problem or facilitate proper democracy so that HKG people can elect a capable chief executive and legislative council capable of passing effective land acquisition laws towards the construction of proper public housing and provision of proper social security services like medical, education, public safety etc.

Unfortunately today, it seems like both Hong Kong and China have both lost their way. (But the blood is on China, for crushing democracy in Hong Kong and meddling in it's affairs).

[Atlantis]

The Internet kids of today are the most pathetic breed this planet has ever produced. You just turn off the net or threaten to take away their smartphones and they'll come in line without further trouble.

[SSDR]

The Internet kids of today are the most pathetic breed this planet has ever produced. You just turn off the net or threaten to take away their smartphones and they'll come in line without further trouble.

Zionists and the Illuminati are making people like that via manipulation.

[JohnRawls]

Zionists and the Illuminati are making people like that via manipulation.

Illuminati don't exist or at least not in the form that you think they do. Zionists are not a hive mind who have 1 line of thought also.

[SSDR]

Illuminati don't exist

They don't?

[JohnRawls]

They don't?

Depends on what you mean by Illuminati. If you mean a conspiracy to rule the world then no. If you mean societies like the Masons/Freemasons who are considered "illuminati" then they do exist but they are pretty chill people... I know some. Mostly its a club to get acquaintances, do charity/community work, etc

People think the world is ruled by some shadowy cabal of unified powerful people. Reality is that the world is not ruled by anyone besides chaos. Even in dictatorial countries, the people who have power are so different in their opinions and needs that it is not really possible to create such a cabal. Reality is often disappointing.

[SSDR]

If you mean societies like the Masons/Freemasons who are considered "illuminati" then they do exist.

The illuminati wants to make the world immoral and socially corrupt. They now are attempting to do this by influencing and manipulating mass media.

Reality is that the world is not ruled by anyone besides chaos.

False, again! Kings, monarchs, Zionist jews, capitalists, etc.

Reality is often disappointing.

Running away from reality prevents you from gaining real consciousness.

[JohnRawls]

The illuminati wants to make the world immoral and socially corrupt. They now are attempting to do this by influencing and manipulating mass media.

False, again! Kings, monarchs, Zionist jews, capitalists, etc.

Running away from reality prevents you from gaining real consciousness.

I know its hard to admit but we are mostly ruled by chaos. The order that kings, monarchs etc provide is superficial. There is no one unified order but individuals and systems that are piled on top of each others and we can only guess what the outcome will be in most cases.

Also i am not very fond of the view that people are agency in themselves. I will concede that some people can be agency in themselves but it is very rare. You need to be of the same stature as Napoleon, Lenin, Caesar, etc. Your ideas must significantly diverge from the norm of the time. In 99.9% of the cases the leaders, politicians, etc are merely agents of the said agency. (For example Putin is an agent. If there was no Putin then somebody else like Putin would be in his place)

[Palmyrene]

:knife: I know its hard to admit but we are mostly ruled by chaos. The order that kings, monarchs etc provide is superficial. There is no one unified order but individuals and systems that are piled on top of each others and we can only guess what the outcome will be in most cases.

Also i am not very fond of the view that people are agency in themselves. I will concede that some people can be agency in themselves but it is very rare. You need to be of the same stature as Napoleon, Lenin, Caesar, etc. Your ideas must significantly diverge from the norm of the time. In 99.9% of the cases the leaders, politicians, etc are merely agents of the said agency. (For example Putin is an agent. If there was no Putin then somebody else like Putin would be in his place)

You're going to have to define what agency is though.

And I'm not sure Napoleon, Lenin, or Caesar were in agency of themselves or merely victims of hierarchy and eternal lust for power. They didn't have very interesting or motivated ideas that didn't pretain to their own quest for power.

[JohnRawls]

You're going to have to define what agency is though.

And I'm not sure Napoleon, Lenin, or Caesar were in agency of themselves or merely victims of hierarchy and eternal lust for power. They didn't have very interesting or motivated ideas that didn't pretain to their own quest for power.

Agency is a scientific term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(sociology)

To put it short, Agency is a capacity of an individual to do whatever they want. Agent is somebody who is constrained by the Agency so his choices are more or less constrained.

Lenin has agency in himself because 1) His ideas were significantly divergent from the norm of the time 2) He was not constrained by previously built order both physically and philosophically. I mean you can call him an agent of Marxism but he obviously went outside that box at some point. So if there was no Lenin then i am not sure if there could have been the USSR.

On the other hand, you have Putin. He is not significantly divergent from the norm of the time and also Russia has been ruled by a strong security apparatus and a strong man for the last 800 years now. If there was no Putin, then it is highly likely that somebody like Putin would anyways be in his place and take similar actions. Thinking that Russia would always be weak after the end of the Cold War is a stupid assumption. As mentioned, the strengthening of Russian rule almost inevitably leads to the strengthening of the Russian security apparatus and the military. (They come hand in hand?)

[SSDR]

Your ideas must significantly diverge from the norm of the time.

Incorrect.

One's ideas must be similar to whom they want to lead. If no one supported Lenin, Hitler, or Putin, they would have no power.

Just because someone's ideas are different than the norms around them does not mean they lack support.

[JohnRawls]

Incorrect.

One's ideas must be similar to whom they want to lead. If no one supported Lenin, Hitler, or Putin, they would have no power.

Just because someone's ideas are different than the norms around them does not mean they lack support.

Read what was the context. The context was of agent vs agency in politics/state affairs. We are already talking about people who were/are in power. This is not a question of having enough or not having enough support. People with 60,70,80,90 ... 100% do not have agency.

Look at this, this way. The Pope has full support in catholic religion and usually rules till his death after his election. This in itself does not mean that he has agency because ,more than likely, any other individual who could have been elected instead of him would have done similar things. So in this context a shift from Pope 1 to Pope 2 is irrelevant. Pope 1 to Pope 2 are both agents of the catholic religion and work within this framework. A shit from Tsarist Russia to Communist USSR on the other hand is huge. If there was no Lenin then there is a high chance that there would not be a USSR.

[SSDR]

We are already talking about people who were/are in power. This is not a question of having enough or not having enough support.

If one has no support, no one will give them power. So one must be similar to those they are around in order to have significant power.

Many people support the Catholic Pope because of their religion - their religion teaches them that so it will offend themselves if they do not support him (Catholic manipulation). Many people supported socialism and revolutionary politics in 1900's Russia, that is why they formed the Red Army, and supported educated socialists like Lenin.

[JohnRawls]

If one has no support, no one will give them power. So one must be similar to those they are around in order to have significant power.

You don't get it. Have you ever read Shakespeare? His works are full of it to some degree. To make it simpler for this agent vs agency question: Does a ruler have control over his actions and decisions in a self-deterministic way or is he constrained by the framework of the system, circumstances, economic condition, etc and is basically an agent of the system itself.

An example from real life on a much smaller scale. You stand at a crossroads and can take road 1 and 2 to proceed forward:

1) Road A is a very nice road, freshly made with flowers all around it.
2) Road B is a very bad road with holes in it, destroyed pavement, trash in the way and a fence built in the middle.

Both roads are of the same length. What is your choice? How do you proceed forward? Will you take road A or road B? The obvious answer here is road A. But is this really your choice? Not really, the circumstances of road A and road B make it almost an absolute certainty that you are going to take road A.

But even the above example is still not so clear cut. Who said that your choice is only to proceed forward and not go back to find a new road? Alternatively you can proceed not using a road also. This is agency. Choices between road A and B was a mirage of a choice in both cases.

[SSDR]

Does a ruler have control over his actions and decisions in a self-deterministic way or is he constrained by the framework of the system, circumstances, economic condition, etc and is basically an agent of the system itself.

Framework of the system.

If a ruler goes against their supporters that give them power and the framework they provide, they may be rebelled against.

[JohnRawls]

Framework of the system.

If a ruler goes against their supporters that give them power and the framework they provide, they may be rebelled against.

So basically you are saying that all rulers are Agents. There can't be any agency in rulers. I agree mostly with this but there are more restraints. 99.9% of rulers are agents but there are very few who undoubtebly have agency.

Lenin is an example of this. He might not have majority support of the people but so what? Nobody did at the time and it was a shit show. He didn't work in the framework of the system because he destroyed it and then put something else in its place. Also a further question is what if Lenin didn't exist? Would the revolution happen without him? Probably it would have not.

[SSDR]

Lenin is an example of this. He might not have majority support of the people but so what? Nobody did at the time and it was a shit show.

Many people supported him. The Red Army, Trotskyists, socialists in Austria and Wiemar, and parts of the Balkans. Stalin supported him.

He didn't work in the framework of the system because he destroyed it and then put something else in its place.

He destroyed the oppressive monarchy.

Also a further question is what if Lenin didn't exist? Would the revolution happen without him? Probably it would have not.

Yes the revolution would still happened. Lenin was not the only socialist.

[JohnRawls]

Many people supported him. The Red Army, Trotskyists, socialists in Austria and Wiemar, and parts of the Balkans. Stalin supported him.

He destroyed the oppressive monarchy.

Yes the revolution would still happened. Lenin was not the only socialist.

See here is the question where you need to draw the line. Of course there were other socialists but without him it probably wouldn't have happened. He was the catalyst and he was the one in charge when it happened. So its a big what IF question here.

Napoleon perhaps is a better example. Can the Napoleonic Era exist without Napoleon? Again, very highly likely not.

[SSDR]

Of course there were other socialists but without him it probably wouldn't have happened. He was the catalyst and he was the one in charge when it happened. So its a big what IF question here.

He was in charge because of the socialists who supported him. If he did not exist, then another socialist would be selected.

[JohnRawls]

He was in charge because of the socialists who supported him. If he did not exist, then another socialist would be selected.

But that other socialist might have had different ideas and different approaches. He might have been less charismatic and less known so people might not have followed him in the same way as they did with Lenin and the socialist could have descended in to infactional feuds (Which they actually did in the end).