[Patrickov]

Nationalism vs democracy is not a dichotomy at all of course, to the contrary. It may be perceived that way in China because democracy is seen as foreign idea. Then again, communism was also a foreign idea, and nationalism vs. communism is an actual dichotomy.

It can be said that the Chinese have tried to be Communist for three millenia. They disrepect of private property (confiscation has been a very common form of punishment) and the tendency of state intervention (on essential goods) are very consistent with Communism.

[benpenguin]

I don't see how that "true Hong Kong spirit" has any future under Chinese rule. That they would turn to Western liberalism in a last ditch attempt to save it is understandable, if foolish.

China needed an extradition law to ensure the integrity of her security apparatus and law enforcement - given the risen global tension - but I disagree that she wanted Hong Kong to be a normal Chinese city. They still need Hong Kong as a legal middle ground to deal with multinationals - tweaking in their own favor perhaps, but replacing Hong Kong's system is not in their interest at all. If the extradition law passed peacefully, I don't think China would have pushed further.
In any case, people will debate me till eternity, in the end it all depends on what we understand about governance and the political situation for both sides.

Nationalism vs democracy is not a dichotomy at all of course, to the contrary. It may be perceived that way in China because democracy is seen as foreign idea. Then again, communism was also a foreign idea, and nationalism vs. communism is an actual dichotomy.

I agree with that - I was actually using democracy vs nationalism to address Atlantis since he is using those words. If we have to be academic, I would probably use liberalism vs nationalism, as two different sets of value system. Not completely opposing, but quite incompatible. If that make any sense?
Communism shouldn't even be a part of the discussion anymore, as China is simply state capitalist in practice - a nationalist technocracy - they have strayed very far from Marx. Funny to see people keep bringing that up to use as a political bad word, cold war propaganda dies hard I guess.

It can be said that the Chinese have tried to be Communist for three millenia. They disrepect of private property (confiscation has been a very common form of punishment) and the tendency of state intervention (on essential goods) are very consistent with Communism.

The word you are looking for is "collectivism", one of the strongest element in Communism that appeals to the Chinese, and many other cultures.

[Atlantis]

@Atlantis
I know they're not an ethnic group; My point is that all groups, irregardless of what unites them, have the right to self-determination.

Like the banksters of the City of London should have the right to self-determination to collectively screw the rest of the country with tax evasion and dodgy financial instruments?

[Atlantis]

Make no mistake, the Hong Kong protest is a far right movement, not a left wing one. China is the enemy, demanding for democracy is just the means to witch hunting everything Chinese,
...
There is, but are dwindling in numbers as they see the success of their nation, and the hostility of the democratic world. I have spoken to a couple of these intellectuals / middle-class people who actually changed their view to be more nationalistic after they learnt about Hong Kong.
But truth be told, nationalism vs democracy dichotomy
...
If you find it hard to understand - try this: "Freedom" to a western liberal is "Stability" is to a Chinese. "Equal-rights, LGBT alphabet noodles, climate change" to a lib is "Chinese culture, Nationalism" to a Chinese.

Seems like China is no exception to trends in the rest of the world. To go by your words, you have effectively joined a Trumpian Soviet-style post truth world.

You start by denouncing the pro-democracy demonstrators as a far-right movement and then go on a far-right rant about "equal-rights, LGBT" yourself.

You keep on suggesting that you understand and know both sides, China and the West, looks like you don't understand either.

Nationalism is a bias too strong to allow objective thinking.

Oh I was referring to Atlantis’ comment about mainland intellectuals sympathetic to Hong Kong and spreading the protests to China.

You misunderstood what I said. I was talking about democratic rights in general, not about the protests in Hong Kong.

[Patrickov]

Abused? No, anybody who tries to stop violence (Towards blue thugs) is decried "左膠" (Leftist idiots) and mocked, and any sympathy towards any mainland person is denounced unless they also announce their hatred to CCP/China. I believe equality is a cornerstone of leftist ideology, and "Hong Kongers first" is fundamentally right wing. The true leftist opposition are the ones who wanted to spread democracy to China, and believe firmly in separating opposition towards CCP and China. They are now called "大中華膠" (Greater China idiots) and I am not sure they exist anymore.

With all due respect I stopped reading at the eleventh word. If even My Friend denounce pro-Beijing militant people as "blue thugs" then the mockery against whoever defending their (or their masters') abuse would be justified.

I consider myself closer to a Greater China Idiot than many would believe. As I said multiple times before, I think making China a more acceptable and just place to live is the ultimate solution. The only point I deviate from most other "Greater China Idiots" is that I believe Western Imperialism to be the best way to achieve this.

I insist that HK independence is irrelevant to the real issue. If we look at how migration problem affect developed countries, it is easy to see, unless the places of origin are sufficiently improved, the migration and lack of Lebensraum issue will not go away.

I know what you will say, about how Chinese has been brainwashed beyond redemption and used by the CCP regime - I mostly disagree but understand why you take your position. Again, nothing wrong about being right wing, (Although very wrong to me for witch hunting China) it's simply the loyalties we decide to take that's fundamentally decides which side we are on.

Perhaps surprisingly, I have moved away from that somewhat. It is insulting to both the said people, as well as my own intelligence (no matter how lacking it is), by believing them being brainwashed by the Government. I now rather believe that the society and the people molded each other in a positive feedback loop.

It's just that in mainstream Western politics, right wing is poisoned grounds. Hong Kongers understand the Western mentality well enough to minimize right wing speak in English communications.

I am not sure. If right wing is so poisoned Trump, the Brazil president (forgot his name) and some other populists would not have won. However it is true that the most vocal and accessible media (like the Guardian) are incredibly anti-right-wing.

(On a side note: British media often denounce Corbyn for apparently appeasing Antisemitism, which, because of its adoption by Nazism, used to be regarded as right-wing. IMHO the Israel regime has become a rather right-wing entity {e.g. reactionary and expansionist} itself, that anti-Zionism or even Antisemitism has become a left-wing thing instead of a right-wing thing)

Their job to serve as a community administrator - and there's nothing to determine whether they are left or right wing yet?

Pan-democratic candidates, especially for those younger ones, like to handle matters in a cooperative manner. In other words they try to build communes out of the constituencies they contest. IMHO this is Leftist.

Now I understand you are not the typical localist extremist but you are still right wing. Trump, despite the media hatred, is your perfect ally. There is nothing about his "true colors" that you need fear. The protesters may use his position against China - the best political anchor he has, and he will use you guys as a bargaining chip on the trade talks, an achilles heels to squeeze China. His opponents in White house wants him to shift resources away from China, and draw focus back to Syria/Iran/Russia - he is key to making sure that doesn't happen. Ideologically you are more or less aligned (America first anyone?), I see little chance of great conflict between the trump administration and HK opposition. Pray he doesn't get impeached.

IMHO his true colours is that he only cares business of himself or his backers. Of course there will be little conflict between him and the protesters, because he doesn't (and frankly, shouldn't) give a damn.

I secretly laugh at any graffiti featuring Trump on the streets, but by extension I also laugh at whoever attempting to make a big deal of it. Taking such a thing seriously is, IMHO, incredibly stupid.

[benpenguin]

Seems like China is no exception to trends in the rest of the world. To go by your words, you have effectively joined a Trumpian Soviet-style post truth world.

What does that word even mean?

You start by denouncing the pro-democracy demonstrators as a far-right movement

I am claiming demonstrators are far-right, just stating a fact, it is not a denunciation. I have no issue with right wingers - I myself is right leaning on some issues, left leaning on others, it depends on the situation.
You seem to have understood "right wing" as a bad word.

and then go on a far-right rant about "equal-rights, LGBT" yourself.

I am trying to describe sacred, untouchable political concepts to both sides, but I do not oppose any of these concepts.

Nationalism is a bias too strong to allow objective thinking.

You react too quickly to keywords, and jumped to conclusions instead of trying to understand me. It seems your ideology stood in the way of your objective thinking.

You misunderstood what I said. I was talking about democratic rights in general, not about the protests in Hong Kong.

Do you mean the ability to vote, or something else - can you narrow down the question, an example maybe?

[benpenguin]

With all due respect I stopped reading at the eleventh word. If even My Friend denounce pro-Beijing militant people as "blue thugs" then the mockery against whoever defending their (or their masters') abuse would be justified.

You are quite right, didn't know why I typed that. Allow me to rephrase - I can understand people who mock "left idiot" who defends a beaten blue thug, but the same people is now expanding their hatred towards anybody who shows compassion to the other side.

I consider myself closer to a Greater China Idiot than many would believe. As I said multiple times before, I think making China a more acceptable and just place to live is the ultimate solution. The only point I deviate from most other "Greater China Idiots" is that I believe Western Imperialism to be the best way to achieve this.

Very strange position to take, but okay, I guess I have debated you enough to understand what you said.

I insist that HK independence is irrelevant to the real issue. If we look at how migration problem affect developed countries, it is easy to see, unless the places of origin are sufficiently improved, the migration and lack of Lebensraum issue will not go away.

You are describing the root causes of the right leaning tendencies - I understand it but it has now gotten too much for me. I agree independence is irrelevant.

Perhaps surprisingly, I have moved away from that somewhat. It is insulting to both the said people, as well as my own intelligence (no matter how lacking it is), by believing them being brainwashed by the Government. I now rather believe that the society and the people molded each other in a positive feedback loop.

We are in full agreement here

I am not sure. If right wing is so poisoned Trump, the Brazil president (forgot his name) and some other populists would not have won. However it is true that the most vocal and accessible media (like the Guardian) are incredibly anti-right-wing.

Agreed, and I have to narrow it down - foreigners who went out of the way to support Hong Kong are mainly leftists, and therefore right leaning politics is poisoned ground (^See that dude above my last post )

Pan-democratic candidates, especially for those younger ones, like to handle matters in a cooperative manner. In other words they try to build communes out of the constituencies they contest. IMHO this is Leftist.

I see, hope it stays that way.

IMHO his true colours is that he only cares business of himself or his backers. Of course there will be little conflict between him and the protesters, because he doesn't (and frankly, shouldn't) give a damn.
I secretly laugh at any graffiti featuring Trump on the streets, but by extension I also laugh at whoever attempting to make a big deal of it. Taking such a thing seriously is, IMHO, incredibly stupid.

My believe is, Trump and the protesters have no loyalties towards each other, nor should they. They are just using each other against China, which is fine. But I do have a big problem with people who starts worshiping the West, that is very disgusting.

[anasawad]

@Atlantis

Like the banksters of the City of London should have the right to self-determination to collectively screw the rest of the country with tax evasion and dodgy financial instruments?

Breaking the law =/= A community seeking independence from an unjust/ tyrannical authority.

[Deutschmania]

Even the Japanese Communist Party has officially come out against the brutal suppression of demonstrators in Hong Kong . http://www.jcp.or.jp/english/jcpcc/blog/2019/11/20191114-immediate-cessation-of-suppression-in-hong-kong.html So this is certainly not a right versus left issue . Also , in addition , here is the response from the left in Hong Kong . https://chinaworker.info/en/2019/09/27/21290/ , https://chinaworker.info/en/2019/11/26/22004/

[Atlantis]

Even the Japanese Communist Party has officially come out against the brutal suppression of demonstrators in Hong Kong

The fascinating thing about this is that there is such a thing as a Japanese Communist Party. During 15 years in Japan I honestly never noticed them, even though I was hanging out with self-styled leftists.

[benpenguin]

My take is, the communist left supports anybody who fights against any sort of authority, but they are not quite relevant in mainstream politics anyway (I have nothing against commies, but after the cold war communism became poisoned grounds...) .
As for whether the Hong Kong opposition is left or right - I can tell you, honest to god, how much hatred I have heard from these guys on a daily basis - you can judge whether or not that is right wing: The want US to invade / nuke China. They want the mainlanders to all die in a plaque. Some wants to slit the throats of mandarin speakers if the government passes article 23. Others brainstorm daily how to murder police officers and harass their family.
Are these guys a majority? I can't tell, but most Hong Kongers are at least moderately "racist" against mainland Chinese, holding so much ignorance and prejudice then I find it cringing just to listen to them. Almost all of them have nothing against the worst excesses of hate speech as well, even when they themselves don't sprout it.
The entire movement also has a policy of solidarity (不割席) - that means no matter how insane the extremists gets, there will be no condemnation from anybody in the same camp. As a result, it shifts further to the far right everyday - same as the police and the blue thugs.
Do we have the chicken first or the egg first? I don't know. The deep seated racism and ideological gap can be traced back for decades - no point condemning one side entirely.
But back to the point at hand - yes I think most of the opposition is right wing. For reasons listed above.

[skinster]

The Hong Kong protests fit the definition of a fascist movement
As I’ve watched the videos of masked young men in Hong Kong brutally attacking people for not agreeing with their pro-capitalist agenda, I haven’t been able to help thinking of every time in history where fascism and normalized reactionary violence have taken root. The Hong Kong protesters have taken off their masks of progressive populism and revealed themselves and their backers for what they are: right-wing ideologues who are eager to use the tools of fascism, including its brazenly violent aspects, to crush those who stand in the way of capitalist power.

What other conclusion could be made upon seeing the routine public beatings, displays of American far-right symbols like Pepe the Frog, and open embrace of American rightist politicians that the Hong Kong protesters have engaged in? Protesters haven’t bloodily assaulted non-aggressive people out of self-defense. The demonstrators haven’t just displayed Pepe; they’ve outright praised Donald Trump while holding up American flags, clearly demonstrating their sympathy with American nationalistic and fascistic political affiliations. Protest leader Joshua Wong has known exactly what he’s doing when he’s met with Marco Rubio, the neoconservative senator who’s strategically spread lies to advance Washington’s Venezuela regime change project. The words and actions of these people repeatedly prove the inescapable fact that this year, Hong Kong has experienced a violent public intimidation campaign by fascists who align with the U.S./NATO empire.

It’s appropriate to call the protesters fascists because what they’ve participated in perfectly fits the historical definition of fascism: a development where the capitalist class maintains its own power by stoking reactionary sentiments which rally the petty bourgeois sections of society around stamping out political dissent. Fascist propaganda campaigns usually start with the invoking of vague but culturally resonant nostalgia for a nation’s past; demagogues promise that if people try to “Make Germany great again,” or to “Make America great again,” or to “Make Hong Kong British again,” living conditions will improve and the nation will have honor.

From there, the fanatical crowds start to form. Disaffected people, often young men wearing matching pieces of clothing, gather in public spaces and display the movement’s agenda for restored national glory. Their rhetoric is intentionally vague, with lofty words like “freedom” and “independence” often being used. But for them, it always comes back to the idea that society’s ills are caused by some insidious force-like the Chinese Communist Party and its supporters-which must be driven out.

Under this rationale, those who’ve bought into the movement’s line feel justified in carrying out violence against their demonized opponents. It becomes a pattern for crowds of these super-patriots to beat up people with differing views. Public humiliation can become one of the tactics of the fascist mobs, such as when the Hong Kong protesters shine lights in front of the faces of their bloodied victims to make them feel exposed and vulnerable. At a certain point-like when a Hong Kong protester was found to have created a homemade bomb last week-the violence ratchets up to a level that would have previously been unthinkable.

The essential element in the efforts of the fascists is to create a sense of terror among their opponents, something that the Hong Kong protesters have accomplished very effectively; a Hong Kong resident identified as Mr. Edmond has reported in an interview that “If someone publicly disagrees with the protesters, they get beaten. They managed to silence people. People come here, to this wonderful [Tai Kwun] art center, and if they are from Beijing, they are now hiding their identity. It is because they are scared.”

The leaders of fascist movements are always bourgeois or petty bourgeois figures who seek to defend the stability of the capitalist order. In Hong Kong’s case, capitalist interests have come under threat amid the emerging potential for Hong Kong’s real estate tycoons to be arrested for corruption and to have their assets nationalized, as well as the approaching prospect of the Chinese Communist Party taking control over the island. The recent decline of American global power has also been a factor behind the decision of the CIA, in coordination with its front group the National Endowment for Democracy, to fund anti-Chinese groups in Hong Kong and to use agitation propaganda to incite Hong Kongers to riot.

Joshua Wong, a 23-year-old politician from a middle class upbringing whose rise as an anti-China crusader was encouraged by his surroundings in Hong Kong’s capitalistic culture, has made the perfect designated ringleader for the CIA to use in its fascist destabilization effort. He and his movement are paralleled by Juan Guaido and the right-wing Venezuelan opposition, which manufactured political violence at the behest of the Trump administration earlier this year in their efforts to oust the Chavista government.

Like the Hong Kong protesters, the members of the Venezuelan opposition have been corralled into taking out their frustrations with society onto socialists. And in both cases, the fascists haven’t cared that the source of their country’s problems is actually capitalism, or that most of the people in Hong Kong and Venezuela respectively don’t oppose the CCP or the Chavista movement. These two reactionary factions, encouraged by a sense of national superiority and the backing of the West, are so sure in their cause that they’re willing to tear their societies apart over it.

“Fascist” is how to basically describe every opposition group that the U.S. uses to try to overthrow regime change target countries. The CIA has long employed far-right groups to help overthrow socialist countries, and the U.S. has supported fascist dictators like Pinochet numerous times in order to stop the spread of communism. So there’s no doubt that the U.S. will soon promote fascist movements in additional countries. The next location where Hong Kong-type fascism will likely emerge is Taiwan, which the West urgently desires to stop from being absorbed by China.

It’s virtually guaranteed that in the coming years, we’ll be hearing about “pro-democracy” protests in Taiwan, ones which will also reveal their fascist nature by turning violent and by promoting reactionary sentiments. When the U.S. carries out its planned regime change mission in socialist Bolivia, we can also expect to see fascist mobs terrorizing Bolivian public spaces in the name of “freedom.”

Recognizing the Hong Kong protests and similar U.S.-backed right-wing movements as fascist is an excellent way to avoid being fooled by imperialist propaganda. What’s happening in Hong Kong is a prelude to the violent measures that the capitalist class will use to try to crush the resurgent global socialist movement in the coming years, and we socialists must take note from it on what we’ll need to defend ourselves from.
https://rainershea.com/f/the-hong-kong- ... t-movement

[JohnRawls]

test

Yeah skin and everyone also likes waging war for peace and fucking for virginity.

[skinster]

[Patrickov]

Rules 1 & 2 Violations

[Dimetrodon]

59% of HK respondents in a poll support the current protest movement. Don't let the 50 Cent Army trick you into thinking this is a case of fascist thugs plunging a city into fear, and don't think there is a silent pro-Beijing majority.

[Patrickov]

59% of HK respondents in a poll support the current protest movement. Don't let the 50 Cent Army trick you into thinking this is a case of fascist thugs plunging a city into fear, and don't think there is a silent pro-Beijing majority.

I of course do not believe what the Lebensunwertes Leben say, but I have insufficient debating ability to make them shut up.

[Dimetrodon]

I of course do not believe what the Lebensunwertes Leben say, but I have insufficient debating ability to make them shut up.

Sometimes, no amount of debating ability will get the other side to "shut up" anyway, so I'm not going to lose sleep over imperfect debating skills.

[benpenguin]

@Random American @skinster
- 60% majority does not mean the movement is not right-wing. It just means the movement is popular.
- I'd say US-endorsed; US-backed is a bit far fetched, or at least lacking solid proof. I did heard from a friend that he knew somebody who has been paid to stir up trouble, but he ended up not having to do much because the government shot themselves in the foot with a shotgun.
- For me, saying that they are right-wing doesn't mean they are wrong, it simply means the movement finds more strength in the "Hong Kong" identity vs "Chinese", than upholding liberal ideals of freedom and equality - equality being a hallmark of leftist ideals, has been rejected here.
- For the record I voted for the yellows - lesser of two evils, and I believe the Hong Kong government, the police and the establishment must be significantly revamped, replaced and punished for the city to have any sort of future. But I am also disgusted by how the opposition allowed hatred and racism to fester unchecked, and how their hysteria is normalized throughout society, how they work to witch-hunt anything that does not conform to their brand of political correctness.
- I also refuse to brand this a fight of good vs evil. The Chinese government have their own, justifiable security needs and national interests, that her opponents refuse to recognize. Their brand of governance is imperfect but they have done all they can for Hong Kong, if not more. Foreigners can frame this freedom vs oppression all they want when they have no skin in the game - but for the Chinese, national security and stability is no laughing matter. Even when we cannot find a compromise, I will not demonize them nor assume malicious intent.

[Patrickov]

@Random American @skinster
- 60% majority does not mean the movement is not right-wing. It just means the movement is popular.
- I'd say US-endorsed; US-backed is a bit far fetched, or at least lacking solid proof. I did heard from a friend that he knew somebody who has been paid to stir up trouble, but he ended up not having to do much because the government shot themselves in the foot with a shotgun.
- For me, saying that they are right-wing doesn't mean they are wrong, it simply means the movement finds more strength in the "Hong Kong" identity vs "Chinese", than upholding liberal ideals of freedom and equality - equality being a hallmark of leftist ideals, has been rejected here.
- For the record I voted for the yellows - lesser of two evils, and I believe the Hong Kong government, the police and the establishment must be significantly revamped, replaced and punished for the city to have any sort of future. But I am also disgusted by how the opposition allowed hatred and racism to fester unchecked, and how their hysteria is normalized throughout society, how they work to witch-hunt anything that does not conform to their brand of political correctness.
- I also refuse to brand this a fight of good vs evil. The Chinese government have their own, justifiable security needs and national interests, that her opponents refuse to recognize. Their brand of governance is imperfect but they have done all they can for Hong Kong, if not more. Foreigners can frame this freedom vs oppression all they want when they have no skin in the game - but for the Chinese, national security and stability is no laughing matter. Even when we cannot find a compromise, I will not demonize them nor assume malicious intent.

Come to think of it, apparent evilness often arises from gross incompetence, and it is real evil if the party in concern refuses to bite the bullet and admit the mistake, but uses all means to silence the opposition instead.

IMHO the current administration's refusal to hold a fair trial and hold the police accountable is undoubted evil, (anything after here is added in edit) and the act of opposition of such an entity is undoubtedly good. Whether the advocators in concern will get power or, after that, do good with the said power, is ultimately our responsibility.