China Hong Kong SAR: News and Images

[William Hung]

I agree. China as a nation of 1.4 billion, does have the manpower to produce superior scientists in every field, including anthropology, sociology and psychology. Just as an indigenous jet fighter is essential for national security and defence, an indigenous political theory or comprehensive study on social engineering and human behavior is essential to deliver the message through soft channels where hard power is not required.

It is all about creating a national discourse and marketing it overseas.



A balanced approach to both hard and soft sciences is the right attitude. But, if/when a nation has to give priority to one of them to start with national development, I would say, hard sciences should come first. Soft power is simply an extension of hard power. Complex interdependence and all those constructivist learning/mimicking works to the favor of the one that is stronger in hard power aspects.

China has done right by prioritizing natural sciences; an army of lawyers and historians will do no good in terms of productivity and power projection. China needs good/top quality political philosophers, historians and creative writers, for sure, but, not an army of them, which is in fact detrimental to overall quality.

I think you're mixing the "Hard power/Soft power" dichotomy with the "Hard science/Soft science" dichotomy.

They are quite independent. Put it this way, a very cunning fraudster may have hard power without any hard science... e. g. he could easily cheat, coerce and abuse people without using force but just by understanding well the psychology of his victims and exploiting it.

Likewise, you could have soft power just by using hard science alone. For example, a country may achieve some technological goal and earn the respect and admiration of other countries.

My point was, to have both hard power and soft power like some western countries, both hard power and soft power needs the soft science.

 

[tranquilium]

Good points, but I think you've missed my previous posts just above yours. I'll make two points to question your reply.
1. Is it really just all about worldview/political ideology? In some countries I mentioned above, like Thailand, they had the same democracy-capitalist model, but still suffered various unrest and conflict recently.

I blame the cold war for hyping up the amount of influence ideology plays. While it is nature for different nations to have different ideologies, most of the core principle is actually the same. I mean, if you break down the basic ideology of China, US, Russia and most other countries, you will get core principles like "we want to live a good life", "we need to have our needs satisfied", etc. The difference is that how these core principles will be realized and here is the most important part, as long as it works, it will be accepted by people.
How does this relate to your question? Well, unfortunately, in real world whether your idea works is really not all completely dependent on how well thought out it is. In fact, if you put enough strength behind it, even stupid ideas can work. When translate into a national levels, it means that whether your ideology works heavily depends on how much strength your nation can muster. This is why many methods works for larger countries like China or US, but when smaller nations try to do the same thing, it fails miserably.
So basically, the root cause of Thailand's problem isn't whatever political and economic model they picked, rather it is because it is a small country, so it crumbles under pressure much easier than larger nations.

2. Is possessing technology and military power the main factor why western countries can have influence on others? All of the conflicts that happened to the countries I mentioned, did not start out with superiority of technology or military power. Even in this recent unrest in HK, it wasn't triggered by military involvement. It seems to have all been started from ideas in human minds.

Erm, Europe's rise from 1500 to 1950s has a lot to do with historical coincidence. Between the 700s to end of middle age, Islamic nations in middle east to Europeans is pretty much what European countries to Middle Eastern countries today. Then the Mongols came and pretty much smashed up civilizations all the way from East Asia to Middle East. Europe is really only spared on Mongolian invasion because the Khan died right before the conquest started. When your opponents got weakened, you gain an advantage, and it just snowballs that way.
In fact, this is precisely how US and USSR came into dominance after WWII, the previous power holders (European countries) are significantly weakened during the two world wars, allowing other powers to emerge.
The recent rise of China also partially follow the same path. With main powers like USSR collapsing and US weakening itself due to mismanagement in economy and boggled down in middle east, China got the chance to rise.
Basically, technical and economy might are the tools you use to influence others, but it can be influenced by historical coincidence. The rise of Europe, rise of US and USSR, rise of China and rise of pretty much every other power on the planet follows a similar trend.
To be honest, these really doesn't much to do with the recent event in Hong Kong, as it is not really a democratic movement or any movement out of ideology.

So my question to you now, why the west don't have to worry much about this as some other countries does? This is the puzzle.
Sure they have some protests and riots, and sure they have programs like NSA. But they are relatively more stable than other countries.

What do you mean the west doesn't have to worry about these? While the richer western countries are stable countries, they have they share of civil unrest and violence. Take US, for example, the recent Ferguson case, the previous occupy wall street movement, not to mention the numerous civil movements during cold war, as well as even earlier cases like Bonus march (which, btw, is very similar to tiananmen square event).
Though, you are absolutely right that western countries (again, the richer and more powerful ones) are relatively stable. This is because comparing to middle eastern countries, they are fundamentally safer in the sense that they are way much resistant to a direct military invasion. Because we talk about civil movement this, protest that, but as far as social disruption goes, none of these even come close to wars.

So North Chinese>South Chinese???

Not sure what ">" is suppose to represent. Physically Northern Chinese are, on average, taller and by extension, heavier, but that's about it.

 

[RazPaK]

I blame the cold war for hyping up the amount of influence ideology plays. While it is nature for different nations to have different ideologies, most of the core principle is actually the same. I mean, if you break down the basic ideology of China, US, Russia and most other countries, you will get core principles like "we want to live a good life", "we need to have our needs satisfied", etc. The difference is that how these core principles will be realized and here is the most important part, as long as it works, it will be accepted by people.
How does this relate to your question? Well, unfortunately, in real world whether your idea works is really not all completely dependent on how well thought out it is. In fact, if you put enough strength behind it, even stupid ideas can work. When translate into a national levels, it means that whether your ideology works heavily depends on how much strength your nation can muster. This is why many methods works for larger countries like China or US, but when smaller nations try to do the same thing, it fails miserably.
So basically, the root cause of Thailand's problem isn't whatever political and economic model they picked, rather it is because it is a small country, so it crumbles under pressure much easier than larger nations.


Erm, Europe's rise from 1500 to 1950s has a lot to do with historical coincidence. Between the 700s to end of middle age, Islamic nations in middle east to Europeans is pretty much what European countries to Middle Eastern countries today. Then the Mongols came and pretty much smashed up civilizations all the way from East Asia to Middle East. Europe is really only spared on Mongolian invasion because the Khan died right before the conquest started. When your opponents got weakened, you gain an advantage, and it just snowballs that way.
In fact, this is precisely how US and USSR came into dominance after WWII, the previous power holders (European countries) are significantly weakened during the two world wars, allowing other powers to emerge.
The recent rise of China also partially follow the same path. With main powers like USSR collapsing and US weakening itself due to mismanagement in economy and boggled down in middle east, China got the chance to rise.
Basically, technical and economy might are the tools you use to influence others, but it can be influenced by historical coincidence. The rise of Europe, rise of US and USSR, rise of China and rise of pretty much every other power on the planet follows a similar trend.
To be honest, these really doesn't much to do with the recent event in Hong Kong, as it is not really a democratic movement or any movement out of ideology.

What do you mean the west doesn't have to worry about these? While the richer western countries are stable countries, they have they share of civil unrest and violence. Take US, for example, the recent Ferguson case, the previous occupy wall street movement, not to mention the numerous civil movements during cold war, as well as even earlier cases like Bonus march (which, btw, is very similar to tiananmen square event).
Though, you are absolutely right that western countries (again, the richer and more powerful ones) are relatively stable. This is because comparing to middle eastern countries, they are fundamentally safer in the sense that they are way much resistant to a direct military invasion. Because we talk about civil movement this, protest that, but as far as social disruption goes, none of these even come close to wars.



Not sure what ">" is suppose to represent. Physically Northern Chinese are, on average, taller and by extension, heavier, but that's about it.

So Cao Cao was better than Sun Jian?

 

[tranquilium]

Several years back, Bill Gates made a public speech complaining about the excessive fields in the soft science (arts and humanities) and that the hard sciences like maths and engineering is all that's needed in the university. Steve Jobs fired back later at another public speech saying that the soft sciences in the university is needed and that tech companies will bound to fail if they only focus on the hard sciences. Years later we now know who's right. I've never heard of anyone who's camped overnight just to be the first to get a new Windows phone. Apples on the other hand...

Rumours has it that the CIA/Pentagon even once experimented with supposed psychics, hypnotists, etc. Probably didn't achieve much from it but it says that the US/West takes the study of human behaviour and the humanities much more seriously, and is a lot more advanced in this field than any other country.

I am not sure why Gate's and Job's speeches are supposed to be counters. Gate's speech means university should focus more on hard science, but his speech by no means imply soft science is useless. Sure, if you stuff the company with nothing but hard science people, you may have a hard time, but as far as high tech company goes, hard science majors are still most posts will require.

So Cao Cao was better than Sun Jian?

Cao cao was a better leader than Sun Jian as far as running a kingdom goes. Though in a personal fight, Sun Jian would destroy Cao cao. The poor guy is barely over 140 cm in height.

 

[William Hung]

I blame the cold war for hyping up the amount of influence ideology plays. While it is nature for different nations to have different ideologies, most of the core principle is actually the same. I mean, if you break down the basic ideology of China, US, Russia and most other countries, you will get core principles like "we want to live a good life", "we need to have our needs satisfied", etc. The difference is that how these core principles will be realized and here is the most important part, as long as it works, it will be accepted by people.
How does this relate to your question? Well, unfortunately, in real world whether your idea works is really not all completely dependent on how well thought out it is. In fact, if you put enough strength behind it, even stupid ideas can work. When translate into a national levels, it means that whether your ideology works heavily depends on how much strength your nation can muster. This is why many methods works for larger countries like China or US, but when smaller nations try to do the same thing, it fails miserably.
So basically, the root cause of Thailand's problem isn't whatever political and economic model they picked, rather it is because it is a small country, so it crumbles under pressure much easier than larger nations.

Hmmm, the problem with the "core principles" such as having a good and stable life, having basic needs satisfied, is that HK is a much more developed city than a lot of Western cities or even some western countries. In fact, I think HK is in the top 20% of the world when it comes to wealth, development and standard of living. Yet, some of the smaller and less developed countries in the lower rank (whether they are western or non-western) are relatively more stable. So I don't think it's the "core principles" and the state's ability to safe guard them that is the issue here.

I don't think it's about democracy either, as many people have already mentioned that HK never had such democracy under the British administration.

I don't think the size of a country plays any crucial factor either.... Thailand, Egypt, etc are bigger than a lot of Western countries.

Erm, Europe's rise from 1500 to 1950s has a lot to do with historical coincidence. Between the 700s to end of middle age, Islamic nations in middle east to Europeans is pretty much what European countries to Middle Eastern countries today. Then the Mongols came and pretty much smashed up civilizations all the way from East Asia to Middle East. Europe is really only spared on Mongolian invasion because the Khan died right before the conquest started. When your opponents got weakened, you gain an advantage, and it just snowballs that way.
In fact, this is precisely how US and USSR came into dominance after WWII, the previous power holders (European countries) are significantly weakened during the two world wars, allowing other powers to emerge.
The recent rise of China also partially follow the same path. With main powers like USSR collapsing and US weakening itself due to mismanagement in economy and boggled down in middle east, China got the chance to rise.
Basically, technical and economy might are the tools you use to influence others, but it can be influenced by historical coincidence. The rise of Europe, rise of US and USSR, rise of China and rise of pretty much every other power on the planet follows a similar trend.
To be honest, these really doesn't much to do with the recent event in Hong Kong, as it is not really a democratic movement or any movement out of ideology.

I actually think the period from the middle ages to the western colonial age plays into the hand of countries with hard power. No soft power was necessary at that time. Just use hard power to take over other territories, and use hard power again to suppress any resistance. As long as they have hard power, they can treat their colony and subjects anyway they want, they can treat the colonised people as subhuman if they wanted to, and they did.

But I was talking about recent history, 30-40 years back until now. And obviously colonists doesn't exist anymore nor will it be possible now (neo-colonism would be a different matter). However, in recent history, alot of countries like I mentioned were and are still susceptible to unrest and turmoil.

The question was why? if problems of basic needs, political ideologies, democracy, economy are not the main issue, then what is? why are they susceptible while other western countries are not as susceptible?

What do you mean the west doesn't have to worry about these? While the richer western countries are stable countries, they have they share of civil unrest and violence. Take US, for example, the recent Ferguson case, the previous occupy wall street movement, not to mention the numerous civil movements during cold war, as well as even earlier cases like Bonus march (which, btw, is very similar to tiananmen square event).
Though, you are absolutely right that western countries (again, the richer and more powerful ones) are relatively stable. This is because comparing to middle eastern countries, they are fundamentally safer in the sense that they are way much resistant to a direct military invasion. Because we talk about civil movement this, protest that, but as far as social disruption goes, none of these even come close to wars.

I mentioned that they do exists in Western countries, and that western countries do have programs like NSA, Patriotic acts, whatever. All countries have them. But their unrest is relatively minor compared to what happened to countries in the middle East, Ukraine, Thailand, etc.

You have to admit, there are more fear in such countries (including HK) of civil unrest than there is in Western countries. The govt's control on the media, foreign groups, etc, are less strict in the western countries. Yet, the average western civilians are less susceptible to unrest and protest than the civilians in the countries mentioned. My question was why?

 

[Sonyuke_Songpaisan]

indians in hong kong demanding

View attachment 114056

go back to india to enjoy your proud democrazy

 

[cirr]

You should be asking, why are Japan and western countries open to foreign interest group and their internal politics are still relatively stable. On the other hand, why do you think your country is forced to cut down and close the doors for these foreign group because of the fear of internal instability?

If you can't solve this puzzle, your mind is too small.

Stable my azz。

Would I be ok if I establish a party in the US with the sole purpose of toppling the current political structure？

And I get funded by foreign countries and organizations while doing so？

The US is supposedly a free country。Right？

And you think it is a show of confidence in yourself and your political system now that you are starting to close down the Confucius Institues in your stinky country？

And you think you are open to Chinese investments？Don't kid yourself。

Cirr is from Jiangxi. Where would you think I'm from? I'm the most fair and unbiased - the only time I've ever insulted anyone was when I told an Indian bigot to check himself before he wrecks himself.

Strange you should be under the impression that I am from Jiangxi。

I hail from Beijing but live in Shanghai now a days。

 

[Infra_Man99]

Not related to security of any kind, other than reasonably securing the product/services themselves (e.g. locks, software security, etc). Any military sales would be incidental, we do not make military products. The military does buy lots of commercial, off-the-shelf stuff, they very probably consume some of our products in that fashion. Generally, we do not sell to the government, but there are probably cases where government agencies buy/use our products/services. I am only aware of a few cases, it would be a very small part of the business. We did do a bit of consulting with NASA on the shuttle years ago, but that was, again, very very unusual, it is not our normal line of work. We don't make rockets or rocket parts, nothing like that, it was a one-off piece of research (and before we were owned by VLC). As far as too big to fail, my company certainly is not, but VLC might be considered so. There was a scare a few years back, but no mention of the government stepping in. The government would certainly not step in to save my group. Nor would they need to, as I said, we are stable and profitable. There are companies like that.

By the way, the VLC failing would likely not be that big of a deal to us. We're a profitable group, so it would just mean we'd get spun off or sold off to another VLC to pay off debts, raise capital, or whatever the VLC decided (or had decided for it, in the case of bankruptcy). We could come out of such a thing better off, actually.

As far as agreeing or disagreeing, I think I said that 30-40% of Americans have a particular view on how government should be formed. That 2/3rds agree with your view on how things should be is doubtful. There is not a 2/3rds majority view. Saying the system is going in the wrong direction does not mean you agree on which direction it should be going (bigger/smaller). If you mean 2/3rds of people are unhappy, yes. But they are unhappy for different reasons. The small government folks are unhappy because the government isn't small enough for them. The big government folks are unhappy because it isn't big enough. By my calculation, thats 60-80% of the population unhappy (politically, at least). But, no more than half of those unhappy people are unhappy for the same reason your unhappy, unless you are schizophrenic and want the government to be both larger and smaller.

Realistically, people have more complex views. Some are unhappy about civil liberties, some about taxes, etc, etc. That everyone's unhappiness lines up with yours, that is, that they agree with you, is extremely unlikely. That some people agree with you is certain. If you were a majority, you'd have elections won already. But, whether your conservative or liberal, people keep voting against you in sufficient numbers that you don't get what you want (completely).

I'm glad that you are not dependent on government contracts and too big to fail corporations. I greatly value the government and corporations, but I think we need a government and corporations that are a lot more effective and a lot less dishonest and wasteful.

I never said 2/3rds of Americans exactly agree with me. I said that 2/3rds of Americans agree with me that the nation is going the wrong direction. There is a big difference between those two statements.

Again, I repeat myself. Democracy claims that the majority has the moral right and practical reasons to impose their will on the minority or the entire nation. I think this claim is false. America has a Constitution and Bill of Rights for obvious reasons to any American with basic intelligence. Like many other Americans, I seek regime change in the US. After all, the US changes like all nations throughout history. Hopefully, it's for the better. The devil is in the details. As you pointed out, people disagree over how the nation should change or revert.

It's hypocritical for the US government and its connected corporations to promote aggressive or chaotic regime change in other nations, but suppress these protests and rebellions back home. In addition, the US government and its connected corporations incorrectly assume that what works in the US will work everywhere. That is hardly the case.

This incorrect assumption disastrously failed in Iraq and at Afghanistan. It is also failing in Syria and Ukraine. Hong Kong was suppose to be next, but it's turning into a flop. The idea that everyone in the world should become mindless consumers and obey the US upper class is ridiculously dumb. It's impractical at the individual level, for worldwide communities, and for the global environment and global scarcity.

Anyhow, here is a minute sample of data about the problems caused by US policies:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Satisfaction With Direction of U.S. Remains at 25%
Satisfaction With Direction of U.S. Remains at 25%
May 16, 2014

. . . .

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans are as satisfied with the way things are going in the U.S. as they have been for the past five months. One in four (25%) say they are satisfied with current direction of the country, while 74% express dissatisfaction.

. . . .

Democrats (35%) and independents (24%) continue to be more satisfied with the state of the nation than Republicans (15%). Although low, the current level of satisfaction among Republicans is, by one percentage point, at its highest level since January 2009 when President Barack Obama was inaugurated.

. . . .

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Poll finds Americans have little faith in government
Poll finds Americans have little faith in government | Dallas Morning News
Updated: 02 January 2014 09:14 AM

. . . .

Half say America's system of democracy needs either "a lot of changes" or a complete overhaul, according to the poll conducted by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Just 1 in 20 says it works well and needs no changes.

. . . .

When asked to name up to 10 world or national problems they would "like the government to be working on" in 2014, Americans chiefly cite issues that have dominated — and often flummoxed — the White House and Congress for five years. Health care reform topped the list. It is likely, however, that those naming the issue include both opponents and supporters of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care overhaul.

Jobs and the economy were next, followed by the nation's debt and deficit spending.

Some issues that draw ample media and campaign attention rank lower in the public's priorities. No more than 3 percent of Americans listed gay rights, abortion or domestic spying as prime topics for government action.

. . . .

But asked generally about the role of government in society, the AP-NORC Center poll finds Americans divided on how active they want government to be. Half say "the less government the better." However, almost as many (48 percent) say "there are more things that government should be doing."

On the economy, an area historically driven by the private sector, the poll finds a clear public desire for active government. Fifty-seven percent of Americans say "we need a strong government to handle today's complex economic problems."

Even among those who say "the less government the better," 31 percent feel the nation needs a strong government to handle those complex problems.

Americans don't feel terribly optimistic about their own economic opportunities. Although 49 percent say their standard of living surpasses their parents', most are broadly pessimistic about the opportunity to achieve the American Dream. And they are mixed on whether people like them have a good chance to improve their standard of living.

Few are hopeful that the pieces are in place for the government to improve. About half are pessimistic about the country's ability to produce strong leaders generally. And 61 percent are pessimistic about the system of government overall and the way leaders are chosen.

. . . .


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Republican Lies Rejected: 73% Say Congress Has Done Nothing To Help the American People
Republican Lies Rejected: 73% Say Congress Has Done Nothing To Help the American People
Thursday, December, 26th, 2013, 10:28 am

. . . .

Every demographic group in the poll agreed that this Congress is the worst that they have ever seen in their entire lives. Women, men, African-Americans, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, rich, poor, old young all agree that this Congress is the worst.

The bad news for Republicans is that they aren’t fooling anyone with their rhetoric about doing the work of the American people. 73% of respondents said that this Congress has done nothing to address the nation’s problems. The negativity cuts in every direction. 52% believe Democratic policies would take the country in the wrong direction. 54% believe Republican policies would take the country in the wrong direction, and the same 54% believe President Obama’s policies would take the country in the wrong direction.

. . . .

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox News poll: Voters dissatisfied with direction of US, still 'meh' on economy
Fox News poll: Voters dissatisfied with direction of US, still 'meh' on economy | Fox News
Published July 24, 2014

. . . .

The small decline actually comes from Democrats: 60 percent are satisfied today vs. 67 percent in May. At the same time, satisfaction among Republicans (18 percent) and independents (33 percent) held mostly steady.

Overall, a 60-percent majority is dissatisfied with conditions in the U.S. For reference, 79 percent were dissatisfied in the days before President Obama took office in January 2009, and 65 percent were unhappy in October 2010.

. . . .

Partisanship plays a big role in views on the economy: 56 percent of Democrats think the worst is over, while 73 percent of Republicans feel the opposite. And 55 percent of Democrats think the job situation is getting better, while 75 percent of Republicans disagree.

Overall, 53 percent of voters think that the Obama administration has been very (17 percent) or somewhat (36 percent) competent at managing the economy, while 45 percent don’t think so.

The numbers are reversed on President Obama’s job performance rating on the economy: 40 percent approve, while 57 percent disapprove. Job ratings focus on what the president’s doing on the economy rather than simply management competence.

. . . .

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More Now See Failure than Success in Iraq, Afghanistan
More Now See Failure than Success in Iraq, Afghanistan | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
January 30, 2014

. . . .

After more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the public does not think the United States has achieved its goals in either country. About half of Americans (52%) say the U.S. has mostly failed to achieve its goals in Afghanistan while 38% say it has mostly succeeded. Opinions about the U.S. war in Iraq are virtually the same: 52% say the United States has mostly failed in reaching its goals there, while 37% say it has mostly succeeded.

. . . .

The decisions to use military force in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to draw majority support among Republicans. By contrast, Democrats are divided about evenly over whether it was right or wrong for the U.S. to use force in Afghanistan, and Democrats continue to overwhelmingly oppose the decision to use force in Iraq.

. . . .

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AP-GfK poll: Americans ready to close the book on wars in Iraq, Afghanistan
AP-GfK poll: Americans ready to close the book on wars in Iraq, Afghanistan | Associated Press GfK Poll
Aug 1, 2014

. . . .

Roughly three out of four Americans polled think that in hindsight, each war will be deemed as an outright “complete failure” or “more of a failure than success.”

A majority of those polled, or 70 percent, said the United States was right to withdraw American troops from Iraq in 2011 and pull most U.S. forces out of Afghanistan by December. The two conflicts have consumed the nation for more than a decade and claimed the lives of 6,800 U.S. troops.

. . . .

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Europa]

My friend, Beidou is not even Chinese. No offence, but I think just observation from PDF posts is not persuasive.
I am curious. Which part of the world do you come from? You don't have flags.

see him there

 

[StarCraft_ZT]

View attachment 115918

see him there

 

[cirr]

The days when Hong Kong is preferentially treated by the central government and Mainland China are over。

It is time for the tiny place to stand on its own feet。

It can for example start with having its own supply of fresh water and electricity。

Those who hanker for western style “democracy” should ask，indeed beg，for help from their foreign overlords。

 

[William Hung]

Stable my azz。

Would I be ok if I establish a party in the US with the sole purpose of toppling the current political structure？

And I get funded by foreign countries and organizations while doing so？

The US is supposedly a free country。Right？

In fact, any US citizens are free to establish their own political party and topple the current political power at the next election. And you can do so with the backing and support from foreign entities.

But the chances of you achieving this goal will likely be 0%, even when you're free to campaign as much as you want. I doubt you can even get any significant attention from the average Americans, let alone trigger a protest, etc.

On the other hand, it is illegal to establish a political power in HK to change the political system. Yet, some minor influences from outside force can trigger a large civil protest and unrest.

And if you can't ask why is this so, let alone answering it, then your mind is too narrow and shortsighted.

And you think it is a show of confidence in yourself and your political system now that you are starting to close down the Confucius Institues in your stinky country？

You should ask, what achievement and influence does these oversea CI have on the local people? was it a success? why not?

And you think you are open to Chinese investments？Don't kid yourself。

Don't know what's your point here.

 

[gambit]

Would I be ok if I establish a party in the US with the sole purpose of toppling the current political structure？

And I get funded by foreign countries and organizations while doing so？

Yes, it would be fine for you to do so. You did not know that there is a Communist Party of the USA and that it used to be clandestinely financed by the Soviet Union and China ?

The US is supposedly a free country。Right？

Right. More free than you will ever know.

 

[TaiShang]

In fact, any US citizens are free to establish their own political party and topple the current political power at the next election. And you can do so with the backing and support from foreign entities.
But the chances of you achieving this goal will likely be 0%, even when you're free to campaign as much as you want. I doubt you can even get any significant attention from the average Americans, let alone trigger a protest, etc.

I will quote from Georg Lukacs (History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics):

The US essentially lacks the elasticity for change as it is increasingly getting devoid of theory put in action because it is too much immersed in self-aggrandizement and exceptionalism that amount to ideology-worship.

Yet, in this case, man's comprehension of reality remains arrested in the realm where social forms,
“appear to be fixed, complete and immutable entities which can be manipulated and even comprehended, but never overthrown.”

 

[Infra_Man99]

Like I said, I will NOT respond point by point, to anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi thugs, particularly those who leech off America's freedom and hide within it's security that braver, real men provide, while they ungenerously denigrate that very country they live in. I will NOT respond to anyone like that anymore than any other neo-Nazi bigot or racist. And any person who says things like,

"I doubt you are a real Catholic. I bet you are a closet Jew. Lots of Jews adopt gentile names to swindle gentiles."

...are clearly nothing more than sad little bigots and not worth my time. AgentOrange may feel comfortable defending such persons, but I will not engaged them in their twisted thinking.

You sound like a parrot: "Polly wants a cracker. Anti-Semitic Nazis. Polly wants a cracker. Anti-Semitic Nazis . . . " Now I see why you call yourself the "Desertfalcon". You have a bird brain filled with barren ideas. You're probably a fat, dumb piece of crap who uses patriotism to justify his hypocrisy and stupidity. You should be named the Dessert Sultan.

Here are more news about your beloved Israel, God's most valuable nation, or the nation that will rule over all inferior gentiles. See how Israel has been using tremendous American and European aid to commit crimes against humanity. Israel the parasitic warmonger is very lucky the US protects Israel at the UN.

According to a poll I previously provided, most of the world dislikes Israel. The US government boasts about its democracy. Israel boasts about its democracy. However, they only care about democracy when the majority votes to their advantage. When the majority votes to their disadvantage, then suddenly democracy does not matter anymore.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israel eyes landfill site for Bedouin nomads
Israel eyes landfill site for Bedouin nomads| Reuters
Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:04am EDT

. . . .

The Bedouin say they are being forced to forgo many aspects of their traditional way of life which relies on land, livestock and tents. All have been targets of Israeli restrictions.

"Our lifestyle relies on being able to move around, to live in dispersed tents on large plots of land and raise animals, which we love doing," said Mohammad Korshan, a resident of al-Khan al-Ahmar of the Jahalin Bedouin tribe.

"The Israeli authorities just don't understand our lifestyle," he added, sitting in his airy tent held up by wooden sticks, the rocky floor covered with a thick rug.

Israel says the camps are set up illegally without permits, and sometimes stand in the way of urban planning. In remoter parts of the occupied West Bank, the army evicts Bedouin it says are squatting inside live-firing ranges.

Critics say these are just excuses for land grabs.

. . . .

The stench of garbage floats over the Palestinian Bedouin village of al Jabal on the fringes of the Abu Dis landfill. Noisy rubbish trucks carrying waste from nearby Jerusalem incessantly dump their contents.

Around 1,050 Palestinian Jahalin Bedouins were forcibly moved here in the late 1990s from land now annexed to the Jewish settlement of Maale Adumim.

Once semi-nomadic herders, they were compensated through court orders for their move with cash, and electricity and water supplies. But their life as Bedouins ended as they had to sell off most of their livestock, residents say.

In 2006 Israel approved another plan to relocate some 20 other Bedouin communities -- about 2,400 Jahalin -- from the nearby rocky hills to a site even closer to the landfill.

"I would rather die than live in a closed-in area filled with garbage," said Daoud Jahalin, a resident of al-Khan al-Ahmar, one of the communities slated for relocation.

. . . .

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

High Court judge calls for U.S. to pardon Pollard
High Court judge calls for U.S. to pardon Pollard | The Ugly Truth

. . . .

Supreme Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein [American Jew] has called for the U.S. authorities to pardon Jonathan Pollard [American & Israeli Jew], the American who famously pleaded guilty to spying for Israel in 1987.

. . . .

Pollard was arrested at the end of Lewis’ term in Israel, when Rubinstein was deputy ambassador in Washington from 1984 to 1986. Rubinstein was acting ambassador on November 21, 1985, when Pollard tried to drive into the Israeli Embassy parking lot, was turned back by Israeli guards and arrested by FBI agents.

Rubinstein did not know that Pollard was being operated as a spy by Rafi Eitan, head of the Bureau of Scientific Relations.

Rubinstein would later work for Pollard’s release, including when he was attorney general. Israeli presidents, prime ministers and ministers have shared in these efforts, most recently Benjamin Netanyahu at his meeting Wednesday with U.S. President Barack Obama.

. . . .

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

‘Ethnic cleansing for a better world’ — Richard Cohen says Palestinians brought the Nakba on themselves
'Ethnic cleansing for a better world' -- Richard Cohen says Palestinians brought the Nakba on themselves
October 1, 2014

. . . .

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen [American Jewish propagandist] says that the Palestinians are to blame for the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 in which 750,000 Palestinians were expelled by or fled Zionist militias and were never allowed to return. In his new book Israel: Is It Good for the Jews? Cohen says that by resisting the Zionist movement to take their lands, the Palestinians gave the Jewish immigrants, with their “advanced culture,” no choice but to force them from their homes.

. . . .

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read the genocidal sermon a notable Atlanta rabbi gave this Rosh Hashanah
Read the genocidal sermon a notable Atlanta rabbi gave this Rosh Hashanah
October 3, 2014

. . . .

Last Thursday Rabbi Shalom Lewis of Congregation Etz Chaim in the Atlanta suburb of Marietta, Georgia gave what can only be understood as a call to genocide in his Rosh Hashanah sermon to welcome in the Jewish new year. The sermon, republished in full below, calls for a war on Islam and Muslims worldwide. Lewis says a “holy crusade” against Islam is needed to”exterminate it utterly and absolutely.”

. . . .

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBS Attempts To Smear Protestors Against Israeli Govt. As Anti-Semetic

Published on Oct 3, 2014
Air Date: October 3rd, 2014

Basically, CBS said that anyone who protests against Israel is an anti-Semitic Nazi. Yep, protests against gentiles are not racist, but protests against Jews or Israel must be racism. That's the hypocrisy and stupidity of the Democrat Party liberals, Republican Party Christians, and Jewish hypocrites.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




McDonald's junk food restaurant supports the Occupy Central protesters. Once again, the US government and corporations support chaotic regime change in other nations that disobey US commands. However, McDonald's did NOT support the protests or rebels at Occupy Wall Street, Ferguson, US shipping ports accepting Israeli cargo ships, Free Palestine flotilla, etc.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hong Kong McDonald's offers free tooth paste and meals for the Occupy Central protesters
Hong Kong McDonald’s offers free tooth paste along with meals for the pro-democracy protesters ~ News Forage

. . . .

Meanwhile, a branch of McDonald's in Causeway Bay, a key venue of the protests, is offering free toothpaste with its meals for the protesters.

McDonald's said the protesters will receive a "good morning gift", costing about HK$8, with their meals.

"Get a refreshing 'good morning gift' when you choose any of these tasty Extra Value Breakfast Meals," a notice on the counter reads, according to the South China Morning Post.

The restaurant has been doing a roaring business, thanks to the Occupy and student protesters.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------