1.7 million protest China in Hong Kong
A gigantic protest — estimated to be 1.7 million people strong — against China’s effort to limit freedoms in Hong Kong filled that city’s streets today, despite pouring rain and in defiance of police orders.
Sunday’s action, billed as a return to the peaceful origins of the leaderless protest movement, drew more than 1.7 million people, making it one of the largest rallies since the protests began about three months ago, according to organisers the Civil Human Rights Front.
It ended a weekend of protests that, as of early Monday, saw no major confrontations with police for the first time in weeks.
Hong Kong has always been China’s equivalent of West Berlin in East Germany, a leak in the monolith communist state that in the long run can only make that communist state unsustainable. Khrushchev temporarily solved this problem (for about forty years) by building a wall around West Berlin that blocked East Germans from entering it. Khrushchev’s act eventually failed, and when it did it took down the Soviet Union.
What will China do? In 1989 the Chinese communists shut down all opposition, far more brutally than Khrushchev, killing thousands in Tiananmen Square. Can the do the same now in Hong Kong?
At the moment this is very unclear.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
A gigantic protest — estimated to be 1.7 million people strong — against China’s effort to limit freedoms in Hong Kong filled that city’s streets today, despite pouring rain and in defiance of police orders.
Sunday’s action, billed as a return to the peaceful origins of the leaderless protest movement, drew more than 1.7 million people, making it one of the largest rallies since the protests began about three months ago, according to organisers the Civil Human Rights Front.
It ended a weekend of protests that, as of early Monday, saw no major confrontations with police for the first time in weeks.
Hong Kong has always been China’s equivalent of West Berlin in East Germany, a leak in the monolith communist state that in the long run can only make that communist state unsustainable. Khrushchev temporarily solved this problem (for about forty years) by building a wall around West Berlin that blocked East Germans from entering it. Khrushchev’s act eventually failed, and when it did it took down the Soviet Union.
What will China do? In 1989 the Chinese communists shut down all opposition, far more brutally than Khrushchev, killing thousands in Tiananmen Square. Can the do the same now in Hong Kong?
At the moment this is very unclear.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
A couple of dozen, maybe 100, spoiled and delusional masked and armed Marxist based and fully indoctrinated political provocaturs, and possibly paid by whom (?) for the chaos that they install in the media, ANTIFA burns the American flag in Portland. A disgrace to all Americans!
https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.nYITqGr8L5RNyVXT3d8mAgHaFj&pid=Api&P=0&w=202&h=153
And 1.7 MILLION for the moment precariously free people who know the difference demostrate in the streets of Hong Kong for their freedom as fully armed and armored military troops mass at the border.
The contrast and illustration of ignorance of the one is glaring and a lesson to all.
And the irony of course is that the people of Hong Kong wave the American flag and sing the American national anthem as they protest, and ANTIFA disgracefully burns the American flag.
(And we keep in mind that these activities are strategically executed by both sides so as to stir the political pot and draw political lines of allegiance as we lead up to the 2020 presidential election. Other divivsional protest subjects used for the same purposes? Abortion, gay rights, womens rights etc. We are not naive)
https://youtu.be/VYWuLoAYrgE
This is of course a message to the other country’s of the world and the one human being on the planet that can possibly influence the Chinese leader Xi to not massacre them all and come to a peaceful arrangement where they might keep their freedom, president D.J. Trump.
If any other American president was in office president Xi, IMO, would have had this all sewed long ago and the bodies would have been buried by now and the Globalist agenda serving the world up to China would be once again on track.
These two perspectives, ANTIFA’s and the Hong Kong protesters could not be more stark. The one dark, negative and violent feeding the monster of “Social Justice”, persecution and enslavement, and the other about the struggle for freedom, liberty and light.
Eventually the autocracy in China will fall over, an educated and informed public will choose greater freedom. Human nature.
But the autocracy owns and controlls all of the guns.
If what you propose were to take place then many of the “edicated and informed” public will die because of this imbalance in real power.
For the most relevant example, see: Venezaualea. Only there are 1.4 billion Chinese.
Most Venezuelans are dissatisfied with their government, so unless it’s propped up by an outside power it will be changed. Without outside support autocratic minority governments don’t last long once the majority in an educated and informed population decide they want change.
The North Korean regime survives through keeping the population uneducated and misinformed in a hermit kingdom, that option isn’t open to the Chinese government because it’s anything but a hermit kingdom, links with the outside world just keep getting stronger with information technology making information control ever harder.
And still the Communists control and own all of the guns.
Your leaning on the word “Educated” is misleading, its a high minded thought, but millions would die if you were to rely on the educated in China to take control and straighten everything out. How does that happen if they have no firearms by which to accomplish it? They are going to talk it out? You watch and see how the negotiations go with the educated people of Hong Kong.
The Chinese government is a well monied political power house that has world wide, planet wide domination plans that go out into the next 100 plus years. They are going nowhere any time soon as you imply.
When I day “educated” I’m referring to the society as a whole, not just the most educated. You obviously think of societies as monolithic blocks of people, that’s how fanatics see society, but that’s not the real world, in the real world societies are made up of individuals, those individuals make individual decisions and will change their opinions and loyalties to what they see as is in their interests. Changing autocratic governments doesn’t require guns, it requires the transfer of loyalties. That’s the process that ended autocracy in the USSR, and dictatorships like Franco, Pinochet and many others, without foreign intervention it’s often it’s members of the dictators own government that force the change.
No, I was reffering to the society as a whole.
Still, the educated or un educated among them have no firearms with which to enforce their will if it came to that and they wanted change. That is why the Communist government, or any government that can ensure that the people not be armed ensure that they are indeed not armed.
The Communist government has no fear of their people, why should they? The Chinese people compliantly do as they are directed.
You appear to have a kind of text book (A bad text book) view of how the transfer of political power or actual real change happens.
I’m looking longer term, guns might block the route of a relatively quick bloody revolution. So the opposition switches to working through persuasion with information and argument’s around freedom and living standards, undermining the public support that the government does have.
“argument’s around freedom and living standards, undermining the public support that the government does have.”
Too funny, your a very civilized man.
Unfortunately president Xi is not as civilized as you, nor was Mr. Mao. They could never afford to be as civilized as you.
In between point “A” and point “B”, there is usually a lot of red blood spilled. Thats what comes after “arguments and discussions”.
Andrew W – If you really believe that, I’ve got this niiiice bridge to sell to you. Totalitarians understand one thing, force. To think they can be talked into giving up the use of force and the threat of using force is ludicrous. And the one thing they fear? An even bigger force.
“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” Mao actually said, and in the very next breath: “Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party.”
Andrew W played by the little boulbus headed alien man who is so evolved that he is unable to do what must be done.
https://youtu.be/BAHDoCe7U54
Too funny.
Col Beausabre, I’m sorry about your reading comprehension. I never said that totalitarians give up power, I said they got undermined by the loss of support.
Another issue with totalitarian regimes is that they end up with one person at the head of government with all the power living in paranoia of even their close supporters, so they lose those supporters though both the work of the popular opposition and the effects of their own paranoia, and so contribute to their own downfall.
Dictators usually don’t die in power or give up power willingly, I’m amazed you could think I suggested that they are “talked into giving up the use of force”, you make the same mistake Cotour made in thinking in terms of monolithic power blocks.
I’ve noticed that that type of group think mindset is common to both the conservative right and the woke left, not so common with (true) liberals and libertarians who’re more individualistic.
Cotour, I’m sure I’m not the only one here who’s noticed your difficulty understanding not-very-difficult concepts.
Everyone “Misunderstands”, except you.
Right.
Were all morons.
This conversation is beginning to devolve into name-calling. You are all warned, though my ire is first aimed at Andrew_W. Cotour made some very polite points. Your response was not to respond intelligently in kind, but to be insulting. This must cease.
Cotour however has not been a saint in this. You also had better rein it in.
Andrew _W wrote: “Changing autocratic governments doesn’t require guns, it requires the transfer of loyalties. That’s the process that ended autocracy in the USSR, and dictatorships like Franco, Pinochet and many others, without foreign intervention it’s often it’s members of the dictators own government that force the change.”
This is an excellent point. The Soviet Union fell when a part of its military chose loyalty with the people over loyalty to the leadership.
This was not difficult to do, however, because the Soviets advertised that the country was the people. To support the people was to support the country. When three people were shot during the confrontation at the White House — the Soviet parliament, not the U.S. presidential home and office — there was quite an outcry both within the country and internationally. The Soviet Union fell apart soon after.
This is not the case in China. China has long had a different mindset that the leadership is the country and the people are the servants. This is why China didn’t care about consequences from killing hundreds or thousands of protesters, three decades ago.
Considering the amount of goods that we Americans have purchased from China over those three decades, the consequences were not as bad as they should have been.
I will leave it here.
For someone to pretend, in a very civilzed manner and supposedly based in education, that they understand something so basic and fundamental as how real power is acquired and exercized and abused on this planet, but they really don’t, is very dangerous.
These attitudes, fantasies really, about how things “Should be” does no one any good and in the end costs people, real living and breathing people their freedom and more importantly their lives.
This is progressive doctrine, this is “Sanctuary cities”, this is how civilizations die. Up is down, right is left, good is bad, light is dark.
China will fall.
It will fall just like the old Soviet Union.
The Party is trying to keep the people happy by implementing simulated party controlled consumerism. But it is failing to bring all the people all things. Especially the very poor.
the lower middle class, the vast majority that live and work in the cities are stuck. they can not move and switch jobs without permission from the government. They can not move up without being a member in good standing with the Party. They can not own a company that does business with the government without being a Party member in good standing.
Add in the new corporate and social scoring system and the people are reminded daily who has a thumb on their back.
Andrew and Cotour:
I think that you are both correct – each in you own way. Cotour advises that the power (Xi and his minions) in China could step in and crush the protestors in Hong Kong. It depends on the PLA and IFF they will be true to their pledge ONLY to the Communist Party – not the people.
Andrew, I think that you are pointing out that IFF there are cracks in the internal structure of China’s political structure that a ruthless action against the protesters is not possible – the system will not allow it with shifting allegiance from state to people.
But there is the rub – what does the PLA honor?
From Cotuor’s view, the end of this podcast on Stalin is illuminating.
https://www.hoover.org/research/stalin-waiting-hitler
At about minute 23:00 they talk about how ruthless Stalin is AND how Molotov and Poskrebyshev remain loyal to Stalin AFTER his death (into the 80’s for Molotov). This loyalty is after each has their wives taken into exile by Stalin and one wife, Poskrebyshev’s is even executed. Yet they work tirelessly for Stalin.
Stalin also never really wades into the spoils of the Soviet State, he truly believes and works tirelessly for the State.
If there is true belief AND power then the evil may not be stopped for decades. Ruthless zealots will continue the killing despite the costs.
From Andrew’s view, I think he holds that the good in the human nature of various parts of the power structure will eventually crumble it – and they often do. This happens and we do not see it because the right thing happened. But sometimes as in Cambodia the educated and informed are rounded up and killed BECAUSE they are the educated. Still I agree with Andrew that an educated and truly classically liberally educated populace is a general hedge against dictatorial rule.
What we have in China (not Hong Kong) is unknown. Is the populace “educated and informed” – who knows? Hong Kong is so, but greater China has been behind an internet “wall” and subject to greater and greater tracking and enforcement for five or more years; almost a decade depending on the severity of the “great China internet wall”. The Chinese Communist narrative to the people has been on-going since 1948.
In the case of the Soviet Union (and Nazi Germany) conditions allowed these dictators to dominate for a decade or more (over three for Stalin I think) and during that time millions died because a relatively few -in power- truly believed and no one could stop them. In Germany much of the populace was educated and still the Nazi rose to power.
China may or may not follow this mold but we do not know. Hong Kong may be the test. They failed Tienanmen.
For me I think Cotour is absolutely correct on the ownership of firearms. I consider them existential. Widespread ownership of reasonably powerful weapons is fully necessary to halt the case of the dictator with the set of fellow zealots bent on “freeing us from capitalism” or providing for the “Final Solution”
As to whether an educated and enlightened populace will stop a dictator, I think they can, but I am not willing to make that bet based on the horrific results if I’m wrong and the historical results that prove that could be a bad bet.
One last hat tip to Wayne and Jordan Peterson on this debate.
A paraphrased Peterson quote:
Seek out your enemy and LISTEN to him, he may be right, you may have things to learn.
(Wayne that’s your queue to put in the correct link from Dr Peterson)
Chris: Very well said. Kudos.
Chris–
(serendipitously–I’ve been re-watching a bit of Stephen Kotkin over the weekend.)
You’re thinking of JPB’s Rule #9 “Assume That The Person You’re Listening To Might Know Something You Don’t.” [one of my least favorite rules, btw!]
At some point….the person you are arguing with, may just be plain old wrong.
JBP/Akira
Rule #9
https://youtu.be/OYXELMcr_lQ
1:56
This Hong Kong situation calls for some Jocko Willink:
Jocko Willink –
“THE ENEMY”
April 2019
https://youtu.be/4UgpgZApLs4
5:27
Paraphrasing…
“There’s a true-believer, chi-com, PLA soldier waiting to kill me & destroy my Country. And we’re going to meet…and he’s going to die.”
Chris:
A reasonable analysis, thanks. I however think you might have become a bit too optimistic about what the Chinese people will or will not do. From what I have seen over the years is that the modern leadershipt of China see’s China’s place in the world, on the planet in only one way, they will in time dominate and own the planet, or the majority of it.
(If we were to still be on the Bush sr. / Obama / Hillary Clinton, Thousand Points Of Light / Globalist / One World Order model our country would have been well on the way to being delivered to a U.N. type global governance system and America as we know and understand it and our Constitution by necessity would have been gutted. And the Chinese with ease would have taken over the leadership of the world and everything on it. That IMO is at least on hold due to certain unexpected political leadership events of recent years.)
That is the Chinese leaderships Manadrine, fundamental posititon and what they are in the process of executing (No pun intended) is just that. China has a very long history of thousands of years, not decades and from that base they see themselves as the dominant force on the planet and they move incrementally towards that eventuality. “By any means necessary” of course, where have you recently heard that phrase in America?
As an illustration of the attitude of the Chinese leadership and the people of China I offer this as evidence to further support my contention that the Chinese leadership will in deed “By any means necessary” accomilish what they need to accomplish in order to fulfill their long term agenda.
1. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/24/chinas-social-credit-system-bans-millions-travelling/
2. https://youtu.be/Dkw15LkZ_Kw
China is ONLY cautious at this moment because of how they are tied into the international economy and their Communist / Capitalist cash flow and economy model depends on not offending their trading partners to the point where they are morally forced to end their business relationships. And all of this is key because this model is how the Chinese people and their leadership will accomplish their goals of planet wide domination.
Its a fairly simple equation to me, the Chinese leadership is and can be ruthless if pushed and the people of China, some number of them being educated but the majority of them are still compliant and under the thumb of their leadership. Its in their DNA.
The people of Hong Kong are an abomination to the Chinese leadership and the people of China proper.
They will submit, or there may be short lived compromise based in the morality of the international community and their moral obligations. But ultimately, as educated as they are, they will submit. For if they do not they might represent a contagieon within the borders of China proper.
More evidence of my assessment:
U.N. Agenda 2030:
https://www.naturalnews.com/051058_2030_Agenda_United_Nations_global_enslavement.html
A model where the Chinese, who are masters of deception, would dominate without doubt. A system and model built just for the Chinese whether by accident or by pre arrandged economic arrangement with them. The Chinese are willing to buy it, its much easier that way.
How many here have ever heard of U.N. Agenda 2030? Not many I am certain. Andrew W, absolutely not.
This U.N. agenda essentially eliminates the U.S. Constitution.
Wayne – Gee I didn’t know Dr P got inserted into animation tracks…. When will we hear Mr Z in a similar mode? I can’t wait to hear that NY voice: “the enemy”. … Or maybe I’m wrong.
Contour – I agree, the Chinese view is to rise from the century of shame into a dominating role in the world, As I have heard or read Gordon Chang – China under Xi believes that China is the ONLY country that CAN have sovereignty. No other country is legitimate.
But still …. what will the PLA honor?
China has the most monitored cities in the world
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3023455/report-finds-cities-china-most-monitored-world
With this monitoring and the social credit system AND possibly the computing ability to do something with all that data, China may be able to someday truly monitor and control everyone in China. The dream will be to expand this next.
I also agree that China hesitates because of her reliance on the the world economy through her export economy. Crushing Hong Kong may cause the world to pull away that business. Or will it? Will the business world have a conscience?
On the other side of China’s dilemma is her demographics. 35 years of Single Child rule has severely changed China’s population. They are graying and have many one-child families. It could be now (next decade or two) or never for making a forcible move on the world or even Asia.
Another factor is: in a conflict will all those families be willing to risk or sacrifice that only child?
I think Andrew looks for the good in people. good for him and for all of us. We should all try to find the good AND be the good.
However, we cannot count on the PLA or any other part of China’s infrastructure doing the right thing. (Nor any other country for that matter) We must be ever vigilant and have the power to defend ourselves – and sometimes (Hell most of the time) the rest of the world.
This also scales down to we, as US citizens, must also be vigilant AND have true power. For we inside the US cannot assume the government will be moral.
I hope that Andrew is correct and that people around the world are good and benevolent. But given the results that history has produced I cannot condone not being prepared as a nation nor as an individual.
Chris: “I think Andrew looks for the good in people. good for him and for all of us.”
Thanks Chris, but you’re wrong.
Humans are largely ruled by instinct, instinct to survive and prosper, instinct to protect their offspring, instinct to gain and maintain social status.
Dictators are following their instincts, but so are everyone else in the population, and if the governance of a country is seen by the people as against the interests of the people – most people are getting poorer, kids are dying from preventable conditions, only the ruling elite are happy – they’ll agitate for change, and one way or another it’ll happen, even if it takes a generation.
All those soldiers protecting the dictator? The lower ranks are all kids from poor families, their loyalties are split, but when their own families are hungry or persecuted their loyalty to the dictator becomes doubtful.
China isn’t the same as some poor country in sub Sahara Africa though – maybe Cotour instinctively gets that but hasn’t put it into words:
China as a superpower gives everyone in the country status in their own minds, it’s one of the reasons the USSR held together for so long, that status also affects the thinking of citizens of other superpowers in how they see themselves in their relationship to people of other countries. China’s increasing superpower status also will create tension with the US, as Jordan Peterson likes to point out: humans are instinctively hierarchical, it’s the same with countries because they’re made of humans, two top dogs inevitably will create tension between them, this will strengthen the patriotism of many Chinese citizens, blinkering them to some degree to the inefficiencies and injustices imposed on them by their own government.
China is also, through the adoption of a market economy (imperfect market economy), getting richer and that wealth is reaching most people, people whose lives are improving are happy people, so that’ll delay discontent until an authoritarian government stuffs things up.
To sum up, China isn’t going into revolt any time soon, not because the all the people don’t have guns in all their bedside draws, but because they’ve no big reason to want to revolt.
None of this need be rethought out, its a known quantity, that is the nature of man as it relates to governance and the abuse of power.
http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-if-men-were-angels-no-government-would-be-necessary-if-angels-were-to-govern-men-neither-james-madison-284623.jpg
The Chinese are not “good” angels and those educated among them, hell all of them, know well the truth of the situation. Most all of this is but a distraction and side road.
Mans nature is what it is.
Chris–
‘Akira the Don’ is the creator of the animated JBP videos.
Akira/ Peterson
“The Wave?”
July 2018
https://youtu.be/cmjAVZjLQr8
4:10
HK is China’s democratic infection.
If they allow all of HK into China all of China will know of and want democracy.
What do rich Chinese spend their money on? The same thing the rest of the worlds rich do. Big boy toys and political influence to gain more power and wealth.
For the Party the toys are fine. But the party is already fighting political influence from the rich. Many of the new rich have already been jailed for just such a thing.
As for guns. Any competent machinist can make a fire arm of some sort. The real problem is ammo. Just remember that the French revolution was begun in part with air rifles. A simple firebomb can stop a tank. Its not the gun that stops someone from joining a revolution its the will.
the Chinese government has been violently suppressing its people for years and the protests still continue. And they only grow larger and more frequent.
And as for a super power. China is not yet one and at this pace will not be one anytime soon.
Yeah that is really crazy how Blizzard banned that streamer. All he was doing was standing up for the protesters in Hong Kong! And all so Blizzard can protect their interests in China. Unfortunate really…