Unlawful assembly in Hong Kong

Obviously the Chinese government has the mandate of heaven. Those who have power are entitled to keep it if they don’t screw up too badly, nor make unsuccessful radical change in the society that gave them power originally.

Obviously, by law, custom, and the two systems agreement, Hong Kongers are entitled to the rights they had before Hong Kong came under Chinese authority, including the right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Blocking the streets is not peaceable assembly, nor have Hong Kongers ever had such a right, and the government is entitled to deal with it according to Chinese customs – it should roll over them with tanks.

Hong Kongers have never had the right to vote. If Hong Kongers were allowed to vote, they would vote against the capitalism that made them wealthy, and which is essential for such a dense crowd of people to survive on a tiny little island with no resources. Give them democracy, and pretty soon the economy would collapse, refugees would be fleeing Hong Kong as they flee Venezuela – and the Chinese government would be blamed for insufficiently large bailouts.

I urge the Chinese government to drive tanks over the protestors while maintaining the utmost respect for Hong Kong’s traditions and the two systems agreement.

The two systems agreement looks, in practice, rather like Hong Kong taking over China, even though theoretically it is China taking over Hong Kong. Hong Kong democracy would be the Cathedral taking over Hong Kong as a step to taking over China. If the voters controlled Hong Kong, the Cathedral would control the voters. Voters are easy to manipulate, since no individual voter has an individual incentive to be well informed or to vote in his own best interest. He is apt to vote for what makes him holiest, and the Cathedral is very good at weaponizing superior holiness.

93 Responses to “Unlawful assembly in Hong Kong”

  1. Peter Blood says:

    Where is George Soros in all this protest? Surely he’s pulling strings here, too.

  2. Hidden Author says:

    So you advocate that the selfish and vicious have the right to bully the altruistic and peaceful? And you call that justice?

    • Wyrd says:

      Well, when you put it in those Hollywood terms, who wouldn’t tear up for the underdog? Ass.

      • Hidden Author says:

        How does promoting truth make me an ass? Do you have stock in a corporation with Chinese operations?

        • Michael says:

          letting your three year old play with matches is stupid
          you do realize we in the dark side here we dont believe in democracy in these parts

          • michael3ov says:

            I’m not sure what planet you were raised on but actually we do ‘believe in democracy in these parts’. We are a representatibe republic which is a liberal democracy. Of course there are people who will disagree with certain things but that doesn’t change the fact that we elect our representatives and we have the power to change the government. That is if the population made an effort to inform themselves and turn their backs on their apathy.

        • Lars Grobian says:

          It’s not a Hollywood movie. It’s real life. Real life doesn’t feature predictable stories where you can always predict what will happen by knowing who the director sympathizes with.

          If you’re so stupid that you think “truth” is the same thing as “fantasizing about living in a movie”, you’re an ass. And an imbecile. Not to mention selfish and vicious, in valuing your self-comforting fantasies over reality.

      • michael3ov says:

        Hollywood terms? Talk about made up nonsense resulting from a persons cynisism. Yes because altruism and peace are made up and only exist in the minds of hollywood people. What the hell are you talking about? Your simple minded opposition against the people of a society attempting to stand up against a tyrannical autocratic government is remarkably idiotic and ridiculous. Iran and Saudi Ariabia will likely welcome your fascist ass with open arms. Free and open inquiry, autonomy, self determination, free thought, and individualism are all concepts entirely alien to you, aren’t they. They must be if you are against the people fighting for these things in Hong Kong and instead support the Beijing government that has a stranglehold on all of these concepts.

        • jim says:

          Not seeing much free and open inquiry. In America, if one freely and openly inquires on certain topics, one will be fired. If one’s company fails to fire one, the government will destroy the company.

          Outside America, European nations don’t even bother to use companies to maintain the pretense of free inquiry. Britain has tens of thousands imprisoned for crimethink. There is a lot more freedom of speech and freedom of religion in Russia and China than there is in the US. Where did Snowden flee to?

          You are allowed to be a Christian in the US, but as the case of Phil Robertson demonstrated, you are not allowed to be a Christian that believes in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

          Where is there more freedom of speech and freedom of religion: Where Christmas is celebrated with “Merry Christmas”, or where it is celebrated with “Happy Holidays”?

    • Alrenous says:

      Blocking roads is neither altruistic nor peaceful.

      • Hidden Author says:

        What if they’re doing it for altruistic reasons? And if they’re sitting still without assaulting anyone, then isn’t that a peaceful contrast to violent parties, be they authorities or revolutionaries?

        • Red says:

          Most of the guys are there because they think they might get laid. The women are there because it’s the place to be to get on TV. Nothing altruistic about it.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Just because you’re cynical about democracy, it does not mean others do not believe in it from the bottom of their hearts.

            • jim says:

              Hong Kong is doing fine under its present political system. The Chinese have respected the two systems agreement, and more than respected it. Democracy for Hong Kong is a violation of international agreements securing its partial independence, and a threat to the system that has brought China out of poverty.

              You want to replace the system that has made Chinese wealthy, with the system that has made Indians poor.

              There was an international deal, securing Hong Kong and the Hong Konger way of life, that Hong Kong would not politically threaten China.

              And now it is politically threatening China.

        • Adolf the Friendly Wolf says:

          I’ve always wondered whether Martin Luther King would let me exercise “civil disobedience” in his house.

          I’d promise not to kill anyone. And I’d usually mean it. Usually.

          Funny how those who believe in “civil disobedience”, only believe in “civil disobedience on other people’s property”.

          • Hidden Author says:

            You know you have a point–civil disobedience is not entirely non-coercive. But it’s still more benign than attempting the violent overthrow of the government or from the other side mass executions or even mass beatings. In fact, if a leader of such a campaign can keep his followers from fighting back when assaulted, he then demonstrates his role as loyal opposition in the rough and tumble of democratic politics. Such a campaigner need not be obeyed unconditionally–MLK’s socialism or the nuclear disarmament folks are nutty after all–but such civil disobeyers still have the moral high ground vis-a-vis lynch mob and church bombers!

            • jim says:

              “Civil Disobedience” is really a creeping coup. Five cops with pepper spray and tasers can clear a street full of unarmed protestors in five minutes, if they want to.

              Suppose the police were not on the side of those being “Disobedient”. Then those wishing to go to work would drive though them, and, if they did not get out of the way, over them. That the protestors can block the roads implies police backing – that the Hong Kong men with guns are failing to obey the Chinese mainland men with guns. It is simply hard to block a road without guns quietly in the background supporting the blockade.

              The solution is to bring over some Chinese mainland men with guns and fire the Hong Kong men with guns.

              Which is probably going to require killing some of them.

          • Hidden Author says:

            One more thing: what would your demand be if you committed civil disobedience in MLK’s house? Would you snarl “Hang from a tree, nigger!” MLK looked good because he shunned the Malcolm X hate-whitey rhetoric by framing his demands in terms of peace, dignity and brotherhood.

          • rightsaidfred says:

            “what would your demand be if you committed civil disobedience in MLK’s house?”

            I would demand that he support me in a more lavish life style.

          • B says:

            >MLK looked good because he shunned the Malcolm X hate-whitey rhetoric by framing his demands in terms of peace, dignity and brotherhood.

            Which of those principles do you think was best exemplified by his friends in the Vice Lords?

          • rightsaidfred says:

            ” principles…exemplified by his friends in the Vice Lords?”

            Or for that matter, most anyone today who has his name on their lips?

        • Alrenous says:

          You cannot possibly be this stupid by accident. You are a sophist.

        • Michael says:

          yeah just like martin luther king kumbaya faggot

        • josh says:

          “What if they’re doing it for altruistic reasons?”

          They aren’t.

    • jim says:

      Blocking roads is not peaceful

      Planning to steal the wealth created by the capitalists of Hong Kong is not altruistic.

      The protestors need killing, and killing them would be entirely in accord with the spirit and letter of The Two Systems.

      • Hidden Author says:

        I suppose that if the protesters riot against the police, a counterattack would be self-defense and if the protesters attack innocent passersby then they are the aggressors for sure. But if they simply sit or lay down and remove to move, then killing them would definitely be overkill. And do the protesters really want to dispossess the capitalists of their property any more than the average first-world, civilized democracy dispossesses capitalist of their property?

        • Hidden Author says:

          When I said “remove to move” I meant “refuse to move”.

        • jim says:

          But if they simply sit or lay down and refuse to move, then killing them would definitely be overkill.

          When the Cathedral finds it necessary to use violent means against opposition, seldom worries about overkill. Uses enough violence to succeed, and often a lot more than enough violence to succeed, as for example Ruby Ridge and Waco.

          Drive a tank over one guy, everyone else will get out of the way. If you arrest them however, they will just flood the jails, confident that their brief jail time will be well rewarded. Plus, can probably marshal more protestors than cops to arrest and process them.

          • Adolf the Friendly Wolf says:

            What would scare the leftists in Hong Kong the most? Killing is clearly scarier than jailing. Painful methods of crowd control are between the two.

            Deportation is Singapore’s favorite method. It’s also less likely to bring the wrath of the Cathedral, and scare away businessmen.

            Better yet, arrest everybody, fill the jails, then deport everybody who participated. Preferably to Tibet or the Congo.

          • Adolf the Friendly Wolf says:

            I don’t actually mean deport them to Tibet or the Congo. They like liberal democracy. Let them move to the US or Sweden.

  3. Adolf the Friendly Wolf says:

    You always advise shooting protestors.

    But I would prefer to live in a Hong Kong where the protestors were squashed without direct violence. Propaganda, mild harassment, or something. Eventually, they’ll get tired of protesting.

    We’ll see whether China can deal with them another way. Blocking the streets isn’t too much of a problem. A few vehicles can’t get by. Shooting people would be seen as overkill, and it kinda would be.

    • jim says:

      If the Chinese government does not shoot enough of them to deter, then in due course US Government provocateurs will, in Hong Kong as in Ukraine, shoot enough of them to enrage, but not enough of them to deter.

      When the Cathedral faces real opposition, it never thinks that direct violence is likely to be counterproductive. Watch them shell schools in the Ukraine, massacre Tutsis in the Congo, and impale Tutsi women with very large objects.

      • Hidden Author says:

        If by “Cathedral” you mean the forces behind the current Anglo-American zeitgeist, your statement that the Cathedral wants to exterminate the Tutsi does not make sense. If so, they would deny the Rwandan Genocide like Edward Herman (I think that’s the relevant Noam Chomsky associate).

        But TPTB take the opposite approach: they would have you believe that the massacres in Rwanda as in Bosnia force them to break their otherwise iron-clad commitment to national self-determination because racism and genocide and human rights violations are just so goddamn horrifying!

        • jim says:

          Crack open Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the voice of the Cathedral: Does not deny the Rwandan genocide, but does blame it on the horribly racist Tutsi who were taught to be horribly racist by the horribly racist evil whites.

          The Cathedral arms, funds and protects Hutu terrorist militia that raid Rwanda from time to time, in much the same way as it created the “Palestinians”.

          • Hidden Author says:

            You yourself admit that the Tutsis treated the Hutus like cattle. Now if someone treats you like a cow, does that decrease or increase your desire to kill them?

            • jim says:

              Cattle generally like their farmer.

              Before white people came, Tutsis farmed Hutus like cattle, and, as in the Old South, everyone got along fine. Trouble ensued when whites gave Hutus equal rights, and more trouble ensued when whites gave them the vote.

          • josh says:

            This is not entirely correct. As in the old south, they farmed them like human beings.

        • peppermint says:

          they would have you believe that the massacres in Rwanda as in Bosnia force them to break their otherwise iron-clad commitment to national self-determination because racism and genocide and human rights violations are just so goddamn horrifying!

          So who do they give weapons to? Both sides, or only one side?

          • Hidden Author says:

            I know you guys think I’m a tard affiliated with the Cathedral Hive Mind but I do know enough to realize that in Yugoslavia the Croat neo-Nazis and the Bosnian mujahideen were at least as genocidal in intent if not effect as the Serbs. So obviously the official line is bullshit though I would argue that I understand the nuances of the bullshit enough to avoid you guys’ “Cathedral” paranoia.

          • reakcionar says:

            @Hidden Author

            It would be more precise to say that all three sides had equally genocidal maniacs fighting for power, but to say that distribution of maniacs in those three sides was equal would be rather wrong.

            No one really relevant wanted peace in the Balkans, just like in the Middle East. The Cathedral prefers genocide, rape and terror over an Emperor in Vienna who unites different tribes and religions under one crown. Because democracy.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Why should the autocrat be a Croat-biased Emperor in Vienna? Why not a Serbian King who rules on behalf of all Yugoslav nations? Of course, even unity under a monarch won’t work if the Croats and Muslims are so offended by a king not of their own that they commit genocide the moment the king is removed from the picture.

          • reakcionar says:

            @Hidden Author

            What is your final goal? Effective and sane government or social justice and checking privilege?

            Taking a walk around any town in the Balkans will show you that the peak of civilization in these areas was before 1914, not 1918-1941, or any other period after that. Vienna is the heart of Europe, Belgrade is not. Unity under a foreign monarch works better, as long as there’s enough political will to keep the monarch ruling, what means that occasionally he has to send his troops to kill his enemies. Tribes leaders have to think not only about getting more power, but also about not being killed for disobeying the emperor.

          • Hidden Author says:

            *If* you have a monarch, the monarch should be the Serbian King. Serbia suffered notoriously under the military occupation government of Austria-Hungary during WWI and under the jihadi government of the Ottoman Empire. By contrast, the whole concept of a Yugoslav was meant to embrace Croats, Bosnians, Macedonians and Slovenes as brothers of the Serbs.

          • Hidden Author says:

            I should also mention that during the breakup of Yugoslavia in the ’90s and beyond, the heir to the Hapsburg throne was notoriously biased against the Serbs and favored the breakup. How would that attitude unite the peoples therein?

          • Thomas says:

            @Hidden Author

            The problem is, that Croats and Slovenians see Austrians (a German tribe) as better people than themselves. At the same time they see Serbs as of a lesser than themselves.

            And they are right on both accounts.

            This is the reason Yugoslavia was impossible to last longer. Austria collapsed after the WWI only because almost all German tribes were defeated heavily then.

          • Hidden Author says:

            So the Serbs who treated other Yugoslavs like human beings are inferior to the peoples who committed genocide against them? By what standard?

            • jim says:

              As always, you forget the crimes of the left. Serb rule was approximately communist rule, in that the communist ruling apparatus was overwhelmingly serb. Communists in Yugoslavia killed about half a million in peacetime, mostly non serbs.

          • Hidden Author says:

            As always you reduce everything to a one-dimensional left/right paradigm. There was a perfectly fine Serb monarchy before Tito.

          • reakcionar says:

            Calling the Habsburgs genocidal and the Ottoman empire jihadi is not serious thinking.

            As Jim and Thomas pointed out, people generally don’t mind being ruled by a superior force. Vienna is superior, Belgrade is not.

            When my uncle was in the Yugoslav army in the 1960s, he had to speak to the officer in Serbian. That was a humiliation for him, intended only as a vulgar display of foreign power. If he’d served in the German army, there would be no humiliation in speaking in German, because German is a language of a more advanced nation, and civilized people look up to more advanced people as role models.

          • B says:

            The Good Soldier Svejk suggests that this view of the superior Germans and Austrians was not entirely shared by the Slavs whom they ruled.

      • Adolf the Friendly Wolf says:

        >If the Chinese government does not shoot enough of them to deter
        There is that automatic “kill them all” approach again.

        How about rubber bullets? Or, if you want maximum media impact, the pepper spray they sell for use on bears.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STYb0i4UgqQ

        If you were a businessman considering a move to Hong Kong, knowing they avoid killing people is definitely a plus.

        • jim says:

          Pepper spray not working. Does not work unless there is an unpleasant man with a taser in his belt applying the pepper spray from a couple of feet away.

          • Adolf the Friendly Wolf says:

            As somebody who sprayed himself, just to see what it’s like, normal pepper spray doesn’t hurt much. I’m guessing it’s designed that way, for liability reasons.

            You need something that disables a person. Therefore, the stuff they make for Grizzly bears.

        • peppermint says:

          use water cannons from the fire hydrants. That’s the most effective and least dangerous method. It knocks people over, gets them soaking wet so they have to go home and change their clothes while being humiliated the whole way for being soaking wet, and does not cause any injuries except for knocking people over. It’s more effective and less dangerous than hitting them with sticks.

  4. Ivan .M says:

    Per my disgruntled sources, Hong Kongers have much to complain about.

    The flood of mainland proles is lowering quality of life. Litter has increased. MTR service seems less comfortable and efficient than before. Public defecation is a thing now.

    Wealthier elements of the invasion are driving up housing prices, exacerbating the overcrowding problem. Yes, population density was always high, but under the Cathedral it was more manageable, and native yuppies weren’t squeezed together with “locusts.”

    Cantonese is being eradicated. Mainland university students insist on Mandarin. Local media, explicitly pro-China, also insist on Mandarin. Hong Kong’s leadership is filled with Beijing cronies: To no one’s surprise, they appear indifferent to the eradication of Cantonese.

    Han Chinese are not monolithic. Population replacement occurring in HK makes behavioral differences noticeable. Without significant changes in mainland gene pools, rising filth and corruption may harm capitalism as brainpower exits for the same reasons it exits from China proper.

    The HK rabble would actually be better off effecting a demotic bloodbath while the Ivy League priesthood can still aid them. Nastiness becomes surprisingly tolerable in service to identitarian considerations. What privileges they might or might not be afforded as a Cathedral staging area remain speculative.

    In the end it’s idiotic Chinese nationalism versus insane Hong Kong socialism. The numerically superior former will prevail over the complacent latter. Even if the State Department could somehow muster enough American interest in China’s domestic affairs ex nihilo, their reach diminishes by the day… as does their competence.

    • jim says:

      If Hong Kong goes democratic, they will discover that a democratic government always wants to import the cheapest available voters, which are likely to be mainland underclass, and worse than mainland underclass “Asylum seekers”. The vast majority of asylum seekers come from countries like India and the Philippines, where no one has plausible claim of asylum.

      Hong Kongers don’t have what it takes to go ethno nationalist against the will of the Cathedral.

      • Adolf the Friendly Wolf says:

        >If Hong Kong goes democratic
        Only slightly more likely than Tibet going democratic.

        Harassing drivers is not significant political power.

        • jim says:

          Cathedral backing is significant political power.

          • Adolf the Friendly Wolf says:

            Tibet had Cathedral backing. And still does.

            Even if the Cathedral somehow won this battle, China has a bunch of tools to retake Hong Kong. Beijing would not have negotiated a deal with Britain that let Hong Kong fall back under the control of London.

            The Cathedral is actually not especially strong. It exists because the religion in the west is Sola Scriptura Protestantism. If you believe Sola Scriptura, you reject all interpretations, including Traditional ones, and follow your own estimates of what the Bible says.

            http://www.theopedia.com/Puritan
            >The separating Congregationalists, a segment of the Puritan movement more radical than the Anglican Puritans, believed the Divine Right of Kings was heresy, a belief that became more pronounced during the reign of Charles I of England.

            Basically, moral belief in submission to the King, and moral belief that Sodomy is wrong, are optional. Moral anarchy is sacred.

            The Cathedral only triumphed over the Catholic world in WW1, and the fifty years after. That happens to be the same period where Rome began promoting Sola Scriptura (in morality and politics, if not doctrine). There were Catholic holdouts even as late as the 1970s (Franco), but they were undermined by Rome’s promotion of things like religious liberty.

            Whearas in Russia…

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_by_country#Russia

            >In the Russian armed forces — for which there continues to be universal conscription — no form of religious worship other than Orthodox Christian is permitted. Thus, conscripted Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists (despite their ostensible religious freedom granted in the 1997 law) are prohibited from engaging in prayer, even if they do so in solitude.

            I suspect that without the Cathedral, Russia would have never gone Communist. And if it had, the system would have been run by a Deng-Xiaoping-like figure a decade.

    • Spandrell says:

      Immigration is certainly a problem. It was so forever. Where did these HKers come from again? It wasnt that long ago.

      HK is stressful and crowded enough, but Cantonese disappearing is bullshit. More cantonese speakers in the mainland than ever before. HK culture, as lame as it is, isnt disappearing.

      The HK rabble should surrender and move out a city that has priced them out. NYers have no right to stay. Americans are gentrified and moved away all the time. HKers have no right to live in HK. Not for long anyway.

    • jim says:

      Hongers Kong faces competition as the Hong Kong system comes to China, and Chinese come to Hong Kong. Democracy will not fix that – except by overthrowing the government of mainland China.

  5. Dan says:

    I am of two minds. On the one hand, I don’t particularly believe in democracy. On the other hand, I do believe in localism.

    • Alrenous says:

      Without nonlocal support these protests would never have happened. To first order approximation, every protest is Cathedral-sponsored. E.g. OWS events were often filled out by students who were urged or even bribed by their professors to skip class.

  6. thinkingabout it says:

    Countries where protests for “democracy” have been extensively covered on Reddit – China. Iran. Russia. Ukraine. Syria. Libya. Tunisia. Egypt. Anyone seeing a pattern here?

    • C. Y. Chen says:

      Y’see, the oppressed people there just loved freedom and democracy that much. These are totally organic homegrown protests and not at all funded and directed by the USG. What are ya, some sort of conspiracy theorist?!

  7. Hidden Author says:

    Suppose, Jim, that you have a filthy, disgusting little sodomite as your boss. You resent the way he fags things up. If you keep silent and smile, is it because your resentment isn’t real or is it because there is a power disparity in the sodomite’s favor? Now I know that you don’t consider anyone who isn’t a straight white wealthy male to be fully human but individuals you despise as subhuman are nevertheless close enough in their humanity that they might react in a similar fashion.

  8. grumpy the grump says:

    Democracy shmemocracy. I don’t know why we ought to care what is best for the Chinese.

    What is best for Americans — a China/HK that is poor, inefficient and badly organized, or a China that is rich, efficient, and well-organized?

    That sounds like a loaded question but it isn’t — I genuinely don’t know which is better for Americans and have no opinion on it.

    The point is for us to frame the question as: what is best for us, not for them.

    • jim says:

      I need capitalism to survive somewhere. It is dying in the west.

    • jim says:

      They are destroying capitalism here, so do not want it to exist anywhere, for fear of invidious comparisons.

    • Hidden Author says:

      On the other hand, if China is a sock puppet of the USA, it can’t wage war on the USA as it threatens to do nowadays to reclaim “the renegade Chinese province” (Taiwan), seize hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region and undermine the petrodollar. The downfall of the Chinese Communist Party would almost certainly liberate the starving North Koreans from their fat tyrant by ending the subsidies to said fat tyrant’s military-industrial complex (which is also hostile to US peacekeepers in South Korea). And even if a democratic China builds a welfare state, a revolution against the Communist Party is hardly inspiration for full Communism. So there are pluses to be weighed against the minuses of a breakdown of law and order. Whatever the Chinese people decide–and it’s their decision to make!–I hope for the best.

      • jim says:

        A government that is a sock puppet of the US government is not going to act in the interests of the US people, any more than the US government does.

        It used to be that white imperialism brought good government to the benighted natives.

        This has not been the case for some considerable time.

        Instead, brings chaos, something that China has plenty of potential for.

        • Hidden Author says:

          US Government policy leaves much to be desired but the caliber of the locals has an effect too. Poland seems to do fine under American influence (I wouldn’t say authority as it does rule other nations outright like colonies). So too does South Korea, Germany and Japan. They aren’t perfect–no nation is–but American influence seemed to help. Anyways you’re focusing on the bad consequences; what about the good consequences I mentioned above.

        • Red says:

          “It used to be that white imperialism brought good government the benighted natives.

          This has not been the case for some considerable time”

          The Ebola epidemic is ground zero for this case. Nigeria ignored US “advice” and Ebola disappeared almost immediately. But in areas where the US holds sway Ebola-chan raging out of control.

  9. […] an extravagantly harsh statement of sound political philosophy on the topic, there’s Jim. Under threat of divorce proceedings (“What are you thinking? This is supposed to be your […]

  10. Zach says:

    … a beautiful thing I see here in the comments.

    *fist pump in private*

  11. Zach says:

    Jim is brilliant. He does not shine when not pressed. Only when pressed.

    Otherwise – a half dud.

    Reading his paragraph here, which is excellent, it reminds of his introduction to “Why Socialism Needs Killing Fields”.

    I adore the piece personally. If only for its engineer like thoughts.

    However, it is now obvious he writes for the end in mind.

  12. Dyz Lecticus says:

    After reading some posts on this blog I conclude the subtitle “Liberty in an unfree world” is sarcasm. The posts mostly call for subjugation and fascism.

    • jim says:

      If everyone in Hong Kong gets to vote, they will vote against capitalism. Therefore less free. They will also be holied into allowing unlimited boat people to move in from India and similar places with the result that the current Hong Kong ethnicity eventually gets outvoted. Therefore less free.

      Freedom is for superior people. If you attempt to grant freedom to inferior people, they will screw up.

      Thus, for example, it is perfectly reasonable to allow white people to buy Robitussin over the counter, but Trayvon Martin should never have been allowed to buy Robitussin over the counter, because Robitussin abuse leads to unpredictable explosions of violence.

      So if you have the same laws for white people as black people, you will wind up with laws appropriate for black people, which is to say more repressive laws than are needed or appropriate for white people, and similarly if you have the same laws for males as females.

      And then, in practice, because it is easier and safer to enforce the repressive laws against white males, and difficult and dangerous to enforce them against black females, you get anarcho tyranny, where repressive laws are enforced on middle class white males, and not on the people who caused the problems that led to the creation of those laws.

      • Dyz Lecticus says:

        Racism, fascism and capitalism … where have we seen that combination before?

        • Erik says:

          In the slurs, slogans and speeches of every two-bit agitator who’d be hard pressed to define the words but nonetheless continues to call for their destruction, this usually being a thin cover for the destruction of some hated enemy.

          • Dyz Lecticus says:

            “Racism, fascism and capitalism … where have we seen that combination before?”

            “In the slurs, slogans and speeches of every two-bit agitator”

            Racism fascism and capitalism was the foundation of national socialist Germany.

            Are you calling yourself a two-bit agitator? Do you admit you just want to destroy some hated enemy? Do you admit you are basically a neo-nazi? Research shows that most(!) neo-nazis are just people of lower intelligence that failed at life and in stead of blaming society as a whole they think a certain group is responsible. Do you fit that profile?

          • Erik says:

            No, I’m calling you a two-bit agitator. I’m saying that your chant of racism fascism capitalism is largely orthogonal to reality. I’m guessing that you’d call racism on the KKK but you’d also call racism on the police arresting more black men than white men. It is meaningless to me that you say these words, because I don’t believe that your utterances are useful evidence about what’s actually going on.

          • peppermint says:

            Progressives typically don’t actually have their facts wrong; they know what’s a word that starts with an n, ends with an r, and you don’t want to say it of a Black. They just have a system of taboos and thought-terminating clichés designed to channel their mind down the same paths every time and prevent them from thinking unapproved thoughts.

            The easiest way to cure yourself of worrying about racism is to meditate on the mantra “NIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGER”. This is the hammer that will smash those taboos.

Leave a Reply