I support the Hong Kong police too!

Hong Kong has never been democratic. It was an island out of time, founded by British pirates and drug smugglers, keeping the early nineteenth century British political system of local rule by the local gentry, and the late eighteenth century early nineteenth century British form of capitalism, derived from Manchesterism and little changed from Manchesterism. (British impact and Hong Kong’s colorful history started well before the first Opium war, but the story for some reason seems to have been erased, as if the white man never set foot there before the first Opium war.)

The one nation, two systems deal, was that Hong Kong would keep its ancient and customary political and economic system, with China handling its external affairs and defense. The protester’s demand for universal suffrage is a violation of of the two systems deal, that would create a subversive and hostile Cathedral and US Government State Department outpost on China’s doorstep.

The protesters destroyed the legislative assembly, and shut down Hong Kong International airport, an airport I frequently use, inconveniencing and endangering large numbers of people much resembling myself.

If the local elite lacks the will to govern, and the will to crush those grasping for power, then China has little choice but to itself violate the two systems agreement by directly intervening in Hong Kong, itself directly repressing those who would overthrow the ancient and customary system in favor of the system of the modern west, an intervention that would unavoidably destroy the Hong Kong system almost as badly as universal suffrage would.

The Hong Kong government should recover their testicles, and, if necessary, read the riot act and disperse the crowds with napalm and machine gun fire.

The old system served Hong Kong well, and the only reason for changing it is that the protesters hope for backing from the US Government State Department, so think that power is up for grabs. I hope that Trump’s call for calm will be interpreted as implying that no such backing will be forthcoming. China alleges that the US Government State Department has been up to no good, and I see ample reason to believe the accusation.

126 Responses to “I support the Hong Kong police too!”

  1. I sympathized with the initial, peaceful protests – the Hong Kongers must conduct them from time to time just to ensure that the two systems system is still working as intended – but clearly they’ve gone too far with smashing the place up and the Thai-style disruption of the airport. That’s just begging to be crushed.
    Also, what on earth were US officials doing meeting with protest organizers, and why was Trump unable to stop it? Imagine Chinese officials meeting with Antifa! Again, while I’m very nearly a libertarian, some faces just magnetically attract a boot.

    • BC says:

      > Also, what on earth were US officials doing meeting with protest organizers, and why was Trump unable to stop it? Imagine Chinese officials meeting with Antifa! Again, while I’m very nearly a libertarian, some faces just magnetically attract a boot.

      Trump doesn’t control the US goverment. That should be clear by now.

      • aidan maconachy says:

        The protests are way out of hand. Seems fueled by a lot more than the initial grievances about the extradition issue.

        The reaction from Trump has been oddly non-commital… more along the “hope it all works out…” line.

  2. JUST01 says:

    the levels of double standard/hypocrisy about how Hong Kong protests matter (in Western press) but Yellow Vests don’t is just staggering. Shouldn’t be surprised, but it grinds my gears nonetheless.

    Besides, just last month US press cried about foreign collusion in US, but now they’re hammering Trump for not messing enough with China & Hongkong..

  3. Deus Vult says:

    The Cathedral seems to destroy anything it cannot control. The Middle East, Northwestern Europe, and now potentially Hong Kong.

    China is moving troops towards the border. The protesters seem to think they can win. They are holding nothing back in their confrontations with the police.

    It is my deep regret, not that the Chinese government will crush these pathetic copies of Antifa, but that so many normal people will be caught up in the violence.

  4. Karl says:

    The government of HongKong has allowed things to escalate. This suggests that they either side with the protests or do not understand the situation. Either way, it is unlikely that HongKong’s government will solve the problem. This wil sooner or later lead to action of the Chinese goverment. Let’s hope they know what is at stake.

  5. The Nine Tailed Fox says:

    When one looks at the young cadres of this incipient color revolution, one sees the same bourgeois trash of antifa, and every flash fad of a diseased culture. The natural political thugs of the globalist oligarchy – here making a stand for the over-class string-pullers still clinging on in Hong Kong.

    It’s not clear what the end game of this is since there can be no successful revolution here. Is it to create a Tienanmen incident as part of the escalating campaign against China? If so they are sorely misguided, because this is not 1989, and much of the human race is tired of this nonsense.

    Hopefully the Chinese crush this violently and decisively, and thus the high tide of liberalism can be marked.

    Then the roll back begins.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      YouTube full of thumbnails today of HK “protestors” waving American flags and singing our national anthem.

      Give me a break. That is some cynical cynical shit right there.

      • Not Tom says:

        Can you imagine a protest in America full of protestors waving the Russian flag and singing the Russian national anthem? Imagine the headlines! Imagine the “investigations”.

  6. the tipping point for the protests was the introduction of the extradition bill, which would in fact destroy its “ancient and customary political and economic system”. shouldn’t the local population have reacted to that?

  7. The Cominator says:

    The Hong Kong revolt obviously is supported by US intelligence but it may not be the usual suspects within US intelligence (and thus NOT the State Department as a partner), the commie/progressive deep state hates Russia but not so much China whereas the Red Deep State of Trump (Military intelligence, NSA, Erik Prince, Peter Thiel etc) tends to not hate Russia but instead they do hate and fear China

    • I AM says:

      As well they should. China is to be the U.N. jackboot that America never was. Just watch China’s greatest film to date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wandering_Earth. It’s on Netflix; watch it tonight; you’ll see “it” when you see it.

      • jim says:

        The UN is the US state department in transracial and transexual dress. They genocided the Tutsis of the Congo, a jackbooted crime far worse than anything China has done.

        And Chinese communism, though evil enough, is far less evil than western progressivism – lacking trannyism, rape hysteria, and white “supremacism” hysteria.

        Chinese communism does not hate the past glories of western civilization the way Harvard hates them. Chinese don’t want to erase our civilization, our past, and our race.

        You will see our past greatness respectfully mentioned on Chinese shows – you will never see respectfully mentioned on western shows, only demonization, hatred, derision, and ignorance.

        • The Cominator says:

          Chinese communism in its original Maoist form is almost pure evil… though it lacks the crazy views on women, gays trannies and sexual issues its views on economics are as about as insane and evil as you can possibly imagine, it is not quite Pol Pot but its very close.

          In its post Deng form… much much less evil then progressivism. Though Spandrell was for a while fearing Xi was reverting it back to Maoism.

  8. Friendly Fred says:

    Yeah, but I’m half-British so I want my team to win. So I want the UK to prepare for a year — it would only take a year — and then utterly destroy China, and after that retake Africa and the Indian subcontinent.

    • The Cominator says:

      LOL @ the idea that the British as they are now could take on anything.

      You got a loicense for that patriarchal racist colonist thoughtcrime?

      • Friendly Fred says:

        Dig the disproportionate percentage of British let-play youtubers, though, as well as other hep you-tubers. (E.g. the Cinema Sins Sins kid, who seems to have a 150+ IQ.) These are the same guys that would have been ruling the world a hundred years ago; their presence demonstrates that Britain is still more than capable of doing so.

        Related — have you ever watched the Corridor Digital youtube thing? Those guys are genius animators in their 20s and 30s working out of a compound somewhere in the California desert. That one crew could take over California if they wanted to. I always tell my son that they should conquer Madagascar instead of doing this youtube stuff.

        • The Cominator says:

          If our governments were on our side freelance mercs could certainly take over a bunch of African countries.

          China despite the fact that they have problems of their own not so much…

        • Not Tom says:

          I don’t think the Cinema Sins kid has 150 IQ… also, he doesn’t sound British?

          But in any case, the fact that the UK still has a smart fraction doesn’t mean they’re capable of running an empire. Where are the warriors, the people who will actually fight? Lets-Play YouTubers aren’t going to machine-gun the degenerate mobs – not now, and not after years of training. Aristocrats were born and bred into that lifestyle.

          • Friendly Fred says:

            Not Cinema Sins, Cinema Sins Sins. He critiques Cinema Sins.

          • Joe says:

            Where are the warriors, the people who will actually fight?

            When the cost of inaction outweighs the cost of action, heroes will appear.

        • ten says:

          What cinema sins sins? Googe yields nothing.

          How come you think animators are fit to do anything? I know many animators, they’re just artists who lack the vision to be concept artists and thus gets to do the grunt work.

          • jim says:

            Of course Google yields nothing – because that is google.

            Use Duck Duck Go

            Cinema sins

            • Steve Johnson says:

              He’s referring to “cinema sins sins” which is a guy who critiques the easily found cinema sins crew.

              Relevant to this discussion is that cinema sins was started by guys in the search engine optimization business so they used all the tricks they knew to get promoted by the youtube algorithm – really a case of proving that they’re good at their jobs.

              • Not Tom says:

                Searching for “cinema sins sins” on any search engine is basically useless, even when you quote the whole phrase. I guess the algorithms are trying to be intelligent and failing, as usual.

                I did eventually manage to track the channel down, it’s called “Jay Exci” now. His vids are okay, I guess. Obviously has greater depth than the original Cinema Sins guys, but I’m not going to say he comes across as having a 150+ IQ (maybe 120), nor does he fill me with hope that Britain will rise again as a world power. He’s just a semi-articulate dude on YouTube who talks about movies, and on the rare occasions when he brushes up against anything political, seems to be a typical shitlib.

                • ten says:

                  Right, that guy.

                  Doesn’t help that the original cinemasins did a bunch of self critiques named cinemasins sins eiter.

  9. I AM says:

    You support the Hong Kong police, the polite facade of the Chinese Communist Party.

    I support the Restoration of the Chinese government-in-exile to their Mainland.

    What, all of a sudden you don’t hate Communism and love Restoration?

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      The Nationalists are also descendants of the movement that overthrew the Chinese Monarch and established a republic. They are not remotely restorationist as can trivially be seen by Taiwan’s TFR.

    • jim says:

      There is no Chinese Government in exile, just the US Government State Department in transracial and transexual drag.

      On Taiwanese shows, you will only see our past mentioned with derision, hatred, and contempt, reflecting the State Department’s derision, hatred and contempt for our past.

      On Chinese Hegemony shows, you will see our past mentioned respectfully.

      • I AM says:

        I don’t watch Oriental telly, except for the stuff that shows China bending the knee to the world government in waiting. I believe you see what you say you see. I think you legitimately cannot see that literally every single bit of technology in China up until 2015 or so was licitly or illicitly transferred from the European diaspora to the Chinese establishment. The relevant questions are these: who has sponsored this? for what purpose?

        • jim says:

          Western technology has become stagnant, largely due to the universities selecting on the basis of politics and race, rather than ability. China continues to progress. Notice that these days the tallest building are built outside the US hegemony, or on its periphery.

          The Chinese chips in your phone are based on a design they purchased from the west, but they have been improving on that design. Western chipmakers, not so much. The pupil is pulling ahead of the teacher.

          e-cigs were developed in China – the first major new consumer product for some time.

          • Dave says:

            How’s China progressing on liquid-fuel fission reactors? I ask because such reactors can be designed to fail safely — anything goes wrong, the fuel drains into a lower tank and stops reacting. Safe nuclear reactors could be used in far greater numbers because you don’t need a team of really smart guys monitoring each one 24/7. You just run them til they break, then call in for repair or replacement.

            This research is not happening in the West because no one wants to spend decades fighting environmentalist lawsuits. China can arrest environmentalists and harvest their organs, but they can’t steal technology that we don’t have.

            • aidan maconachy says:

              Read something interesting about their molten salt reactors – solid and liquid. Aim is a fully closed fuel cycle with zero waste.

              • Dave says:

                Knowing China, they won’t bother with the “zero waste” part, not when it’s slightly cheaper to buy new fuel and pour the old stuff down the drain.

                • Not Tom says:

                  That’s one way to look at it, sure, but waste reduction eventually becomes profitable because of the increased efficiency, once all of the low-hanging fruit has been dealt with. I’m wary of extrapolating China’s cavalier attitude to pollution today with what their attitude might be in 10-20 years if/when they’re in the lead.

                  Parts of America got very, very dirty at certain points, and we still managed to clean them up. But indeed, if this happens in the next few years then I could easily see them just dumping it in a lake somewhere – probably one that’s already toxic, so no one really cares if it gets a little more toxic.

        • Not Tom says:

          China’s been building up its industrial base, and stealing other people’s research is a convenient way to maintain that focus. Besides, if no one is going to stop them from stealing, then why wouldn’t they do it?

          But the industrial base is what underscores everything else. Massive production output can be redirected toward scientific research, but a deindustrialized society like the USA or most of Western Europe can only coast for so long on momentum. Without the industry to support research and make it useful, the research degrades into peer-reviewed masturbatory nonsense. As we can readily observe. Most of the genuinely useful research has been happening in the tech sector, and the tech sector is in the process of committing ritual suicide.

          It’s not novel or clever to point out that China’s tech is… well, not novel or clever. The thing is, tech breakthroughs are a lagging, not leading, indicator of productivity and talent. We’re seeing the very beginning of a shift, not the end of one.

          • jim says:

            China is still far behind, and most of its tech was purchased, stolen, or poorly copied from the west.

            But China is starting to produce its own tech, while the west has slowed down, and in some fields gone into reverse. In particular with military technology – we seem to be losing military technology, possibly for the same reasons as the navy has to keep its ships in port to avoid running into things.

            • BC says:

              >China is still far behind, and most of its tech was purchased, stolen, or poorly copied from the west.

              Pretty much what America did during our rise past the UK.

              >But China is starting to produce its own tech, while the west has slowed down, and in some fields gone into reverse. In particular with military technology

              Happened with the UK as well. We were pretty surprised when we got the plans of the Rolls-Royce Merlin Engine from the UK during WW2. It was an outstanding design, but the manufacturing process was still using hand finishing instead of mass production quality tolerances, something that had been standard in the US since the 10s. When the US got done re-engineering it into a mass production it became a more powerful engine produced in less time and for less money than the UK version. But the UK still didn’t adopt the US tech.

            • Not Tom says:

              Design is tied to production in ways that non-producing Brahmins can’t seem to admit or even understand. They are obsessed with the false reality where design happens in a vacuum, and production is a necessary evil, some lower-caste gruntwork that happens to follow. It’s the same mentality that leads them to think they can design a system like socialism in a vacuum, then just have some people go implement it without ever getting their own hands dirty.

              But ask any chemical engineer, mechanical engineer, nuclear engineer, software engineer… all will tell you that “pure” designs never survive production, and to succeed at anything, the lessons of production need to constantly be fed back into design. Educated guess: nuclear and aerospace technology in particular are extremely finicky in regard to production techniques and tolerances, which is why the U.S. has lots its edge in both. There was likely a ton of tribal knowledge in those manufacturing sectors that were not and maybe could not be transferred to design manuals.

              Western elites think they can just design, then hand off production to the third world. Volkswagens are “designed” in Germany… made in Mexico. Almost all of our computing tech is “designed” in America or South Korea… then manufactured in China or sometimes India. Our designers no longer have any contact with production, and all of the valuable lessons of production accrue to producers who can capitalize on it, like China.

              Unless the U.S. reindustrializes very soon, it is totally inevitable that innovation grinds to a screeching halt.

              • I AM says:

                Truth in every sentence. Now if only your other comments were up to this standard of quality. Have a courtesy quote from a recent publication:

                “In 1998 the Ford Motor Company produced a study. What they found is that 70% of a product’s complete life cycle costs are locked in at the preliminary or HVD phase. Which means that, if you control that part of the process, you are very, very influential. If we don’t do that, all we do is become a build-to-print nation, take other people’s designs and make them. Whereas, if we control the product definition, we control what comes next.”

                Airbus is finished.

            • aidan maconachy says:

              The Chinese have made significant advances in the military tech area. Part of this can be attributed to theft, but also to the exchange game i.e. extracting tech secrets from foreign companies keen to profit from access to their massive market.

              They’ve made big advances in hypersonic aircraft design. Starry Sky-2 has clocked speeds in the high Mach region, many times faster than the speed of sound. When it or some similar aircraft is fully weaponized no current missile defense system can be relied on to look after business. The Russian equivalent – Avangard – was touted by Putin as being “absolutely invulnerable to any missile defense system.”

              As they up the ante with these capabilities it has to be raising the temp in Taiwan by a few degrees.

    • Unbekannter Soldat says:

      The KMT or Taiwan government is no different then the PRC in China governement. Both are corrupt and China has never known true Democracy, because it is a western thing, like United States, similiar socialism is more like USSR. The Hong Kong police is an old subvservant of the the past Hong Kong government under British rule. And, they have done their duty well. My personally belief is the restoration of either Qing or Ming whom represent China, not some foreign form of government without some interest. That is a true China without foreign interfence. Long Live the China Old Emperor, and hopefully his reign will last a thousands years.

  10. I AM says:

    I guess I’m moderated because I mentioned Those Who Shall Not Be Named? And I was just about to elaborate on how I don’t blame Rothschild, but at least it has the good sense to actually exist as a coherent, self-perpetuating aristocracy; in start contrast to the magical invisible force of “all men are created equal”. Just think: while they gave us the Troubles, they gave you a Continent. Outrageous.

    • jim says:

      You are moderated because of unacceptable debating tactics. You confidently post from an alternate reality, as if we all agreed that your reality was true.

      You presuppose facts as true and uncontroversial that no one on the right accepts. If you would argue for those facts, treating them as debatable and controversial, you would not be moderated.

      “Rothschilds rule the world” is a story spread by leftists wanting to knock over the banker’s applecart so that they can grab some apples. It was not Jewish bankers that oppressed us in the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown. We were robbed by bankers who claimed to be Hispanic in order to take advantage of affirmative action. You guys cannot name the criminals responsible for the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown because you intend to commit the same crimes all over again. The Jews have lost power in banking, due in large part to the affirmative action that they piously sponsored.

      • The Cominator says:

        “Foundationer” families being in command of the priesthood is not mutually exclusive with reactionary political theory as we’ve not quite been able to identify the Cathedral’s command structure only noting that its not current capitalist. That doesn’t mean its not old foundation families.

        I AM’s other stuff is crap though…

        • I AM says:

          [*deleted*]

          • jim says:

            Unresponsive

            • I AM says:

              What’s unresponsive about offering to clarify any contested point? I could not be more confused.

              • jim says:

                We don’t want your ridiculous nonsense “clarified”. We have heard it all before. We want you to attempt to defend it.

                You can start with your most recent piece of idiocy, that race had nothing to do with the great minority mortgage meltdown

                Let us see you attempt a rebuttal of the posts that I just linked to. You will not be able to respond to, or even acknowledge, what was said in those posts.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  My reply to I AM is in moderation. It’s a RedPill question in women (I know, he’s probably not going to answer.)

              • R7 Rocket says:

                @I AM

                I noticed that entryists like you have a problem with technology and space travel…

                Since you failed the RedPill on race (pathetic!), I’ll ask a RedPill on women question:

                Why were the women screaming about #MeToo in the universities… silent on Rotherham and Cologne?

                If an essay question like this is too hard, here’s a multiple choice question instead:

                “Your 15 year old daughter left the house in a bikini. She had sex with Joey.
                Would you…”
                A) let her go have sex with anyone she wants, because she is a strong and independent womyn.
                B) Beat the shit out of Joey or call the whiteknights on him.
                C) Shotgun marry your daughter and Joey (should’ve married her off sooner).
                D)Keep daddy’s princess under lock and key until, in her late twenties, you find the “right man” for your deflowered daughter.

                I admit, my multiple choice question is not as good as Shaman’s.

                • Oog en Hand says:

                  https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/08/pakistan-every-year-at-least-a-thousand-girls-are-kidnapped-raped-and-forced-to-convert-to-islam

                  “The brutal persecution of young Christian girls in Pakistan is ongoing, and largely ignored by “feminists” and fake human rights activists, who call it “Islamophobic” to shed light on such atrocities”

                  Should NRx ally with Pakistani Muslims?

                  “Why were the women screaming about #MeToo in the universities… silent on Rotherham and Cologne?”

                  Omdat de bruine en zwarte heren grote, strak besneden pikken hadden.

                  Multiple choice question:

                  A of C, dat hangt er van af. Daarna B. D is voor mij volstrekt ondenkbaar.

                • jim says:

                  For the past thirteen hundred years, every alliance between Muslims and non Muslims has gone horribly wrong for the non Muslims.

                  But the Muslims have some good ideas that we should imitate – except that among the people we should use them on are Muslims.

                  We should apply the Chinese solution to the Muslim problem: Detain the males, and marry the women.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The only time you can ally with Muslims is short term purely military alliances against an enemy they at the moment hate far more then you (because they also hate you). Muslims are actually forbidden by their religion from keeping good faith with infidels so as Jim says nobody can work with them and any long term attempts to do so in history ends in Muslim betrayal.

                  Also I remember 9/11 and it would make me sick to work with them even if it were possible…

                • I AM says:

                  Re7ard Rocket, I can’t help but notice that you make a habit of popping up when you think that a visitor might be dumb enough for you to have a chance at “owning the lib”.

                  Unfortunately for you, I’m a very stable genius.

                  The plain facts are these: the Woman Question is answered quite succinctly by J.D. Unwin, the link posted elsewhere (honestly, read a book); there is no “white race” and every major paradigm invented since WW2 is a psyop; I prefer the Mohametans to the Jews because the Mohametans, though few in number (4.6 millions), aren’t religious fanatics; Carthago dolenda est.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  JD Unwin correctly observed that sexual restraint was necessary for civilization, producing numberless examples from the last few millennia, but failed to notice that restraining women worked, restraining men had no beneficial effect (eggs are precious, sperm is cheap), the classic Greeks being an obvious example of virtuous women, cheerfully uninhibited men. Reflect on Xenophon’s ten thousand marching through Asia, banging every concave surface on their path. That was Greek greatness at its greatest.

                  That there is a white race – or several white races – is as plain as the nose on your face. Only progressives deny this. It is a progressive lie of the “point deer, make horse” type.

                  Mahometans want to kill us. Jews want to unfairly interpret contracts and promises.

                  Mahometans break treaties with non Mahometans and murder their non Mahometans allies. Jews try to maximize their advantage in an alliance and minimize the benefits received by their alliance partners, within the limits of the deal.

                • Not Tom says:

                  the Woman Question is answered quite succinctly by J.D. Unwin

                  Even if that were correct, pointing to a book or document is not answering the question. Entryists can name books too, they just can’t tell us (truthfully) what’s in them. Leftists admit that The Bell Curve and Hillary’s Emails exist, but insist they are simply Racism and Boring Personal Communications, respectively.

                  And you’ve been abusive to other commenters right out of the gate, psychoanalyzing instead of responding directly – typical low-brow leftist tactics. There’s a time for insults, but you have to demonstrate your credibility first.

                  You evidently enjoy telling people to go read some book or other, but if you had actually read said books yourself, and/or were at least a half-decent communicator, you would not merely tell people to go read books, but rather provide a succinct explanation of the relevant facts or theories from said books and then maybe cite the book as a reference. That is what a “stable genius” would do. Obsessively saying “go read a book” is the sign of a highly unstable genius, or more likely, just an unstable leftist.

      • I AM says:

        “I don’t blame Rothschild, but…”

        I come from a reality of obscure and almost unbelievable facts found in Old Books. If you have a problem with their veracity, then go consult the authors: take up graverobbing. If you want a reference for a specific thing, then ask.

        I never claimed that, “Rothschild rules the world,” but how very interesting that you cannot read the name “Rothschild” without the appellation, “rules the world,” trotting smartly at its heels. As interesting as Elon’s run-in with the Twitter Blue Cheka.

        I’ve no idea what happened in your “mortgage meltdown” because I wasn’t paying attention when it happened and don’t care, but I’m pretty sure it didn’t have very much to do with race.

        Bankers and central bankers aren’t the same species. Central bankers don’t care about anything as mundane as profit. They literally own the currency like the great lords once owned the great estates. More power to them. We needed an aristocracy, and we got one.

        • jim says:

          > I’m pretty sure it didn’t have very much to do with race.

          Nuts.

          The great minority mortgage meltdown was all about race. Explicitly and loudly, which racial angle was mysteriously forgotten when the proverbial hit the fan.

          And the number one criminal, of the many criminals involved, was Angelo Mozilla, a Hispanic banker, who noisily advertised his supposedly nonwhite identity.

          Everyone in the world had no choice but to pay massive attention to the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown, which wrecked the world economy for eight years, so despite your pretense to be a racialist, you are making a politically correct progressive lie, that denies the blindingly obvious. You can blame Jews, but you are unable blame Official Victim Groups, for to mention the wrongdoings and ill effect of official victim groups would be a thought crime.

          That is how we can tell enemy agents passing themselves off as fellow reactionaries – inability to commit thought crimes.

          You are unable to commit, or even acknowledge, thought crime.

          You cannot acknowledge the women problem, the Indio problem, the black problem, etc. You only dare blame people whose apple carts the left wants to knock over.

        • Not Tom says:

          Really? Which old books? Moldbug was a big fan of Carlyle, Froude, Maine, Lecky and a few others, and although I haven’t read all of their work cover to cover, the parts I’m familiar with place them at approximately the polar opposite of where you represent yourself to be, so I assume you must find them all terribly boring, and ole’ Mencius himself not worth the bother.

          And obviously you don’t mean old old, as in Old and New Testaments old, because we tend to recognize that material, and you ain’t it.

          So what are we looking at, exactly? Out-of-print early-to-mid-20th century crypto-Marxist literature? Occult literature from Crowley and friends? I’m thinking you’re a bullshitter who’s gotten in way over his head, but you can still potentially redeem yourself by giving a few citations that people who don’t wear tinfoil hats would be able to digest.

          By the way, there is a big difference between hearing nonexistent dogwhistles, such as journalists assuming “globalist” means “Jew” and “poor” means “brown”, versus slightly hyperbolizing claims you actually made about e.g. Rothschild. Those goofy little 4chan/frogtwitter games may work on the blue check brigade, but I’ve never seen them work here.

    • Not Tom says:

      We name them all the time. We point out that they are annoying, disproportionately progressive, and probably should be kept far away from the levers of power. That you choose to pass off your ludicrous conclusion as accepted fact is further evidence of your delusional state of mind and dishonest tactics.

      • I AM says:

        [*deleted*]

        • jim says:

          Unresponsive, and indicative of your inability to acknowledge or commit thought crimes. An actual response would necessarily acknowledge or commit thoughtcrime.

          • I AM says:

            [*deleted*]

            • jim says:

              Deleted because extremely lengthy and off topic. Perhaps you might make a similar post that was relevant to the faith. Preferably one that does not overflow a dozen screens.

              Also, deleted because it omits the sacrament of marriage, and is therefore heretical.

              • I AM says:

                Marriage isn’t a sacrament except to the pagans, the idolators, and the judaizing sects.

                • jim says:

                  1. You are a heretic.

                  2. Even if you are right, marriage will work a whole lot better if we tell women it is a sacrament, and enact it as sacrament.

                • Mario Webster says:

                  > For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
                  * Divinely ordained
                  * Change of spiritual state is asserted by Christ Himself
                  * Divinely ordained symbol is your gf moving in with you. Or maybe just your dad no longer claiming you as a dependant on his taxes and you hooking up with her. Regardless, Jesus indicated a natural symbol of a spiritual state.
                  * Does it claim to impart grace, to the extent grace is observable? Paul said a woman is saved through childbirth. Surely faith is what saves, but the natural man doesn’t understand spiritual things, whence by grace through faith, so it arguably follows that marriage imparts grace to women. But, lots of men return to Christianity when they get married too.
                  How else to understand “sacrament”?

                • I AM says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  You lack the necessary authority to write scripture.

                • I AM says:

                  “The Wrath of Kings is very much dreaded, especially of absolute Monarchs, that have the Possessions and Lives of their Subjects wholly in their Power, to be disposed of at their meer Will. Prov. 20. 2. The Fear of a King is as the Roaring of a Lion: whoso provoketh him to Anger, sinneth against his own Soul.
                  t. Jonathan Edwards, A.M., Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God

                  Long live the Republic, you godless NRX weirdo.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  A reminder that the biggest tragedy of the Irish Famine was that the English did not finish them off. I AM A Potato Nigger here shilling for leftism even though it is going to mash him and eat him like one of his precious spuds is too dumb to live. Luckily when we nuke Boston to get Harvard, it will have the charming side effect of killing a shitload of the little goblins.

                • I AM says:

                  Dear KeptManOfTheState,

                  Please suck on the following:

                  Now, that million and a half of men, women, and children,
                  were carefully, prudently, and peacefully slain by the English
                  government. They died of hunger in the midst of abundance,
                  which their own hands created; and it is quite immaterial to
                  distinguish those who perish in the agonies of famine itself from
                  those who died of typhus fever, which in Ireland is always caused
                  by famine.

                  Further, I have called it an artificial famine: that is to say, it
                  was a famine which desolated a rich and fertile island, that
                  produced every year abundance and superabundance to sustain all
                  iier people and many more. The English, indeed, call that famine
                  a ‘”dispensation of Providence;” and ascribe it entirely to the
                  blight of the potatoes. But potatoes failed in like manner all over
                  Europe; yet there was no famine save in Ireland. The British
                  account of the matter, then, is first, a fraud — second, a blasphemy. The Almighty, indeed, sent the potato blight, but the English
                  created the famine.

                  And lastly, I have shown, in the course of this narrative, that
                  the depopulation of the country was not only encouraged by
                  artificial means, namely, the Out-door Relief Act, the Labour-
                  Rate Act, and the emigration schemes, but that extreme care
                  and diligence were used to prevent relief coming to the doomed
                  island from abroad; and that the benevolent contributions of
                  Americans and other foreigners were turned aside from their
                  destined objects — not, let us say, in order that none should be
                  saved alive, but that no interference should be made with the
                  principles of political economy.

                  The Census Commissioners close their last Report with these
                  words:—

                  “In conclusion, we feel it will be gratifying to your Excellency, to
                  find, that, although the population has been diminished in so remarkable
                  a manner, by famine, disease, and emigration, and has been since
                  decreasing, the results of the Irish census are, on the whole, satis-
                  factory.

                  t. John Mitchel, The Last Conquest of Ireland (Perhaps)

                  The beBlighted Irish were the only worthy immigrants. Since then, America has undergone successive waves of immigration, of progressively lower and lower quality: first the German Catholics, then the Italians, then the Jews.

                  Who, then, hath sponsored these last one ‘undred and fifty years of replacement migration? I leave the answer an exercise to the reader.

                  As for yourself, Kept, I politely ask that you die in the inferno of a million billion suns.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  That they were attempting to cleanse the European gene pool was sort of the point. The English started, but, alas, did not finish that noble work. If the English were at all at fault and should take any blame for their response to the potato blight, it is that under their watch the Irish survived and were allowed to infest a second continent. What a monumental cockup.

                  The idea that the Irish were themselves anything other than a potato blight on American politics is laughable. Hart-Cellar was a Jew and an Irishthing (man not being a word that should be used in reference to the cretinous subhuman inhabitants of the Summer Isles) subverting the ethnic balance of America, the beginning of modern replacement migration. The “Great Irish Contribution” to America is alcoholism and leftism. Gee, thanks.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Some Irish are alright but generally they are lesser then other whites (this is a generally true of all Catholics who are not Northern Italians).

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  How are the Irish lesser than other whites and what makes Northern Italians the exception of Catholics?

                  Is there a hierarchy of whites?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Race isn’t everything as there are widespread variations within races but of course there is a hierarchy as equality is ALWAYS a lie.

                  I’m part Irish myself unfortunately but the shadowedknight is generally right about the very subversive tendencies of most Irish Americans compared to other whites.

                  Germanics, Scots-Irish (from Ireland and Scotland but Protestant) and Italians went strongly for Trump, Irish went more for Hillary. And these tendencies go way back.

                • Not Tom says:

                  The beBlighted Irish were the only worthy immigrants.

                  How convenient for you. I’m sure that’s a 100% objective, rational deduction and not hilariously transparent motivated reasoning.

                  Also that the immigrants that came before the Irish, like Germans and Norwegians, weren’t worthy either. Just the Irish.

                  And that Ireland’s performance as a nation is in no way reflective of the quality of Irish immigrants.

                  It’s logic!

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  Do the Irish’s subversive leftist tendencies affect all of their history? For example, what’s the reactionary view of the Troubles and the IRA. Britain is pretty pozzed now, but so is Ireland, maybe things would be different if the IRA was more successful.

    • Joe says:

      coherent, self-perpetuating aristocracy

      If coherent, please explain why the American Israel Public Affairs Committee supports the destruction of Israel.

      https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/15/aipac-condemns-netanyahu-for-barring-omar-tlaib-from-israel/

      “We disagree with Reps. Omar and Tlaib’s support for the anti-Israel and anti-peace BDS movement, along with Rep. Tlaib’s calls for a one-state solution. We also believe every member of Congress should be able to visit and experience our democratic ally Israel firsthand,” AIPAC tweeted in response to the development.

      You will probably use some sort of motte and bailey like “I wasn’t arguing that Jews are coherent, just the Rothschilds” and then go straight back to arguing about how the Jews are coherent.

      • I AM says:

        Good question. Simple answer. Rothschild is its own coherent, self-perpetuating aristocracy. There are others, which shall remain unmentioned here. Apply the Darwinian reasoning of competition within and without unicellular, multicellular (same genome), and superorganism for more illumination.

        • jim says:

          As the great minority mortgage meltdown demonstrates, Rothschilds are out of power.

          In future I will suppress your posts relating to Rothchilds and banking as unresponsive, unless you respond to my posts on great minority mortgage meltdown.

          • I AM says:

            No one knows what happened in what you call the, “great minority mortgage meltdown,” because there has yet passed insufficient time for the truth to have been shaken out. The people who engineered that situation are the very same people still running the show. Maybe in fifty years we’ll know a reasonable approximation of the truth. In the meantime we have to infer what’s happening at present from what has occurred in the past, namely that Great Portion of the past as So Fruitfully Exposed by

            ANTONY SUTTON
            ANTONY SUTTON
            ANTONY SUTTON
            ANTONY SUTTON
            ANTONY SUTTON
            ANTONY SUTTON
            ANTONY SUTTON

            And in which Communist Russia was nurtured, from its cradle to its grave, BY AMERICAN BANKERS AND CORPORATE LORDS.

            And you want your readers to believe that this was the result of ridiculous incompetence rather than deliberate, clear-eyed action on the part of rational, self-interested parties, and so the name of ANTONY SUTTON will never see the light of day.

            Am I right or am I right?

            • jim says:

              The people who engineered the situation were in substantial part purged and disempowered. The people who actually gave effect to the great minority mortgage meltdown lost their jobs and were frequently convicted and punished, albeit only slap on the wrist punishments, and some of the worst offenders (Fannie May administrators who took bribes from Angelo Mozillo) unconvicted, much as Epstein’s clients and madam are unconvicted, and probably never will be convicted.

              But enough of them were tried and convicted to, if not deter a repetition, at least thoroughly reveal what went wrong, if you read between the euphemistic lines of the convictions.

              That the number one criminal in the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown was named “Angelo Mozillo” and not “Goldman”, let alone “Rothschild”, concisely summarizes what went wrong.

              • I AM says:

                “by implying that Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown was the result of a vast all powerful and entirely invisible conspiracy that remains invisible to this day, rather than the entirely obvious conspiracy that became painfully visible when the proverbial hit the fan”

                So…

                Motte: “great minority mortgage meltdown” the result of “an entirely obvious conspiracy” involving “racism” of the form of race blindness
                Bailey: therefore (?) there is an omnipotent and invisible conspiracy that survived the crash and continues uninjured to the present day

                Do I have that right?

                Here are my replies:
                1. I’ve never upheld either to be true.
                2. Neither are true.

                I think I see the crux. I will state the following as simply as possible.

                THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF EVERY SYSTEM DEPENDS ON THE CONTINUED POTENCY OF THE CONSPIRACY WHICH BREATHED IT LIFE.

                More politely, every system is the product of a conspiracy. The Constitution comes to mind. The burden is therefore not to prove that a system has a conspiracy, but that it doesn’t have a conspiracy. This is impossible, because a conspiracyless system extinguishes itself in short order. If the preponderance of conspiracy relocates, then you get an event like the dissolution of the USSR circa 1990. Occasionally a system will have an “obvious” conspiracy, such as certain forms of government — but it’s still a conspiracy, and God help you if you attempt to disrupt it.

                There, I believe that’s about it. I’m glad we could resolve this amicably.

                • jim says:

                  > So…
                  >
                  > Motte: “great minority mortgage meltdown” the result of “an entirely obvious conspiracy” involving “racism” of the form of race blindness
                  Bailey: therefore (?) there is an omnipotent and invisible conspiracy that survived the crash and continues uninjured to the present day
                  >
                  > Do I have that right?

                  No, you do not have that right.

                  that is not the Motte, nor the Bailey.

                  Motte: “Some Jews are wealthy and influential, the Rothschilds among them.”

                  Bailey: “The great minority mortgage meltdown was not overt and explicit discrimination against whites and a policy of giving mortgages to people of the correct sex and color who had neither intention nor ability to repay them, a program predominantly administered by members of official victim groups who had been affirmative actioned into positions of power, browns elevated into power over white money giving white money away to browns, but instead was some rather some incredibly clever Jewish conspiracy master minded by Rothschilds, which in some way never explained somehow benefited the Jews. Because everything under the sun is the result of some incredibly clever Jewish conspiracy master minded by Rothschilds.”

                  There was absolutely nothing “race blind” about the great minority mortgage meltdown. It was overtly, loudly, and explicitly a program of handouts to official victim groups on a race conscious basis, a program largely implemented by members of official victim groups affirmative actioned into power over white money, in order to redress and punish the supposed evil sins of white people.

                • I AM says:

                  [*unresponsive and repetitious*]

                • jim says:

                  You say “I see what you’re saying.”, but your reply has no apparent connection to what I am saying.

                  Prove you can commit thought crime, and can hear someone else when he commits thought crime. You seem to have heard me say that the bankers were race blind when they should have been race conscious, which is the direct opposite of what I said.

                  And then you proceed to once again re-occupy the bailey: “conspiracies within conspiracies”.

                  That was a repetition of your previous post re-occupying the bailey.

                  The conspiracy that lost most of the money in the great minority mortgage meltdown was not some super elite super secret conspiracy. It was people allowing the bankers to unload dud loans made for political reasons, which conspiracy was motivated largely by hate whitey ideology, partly by profits from shell game of moving the hot potato unfunded liability around, and partly by bribe money from Angelo Mozillo.

                  If you want to argue that the great minority mortgage meltdown was something other than it seemed, need to acknowledge and respond to what it seemed to me, need to discuss my thought crime in the course of explaining why I am wrong.

                  We don’t need an all powerful Rothschild conspiracy to cause bankers armed with a government guarantee to piss away money on bad loans. If the hand of the guarantor weakens, bad loans will ensue.

              • I AM says:

                *The Constitutional Convention

      • Not Tom says:

        I laughed – he literally used the exact motte and bailey argument that you predicted he was going to use, without a trace of irony.

        No “that’s my argument, but it’s not a motte and bailey because…”. No “that’s a strawman, here’s how my argument is different”. Just flat-out disregarding your criticism, pretending that you never made the criticism, and repeating the exact argument you criticized.

        Really does remind me a lot of CR, with the additional habit of sprinkling in useless but sophisticated-sounding jargon (single-celled organisms? really? we can learn a lot about the Rothschilds from protozoa!).

        • jim says:

          I need to censor more of his posts for being unresponsive. An unresponsive post is a waste of space and reader bandwidth.

          • I AM says:

            [*unresponsive*]

            • jim says:

              When I allowed one of your entirely unresponsive comments through, Not Tom explained why it was unresponsive.

              When you claim X, and your interlocutor responds “X is false because of so and so, and Y is true because of such and such” it is not a response to repeat X and tell your interlocutor he must be stupid for failure to understand X, and offer to repeat X yet again in even simpler words.

              You have to address to objections to X, and the support for Y.

              • I AM says:

                [*unresponsive*]

                • jim says:

                  When you say things that appear to be stupid and ignorant, and people say so, but you are actually making a subtle and profound point and therefore their criticism does not apply, you need to explain “your criticism does not apply because what I actually meant was so and so” Repeating a claim that appears stupid and ignorant without explaining “You are right in the sense of X, but what I actually meant was Y” is unresponsive.

                  For example, no one has criticized your claim that there are only 4.6 million Mahometans world wide because everything else you say seems stupid, deluded, and ignorant, therefore it is entirely unsurprising that you should be so deluded as to think that Jews outnumber Mahometans If you were actually saying something terribly clever, needs to be explained because no one here is likely to think you clever or well informed, or pay much attention to repeated assertions that you are clever and well informed, made in place of explanations of claims that do not seem clever or well informed at all.

                  When someone shoots you down in flames, confident denials that you have been shot down in flames do not constitute a response.

                  If you had hoped that someone would ask “What do you mean when you claim that Jews outnumber Mahometans?”, we don’t ask because we already know what it means. It means you are nuts. If you actually have some terribly clever point when you say something that sounds ignorant, crazy, and stupid, try telling us the terribly clever point. Don’t tell us it is actually a terribly clever point and we should try to figure out what it means. No one is going thoughtfully ponder what sounds like the ramblings of a moron on magic mushrooms looking for gems of wisdom subtly and cleverly disguised as the ramblings of a moron on magic mushrooms.

                • I AM says:

                  1. Joe falsely claimed that the Jews were coherent
                  2. Joe falsely claimed that I claimed that the Jews were coherent
                  3. Joe falsely claimed that Rothschild is a Jew
                  4. Joe falsely claimed that I claimed that Rothschild was a Jew, when in fact I claimed the exact opposite
                  5. Not Tom’s “explanation” of what I said bore no resemblance to what I said

                  How could I ever begin to address all of the ways in which you have lied about me?

                • jim says:

                  Joe correctly and accurately accused you of making a Motte and Bailey argument. Which you were, and which you continued to do, and are continuing to do.

                  Not Tom’s explanation of your evasive, slippery, and repetitious reply was completely accurate. When I allowed one of your entirely unresponsive comments through, Not Tom explained why it was unresponsive

                • I AM says:

                  That’s just it.

                  There’s been no “motte and bailey” argument, though it may be true that a few simple statements of fact have been perceived by you to imply some ulterior “bailey” position (which does not exist).

                  Therefore, take a sentence or two to describe your interpretation of my “motte” argument and also of my “bailey” argument. I’ll reply with a simple “yea” or “nay”, and a brief one or two sentence description of why.

                • jim says:

                  > There’s been no “motte and bailey” argument

                  Liar.

                  You immediately attempted to reoccupy the Bailey.

        • I AM says:

          [*unresponsive*]

          • jim says:

            Rules of my blog. When people criticize your argument, you have to reply to their criticisms. Calling them stupid and just repeating the argument without acknowledging and responding to the criticism leads to long repetitious threads that just waste space.

            • I AM says:

              [*unresponsive*]

              • jim says:

                Your argument has been devastatingly criticized and shot down in flames. Respond to those criticisms.

                Don’t tell us that no one has pointed out a flaw in your arguments when it is obvious that quite a few people confidently believe they have pointed out flaws in your arguments.

                • I AM says:

                  [*unresponsive*]

                • jim says:

                  Retreating to the Motte is not a response to the accusation of Motte and Bailey argument – particular when in your comment on the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown, immediately before this post, you once again attempt to reoccupy the Bailey, by implying that Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown was the result of a vast all powerful and entirely invisible conspiracy that remains invisible to this day, rather than the entirely obvious conspiracy that became painfully visible when the proverbial hit the fan.

                  The number one criminal in the Great Minority Meltdown was convicted, albeit he got off with a slap on the wrist, and his name is not Rothschild.

  11. The Cominator says:

    Jim one of my comments is on moderation I assume this is a mistake… please fix if you see it.

    I hope this one goes through.

  12. Big Brutha says:

    State Dept. writes reports to D.C. about the situation on the ground in country X or Y. Which explains the presence of State Dept. officer.

    Those reports are then used to create the rationale behind U.S. funded programs to deal with various problems including human rights problems, drugs, corruption, lack of opposition parties, anti-democratic policies, etc.

    This funding is then shunted view various internal State Department bureaus to “implementing partners.” Those entities are international organizations that make their money “dealing with” these kinds of problems. Except, when the problems go away, so does the money.

    Additionally, these implementers tend to help assist in “capacity building” of local NGOs. Those NGOs exist based on applying for the grants administered by State Department bureaus and implementing partners.

    The whole thing is ultimately incestuous because State notes a problem, reports on it, gets funding to deal with it, funds implementers, who in turn fund NGOs who turn around and supply the raw data that State reports back to D.C.

    This ultimately ends up creating “feedback loops” where proposals to deal with problem X or Y are called for by State, NGOs turn up to get the gravy, and then the reports are perpetuated redefining the problems to keep the funding streams going.

    Then you get groups that State works with like the Open Society Foundation etc. or the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). They also receive government funding but because they are “humanitarian” in their scope have less oversight in a lot of ways.

    In essence, these entities create the justifications and paper trail for U.S. government intervention into issues that are basically internal matters in other countries.

    That’s why Russia, China, etc. have all adopted very strict laws on NGOs because they know these organizations function as U.S. government proxies, witting or unwitting.

    • The Cominator says:

      Fantastic post.

    • Reziac says:

      Obvious solution is that gov’t grants to NGOs need to come to a screeching halt.

      • Big Brutha says:

        That’s easier said than done. Some things items are funded and taken on at the behest of the Executive branch itself but most were developed because Congress decided that the “cause du jour” needed dealing with.

        Whenever some sob story in a foreign country hits CNN/MSNBC there’s a congressman or Senator somewhere with his staff putting legislation together to solve for X.

        Every time Congress does this, bureaus and offices begin springing up like mushrooms within State Department to deal with the problems.

        Once those bureaus and offices come into existence they rarely if ever get go away. And as soon as they are formed, like the malignant tumors they are, they begin tapping into the lifeblood of taxpayer money to start sending it overseas to take care of “problems”.

        Some of these are “real efforts” to deal with issues. A lot function more like straight up grifts designed to get funds allocated for X in the hands of private entities that spring “fully formed from the head of Zeus” ready to deal with them.

        DoD is just as bad since this is even more true in military assistance where we give money to country X to buy U.S. made system Y and it works like a kind of corporate welfare.

        Dept. of Commerce Foreign Commercial Service is a little more legit as is USDA’s Foreign Ag Service.

        But the kinds of things that State Department spends money on are bug-nuts crazy much of the time. If you really want to see your tax dollars at work look up what any U.S. embassy’s Public Affairs Section does. And they and USAID, are in the thick of the implementer/NGO nexus creating the next generation of protesters/public agitators in countries overseas.

  13. Harold Green says:

    Hi Jim, I have a question about Hong Kong and Singapore’s elites. You’ve mentioned before that ruling classes are either of the ‘warrior’ or ‘priest’ archetype – which would the ruling elite of HK and Singapore correspond to?

    To me they seem like a sort of Mandarin civil servant/technocratic class (in other words, sort of priestly) – could you maybe expand on why the HK elite is like a gentry?

    • jim says:

      Hong Kong was founded by warrior merchants: pirates and drug traffickers. Britain took over in the Opium wars, and their descendants became more peaceable types, and gradually transitioned to being British mandarin types, which are a primarily priestly class. But the warrior descended merchant class continued to exercise quite a bit of power. That they are not warriors now makes it difficult for them to retain power, hence China is finding it difficult to adhere to the two systems agreement. The two systems agreement is that Hong Kong shall continue to be as it was, but as it was is not stable. The priestly types in the streets sense that the old elite is no longer capable of ruling. Hong Kong gradually transitioned from rule by warrior merchants, to rule by merchants, hence, weakness.

      Chinese are better than whites at government without much of state religion, but there is a vacuum that progressives want to fill, and the communist party has agreed not to fill.

  14. Robert says:

    I live next door to HK. I am here inside China as an American expat. I’ve been living here for a long time. In fact, the last time I was in the states was 15 years ago.

    This post is perhaps one of the best that I have read from an “outsider” looking in at what is going on.

    A couple of points.

    [1] China is not Marxist. They threw away that failed model back in the 1970’s with Mr. Deng. They only keep the term “Communist” for the same reason why Americans still pretend that the United States is still a Republic and not an oligarchy.

    [2] China is a single-party traditional conservative nation. Not American-conservative, it is Chinese conservative.

    [3] When comparing China tot the USA you can clearly see that the progressive “advancements” of President Wilson back a century ago has created the oligarchy that exists today. It is out of control and is a horrible mess.

    [4] Hong Kong is it’s own entity. While many people can move back and forth between SZ and HK, they cannot live there. The laws are all very different. China would prefer to keep it that way.

    [5] To the citizens of HK, these protesters are exactly like the Antifa protesters in America. They are rude, disruptive and need to be stopped.

    [6] CNN is a propaganda network, and while most American conservatives recognize that it’s all “fake news” , for some reason when it comes to China… it’s all “China is bad communist”. We must destroy communism. So they believe the BS out of CNN.

    [7] China does NOT mess around. They are a serious nation. It is run as a meritocracy. And they will not hesitate to clamp down harshly if need be. The rest of the world can go Fuzzk themselves.

    [8] Of course the “protests” are inspired and influenced by the American deep-state and CIA interests. Or do you believe that the timing of this and the Trump tariffs are all just a coincidence?

    Last night truck after truck rolled by my front yard. There were fire trucks on my grass with the flashers on and police directing traffic and the troops got into place outside of the HK-Macao-Zhuhai bridge customs office.

    Keep your eyes open. You will see how a serious nation takes care of troublemakers and people who will want to upset the peace and tranquility of a stable nation.

    • Dave says:

      Chinese-Americans support the Democrats not because they’re into white genocide, sexual perversion, socialism, or Negro supremacy. Politics in Asia is a one-party affair, the two-party system being utterly foreign to the Asian mind. So when Asian-Americans want e.g. to end affirmative action in college admissions, they work within the party that utterly dominates the places they live. You gotta admit, it works better than voting Republican, at least in California.

    • I AM says:

      [*deleted for being unresponsive*]

  15. […] I support the Hong Kong police too! […]

  16. Joe says:

    The Chinese government is starting to look weak.

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

  17. We should round up all of the communists from the United States (university faculty, Hollywood leftoids, and pretty much anyone who votes democrat) and drop-ship them to China, where they would be more happy in a fully communist environment. Then we might have some room to import true lovers of freedom and liberty from Hong Kong.

    • Not Tom says:

      The “true lovers of freedom and liberty” in Hong Kong are CIA-instigated left-wing anarcho-communists. We have no use for them and don’t want them.

      You’re buying into the propaganda narrative that this has anything to do with freedom vs. tyranny. It doesn’t. It’s State Department Progressivism vs. Chinese Sovereignty. Since national sovereignty is generally good, and the State Department religion is as alien to me as Confucianism, I’m rooting for Chinese Sovereignty. If some innocent HKers get caught up in the madness, that’s just too bad; they should have cracked down harder on the Progressive infestation.

      • Anonymous says:

        Breitbart News and Paul Joseph Watson’s Summit News, both of which could plausibly be called “alt-right”, are taking positions against China on Hong Kong.

        RT is neutral in its opinion and right wing in its coverage.

        Comments on the various “police brutality” videos on YouTube are solidly right wing.

        I see a slight rise in national interest over global interest.

        • jim says:

          The officially blessed leadership of the alt-right support the Hong Kong protesters.

          The people who put up the You Tube videos support the Hong Kong protesters.

          I, of course, oppose the Hong Kong protesters, and looks like the vast majority of You Tube commenters oppose the Hong Kong protesters.

          Gab seems to regard the Hong Protests as deep state attack on China.

Leave a Reply