The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndre Vltchek Archive
How Is the Murder of General Soleimani Connected to Hong Kong?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Hong Kong rioters would like to believe that they are unique, and that the West has handpicked them – them alone – for what it identifies as the “noble fight for democracy”, and for “Western values”.

The problem is that Hong Kong, which likes to promote itself as “Asia’s World City” (at least that is what the advertisements and billboards used to shout, till recently) is actually very far from being global, cosmopolitan, or internationalist.

Hong Kong is a Chinese, Cantonese city, but one which is still under the tremendous influence of Western/British propaganda, dispersed though mass media outlets, social media, as well as education.

Itself a former colony, Hong Kong has been conditioned not to sympathize with the plight of countries that are until now being colonized by the West and its allies. There are a great number of nations still being brutalized by Western neo-colonialism, in all parts of the world, but many in Hong Kong don’t seem to be noticing it.

Countless young Hong Kong inhabitants like to perceive themselves as members of the ‘elite’ club of the “rulers of the world”; as those who are close to potentates in London, Washington or Tokyo. And they ignore, often even despise those that form the great majority of people living on our planet – the wretched, humiliated and exploited.

I don’t say it only theoretically. I have spoken to the ‘rebellious’ Hong Kong people, for years. Their lack of knowledge regarding Western imperialism and the horrors it is spreading, world-wide, is remarkable. They do not even know much about British colonialism, or, concretely, about what the United Kingdom did in order to damage, humiliate and weaken China.

While the young people of Hong Kong know close to nothing about the genocides committed by the United Kingdom (and other Western countries), they repeat, again and again, all mass-produced propaganda fabrications about the PRC and its Communist Party. China, which is clearly the most peaceful large country on earth, China which has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, is demonized and smeared, by British and North American propaganda; by those countries that have been actually murdering millions, in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and Asia.

All that, while the young people of Hong Kong are playing North American and British national anthems, waving their flags, and inviting them to re-invade and “liberate” their city “from China” – meaning from themselves.

 

In Hong Kong, many young people see countries that are fighting against Western imperialism – Russia, PRC, Iran, Cuba, Syria, Venezuela, to name just a few – as some sinister freaks, as dictatorships, and as ‘anti-democratic’ entities.

It is because they know very little about them, and even about their own country – China – which they have become accustomed to observe through the dark nihilist lenses, supplied by the West.

They were told that to support Communism, socialism, or even anti-imperialist forces, is “uncool” and unfashionable in the 21st Century. And they listen to such nonsense; they so desperately want to be “cool”. In fact, to many of them it is all that really matters. They have fully adopted Western selfishness, individualism, and “me-me” world view.

Now, they read about the murder of the great Iranian commander, General Qassem Soleimani. He was assassinated, in fact extra-judicially executed, against all international laws and norms, by the US military, on the direct orders of the U.S. Commander in Chief, Donald Trump.

General Soleimani fought against terrorism, helped to destroy ISIS. He was defending the Middle East against the NATO implants, be they terrorist cells, or ethnic groups that have been trained by those cells.

What are Hong Kong “pro-democracy” activists going to say now?

This is their game. By taking dictates from the West, they should be held responsible for the international actions of their handlers.

They should be asked, squarely: “Is it justifiable, to kill a man; in fact, the second most important man, in a country which (like China), has never attacked anybody, in the entire modern history? Could it be tolerated? Is this what you call ‘democracy’?”

In just the last month, the West has overthrown genuine democracy in Bolivia, enslaving, once again, millions of indigenous people. It has continued starving tens of millions, in places such as Venezuela and Iran. It keeps occupying (against the will of the great majority of people) countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Is this how the “pro-democracy” activists are perceiving democracy?

And what comes next? Would they support the assassinations of leaders in Russia, or even in China?

These are serious questions, and they have to be asked.

 

Hong Kong is just one piece of mosaic in a huge neo-imperialist game, which the West is now playing on the entire territory of our planet.

On the other hand, China is one of the countries that is defending our world; making sure that it will not be consumed, once again, by greed and the endless brutality of the West.

The young people who are smearing China relentlessly, are not only attacking Beijing. They have taken sides, against their own country, and against the entire oppressed world. They are committing treason, and they are also betraying their race, and all those billions of human beings who are suffering under the neo-colonialist whip. Are they really “cool”? Perhaps in Berlin and Chicago they are, but even there, only in certain circles.

There can be no greater contrast than that between the great patriot General Soleimani, and the rioters in Hong Kong.

People in countries such as China, Russia, Iran or Cuba know that the Motherland is never for sale. The West, with its ‘divide and rule’ strategy, is perfecting tactics on how to encourage people to sell their Motherlands, all over the world, either for money, or for several moments of selfish fame.

ORDER IT NOW

To realize how grotesque Western “foreign policy” is, just reverse the sides: Imagine that Beijing bombed Joshua Wong’s car, somewhere near the airport of Haneda in Tokyo, or Incheon, South Korea, killing him, and few others, just because the Chinese government does not like his face.

That is precisely what happened a few days ago outside Baghdad!

Unimaginable? Yes, I agree. This is not what China does. And so: who is playing by the rules? Who is more respectful of international law, Beijing or Washington?

The answer is obvious. What is missing is to ask: Who is more dangerous for Hong Kong? A restrained Beijing with its aims of a harmonious civilization, or the rioters who are spreading global, Western-style violence?

 

[First published by China Daily Hong Kong]

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Five of his latest books are “China Belt and Road Initiative”,China and Ecological Civilization” with John B. Cobb, Jr., “Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism”, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and Latin America, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website, his Twitter and his Patreon.

 
Hide 15 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. The Chinese government has played the HK issue masterfully. Most other countries would have fallen into the trap and sent in the security forces, giving the US the pretext for starting an escalating spiral of economic sanctions against the PRC.

    China has simply left the HK police in charge. They are inadequate to the task, but the damage being done mainly hurts HK citizens. Apparently, the anti-extradition movement did have considerable initial support, but that state of affairs was quickly transcended by incendiaries who wanted to “burn the place down.”

    In the end, HK will have to reconcile itself to its fate–being an important city and entrepôt in China but fully integrated into whatever constitutional arrangement the Chinese have 28 years from now.

    Soleimani was an impressive individual. His assassination lays bare the realities of US policy–well almost bare. Trump clearly didn’t come up with the idea himself. So who convinced him to order the killing? Not the military for sure. And not the CIA either, I think. But apparently the odious David Wurser is now acting as an “informal advisor” to Trump. He is just the kind of Israel Firster whom our Shabbosgoy-in-Chief seems helpless to resist. The usual cast of svengalis–or should I say svengalim–are no doubt at the root of this heinous and self-destructive act.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  2. “Is it justifiable, to kill a man; in fact, the second most important man, in a country which (like China), has never attacked anybody, in the entire modern history? Could it be tolerated? Is this what you call ‘democracy’?”

    While I support your overall conclusions, this is not the question to be asked, unless you consider “modern history” to be 21st century history.
    Iran has, indeed attacked. Under the Shah in the 70s, it invaded what was part of Iraq to control the entirety of the Shat al Arab waterway. A peace treaty was obtained in 1975, after Iraq conceded some territory, and Iran agreed to stop funding Kurdish rebels. After the Iranian revolution, there were many border skirmishes instigated by Iranians, not necessarily officially government sanctioned, but the shelling of Iraqi border towns had to have been, as was the increased activity of Kurdish rebels. That led to Iraq canceling the 1975 treaty, and invading Iran to take control of the entirety of the Shat al Arab waterway.
    China invaded Tibet and has had border “incidents” with India over disputed territory.
    I have no difficulty in agreeing with the characterization of the US and UK, generally speaking, but Iran and China are not the paragons of virtue you portray them to be. The same can be said of dozens more countries, or tribal factions within countries. In comparison, at best they just aren’t as bad as the US and UK have been in “modern history”.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  3. Imagine that Beijing bombed Joshua Wong’s car, somewhere near the airport of Haneda in Tokyo, or Incheon, South Korea, killing him, and few others

    I like this comparison, because this is exactly what Trump and USA did. You can just imagine how the world, that ignores what the US does, would have erupted in condemnation.

  4. Yee says:

    Curmudgeon,

    “China invaded Tibet and has had border “incidents” with India over disputed territory.”

    A country cannot “invade” itself. Tibet has been part of China for centuries. In 1890, the British colonists even sighed a treaty with the Qing government for the Tibet-Sikkim border.

    Since Tibet was part of China in Qing dynasty and Republic of China era, how could China “invade” it?

    India doesn’t have the right to claim British colonies as their territory.

  5. @Yee

    The Quing conquest of 1720 was the Chinese invasion. If memory serve me correctly, they were originally asked to enter Tibet to stop the Nepalese from invading, but instead forced Tibet to acknowledge Chinese authority. Had Tibet always been part of China, why was it necessary for the Dalai Lama and others to flee from Mao?

    Any country has the “right” to claim whatever it wants. Whether others recognize it is a different question.

    • Replies: @d dan
    , @showmethereal
  6. d dan says:
    @Curmudgeon

    “Had Tibet always been part of China, why was it necessary for the Dalai Lama and others to flee from Mao?”

    Easy, just like fugitive everywhere running from law enforcement.

    “Any country has the “right” to claim whatever it wants. Whether others recognize it is a different question.”

    So, tell me which country in the world recognizes Tibet as an independent country? Which of the world organization recognizes Tibet, or Xinjiang as an independent country? Please give some names.

    Idiotic argument – if it can even be called an argument.

  7. Zoot Sims says:

    Oscar Peterson, very astute 1st comment on the PRC. But why have you concluded: “Who convinced him to order the killing? Not the military for sure. And not the CIA either, I think.” If not the CIA, then why did the aggrieved Iranians make a point of whacking CIA’s Mike D’Andrea and not some handy Israelis or Sayanim?

    This Wurmser, whom you blame, how many killer drone battalions does he have? Israel’s fifth column are of course past masters of ‘let’s you and him fight,” outwitting CIA dimbulbs at every turn and using them like soap. But the SCO and its observers are meticulous in their retributive precision (ask William Bennett.) And they’ve been bombarding CIA.

    What we have here, it seems, is CIA doing exactly what it’s always done. But now they’re hiding behind obnoxious Jews. “CIA works for the president” fails the laugh test now that we all know about JFK and RFK. So now it’s “CIA works for the Jews.” CIA does what they want.

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
  8. Those Hong Kong “protestors” apparently would like those unfortunates who come down with the Corona virus to have fewer places to be treated. See here: https://www.rt.com/news/479268-hong-kong-hospital-bombed/

    Well, I’m sure these altruistic, noble protestors would not want to see the virus spread widely, thereby possibly causing anti-China feelings to increase among the residents of Hong Kong, regardless of the human suffering this would necessarily entail. No way, never. They care deeply for their HK brethren, and it shows.

    (But then again, when you’ve already got lots of full-coverage masks at your disposal, what do you care about those innocents who may be unable to get timely care, or would possibly be exposed to the virus unnecessarily, when there are potential political points to be scored against the Mainland…..)

  9. Yee says:

    Curmudgeon,

    “Had Tibet always been part of China, why was it necessary for the Dalai Lama and others to flee from Mao?”

    Why did various European monarch flee their countries after WWI?

    A change of ruling body in a country isn’t “invade”, and certainly doesn’t mean the country loses its territory.

  10. @Curmudgeon

    The Shah was a western puppet though… So they had impunity to do what they did… Same as Saddam was backed by the west when he in turn tried to invade Iran after the muslim revolution…

    Also – when did China invade Tibet? Centuries ago they made agreement… Tibet rested ultimate authority with the Chinese crown. The issues between China and India result from that. British imperialism. The Brits invaded Tibet out of disrespect for China… They wanted to expand their Raj… They made up their own border – which the Indians hold to….

    But no governments are paragons of virtue. Some are just worse than others.

  11. @Curmudgeon

    No part of the world was ever always part of any nation… But as to why the Dalai Lama had to flee – well maybe you should ask him that. He was a delegate of the People’s Congress in Beijing while working with the CIA to start an armed uprising in Tibet. That’s usually going to bring a charge of treason in any country I know. But ask if Tibet was not part of China -then why have Dalai Lamas been approved by whichever Chinese government was in Beijing for over 200 years…

  12. @Oscar Peterson

    I think you showed the juxtaposition between Beijing and Washington in your comment. Beijing didn’t take the bait and is allowing the rioters to destroy themselves… Meanwhile Washington attempts to look tough by killing Soleimani are only inciting more hatred towards the US.

  13. @Zoot Sims

    But why have you concluded: “Who convinced him to order the killing? Not the military for sure. And not the CIA either, I think.” If not the CIA, then why did the aggrieved Iranians make a point of whacking CIA’s Mike D’Andrea and not some handy Israelis or Sayanim?

    Well, not the military because the senior military leadership has not wanted to escalate again Iran and get into a fight in Iraq with the PMUs. And they were in general support of JCPOA. There was also a leak claiming that the military was surprised that Trump selected the assassination option. That was probably leaked from military sources to show that they were not responsible for pushing it on Trump.

    And assassination in front of the world is not the CIA’s style. In fact, it’s not any intelligence agency’s style. This reeks of some off-the-cuff decision made by Trump at the urging of the usual suspects.

    We know that Israel and its operatives are driving the anti-Iran train. Wurmser who was a big proponent of the Iraq invasion with the rest of the Jewish neocon minyan, has somehow managed to get back into the game. Adelson had a big role in getting rid of McMaster, Tillerson, and probably Mattis as well and also in getting the warmonger Bolton hired. He may well have whispered enough poison in Trump’s ear to get Wurmser into the administration too. It’s true that the current CIA director might be more receptive than her predecessors (not counting Pompeo) but it certainly doesn’t seem likely to me that the CIA would have pushed this.

    PS Your last comment was not actually made as a reply so I didn’t notice it until now.

  14. @Yee

    Tibet was only briefly under Chinese control before 1720. It’s ironic that it was the conquerors of China, first the Mongols (Yuan) briefly and then the Manchus (Qing), who finally and, it seems, permanently attached Tibet to the Chinese state. They also did the same thing with Manchuria, Mongolia and Xinjiang. China lost most of Mongolia as the Russians expanded east, but a huge percentage of the territory now part of China was made so by China’s last foreign conquerors. Prior to 1720, the only time Tibet was really under Chinese control was for a fairly brief period in the 13th and 14th centuries after the Mongol conquest of China.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  15. @Oscar Peterson

    Your history is mainly correct. Though during the Tang dynasty there was a form of partnership/solidarity on a political level between Tibet and China. But yeah was more the Han style – rather than just open conquest like the Mongols and Manchu. That said – China has never been a race – but as others said – “a civilization”. Manchus are not distinguishable today – not because they were wiped out – but because they interbred with the Han. Even today – there are more Mongols in China than there are in the country of Mongolia. Indeed – Tibet has a very long and complicated history… But for the past 200+ years it has been a Chinese entity. About the same life span as the United States. I always chuckle when people say China invaded Tibet in 1950… Had the Nationalists – who were allies of the west won the civil war – they fully planned to bring Tibet back under heel. There would have been no CIA operation to help the Dalai Lama escape. In WW2 – the US official word was that Tibet was part of the Republic of China. It would have been interesting to see what would happen with Mongolia and the Russian Far East as well. The Communists willingly gave them up to independence and to Russia respectively. The Nationalists still held on to those claims until fairly recently – while watching from afar on Taiwan.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andre Vltchek Comments via RSS