The so-called “Occupy Central” movement has been so utterly exposed as foreign meddling, that even stalwart supporters of the protests have had to admit US-cash, political, and media support is irrefutably driving the unrest. As is the nature of humanity, pride has overridden the many good intentions, principles, and ideals of ordinary “Occupy Central” supporters, transforming the movement from idealistic but misled, to spiteful and vindictive.
While these protesters were brave enough to stand up to injustices they perceived Beijing was imposing upon them, they now find themselves incapable of summoning similar courage to confront the injustices their own protest leaders have committed – including deceiving them about their agenda, their allegiances, and their sponsors.
In the wake of the truth, many “Occupy Central” supporters have deferred to increasing levels of cognitive dissonance and after adamantly denying US involvement, have invented a myriad of implausible explanations as to why US meddling in China is now apparently “ok.”
Denial and Delusions
The initial response to evidence that the US, not the people of Hong Kong, is driving the “Occupy Central” movement through a handful of deeply compromised politicians, media moguls, and protest leaders, is denial. Supporters will outright deny that the US is funding or supporting the protests in any shape, form, or way precisely because they believe that it is a movement of the Hong Kong people. by them, and for them.
However, denial doesn’t last because the evidence is simply overwhelming. “Occupy Central” leaders were literally sitting in Washington D.C. earlier this year scripting the unrest verbatim side by side with the US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, and US Vice President Joseph Biden among others. As part of “Why Democracy in Hong Kong Matters” event hosted by NED, Martin Lee and Anson Chan were both in front of an audience representing immense Western corporate-financier and political interests, laying the groundwork for “Occupy Central” and openly begging Washington for support.
Other leaders such as Benny Tai, Audrey Eu, Jimmy Lai, Jospeh Zen, and Joshua Wong were implicated by both the NED’s own documented support for the various organizations they are participants in, or by fellow “Occupy Central” leaders themselves.
After denial comes acceptance – but coupled with delusions. After adamantly denying US involvement in the “Occupy Central” movement specifically because of the negative implications it implies, upon seeing irrefutable evidence that indeed the US is driving the unrest, supporters attempt to claim that the US is simply “supporting democracy” and that there is nothing suspicious or negative about that at all. The delusions deepen when confronted with examples of other US campaigns aimed at “promoting democracy,” such as in Syria, Libya, Iraq, or Ukraine, now embroiled in destructive perpetual violence, division, and chaos and exposed as naked imperial conquest.
Self-Determination: If not Beijing’s Business, Surely not Washington’s
Ultimately, these delusions conflict with and are diametrically opposed to the many good intentions genuine “Occupy Central” protesters began with – the notion that the people of Hong Kong should decide for themselves their own destiny and reject interference from beyond their territory. While they have been insidiously led to believe Beijing is their only threat, the fact is Washington too, from thousands of miles away, seeks to impose its will, agenda, and interests upon the people of Hong Kong and direct their destiny.
Even many of the overt slogans and talking points articulated by Martin Lee and Anson Chan in Washington earlier this year, then repeated verbatim by “Occupy Central” protest leaders over recent weeks, do not add up to the expectations and intentions of the average “Occupy Central” supporter. In essence, the leadership of “Occupy Central” seem to be defending above all else, the parting demands made by the British as they handed over Chinese territory they had occupied for 142 years. Beijing has no obligation to respect or recognize demands made by a foreign power that had illegally occupied its territory. For “Occupy Central’s” leadership to insist otherwise is the behavior of foreign agents protecting a racket their interests are tied to, not a genuine movement seeking sovereignty and self-determination.
For the “Occupy Central” leadership to insist Beijing honor demands made by parting imperialists, reveals their true allegiance – not to their nation of China, nor their home of Hong Kong, but foreign interests who have for centuries sought to exercise dominion over China and its vast territory, as well as all that rests within China’s traditional spheres of influence.
If “Occupy Central” believes Hong Kong’s political present and future is the business of the people of Hong Kong and not Beijing, then surely they understand such matters are certainly not Washington’s business either. The fact that Washington is so heavily invested in “Occupy Central’s” leadership absolutely contradicts the principles the movement is predicated upon – a fact genuine protesters must reckon with.
Genuine Protesters Must Denounce Compromised “Occupy Central” Leadership
For genuine “Occupy Central” supporters, there is absolutely no shame in searching for the truth, nor falling into any of the pitfalls that lie along the way. There is shame however, in falling into one of these pitfalls – by following compromised, criminal leaders with sedition in their hearts and foreign cash in their hands – and then convincing oneself that such a pitfall is somehow still “progress.” It is human to fall, it is human to feel embarrassed, but it is also human to rise above our petty pride and pursue the truth no matter what the personal cost.
 |
| Image: Attempts to claim that the US through NED are simply seeking to “promote democracy” fall short when considering the immense, exploitative, corporate-financier interests represented by NED’s board of directors (pictured above). It is difficult to believe that Boeing, Ford, McDonald’s Exxon, Goldman Sachs, and others care about “democracy” and not simply a new way to sell their global hegemonic ambitions for greater power and wealth. |
