Why the NY Times promotes violence in Hong Kong

Violence is not ok. Don’t promote it.

NEW YORK – It is no secret that the New York Times is intent on regime change in Communist China and ignorant of the consequences of promoting violence in Hong Kong. But never did the paper made it so blatantly obvious:

In today’s piece entitled ‘China Labels Protesters “Radical Separatists,” and They Agree’,[i] the NY Times journalist Alan Wong writes a confession of faith to a certain Edward Leung, a rather extremist individual, it appears, who happens to boast (as the NY Times assuredly wanted him to) about the necessity of violence against the state in his quest for… wait for it… “a revolution.”

NYT journalists often function as ‘press soldiers’[ii] intent on fabricating Chinese ‘dissidents’ – the troublemaker, the holyman, the savior, the oppressed women, now the street fighter – that are, in exchange for generous media attention, gifts, sinecures, and perks, all-too-willing to become defectors. Mr. Leung, for his part, is all geared up: “He welcomed the violence in Mong Kok,” the paper lets it be known. Inversely, all those candidates China had thought of as ‘role models’ are either ignored or dismissed. It’s a form of Western ‘jihad’ – a crusade against the Chinese civilization – with the aim of (re-)building a Western califat. It’s a metaphor.

Do not promote violence - NYT
Look, NY Times, if violent riot is ok, why not promoting it during the anti-US-military-bases rally in Tokyo, Japan; or the anti-Islam ‘Pegida’ revolt in Brandenburg, Germany; or the anti-Racism demos in New York City, USA? After all, “peaceful” seems not to do it, right?

Are you annoyed by those religious categories I just used? Well, the New York Times can’t get enough of Christian allusions. It is constantly evoking the biblical ‘exodus’ in Hong Kong with its savior, 19-year-old “Joshua” Wong, leading the oppressed people of Hong Kong into the promised land: America. (“Joshua”, if you recall, is also the name of the biblical “Joshua” in the Book of Exodus).

Now, in this article ‘Radical Separatists’, the NY Times evokes the resemblance of Edward Leung, a 24-year-old radical, to no other than Reverent Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: “A riot is the language of the unheard.”

The article’s ‘call for action’ is what it tries to understate and trivialize at least four (!) times in the text: separatism. In the first paragraph it connects Hong Kong with Tibet and Taiwan (all harbor separatist movements), but then says “the dissidents deny separatism.” Only to say next that “at least one Hong Kong protester” promotes separatism. (1st). Why writing an article if it’s just one, right? Then it describes the Mong Kok riot with an appetite for confrontation and the “unlikely goal” of independent Hong Kong. Why doing it, if it’s “unlikely”? (2nd) Next, it says the separatists’ goal is independence; only to remind the reader that analysts “dismiss that as a fantasy.” Why, then, writing it; does the NY Times now specialize on fantasies? (3rd) Last, the paper says that “independence to Hong Kong is preposterous.” (4th) Only to start the second half of the article with a 180-degree-turn this way: “Not all localists endorse the idea of violent demonstrations.” Really? Not all? But many, a lot maybe? It continues: “The students unions of all but one of Hong Kong’s eight publicly funded universities issued statements of support.” So, now, which one is it: Is independence a preposterous fantasy, or is half of fucking Hong Kong supporting it?

The NY Times article closes with an ‘expert testimonial’ (in propaganda, the media put the ‘core message’ into the mouth of  ‘experts’ or ‘plain folks’): “But Hong Kong is not a democracy, and Beijing will not allow Hong Kong to become one, despite the pretense otherwise.” Which is what, a solicitation? A wink? Are your readers fucking prodigies? Can’t you just say: Do it, but we haven’t told you so!

To recapitulate: the New York Times has basically green-lightened its new streetfighter, Edward Leung, and its beloved savior, “Joshua” Wong, and any separatist martyr in China really, to do whatever it takes to succeed, even if it’s violent – and never to despair, because the Western media has your asses covered. It’s an offer that will be hard to resist.

[i] The New York Times, China Labels Protesters ‘Radical Separatists’, and They Agree, Feb 20, 2016, New York

[ii] www.east-west-dichotomy.com/western-press-soldiers-michael-the-knife-forsythe-ny-times/

Thor Tukoll is a pen name of Thorsten J. Pattberg, a German writer and cultural critic. He is the author of The East-West Dichotomy,  Shengren, and Inside Peking University.

2016 (c) Thor Tukoll

Subscribe to us NOW!

Join 2,494 other subscribers