“Careless” Carrie Lam’s effectiveness in Hong Kong is in the red. After banning masks at public gatherings, more people are wearing masks at gatherings than in the past. She bans an assembly, but people assemble anyway. Protests are so bad, police hit some people guarding a mosque with a water cannon and had to apologize to the imam. Lam was heckled by legislators during her annual policy speech and had to leave the chamber twice, finally delivering her speech on television. A government so defied and can’t govern. But, the need for public trust isn’t understood by Confucianism nor Communism nor especially Confucian Communism.
Beyond loss of control, the West gets the message loud and clear: China won’t back down on its forced expansionism. US Congress continues to pass laws favoring freedom in both Hong Kong and Taiwan. The TAIPEI act is largely symbolic, but still meaningful inasmuch as it gauges China’s response. Evaluating Hong Kong’s level of autonomy to be treated as a separate territory from China makes sense. Still, China considers the US formulating its own international policy a form of “interference”. Think about that…
US international policy must be what China wants it to be, otherwise China labels this as “interference”. This can only mean that China considers the US already under Chinese rule. It’s no longer about whether or to what extent China can boss Hong Kong and Taiwan. Now, the question is whether China should be allowed to dictate another country’s foreign policy.
Another factor is corporate. Gaming companies oust gamers who make “political” statements to defend freedom and human rights, but then Dior gets political by apologizing to China for not putting Taiwan in its map of China. If companies were consistent about being so-called “non-political”, then Dior would have refused to agree or disagree with China. But, this isn’t about being non-political; it’s about agreeing with whatever China demands.
There is a threshold of tolerance that every human has for the number of rules that can be understood and obeyed. There is also a threshold of chaos that a human can tolerate. Rules exist to keep the chaos from crossing that threshold. But, once the number of rules crosses that threshold, the rules and the chaos are no longer distinguishable. It’s all just oppression. Humans can only take so much.
America’s Declaration of Independence was not only over having too many rules, it was also based on an excess of unchecked chaos. England had imposed too many rules than could be obeyed, but those rules did not prevent chaos; they arguably created more. Rules are not always bad or good. They must be created neither liberally or conservatively. Rules must be minimally used for maximum prevention of chaos.
Once the people realize that number of rules and chaos have crossed the threshold of tolerance, the rule makers and rule enforcers are instantly seen in a different light. This programming is hardwired into the human psyche. It requires no organization and no marketing. It is every bit as innate as sleeping when tired. Humans arrive at the point of exhaustion without propaganda.
Ending tyranny and raising leaders is pure human instinct. People will do these on autopilot. They only need to think of “how” once nature has begun its course.
Beginning with the W administration, the number of tolerable rules in America skyrocketed. With Obama, that number increased and chaos simultaneously skyrocketed. Today, we are just crossing the threshold. So, only about half of the people have any concern, the other half label the first half as “alarmists” and blame propaganda.
Right now, the infatuation with Trump and Sanders stem from the “how” question that the people in the United States are asking after leader-tyrant instincts automatically kicked-in. People view Trump and Sanders as the most healthy, peaceful way people see to exercise that instinct. But, the calm-obsessed elites, trying to control people rather than understand them, believe that the Trump phenomenon is a result of propaganda. They may have miscalculated.
Look at Brexit: People can only take so much. Leaders who push the threshold are always surprised when they cross it.