Pro and anti-Occupy Central protesters clash in Hong Kong in early October 2014. This unnarrated news footage suggests that there is neither love nor peace.

PAPA People Assisting Parents Association

© 2007-now
Bookmark and Share
donate button
PAPA logo
notice board blogger icon
New links

Table of Contents
  1. Abstract
  2. Introduction
  3. Causes of the Disobedience Campaign
  4. Covert Foreign Influence?
  5. How does the U.S. benefit from the chaos?
  6. The Role of Great Britain
  7. A Proxy War of Destabilization
  8. Who are the winners?
  9. The Obama Administration's Pivot to Asia
  10. Similarities between Occupy Central protesters and child protection workers
  11. Conclusion

Occupy Central with Love and Peace Executive Summary (讓愛與和平佔領中環 or 和平佔中)

US vs China


This executive summary was created for those who do not want to read the full version of "Occupy Central with Love and Peace". In light of international geopolitics, the economic and political landscape in Hong Kong, we concluded that Occupy Central was a subversion fostered by foreign powers masqueraded as a a popular uprising in pursuit of democratic reform. The objective of this movement is to destabilize Hong Kong, induce a pro-American regime change and turn it into a forward basis for further subversive activities against China. Cartoons, embedded videos and photos form an integral part of our presentation.


"Occupy Central (佔領中環 or 佔中)" (hereinafter known as "OC") is a civil disobedience campaign launched against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government headed by its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Chun-ying Leung (梁振英 CY Leung) on 28 September 2014.

Apparently inspired by the Occupy Wall Street, the concept of OC is the brainchild of Benny Tai Yiu-ting (戴耀廷), Chan Kin-man (陳健民) and Reverend Chu Yiu-ming (朱耀明) in 2013. The campaign is programmed to commence on 1 October 2014, National Day of the People's Republic of China. The original design of the scheme is to mobilize peaceful demonstrators to occupy the Central District (a major commercial district in Hong Kong Island), hence paralyzing major commercial and financial activities to force the Hong Kong Government to agree to granting "true" democracy. They are prepared to accept legal consequence. Assuming that the judiciary will have difficult to trial some many cases within a reasonable time, they bet that they will not be held legally responsible for their action.

On 28 September 2014 at 1.40 a.m. Hong Kong local time, the campaign was launched two days earlier than scheduled when some student activists protested outside Hong Kong's Central Government Complex. Chaos quickly spread to other residential areas such as Causeway Bay, Mong Kok and Canton Road (see map on the left). This is a classic surprise tactic used in war. Both the Hong Kong Government and people are caught unprepared for the sudden expansion of occupied areas to residential districts.

Causes of the Disobedience Campaign

On the surface, it appears that the cause of the campaign is to seek universal suffrage on candidates nominated by the people of Hong Kong, not by Beijing. In fact, it is a power struggle between the pro Beijing camp and the pro democracy camp who knows that their members stand no chance of becoming the Chief Executive under the Beijing approved framework.

From a broader perspective, people take their grievance to the streets because of their hopelessness in buying a decent home and the ever-growing influence of mainlander Chinese on the economy and the culture of Hong Kong. The underlying reasons are a serious shortage of land and an economy that becomes more and more dependent on China. Millions Chinese tourists who visit Hong Kong each year have driven the price of many daily commodities up. Some inappropriate behavior (like children urinating on the streets, cutting into line ups) of Chinese tourists offend the local people. Hong Kong has the highest population density on earth. There is not enough land to house its 7.5 million population. In recent years, real estate prices have gone so high that even university graduates can hardly afford to buy a small apartment suite about the size of an average Canadian bathroom. Wealth is unevenly distributed among various social classes, which is often a cause of turmoil in human history. This is what Beijing refers as high-level conflicts within the society and has instructed the Chief Executive to deal with them without delay.

Furthermore, some Chinese from the mainland deliberately come to Hong Kong to give birth. Under the laws of Hong Kong, their local born children will automatically become permanent residents and are entitled to free education and other applicable social services. Hong Kong parents resent competition for schools, health care services (especially maternity medical care) and even daily consumer products like baby formula. Some express their anger by going to major tourist shopping areas to yell "Locust go home" (a disrespectful name given to Chinese tourists from the mainland). This uncommon intra-racial discrimination is seldom found elsewhere.

Covert Foreign Influence?

There are suggestions that OC is masterminded by foreign powers. Hong Kong Chief Executive CY Leung echoed the foregoing but did not name who. Critics of conspiracy theory often ask for evidence. On 21 October 2014, Leung told foreign reporters in an interview that he will find the appropriate avenue to disseminate evidence in due course. He further added he is not speculating but is saying that there is foreign influence. As the Chief Executive, Leung asserted it is his duty to be aware of foreign interference and he has evidence to support his position. To further analyze the notion of proof, let's turn to a biblical wisdom below:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature -
have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)

Some may think that this Bible verse requires blind faith. To us, this is common sense. Observant people would easily recognize that the campaign is a classic product of a covert proxy war of destabilization. Under the pretext of pursuit of democracy, all actions aim at inducing regime change. This is an act of war against a sovereign power. This relatively new form of warfare has been used many times before in Iran (1953), Tibet (1955 to now), Cuba (1959), South Vietnam (1963) and more recently in Georgia and Ukraine. Tactics used in cultivating favorable local social conditions, means of destabilization, and above all the final objective of overthrowing the current regime are very similar, if not the same. It seems that they all come from the same operating manual. "Covert United States foreign regime change actions" discussed a more complete list in greater details.

German economist William Engdahl spoke on his book Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order

Where does foreign influence, if any, come from? To answer this question, one must ask who want a weak and divided China? Many neighboring countries, especially those with territorial disputes, are threatened by a strong and united China. To name a few, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Philippines all have an interest to see a weak and divided China. However, such hostile endeavor requires financial and military strength of a superpower magnitude as backup support. The only nation that is both willing and able is the U.S. In fact, war of destabilization is part of the U.S. full dominance strategic plan published in 2000. Full dominance includes hegemony in political ideology - democracy, portrayed as the only political ideology that has received universal acceptance. Who is the univocal leader in the free and democratic world? Of course, the U.S.

How does the U.S. benefit from the chaos?

What motivates the U.S. to get involved at the risk of jeopardizing Sino-American relationship? How does chaos in Hong Kong serve American national interests? Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union on 26 December 1991, the U.S. is the only global superpower. The U.S. Navy has no worthy opponents in all oceans. By and large, America attained the sea power outlined in the book "The Influence of Sea Power Upon History" written by Captain A. T. Mahan, U.S. Navy in December 1889. Various American presidents declared that the U.S. will remain strong. The doctrine of full spectrum dominance was introduced long before OC occurred. The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff published a strategic plan titled "Joint Vision 2020" in June 2000. The focus of the plan is to attain full spectrum dominance through interdependent application of dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics and full dimensional protection. Although this plan is largely military in nature, the strategic concepts of power projection and overseas presence and influence are equally important. In essence, it advocates hegemonic supremacy in every aspect. Incidentally, most pan democratic political parties in Hong Kong were founded after 2000.

The U.S. benefits from a disrupted Hong Kong in the following aspects:

  1. Financial Benefits
    1. Preserving the reserve status of the U.S. dollar

      To preserve the reserve status of the U.S. dollar so that America may continue paying its national debt and buying real goods and services abroad by printing paper money, international demand of the greenbacks must be secured either by strengthening the American economy and/or weakening the currencies of major economic powers. The 20122013 Cypriot financial crisis unveiled the Greek government-debt crisis had created financial disturbance in the Eurozone. Convenient downgrading of the Cypriot government's bond credit rating to junk status by American credit rating agencies curbed Eurozone nations to replace the greenbacks by Euro dollars in international trade settlements.

      Hong Kong is a major financial centre in the Far East with a well developed stock market. China relies on Hong Kong to strengthen its financial ties worldwide. Social unrest will inevitably weaken Hong Kong's position as a financial centre, hence destabilizing the Hong Kong dollars and the Chinese Yuan. This will increase desire of trading partners to settle account with the greenbacks instead of local currencies.

    2. Potential gain in the Hong Kong stock exchange when crisis breaks out

      There is no foreign exchange control in Hong Kong. Parties with controlling influence on when to launch a social unrest will gain an upper hand akin to insider trading information in making huge profit in the stock market. Selling short and investing in index option would allow American speculators and OC leaders to earn a huge profit in a bear market. Since there is no capital gain tax in Hong Kong, profits made by American speculators is only taxable by the U.S. Government. Hong Kong and China receive no tax revenue from such speculation. OC leaders are stupid if they do not use this opportunity to make some ill-earned income. After OC broke out on 28 September 2014 (Sunday), the Hong Kong stock index (Hang Seng Index) dropped 449.2 in the next business day. Somebody must have made a lot of money.

  2. Political Benefits

    Waging covert proxy war of destabilization will result in zero American casualty and run a low risk of war. All casualties, if any, will be Chinese. From the American perspective, what could be better to spend a few bucks via National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and other secret funding avenues to motivate some Chinese fanatics to fight for an ideology that is going to weaken their nation and allow Americans to make a huge profit from their stock market? The U.S. wins despite what the Hong Kong Government does. There are only two options open to to Leung. One is to remove protesters by force, which will inevitably lead to bloodshed and attract more opposition from the people of Hong Kong and the American-led international community. If Beijing intervenes, the Americans will be pounding on the table in the United Nation and screaming for sanction. If Leung budges, China risks further destabilization in the future. Hong Kong will be under the control of the anti-Beijing camp and become a forward base to launch similar covert destabilization attack on China. Under the pretext of democracy or other seemingly just cause, destabilization attacks will likely be hitting the more prosperous China's eastern seaboard, where better educated and more affluent Chinese live. They are more susceptible to causes such as democracy, human rights and social justice.

    A less prominent benefit often omitted by Canadian analysts is the issue of Taiwan. OC is used as proof that the "One Country Two Systems" concept does not work. This fosters Taiwanese public opinion to reject any peaceful reunion proposal. A separated Taiwan is vital to the U.S. from a military point of view. Advanced radar installed in Taiwan covers the entire China. Missiles positioned on the west coast of the island can strike Chinese soil within minutes. Above all, the so-called First Island Chain defence will be compromised if Taiwan reunions with China. Chinese warships and subs could enter the Pacific Ocean from the east coast of Taiwan and directly challenge the American naval power stationed in Guam and Hawaii. Status quo of political landscape on both sides of the Taiwan Strait will best serve American interests.

    The U.S. has no real interest in controlling a small city like Hong Kong. Its ultimate objective is China. Given the favorable foundation laid by the British before they left, Hong Kong is merely a forward base to launch further subversion on China. The U.S. will hit a jackpot if social unrest sparks to Mainland China and topples the Chinese regime without firing a shot. This is what Sun Tze (孫子) called victory without fighting, the highest success of strategy. This is the cheapest and safest course of action to maintain U.S. hegemony.

The Role of Great Britain

OC is less likely to occur without the assistance of an important U.S. partner - the United Kingdom. Before they left Hong Kong on 1 July 1997, the British contributed significantly to the precipitation of a democratic movement like OC.

Whenever Britain is forced to relinquish administration of its colonies, it often sowed seeds of discontent by either splitting up an ethnic homogeneous group or putting two adversarial groups together. Since 98% of the population in Hong Kong are Chinese, there is little the British can do to divide them ethnically. British strategists were brilliant to introduce democracy before they left and created ideological difference that would distinguish Hong Kong Chinese from their fellow countrymen in the mainland. In the last few years of British rule, the Hong Kong government fostered political parties that are loyal to democracy (or more precisely to the West). This successfully drives a huge wedge between Hong Kong and China. After 17 years of waiting, their effort finally paid off when OC broke out.

When people asked why the British, who adamantly advocates democracy in Hong Kong, did not grant full democracy while they ruled the colony, the British alleged that plan of democratic reform was proposed by various British Hong Kong governors as early as Mark Aitchison Young (the British Hong Kong Governor who ruled before and after the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong from 1941 to 1945). According to the British, all plans of democratic reform were opposed by China and therefore the hands of the British are tied. In another words, blame China not good old England.

Declassified British diplomatic documents are conveniently found by the International New York Times. The article written by Andrew Jacobs titled "Hong Kong Democracy Standoff, Circa 1960" was published on 27 October 2014 (archived on the right). The news was aired in the Hong Kong TVB news program on 28 October 2014 (the second time on similar issues in less than a month, the first time on 4 October 2014). This news is only published in the international version of New York Times. The target readers are clearly Chinese, not local Americans.

The "Opium War" (1997) is a Chinese movie (in English and Chinese with English subtitle) reenacting what had transpired in 1840 based on historical accounts.

It is noteworthy to remark that these declassified British documents did not suggested that the British intended to grant full democracy to Hong Kong, similar to what OC protesters now seek (ie. Hong Kong governors must still be appointed by London). The British colonial government wanted to introduce some democratic elements to create more autonomy, ie. a more independent state of Hong Kong (similar to Singapore) under British control and influence. What China opposed are chaos and division of sovereign territory, not democracy per se. After so many decades of decline in power, Britain is still the most cunning, devious and hypocritical nation in the West.

The British acquired the Hong Kong Island after winning the First Opium War in 1840. They took Kowloon and New Territory in subsequent imperialistic wars and forced the weak and corrupt Qing government to sign a number of unfair treaties. They came to China (and other British colonies) for the sole purpose of exploitation and to enslave its people for the benefits of the British Empire. To help Canadians to understand what British imperialism did to China since 1840, suppose China exports cocaine to Canada. Our government confiscates and burns their drugs. Alleging the right of free trade, China sends her armed force to beat us into submission, burns our heritage buildings, rapes our women and takes Vancouver Island as her colony. When Canada grows strong enough to retake Vancouver Island, they start preaching communism to the local people to ensure discontent and division after the takeover. How would we feel?

A Proxy War of Destabilization: an act of war and a challenge of sovereignty

Despite how you view it, OC has destabilized Hong Kong financially, socially and politically. It is a proxy war of destabilization masqueraded as a popular uprising in pursuit of democracy. Why do we believe that OC is a war of destabilization instead of a protest to seek democracy? The alleged issue in question is the pre-screening decision of the National People's Congress made on 31 August 2014. Hong Kong is not a country but a highly autonomous special administrative region in the People's Republic of China. According to the Hong Kong Basic Law, chief executive must be approved and appointed by the Chinese Central Government. No officials in the Hong Kong SAR Government can give what protesters seek. What if Hong Kong produces a chief executive who does not receive blessing from Beijing? The Hong Kong SAR Government will run into a constitutional crisis. To get the so-called "true" democracy sought by OC protesters, the decision of the National People's Congress must be reversed. OC protesters should be occupying streets in Beijing, not in Hong Kong. There are many sweet resting spots in Tienanmen Square waiting for them. OC Protesters are either cowards or their logic compass are so confused that we doubt whether they can find their way home after camping on the streets.

A music video that contains footage of Ken Tsang (a Hong Kong social worker) reportedly spraying urine onto the police and punched the cop arresting him to provoke action (video timer 3:20 to 3:44).
Economics of war: U.S. Looted Thousands of Iraq's Cultural Treasures

U.S.-led war of destabilization exhibited a methodology that involves the following steps:

  1. Infiltrate CIA agents masqueraded as visa students, tourists, volunteers, evangelists, businessmen, humanitarian aid workers, journalists into target country.
  2. Under the pretext of noble causes (such as democracy, human rights, anti-corruption, counter-terrorism, child protection) that nobody would oppose, set up non-profit organizations to recruit assets and direct actions.
  3. Recruit and control freedom and ideal pursuers, traitors, intellectuals, religious leaders, local politicians, journalists, teachers, military personnels by way of employment, business contracts, bribery and blackmail using evidence of their crimes or unethical activities (such as drugs usage, perverted sexual practices). As confirmed by Mr. Edward Snowden , the U.S. government is fully capable of and is doing the foregoing given its global surveillance and communication monitoring.
  4. Garner support from labour unions and religious bodies (including occults) by financial means.
  5. American corporations engage in predatory speculations in the target's financial and currency markets to extract profits and to destabilize the local economy.
  6. Select a colorful trademark and symbol for the forthcoming subversion masqueraded as revolution or spontaneous grassroots movement. For example, the Prague Spring in 1968, Velvet Revolution of Eastern European in 1989, Rose Revolution of Georgia in 2003, Cedar Revolution of Lebanon in 2005, Orange Revolution of Ukraine in 2014, Jasmine Revolution (aka Arab Spring) of in Arab countries starting from Tunisia and finally the Umbrella Revolution of Hong Kong in 2014.
  7. Start the revolution with mass demonstrations and protests against government corruption, lack of human rights or democracy or fraudulent election. Only an excuse with little or no evidence is needed to commence action.
  8. Protesters use English slogans during demonstrations to garner support from people of English speaking nations so that their politicians could act alleging popular demand.
  9. Previously recruited local politicians, intellectuals, religious leaders and union heads appeal to those who are dissatisfied to join the protest.
  10. American-led western media work in concern to create an impression that protesters are seeking a just cause and are forced to take their grievance to the streets because of injustice, lack of representation in corrupt government. Therefore, protesters represent majority views and receive support from the populace.
  11. Once global attention is drawn, instigate protesters to provoke local police or military to use force. Provoked violent responses are repeatedly broadcast in news and documentaries to create an image of suppression to weaken popular support of the target government.
  12. Paid actors and special duties protesters attack government officials, buildings or the police to provoke responses by force. Suppression by force is magnified by western journalists and social media to fabricate an illusion in the international community that the target government has lost popular support and is no longer a legal authority.
  13. U.S. politicians or officials seek economic sanction, no-fly zone, recognition of rebel government, air strike or military aid to rebels from United Nations.

If all the above fail, find an excuse (often counter terrorism or elimination of mass destructive weapons) for military intervention and collapse the target regime by military might. The last video on the right suggests that U.S. troops looted an unknown amount of gold and cultural treasures from Iraq during the invasion. No nation would start a war and risk the lives of its soldiers to promote an ideology. The real reasons are always money, natural resources, power and fame.

Who are the winners?

Losers of the OC campaign are easy to identify. The livelihood of retailers in affected areas (except those who sell umbrellas, swim goggles and shrink wrap), taxi drivers, tram drivers, construction workers are seriously affected. Be mindful that there is no unemployment insurance in Hong Kong. Many of these workers would have no income if they do not work. Road blocking caused by the campaign is detrimental to their livelihood. Some of them have commenced legal actions against OC leaders and sue for damages. They should also seek court injunction to freeze their assets and seize their passports to minimize flight risk.

Productivity also suffers a serious blow when hundred of thousands people do nothing but camp on the street. Foundation of a law rule society is at stake. This could be fatal to the financial industry in Hong Kong, the only remaining competitive edge that supports the local economy, which requires stability and a reliable legal system. Other financial centres in the Far East, like Tokyo and Singapore, will benefit if Hong Kong falls.

Opinions are polarized up to the extent that life-long friends and family members having different opinions stop talking to one another. Society is divided. Populace of Hong Kong is further alienated from the local government and China. Such alienation could be a potential source of more serious social unrest in the future. China will be forced to make backup plans and reduce relying on Hong Kong as her international financial centre. Such policy shift will inevitably harm the overall Hong Kong's economic benefits and its relationship with the Mainland.

There are many winners emerging from Occupy Central. First and foremost winner is of course the U.S. Americans must be laughing on the other side of the Pacific Ocean and are proud of their brilliant strategy to destabilize their most worrisome rivalry and potential enemy. Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines are happy to see a troubled China and are hopeful that a weakened China will take a meeker approach in dealing with territorial disputes.

Taiwan, a Chinese province considered by China, is also applauding the movement. Taiwanese media provide extensive coverage of the event and use it to suggest that the "One Country Two Systems" concept does not work. Their agenda is to remain status quo and prevent reunion with the Mainland. Due to American intervention and pro Taiwan independence movement, Taiwan remains a separate political entity. The innovative political concept of "One Country Two Systems" was proposed by the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) as a platform of peaceful reunion has not yet been realized.

Hover your mouse to pause the slide show and to view photo description.

The Obama Administration's Pivot to Asia

After withdrawing U.S. troops from the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Obama administration implemented a new regional strategy called "Pivot to East Asia" in 2012. The U.S. will deploy 60% of its military strength in East Asia to enforce its China containment policy. This is a popular doctrine used during the Cold War. Forward naval and air bases in strategic locations like the Changi Naval Base in Singapore, naval base in Subic Bay and Clark Air Base in the Philippines are positioned to provide a rapid strike force on short notice. Such deployment is obviously intended to choke China's oil supply shipping route and to destroy her military base and radar sites on her eastern seaboard when hostility begins. Offensive weapons including long-range anti-submarine warfare (ASW) patrol aircraft the P-3C Orion are sold to Taiwan to enhance its military capacity.

Military and diplomatic ties with South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Australia, Myanmar (formerly Burma), India and even former enemy Vietnam are strengthened to an unprecedented level. Despite a lack of remorse and admission of wrongdoing on war crimes, Japan is allowed to revise its constitution. Its defence force may now engage in offensive military action. Japanese weapon manufacturers may now export military hardware. Multi-nation military exercises involving anti-submarine, anti-ballistic missile training become a frequent routine on the peripheral of China under the pretext of anti-terrorism. We are puzzled what terrorist groups possess submarines and ballistic missiles?

Furthermore, the U.S. maintains surveillance on all global communications on both friends and foes, engages in aggressive foreign policy (like inducing conflicts in South China Sea and rearming Japan and Taiwan to contain China), develops high tech weapons like the Northrop Grumman X-47B drones designed for carrier-based operations, the Zumwalt class destroyer DDG 1000 designed for multiple naval warfare purposes, 100,000-ton Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, Mach 10+ hypersonic missile delivery system for precise targeting and rapid delivery of weapons.

These are preparations of war and a prelude to preemptive strike. The U.S. estimates that China will have an economy as big as the American's and its military strength will be at par in 2020. We worry that the U.S. is repeating the mistake of Isoroku Yamamoto in 1941. Yamamoto and the U.S. president both face the dilemma of strike now or sit back and risk being excelled by a perceived enemy. Is China or America's insatiable desire to maintain hegemony a real enemy?

Occupy Central is an act of war. It aims at overthrowing a government and undermine the governance of a sovereign power. It could be considered as the first strike. What if China responds by arming enemies of the U.S. and support them to conduct a proxy war? What if a Chinese tactical nuclear weapon is conveniently lost to a terrorist group hostile to America? Be mindful that there are no shortage of enemies hostile to the U.S. around the globe. World peace will be at risk. Given our strong ties with the U.S. and England, Canada will inevitably be drawn in. The terrorist hit-and-run attack that killed a Canadian soldier in Quebec on 21 October 2014 and the gun shot that killed a soldier at a national war memorial in Ottawa on 22 October 2014 are wake up calls. Does our current foreign policy and participation in the U.S. led air strike against ISIS serve our best interests? Or is it jeopardizing our safety at home and when we travel abroad?

In addition to its formidable military might, the U.S. uses the following independent non-military tools to preserve its hegemony or full spectrum dominance:

  1. Financial
    1. the reserve status of the U.S. dollar that allows America to take profit on the spread of foreign exchange rates and to create an unlimited demand of the greenbacks independent of the U.S. economy, hence the ability to pay national debt and purchase real goods and services abroad by printing paper money;
    2. predatory arbitrage and speculative activities of Wall Street moguls to take advantage of price difference in currency and stock markets that will destabilize regional economy;
    3. U.S. monopoly of credit rating agencies that could destroy the ability to debt finance in foreign governments by lowering their credit ratings, often in conjunction with derogatory news conveniently leaks through media.
  2. Political and Legal
    1. U.S. veto power in the U.N. security council;
    2. leadership in military and economic pacts with nations around the world;
    3. strong influence on international and maritime laws according to American value and legal beliefs.
  1. Control of Information, Technology and Natural Resources
    1. the media which control information to both foreign and domestic populace;
    2. global surveillance and open invitation to submit information from unsuspecting parties by way of social media (like Facebook, Whatsapp, e-mail, ... etc.) to obtain and control information that could used be against influential people or parties at the most critical moments often conveniently leaks through media, hence controlling them either by elimination or collaboration (unveiling of CY Leung's receipt of payment of an Australian company in 2012 is an example of this ruse to embarrass and mudsling target public figures);
    3. eventual dominance of oil and energy by consuming resources of other nations first while preserving its own reserve;
    4. cyber control of computers that use American made operating systems to either disable or direct them to attack target websites;
    5. control of food production through genetic engineering by rendering food products from foreign competitors uncompetitive.
  2. Ideological and Cultural
    1. spearhead export of the political ideology of "democracy" successfully marketed as a universal right by subtle domestic and international indoctrination;
    2. use leadership on social engineering (such as child protection, gay movement, woman rights) to mislead people to believe in pseudo science and harmful social movements for the purpose of cultural assimilation;
    3. subtle indoctrination to market and impose American culture and value via movies, songs, books, magazines and TV programs.

One may argue that the aforesaid dominance requires cooperation from independent businesses. It is simply impossible. The Patriot Act signed into law by President George W. Bush on 26 October 2001 obliged every American citizen (including corporate citizen) to work with the U.S. government, rendering the dominance a reality more than a decade ago.

The U.S. has declared a policy to remain strong for another one hundred years. It is certain that the American president a century later would like another hundred years of hegemony. Like endeavors to seek immortality, history has proven that attempts to preserve an everlasting hegemony are bounded to fail. Ability to live peacefully with other nations and share world resources fairly is more realistic and responsible survival strategy in a nuclear world.

Similarities between Occupy Central protesters and child protection workers

Returning to the main theme of our association, most, if not all, English-speaking free and democratic nations have oppressive and barbaric child protection law that grants government absolute power to remove children under the pretext of child welfare and protection. Tax dollars, public ignorance and apathy spawn a child protection industry. This opens government to corruption and racketeering. Service providers of the child protection industry resorts to unorthodox ruses to obtain custody of removed children for job security and business opportunities. We note the following similarities between Occupy Central protesters and child protection workers (click the blue text below to view details):
Occupy Central; MCFD; CPS; Democracy is a universal right; child protection; 佔中;
  1. hijack a noble cause
  2. using children as pawns
  3. perpetrator plays victim
  4. selective law enforcement
  1. oppressive and invasive actions
  2. harm to society
  3. twisted logic
  4. false allegation of popular support and representing majority view
  1. betrayal of the alleged cause
  2. mislead the populace with bogus information
  3. propaganda
more details


Despite its flaws, we support democracy. But we will not export it to other nations. Democracy is not perfect and is not always suitable to all nations. An elected assembly could trample a man's right as much as a tyranny. Child protection industry is an inhumane, oppressive and barbaric product created in most English-speaking free and democratic nations. We are living witnesses of the foregoing. OC protesters will be very disappointed if they pursue their "pseudo democracy" for the purpose of enhancing safety and freedom. They should immigrate to English-speaking democratic nations to pursue their dreams. There are some sweet child protection and national security laws awaiting them.

On 24 October 2014, OC leaders are contemplating a referendum on occupied areas to determine whether they should accept the government proposal to end the crisis. On 25 October 2014, the referendum was changed to determine whether protesters should accept or reject decision of the National People's Congress made on 31 August 2014. According to their design, only those who support the movement are allowed to vote within occupied areas. There is no minimum age requirement. It is like calling a vote on same sex marriage in a gay pride parade. This is a blatant manipulation of voting result using a carefully selected voter base. This reveals the ignorance of their understanding of democracy and the shrewd fabrication of pseudo democratic result to further their agenda. Before we finished writing this page, OC leaders announced that the referendum was called off due to unclear message delivered to their supporters. It is easy to comprehend the disaster it will bring if these people form government.

OC is a well planned and well coordinated multiple-angle attack aiming to destabilize and overthrow a regime under the pretext of a noble cause. It simultaneously attacks:
  • social stability (induce polarized opinion to tear society apart and use mass movement to destroy allegiance);
  • financial and economic stability (choose major commercial and tourist areas to occupy to maximize damage);
  • fundamental value and faith in the current regime (demand Chief Executive to resign citing lack of popular support);
  • the authority of judiciary and law enforcement (disobey high court orders to clear the streets, mudsling police working with mafia to attack peaceful protesters, criticize police of using excessive force when using such force is absolutely necessary and reasonable in view of the violence encountered);
  • the capability, credibility and reputation of pro-government officials and head of state (incidental coverage of Leung's receipt of payment of an Australian company in 2012).
US vs China A documentary (made between 2006 and 2009) on the bilateral relationship between China and the U.S. This old documentary contains some obsolete informaiton and is mainly military in nature. It does not discuss another form of American warfare: non-military war of destabilization using target country's own people, but reflects the mentality of American strategic planners.

The attitude of of late James Roderick Lilley (李潔明), former head of the CIA in Asia, former U.S. ambassador to Taiwan, Korea and China is noteworthy. Mr. Liley was born in Qingdao, China. But he is no friend of his birthplace.

The teeth of this non-military subversive machine bite best under the following conditions:
  1. a desire for democratic reform that appears to be fair, better and alleged to be universally accepted;
  2. discontent among people in target country because of dissatisfaction in society and government such as uneven distribution of wealth, shortage of affordable housing, lack a bright future;
  3. freedom of the press to manipulate public opinion, including control of local journalist associations and reporters;
  4. freedom of religion to turn religious believers into protesters;
  5. a free economy with no exchange control where predatory stock and currency exchange speculations may operate without much government control;
  6. a democracy-friendly education system where other political systems are considered oppressive and unpopular;
  7. a cultural environment open to foreign influence, where foreign movies, newspaper, journals, books, Youtube, Whatsapp, Facebook are easily accessible by most people in target country;
  8. young, naive and gullible students that can be turned into fanatics easily through subtle indoctrination and a small financial motivation;
  9. local politicians that have no chance to gain larger success in the current political framework;
  10. lack of powerful and credible political figures who can exert determining influence to stop chaos and to restore order.

All the above conditions are present in Hong Kong.

Mischief of Pan Democratic Legco Members during Council meetings. These people are leading Occupy Central where there is no love and peace but only hatred, violence and chaos.

Canadians are led to believe that Occupy Central protesters are seeking a democracy similar with ours. Not quite. They pursue a "dictatorial democracy", namely, an ideology that rejects all other views different from their own. What protesters seek is a self-centered ideology akin to fanatic communism during the Cultural Revolution, Nazism and Islamic fundamentalism. Their barbaric actions prove beyond a reasonable doubt that democracy will not serve Hong Kong well. Imagine leaders elected by people of this caliber, people of Hong Kong should shudder.

Most Canadians are not aware that many pan democratic Legco members in Hong Kong are preoccupied with yelling insulting slur and displaying sarcastic political signs during council meetings. Throwing bananas or paper at government officials is a common scene whenever some of these members present. Chair of the Legco has no choice but to order their removal. Some deliberately absent themselves from council meetings to ensure that statutory quorum is not met and force meeting abortion. It appears that they only have one objective: to disrupt proper government functioning and to mount character attack on non democratic Legco members and government officials, hence destabilizing the Hong Kong SAR Government.

Their constituencies elect them to serve their best interests in government, not to create chaos or to overthrow government. Like some Taiwanese council members who fought with their political opponents in parliamentary session, these politicians are international laugh stock. Ironically, their boisterous actions prove that Hong Kong is not ready for democracy. Only dolts will select people with this attitude to represent them in government. Be mindful that tolerance of different opinions, respect of law and freedom of speech are fundamental in democracy.

Many Hong Kong Chinese are furious of this treacherous act. We found the Chinese poem above written by a Hong Kong Chinese. His insightful views and analysis suggest that not all people from Hong Kong brought up in British colonial education lack a sense of patriotism.

News coverage after 1,835,793 Hong Kong residents have signed petition against Occupy Central
Hover your mouse to pause the slide show and to view photo description.

At the point of writing, Anti Occupy Central camp have obtained signatures from 1.85 million Hong Kong citizens demanding order be restored and occupied roads cleared without delay. Despite how vocal OC protesters are, it is safe to contend that they do not represent majority view. Continuous occupation proved that OC protesters do not obey the law in democracy that they must follow majority view. Their actions confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that democracy is not suitable in Hong Kong at this time. It further strengthens the belief that their hidden agenda is to destabilize Hong Kong by provoking government action to clear occupied areas and to induce regime change.

Contrary to the allegation of Occupy Central planners, there is absolutely no love or peace in the movement but only hatred, violence and disorder. After the campaign broke out, there are many strange and laughable phenomena in Hong Kong. Many people carry umbrellas and wear raincoats when it is not raining. Wearing surgical masks when going out become a routine. Some wear construction safety hats and swim goggles when they are neither construction workers nor going to swim. Some become obsessed with wrapping up their face and body with plastic cling wrap before they leave home. Whenever a different opinion is voiced, some people instinctively sing happy birthday song. Some schools kids now raise their hands to form a cross sign to say no. Law professors lead by example to break the law and allege that they will surrender to the police in due course while continuing to commit crimes. Thanks to the Americans. Next to the Cultural Revolution, they managed to create a social unrest that may take generations to heal.

Occupy Central is an eye-opening event. It is a subversive false flag operation akin to the Mukden Incident (1931) and Marco Polo Bridge Incident (1937) seeking an excuse to further aggression and to induce regime change, save and exempt OC is non-military, covert and using people in the target country. The essence of the scheme is to create a problem by taking advantage of differences and conflicts within a society, provoke a reaction from the target and use the reaction to accomplish some objectives and/or as an excuse to justify further action. It suggests how gullible people are before carefully devised mass movement scheme that serves a purpose totally different from its alleged cause. Will history remark these clowns as traitors or democratic reform heroes? It depends on whether China or the U.S. controls Hong Kong in the future. History is almost always written by the victor.

Incidentally, Occupy Central overshadowed a major historical event - the Battle of Jiawu (甲午戰爭) that occurred 120 years ago in 1894. 2014 is the one century anniversary of the Battle in Chinese year naming system. The battle gave the lesson that China must always be vigilant, properly prepared and equipped to fight foreign aggression, including espionage and non-military subversion. The Chinese poem titled "Jiawu Reflection" 《甲午反思》 embedded herein, written before Occupy Central broke out, reiterates historical events, analyzed current affairs and inspires patriotism, which could have prevented the movement if shared by more people in Hong Kong. Learning history will reduce the chance of making the same mistakes again.

Occupy Central Aftermath

Return to the top.

[This page was conceptualized on 23 November 2014, published on 23 November 2014, last revised 1 December 2014.]