People Upset The Gaslighter
Original:
Protesters in Hong Kong incur the Communist Party’s wrath
'Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity'
Source: Wiki
Whilst in reality, of course, there is no one person that is the State, it is interesting how the conglomeration of interests that form to create something that refers to itself as the State can function in a 'person' like way. The problem is that 'person' is a psychopath gas-lighter. The solution is to see it for what it is and withdraw from it. Once a victim of such manipulation this is easier said than done, even on an individual level. At the level of broader society it is a monumental challenge.
It is that challenge the people of Hong Kong face. I salute them. Although I suggest it would help for them to have a clear understanding of what they are up against. They are not up against China (it's just another geographical region). They are not up against 'oppression' (that could mean almost anything). They are not up against the 'Law' (insofar as 'Law' is merely an expression of shared norms - a reflection, not a source, of conflict). They are up against a State (which is just a (deluded) state of mind). No other State will support the protesters (no matter what rhetoric is used to advance inter State rivalries), for the obvious reason that if they actually did, in an effective way, it would undermine the basis for their own 'existence'. This is easy to appreciate if you consider the Spanish Civil War which virtually all major powers at the time conveniently ignored, despite justifying their own bloodbath (WWII) as a fight for 'freedom and democracy'.
The way the Chinese State will proceed is the same way that all States proceed in these circumstances. It will use the 'protesters' misunderstanding of the true nature of their relationship to the State against them. It will appear to 'order', 'calm' and to it's own 'authority' as the basis for claiming that the protester's behavior is ill-founded and that only an entity as 'responsible' and 'powerful' as the State can elicit a positive resolution. Once it is accepted that the State does indeed fulfill such a role, anyone running around in the streets exercising the only option left available for expressing themselves, will be framed as a disruptive and destructive 'troublemaker', whose behavior and particularly ideas need to be 're-orientated'. This will seem 'natural' for anyone (most people) brought up and educated in societies that have never known life without such a State pervading and controlling all aspects of their lives. Without the State being the final arbiter of what is 'right' and 'wrong'.
No State will tolerate real opposition to the ideas upon which it is founded. It matters little if people engage in protests that can easily be crushed if deemed necessary. This is like the bleating of sheep.
Whilst I admire their spirit, holding back the tides of centralizing power involves deeper self, and broader political, reflection than small acts of 'vandalism' might imply:
Plus ca change ...