Recently, the American “New York Times” published an article written by the American left-wing journalist Hamilton Nolan in its review section calling for the abolition of the British royal family.

But what is strange is that although this article is quite supported by the left-wing groups in the West, a well-known Hong Kong public is extremely dissatisfied with this article and even the “New York Times” that published it.

What’s even more funny is that this Hong Kong well-known person gave this American media that actually supported and defended their Hong Kong chaos in Hong Kong, and has been helping them to attack the Chinese central government, and added an “incitement to destroy Western civilization”. Big hat.

In this review article titled “Down with the British Monarchy”, the author Hamilton Nolan actually wrote this article with feelings about the ugly family disputes that the British royal family recently broke.

This left-wing journalist, who has always been bored with the British royal family and monarchy, believes that the British should not go to pay to support such a wealthy class that does not solve the problems of the people at all, and continues to create various scandals and wrongs every day. We should no longer bow down to such a stinking legacy of imperialism. Instead, we should unite and sweep this royal family, which symbolizes inequality and exploitation, into the trash can of history, so that they can feed themselves on their own hands again.

He even thinks that British people—especially a large number of people still living in poverty—should read more Karl Marx’s works and call for equality, instead of indulging in oppressing the people while still being regarded as nationalist gods. Scenes of magical soap operas staged by the British royal family.

Tao Jie, a Hong Kong “commonly known” who missed and admired the British colonial era, blasted Nolan’s article on his personal social account yesterday, saying that this article was inciting “hatred” against the royal family and aristocrats in Britain and throughout Europe. He also attacked the “democratic election” system of the United States with a “bad” tone, saying that the “close relatives and hereditary” and “monopoly” system of the United States is no more glorious than the British royal family.

In addition, Tao Jie also accused the “New York Times”, which published this article, of being contaminated with a “virus” of thinking, and wanted to “set off a color revolution that would destroy Western civilization.”

zhiwo

By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
helpmekim
7 months ago

He is a British citizen first, then a well-known in Hong Kong,
His parents used to be Chinese farmers. He has already devoted himself to the embrace of British capital and loves the British Empire in his heart very much.
He is just a British man in Hong Kong with his heart in Britain;
The British media gave him money and wanted him to criticize whom he would criticize;
So we don’t care about what he said;

heloword
7 months ago

In order to understand Tao Jie’s remarks, we must first understand Tao Jie. Tao Jie, formerly known as Cao Jie, was originally from Guiping, Guangxi. If you want to evaluate him, “unfortunate home” is the first word that comes to my mind. Tao Jie’s parents fled to Hong Kong due to war in 1949. Although Hong Kong was still under British colonial rule, Tao’s parents had the motherland in their hearts and worked for the pro-China media in Hong Kong at that time. Although he was influenced by his parents since he was a child, his 16-year experience in the UK has obviously played a key role in the characterization of Tao Jie. After returning to Hong Kong in 1991, Tao Jie became the mouthpiece of the West, which is what we know as “public knowledge.” Tao Jie, like other well-known people, praises the West in his speech and often criticizes and satirizes the Hong Kong government and the country. The Hong Kong media referred him and five other well-known people together as the “Xiangjiang Talent”. (Xiangjiang: Thank you, I have been offended.) Tao Jie’s remarks are more “famous”: 1. During the SARS epidemic, Hong Kong could not be alone. Tao Jie severely criticized the then Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa for “destroying the dignity of the people of Hong Kong and ruining a prosperous city”, and called out the slogan “what the British can do, but the Chinese can’t do it” to ask Tung Chee-hwa to step down. 2. Anti-founding fathers. Anyone who has seen more than one dollar knows who I am referring to, so I won’t go into details. 3. “Social Theory of Chinese Small Farmers’ DNA”. Whenever Tao Jie wants to criticize some “bad habits”, he always throws out this theory to emphasize the so-called “bad roots”, but he has long forgotten that he is also a descendant of this continent. 4. “Theory of Braids”. He accused the pigtails of being too radical after the Revolution of 1911, “Because everyone has kept the pigtails for more than 200 years, why did you cut them all at once? Why can’t you cut them step by step, a little a day?” In addition, Tao Jie’s poems were included in Hong Kong language textbooks. Directly or indirectly poison the mind of young people. So the question is, since Tao Jie is an out-and-out public knowledge, why should he criticize the United States? Because he is a simple “pengying” well-known? That’s not the case. The UK has also received a lot of scolding from Tao Jie. For example, during the epidemic, Johnson, who was unsuccessful in prevention and control, was madly exported by Tao Jie: After US President Trump was diagnosed with the new crown last year, Tao Jie also issued a document to support the US system. Tao Jie said that although many people ridiculed Trump’s diagnosis, this is a manifestation of “freedom of speech”, and “Trump really has three strengths and two weaknesses, and his system is clear: the vice president immediately takes over, and the third authority is the speaker of the House of Representatives. The fourth is the Speaker of the Senate, and the fifth is the turn of the Secretary of State, that is, Pompeo. “There will be no power struggle. (I don’t know if Tao Jie’s home has an internet connection, or I can watch the video of the U.S. Congress event several times.) So Tao Jie is not completely anti-American, nor is he completely standing in the UK. As a public knowledge, he can’t even do “Feng Zhong Must be reversed”. For example, Tao Jie had high-profile support for the candidate of the suspected establishment to run for parliament. Although the media reported that the candidate belongs to the “invisible establishment”, Tao Jie still defended him. Someone once used “split” to describe Tao Jie, but I think that the essence of all Tao Jie’s “split” is for the sake of good food. For example, Tao Jie often writes editorials for two rival newspapers at the same time. Tao Jie once worked in two newspapers with opposite orientations: “Apple Daily” and “Oriental Daily”, and wrote articles about political views and ideologies that were very different. Despite being accused of “uncharacteristic”, he still went his own way. This time Tao Jie criticized the United States. The high probability is that he got the pound transfer and used people’s money to eliminate disasters. Tao Jie’s business really has nothing to say. If it was Knife music that had arrived in the account at the time, Tao Jie’s remarks might have become supportive of the New York Times remarks, and severely criticized the British monarchy and called for the abolition of the royal family. Although Tao Jie was once a subject of the British Empire, money is the kingly way in his heart. The U.S. makes money early next time, you see this is a trouble.

helpyme
7 months ago

When I went to study in Moscow in 2019, I met several college students from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Their ideological spectrum of the violence that occurred in Hong Kong at that time ranged from sympathy to diehard loyalty. They were also in contact with them. I had some feelings, which happened to be related to this event, so I can share it. Before that, I myself had been in the sociological academic circle in the United States for quite a long time. Perhaps most Americans did not agree with this. But in the North American sociological academic circle, which is known as a communist in the academic circle, The mainstream scholars are all anti-imperialist, anti-colonial, and anti-discrimination stances. Perhaps the definitions of these terms are slightly different, and the role of the United States at the level of imperialism is controversial. Some scholars will think that the United States can be the savior of fairness and justice in the world, while some scholars with a clear stand will not hesitate. Criticizing the CIA’s promotion of civil unrest around the world, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund controlled by the United States are oppressing developing countries through loans and financial hegemony. But anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, especially the history of the British colonization of the world, the persecution of people including but not limited to India, China, North American natives, etc. are unreserved, and there is no room for controversy. Including one of my professors from the United Kingdom, when talking about the Opium War, he would say: “This is by no means something I am proud of as a British.” Such a clear anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist The position has also been firmly engraved in my brain since I entered the major of sociology. It can be said that this kind of thinking is also the mainstream thinking on the university campuses in North America where the ideology is on the left. So after that exchange with students from Hong Kong, I was very surprised. Compared with American college students who are on the left, Hong Kong college students’ thinking is far right, as if their political education was the education of the emperor in the colonial era. They tout British imperialism, colonialism, and have a positive attitude toward colonialist countries, but they have no sympathy or sympathy for those weak countries, oppressed people of color, and ethnic minorities. In their eyes, they never felt that colonialism was an inevitable evil. At the same time, they don’t think discrimination is a big deal. They are full of prejudice and hatred towards people from the mainland, and they can even say that mainlanders are low quality in front of me (I speak Cantonese). After experiencing the process of communicating with Hong Kong university students, I have a certain understanding of the positions of some people who are quite mainstream in Hong Kong’s education circle, and also have a good understanding of their admiration for the history of Western imperialism. The despicable ideology of lack of sympathy is not surprising, which of course also includes the flattery of the British monarchy. In the most recent period of time, our country’s discussions on Hong Kong’s education included the complete eradication of the colonial subjective history of education at the primary and secondary levels, but I think this is not enough. On university campuses in Hong Kong, or when accepting students from Hong Kong studying in the mainland or exchanging to the mainland, it is necessary to carry out education based on the Marxist-Leninist concept of history in order to set things right. For example, it is extremely necessary for any student who comes to exchange in mainland universities to study the basic courses of Marxism-Leninism and obtain certain grades. It is extremely necessary. Of course, some hostile people will make irresponsible remarks about such reforms in the name of hindering academic freedom, but the fact is that even in the most orthodox academic circles of social sciences such as history, sociology, and so on Both colonialism and colonialism adopt the strongest critical attitude. Even though Marxism-Leninism may not be as standard as ours, it will at least be regarded as a required or optional content for students’ reference. As the Hong Kong academic circle now shows, it completely rejects or even opposes and sympathizes with the weak Marxism-Leninism, and advocates colonialism is the real interference with academic freedom and hinders academic discussion. We need Marxism-Leninism to neutralize the colonialist view of history on university campuses in Hong Kong. Perhaps we should make the study of Marxism-Leninism a compulsory course in Hong Kong through legislative means, and send knowledgeable lecturers or encouragement in this area. The establishment of Marxist-Leninist discussion groups on political issues in the University of Hong Kong, and so on, is the same as the curriculum reform in primary and secondary schools. It is an important step in reshaping the correct view of history in Hong Kong academic circles.

sina156
7 months ago

There are such people in China! When more than 7 million confirmed cases of the new crown in the United States died and 210,000 died, he was not angry; when a black American was squeezed by a white policeman and could not breathe to death, he was not angry; when more than 30 people were killed by mountain fires in many places; he was not angry; the United States did not He was not angry when more than 10,000 peaceful demonstrators were arrested in 10 days; when the president was diagnosed to enjoy the highest quality medical resources in the United States, but ordinary people died in respiratory failure, he was not angry; when the “white supremacy organization” shot and killed ordinary black people, He is not angry; he is not angry when he does not wear a mask and uses freedom and democracy as an excuse to spread the virus everywhere; he is still not angry when the economy is getting worse and worse, the epidemic is out of control, interference in other countries, and racism issues… Xinjiang, China, When the Tibetan people were united, the nation was harmonious, and they developed together to become rich, he became angry; when Hong Kong, China implemented the National Security Law, he gradually turned Hong Kong back on track, and he was also angry when Hong Kong, China arrested and attacked Hong Kong independence elements in accordance with the law; When China pushed forward the process of peaceful reunification of the two sides of the strait, he was angry; when China puts life first and puts people first, it defeated the epidemic prevention and control war, and achieved unprecedented results, he was angry; China has gone through generations of arduous efforts and achieved heavenly success. When he achieved success, he was angry; when China assumed the responsibility of a great power and built a community with a shared future for mankind, he was angry; when China advocates the path of independence and peaceful development by non-interference in foreign and domestic affairs, he is still angry with China, the better, he will The more angry; the stronger China is, the more hysterical he will be! In short, he is angry because he doesn’t understand the real Chinese at all, and he is angry because the more developed China, the more he has no sense of superiority!

yahoo898
7 months ago

Asian shakeit, as soon as he took the yellow-skinned spirit windsor family descendant with a British passport, he even dared to spray his American father. Is there a way to go to hell to compete with Washington and Jefferson for the merits of the monarchy? You said that the U.S. imperial parliament and the president engage in concessions and hereditary? The House of Lords that you brought to England is not hereditary, and its status has always been stipulated by unwritten law! What about the CIA? Strike out immediately and take him to Langley headquarters!

leexin
7 months ago

Let me talk about my thoughts about identity construction that may be a bit off topic, and I hope to discuss with you: I saw a gd speech by He Yinyunshi before, and she put forward a point: we are neither British nor zg people, we are hongkonger (don’t know what it translates into, Hongkonger?). I was confused at the time. Because I am also from the Cantonese area of ​​Guangdong Province, my city and Hong Kong may have internal nuances in cultural, language and customs, but they are both Cantonese. She wants to distinguish the identity of Hongkonger from the identity of Cantonese in mainland China. What does she want to express? what? After thinking about it, I discovered that the biggest difference between mainland Cantonese and Hong Kong people is the history of British colonialism. Hong Kong has a colonial history of nearly a hundred years, but Guangzhou (here is just an example of Guangzhou) does not. So I would like to ask her, is your identity as a Hong Kong citizen built on the peculiarities of being colonized by the British? ? ? ? ? ? ? Is she proud of that video? ? ? My naive people will be proud of being colonized? ? ? I calm down and think for a while. Perhaps the core of my doubt lies in the rejection of the identity of zg by the group of hk people represented by what is represented. If I make a violent argument, I think every mainland Cantonese who condones their superiority Not innocent, including myself. During the hk riots two years ago, one of my high school classmates who was studying in Hong Kong told me that someone sent threatening messages to the mainland. The truth is that even if you speak the same dialect as them and blend in perfectly, a certain group of people still have a reason to mess with you. It’s really outrageous. (It seems to be more off-topic. I just sent it out with my feelings. I will delete it if it is not suitable. Everyone just spit it out…)

greatword
7 months ago

Now American politics is essentially the final confrontation between the old and the new capitalism. From the perspective of the mode of production and the superstructure, it is state capitalism (including Rhineland capitalism) versus liberal capitalism (Anglo-Saxon capitalism). The political antagonism in American politics in recent years is difficult to explain by the antagonism between the poor and the rich. Both sides ridiculed each other as the white gloves of the rich behind them. Regardless of democracy or republic, there are both poor and rich. For the Democrats and Republicans, the abolition and slavery, the rich and the poor, liberalism or government intervention, and other weird controversies are all temporary nonsense, only globalization and nation-state protection. The contradiction between is eternal and irreconcilable. In fact, it is the confrontation between two groups of wealthy groups with different interests. In “Notre Dame de Paris”, the vice-bishop uttered the famous saying “this will destroy that”, which means that printing will defeat the church. This sentence actually points out the key link in the rise of the European bourgeoisie. They have mastered A key tool for control of the public mind. In the past 200 years, the bourgeois electoral representative system was built on the media, just as the monarchy was built under the spire of a church in the past, but today’s brand-new politics will be built on new and modern brainwashing tools such as television and the Internet. Different interest capitalisms are different. After a lot of struggle and bloodshed, the consensus reached within the bourgeoisie is that it is necessary to seek common ground while reserving differences-each can treat the people within the scope of their own abilities and financial resources. The process of brainwashing that is beneficial to oneself is often referred to as freedom of speech.

loveyou
7 months ago

This matter seems to be somewhat contradictory, but in fact, it just happens to reflect on the thinking mode of red and black diodes. What Tao Jie has always done is to slander the mainland and stir up troubles. However, he is more difficult to deal with than the impulsive YMCA, because he is particularly “cultural”. According to Chongmei is reactionary, he did not take the bait at all. In his eyes, the American emperor was the second-class European exiled in Massachusetts, and the British emperor’s constitutional monarchy and hereditary aristocracy were the noble and elegant civilization models. See clearly: Anti-American does not mean patriotic. Tao Jie’s anti-Americanism is like the loyalty of a housekeeper who serves the old Sir in the manor. Looking at Ishiguro Kazuo’s novel, the American Emperor’s behavior is a vulgar upstart in his eyes, who can be socialized, but Unkind. What about the mainland on the Hong Kong side? Just think of the servants and coolies in the manor. The so-called Tao Jie is a bit “cultural”, it is nothing more than studying in the UK for a few years, this kind of technology can only help people apply to study in the UK plus IELTS training, hard-core scientific productivity, nothing. If the skin does not exist, how will Mao be attached? Tao Jie scolded the European immigration policy and the French left wing. It was a big roar from Jia’s Lijiao, because Tao Jie knew very well that if the master fell, he would be no different from those who sent water and grow vegetables. Therefore, American newspapers criticized the monarchy, and there is still a little bit of the legacy of the revolution. If the teachers are alive, they will verbally “praise”, but Tao Jie’s scolding of the American emperor is not worthy of any active understanding.

strongman
7 months ago

I wonder if many of the answers to this question are born after 95? They all have no understanding of the position of the first generation of overseas Chinese who have emerged after the reform (hereinafter referred to as “Chu Jing Hua Gong”). Tao Jie’s stance at the beginning of China is not complicated. What they like is Anglo-American political conservatism + overall free market + hard-line anti-China and anti-leftist. Not only the genuine Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party, even Franklin Roosevelt and radical social liberals like the author of nyt’s article criticizing the monarchy are also targets of extreme hatred by Hua Gong. At the beginning, Hua Gong even hated the British and American native social liberals rather than the genuine Communist Party, because they believed that it was these local communities that hindered the overall conservatism of the British and Americans. If you can understand the thinking of the first stage Huagong, it is not difficult to understand why Tao Jie’s article on nyt is so glamorous. This is the anger of the self-proclaimed orthodox spokesperson against heresy.

stockin
7 months ago

This is the most ridiculous thing about all kinds of spiritual foreigners. The converts worry about the spiritual motherland, but they don’t know that the spiritual motherland does not regard them as the same thing. Whether it is the government or individuals, the United States launches all forms of attacks and criticisms against Britain, which is also a contradiction within the Ansa. As outsiders, the best way is to watch jokes, or fan the flames. It is best not to interfere with spiritual British people, so as not to be slapped by others. Just like that Yang Yueqiao who was waiting for sentence in it used to be. I thought that in the last British show, I could show my loyalty to the anti-Chinese old masters and promote the values ​​of supporting the old masters. However, I never expected that the “Bai Ren” would owe him the thoughts of loving them, and even mocked him. It was really a slap on the left and another slap, neither inside nor outside was a human being. Therefore, people don’t care what you think of the white-skinned spirits. The words of the white-skinned spirits may not sound as good as their own dog barking in the eyes of the world. They are just other people’s tools, and even many of them are disposable, and they are not even worthy of chess pieces. This is the value of the most joyous group of people in Hong Kong and all the converts in the world who have forgotten their ancestors. They fantasize that they are the fourth-class imperial citizens of the Dali Empire with “higher civilization” or fifth-class citizens of the mountain city of America, but they want to be high-class Chinese in China. It’s really filial piety.

11
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x