Hong Kong Intelligence Report #41 Political Correctness, Political Colours and Narrative Control

Open-source intelligence (OSINT)

FILE PHOTO: A Dark Warrior. ©WiX

Keywords: Political correctness (政治正確) ; Political colours (政治顏色) ; Narrative control (敘事控制); Ruling class (統治階級) ; Working class (勞動者階級)

中文題名：政治正確，作為統治階級工具的藍黃政治顏色及敘事控制

London, June 17, 1879 ... For a number of years past (and at the present time) the English working-class movement has been hopelessly describing a narrow circle of strikes for higher wages and shorter hours, not, however, as an expedient or means of propaganda and organisation but as the ultimate aim.

The Trade Unions even bar all political action on principle and in their charters, and thereby also ban participation in any general activity of the working-class as a class. The workers are divided politically into Conservatives and Liberal Radicals, into supporters of the Disraeli (Beaconsfield) ministry and supporters of the Gladstone ministry. One can speak here of a labour movement (proper) only in so far as strikes take place here which, whether they are won or not, do not get the movement one step further.

To inflate such strikes — which often enough have been brought about purposely during the last few years of bad business by the capitalists to have a pretext for closing down their factories and mills, strikes in which the working-class movement does not make the slightest headway — into struggles of world importance, as is done, for instance, in the London Freiheit, can, in my opinion, only do harm. No attempt should be made to conceal the fact that at present no real labour movement in the continental sense exists here, and I therefore believe you will not lose much if for the time being you do not receive any reports on the doings of the Trade Unions here. - Frederick Engels (1)

IMPORTANT

• Frederick Engels (1820-1895) perfectly defined the capitalist colour politics (political colours) which has been further intensified with internet social media of today after the millennium. ''The Trade Unions even bar all political action on principle and in their charters, and thereby also ban participation in any general activity of the working-class as a class. The workers are divided politically into Conservatives and Liberal Radicals, into supporters of the Disraeli (Beaconsfield) ministry and supporters of the Gladstone ministry.'' For Hong Kong politics, you can only need to replace the Disraeli (Beaconsfield) ministry with BLUE 'pro-establishment' camp, the Gladstone ministry with YELLOW 'opposition' camp. Furthermore, trade unions designated for workers are under the control of four major labour aristocrat companies. In short, political colours are to divide and conquer the working class people by ruling class under capitalism in order to prevent them from taking general mass actions as a class. Instead, only fighting against different political colour camps (workers versus workers) is allowed by their employers. Thus strict rejection to any colour politics is politically necessary for the working class people to protect their own class interests and social lives.

• Not only the issues of people's livelihood are political issues but also those are economic issues. Genuine political issues are issues of people's livelihood, in the same way, real economic issues are issues of people's livelihood. Political con artists of Hong Kong unanimously separate issues of people's livelihood, economy and politics in order to protect vested interests by abstraction and a distraction from grave issues. In other words, true social issues are issues of people's livelihood not any ''political colours''. CCP created a new slogan in 2020, called 'the people's livelihood is the biggest political issue'. Therefore, CCP is right that only legitimate ''political correctness'' is to solve the issues of people's livelihood not any other things. On the contrary, so called ''political correctness'' in capitalist society is set by monopoly capitalists in various fields of society to defend their vested interests and also legitimise oppression, eradication, purge, cancel culture, trolling, doxing, bullying, manipulation, censorship on different voices as people can see on social media platforms ubiquitously.

• ''習近平總書記既講「民心是最大的政治」，又講「民生是最大的政治」。兩個「最大的政治」是相通的、統一的。在發展民生中贏得民心，貫穿著馬克思主義歷史唯物主義的邏輯。習近平總書記多次指出：「一個政黨，一個政權，其前途命運取決於人心向背。」中國共產黨在革命、建設和改革中，都是緊緊依靠人民不斷創造偉業。人民是黨執政的最大底氣，也是黨執政最深厚的根基。正是從這個意義上講，民心是最大的政治。然而，民心何以向背？民心所向絕不是無緣無故的。人民群眾最樸實、最講實際，總是從現實利益中醖釀出感情，從直接感悟中昇華出理性認知。「民以食為天」，這個「食」在古代就是「吃」飽肚子，在當今也可以指代「民生」。「為政之道，以順民心為本，以厚民生為本」。民生問題，不僅僅是經濟問題、社會問題，更是政治問題。民生問題關乎我們的政治安全和政權安全，關乎我們政黨的合法性和公信力。人民群眾最關心民生問題，而發展中國家的民生又是矛盾最為集中的突出問題。經過長期艱苦努力，中國人民迎來了從溫飽不足到小康富裕的偉大飛躍，民生有了極大的改善。與此同時也要看到，中國仍處於並將長期處於社會主義初級階段，仍是世界最大發展中國家，還有相當數量的困難群眾，還有一些非常突出的問題。尤其是當前國內外複雜的情況下，民生問題切不可松懈，切不可掉以輕心。要進一步鞏固和贏得民心，必須多謀民生之利，多解民生之憂。'' (2)

• In general, ''political correctness'' (a.k.a. official narrative or rhetoric ; which used to be called dogma/ dogmatism; the opposite term is ''thought-crime'') is set by monopoly capitalists / oligarchs (Who are they? See Hong Kong's Richest 2021 List) to systematically eliminate their competitors and dissidents. Then, ''colour politics'' (a.k.a. political colours) is the main narrative control device (narrative structure) of the ruling class (narrative managers; thought-police) to divide and conquer the working class people in both real and internet society. Hence, political correctness, political colours and narrative control form dialectics of social censorship.

• 事實是媒體的唯一真理基準：資本的運動扭曲了媒體的理念。結局，主流媒體及獨立媒體（假獨立）都在掩護身為他們金主(廣告主/持股者)的統治階級及其既得利益。這就是所謂資本主義媒體的最神聖的首要任務，因此他們其實不斷找滿足金主們的，給他們既得利益帶來和平安寧的代罪羔羊及其新聞，甚至製造新聞事件。譬如，焦點轉移，模糊焦點，斷章取義，見樹不見林，移花接木，以偏概全，抵制脈絡化，重點炒作，偷換概念，倒果為因，兩極化，玩弄顏色/身分認同政治，各種誇大化了的威脅論，陰謀論等等的敘事控制正是最為顯著的特色和每日常態。這也就是為什麼美國反省和開始更為重視的民間的市民情報工作(civilian intelligence)是多麼的重要。為的是免於受騙。在資本主義之下，所有的媒體都是資本家的公關工具。其唯一的真理標準不是事實，而是以何等程度能夠服務和維護資本的利益。換言之，顏色政治此一政治毒草是透過媒體注入和繼續煽動的。

• 面對媒體操控，唯一能夠打破種種敘事控制的正是事實。新聞應該是既迅速又忠實地傳達事實給市民。然而，敘事控制（商業操縱）必然將新聞和廣告融為一體。俗稱記事廣告與照片廣告都是這個過程的產品化。每家媒體的營業部都出售這些服務產品給資本家。誠然，最理想的是將新聞從廣告行銷領域（既得利益立場）分離出來，並且只讓新聞忠實地反應和傳達在整體脈絡中的事實。至少，市民最好自覺地徹底嫌棄媒體中的顏色政治，是因為顏色政治完全扭曲和掩蓋掉真正的社會問題及其背後的脈絡。為了什麼什麼議員打敵人的什麼什麼黨的某某人及其支持者是根本不會解決任何社會問題的。既得利益勢力最害怕的則是具體情況的具體研究。為了避免這樣的現實威脅，既得利益勢力付錢給媒體和政客，他們聘用的不同政治顏色的明星叫市民去繼續沈溺於具有毀滅性的顏色政治的惡鬥。這也說明為什麼不同顏色陣營的對立雙方的金主們往往都是一樣的權貴階層。一言以蔽之，本港寡頭壟斷資本（兩面派）的真政治顏色是資本，而藍黃不同顏色都是用以分化和管理總人口一半以上的勞動者階級的政治工具而已。市民應該直接全心全力去從事解決具體的社會/民生問題，而不應該繼續被壟斷資本所矇騙而浪費心力和時間在顏色政治的賽馬上。

• See multinational Chambers of Commerce, and their identities are ''local Hong Kong companies'' when their member companies enter into the mainland Chinese market via CEPA. Simultaneously the Chamber of Commerce is the most powerful political force who actually enjoys privileged voting rights in elections of both the Legislative Council and chief executive of Hong Kong in the name of 'pro-establishment'. In fact, external forces are internal forces, internal forces are external forces in Hong Kong; furthermore, external forces still can exclusively select and send their own members / agents to the Legislative Council via the ''pro-establishment'' Chamber of Commerce. It means that the on-going purge of 'opposition' camp is to scapegoat those 'oppositionists' who paid by the same Hong Kong oligarchs from the point of view of the ruling class of this city.

• 實際上，本港內部勢力也是外部勢力(跨國企業)，所謂外部勢力也是本港內部勢力。香港的商會包含跨國企業。本港政客，非政府組織，智囊們等等的階級性質也就會是跟隨捐款來源的跨國企業的，因此香港並沒有純粹內部勢力，而都是內外部勢力的結合體。而且本港寡頭壟斷資本的權貴，有的甚至持有5個不同國籍身分，不知道他們的祖國到底是哪一國。關於內部勢力和外部勢力的二元論框架，也得在此議題上加以拋開，是因為不合實際。正像所謂建制派媒體那樣，片面地只將反對派描述為唯一的內部勢力是錯亂的，在香港，五眼聯盟也已是內部勢力。故此，內部勢力和外部勢力的二元論絕不適合於跨國集團騎劫的香港的特殊環境。甚至於本港媒體總是刻意漏掉的重點是造成了這一切香港亂象和民生慘狀的壟斷資本，地產霸權寡頭的存在及其責任。

• BBC reported the Sunday nationwide ''protests'' in Cuba (July 11, 2021): ''In response to the rare unrest, President Miguel Díaz-Canel addressed the nation in a TV broadcast and blamed the US for the turmoil. He called its tight sanctions on Cuba - which have been in place in various forms since 1962 - a "policy of economic suffocation". Mr Díaz-Canel said the protesters were mercenaries hired by the US to destabilise the country, and called for his supporters to go out and defend the revolution - referring to the 1959 uprising which ushered in Communist rule. "The order to fight has been given - into the street, revolutionaries!" he announced.'' (3) Although it can be seen as a typical regime change attempt by the US and its allies against Cuba, Hong Kong colour revolutions cannot be categorised as the same kind of operations. So called 'colour revolution' already became the cliched narrative control device in Hong Kong. In reality, true masterminds / beneficiaries of Hong Kong colour revolutions are still at large.

• Why Hong Kong oligarchs needed those large scale colour revolutions (e.g., 2014 Umbrella Revolution ; 2016 Mong Kok civil unrest and the 2019-2020 Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement) ? Psychologically, it began with the birth of Xi Jinping administration (2012-) whose political orientation still is anti-trust, anti-monopoly and anti-neoliberalism. It triggered fear and caution of Hong Kong tycoons / oligarchs needed to stage large scale ''colour'' political events in Hong Kong in order to maintain their status quo, social hegemony, monopoly and vested interests. For this political goal, paid 'opposition' camp was primally scapegoated gradually. Recent political incidents all indicated and happened in this context (READ Hong Kong Intelligence Report #40 2021 Hong Kong Electoral Reform is A Victory of Oligarchs) . Such as exodus of democratically-elected district councillors (80-250 / 479; 2020-) ; the closure of Apple Daily (7/1/2021); the lone-wolf assault on police (7/1/2021) and subsequent aftermath on the HKU student union (July 8-16). Unfortunately, this process will only continue. One of undeniable proofs of this claim is that this purge does not mean to totally eliminate ''colour politics'' itself because local oligarchs still need it to block any social reform attempts against them.

• The Hong Kong oligarchs feel safe as long as citizens are radically engaging in hazardous BLUE-YELLOW colour politics instead of directly tackling social issues caused by social monopolies of the oligarchs themselves. After every large scale colour riot, oligarchs and their agents can appear as prosecutors for the central government due to their official 'pro-establishment' position. For oligarchs, the entire 'pro-establishment' camp itself is immune from any political surgery, and remnants of 'opposition' camp are also preserved for the future use. In other words, the purge is not fully in the hands of the central government. Local oligarchs have a tight grip on it. Some oligarchs themselves are not only members of the Chamber of Commerce (one of major electoral bodies of the legislative council and chief executive of Hong Kong) but also they are members of Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (124+78 HK members; 2018-2023) and National People's Congress (36 HK members; 2018-2023).

• 為何本港寡頭（壟斷資本）需要那些大規模的顏色政治騷亂？簡言之，激化顏色政治惡鬥，阻礙和極力推遲真改革/真有效措施，以維護既得利益。同時，在他們自己壟斷本港建制之下，中央都不得不以他們為政治協商的夥伴/統戰對象，換言之，為了鞏固政局，不得不鞏固他們建制騎劫者們的既得利益（社會壟斷）。這才是媒體所掩蓋的真正的香港政治實況。其實，他們寡頭壟斷資本最害怕市民直接爭取民生問題的解決，而非繼續陷入顏色政治泥沼。本港所謂民生問題也就是他們寡頭社會壟斷的種種後果，因此之故，顏色政治是本港寡頭最需要的保護既得利益的手段。顏色政治只會阻礙市民直接面對，團結和解決民生問題，換言之，顏色政治乃寡頭壟斷資本所設下的，當市民解決真正的社會問題時的絆腳石，桎梏，政治陷阱。寡頭最害怕，自覺的市民拋開顏色政治，並衝向他們既得利益醞釀和製造出來的種種民生問題，而不去持續沈溺於顏色政治的賽馬比賽。

• 市民搶救自己的，解決民生問題的道路必定會是剷除各種既得利益，壟斷資本怪物的道路。在此路線上，市民就能夠明白為什麼民生問題不僅是政治問題，也是經濟問題的理由。簡言之，作為經濟勢力的壟斷資本為了保護自身既得利益滲透和操縱政治/經濟/文化體制，媒體，各種政治團體以及反社會勢力來打壓異己，因此壟斷資本也就是最大的反中亂港政治勢力。這已經不可避免地牽涉到了政治，經濟，社會領域的所有存在的真問題。

• 總之，歸根結底，真社會問題正是民生問題。民生問題就是真社會問題。 這裡只有兩種，一是民生；二是既得利益。對市民而言，哪一個究竟是個問題？哪一個到底是核心議題？那必然是民生。民生才是最大利益。反過來看，被顏色政治徹底上癮的自以為是，當個思想警察，義士，而一昧從事鬼打鬼的顏色政治，這極為愚蠢！完全失焦！毫無任何社會意義！越打越毀損民主自由人權的顏色政治是不需要腦袋的，是因為只要識別不同顏色，並盲撐或盲反政治正確或不正確的特定顏色的陣營，一切就好。統治階級是如此控制勞動者階級的。經歷了黑暴，真理已是顯著的，香港市民需要徹底唾棄禍國殃民的顏色政治，以專心處理切身的民生問題，消滅壟斷資本，消除地產霸權。只要香港果斷地消滅地產霸權（萬惡之母），就肯定能夠實現百業興盛，全民安居樂業，千年幸福城市。

FACTS

Question1: There had been the general crisis of capitalists, especially for oligarchs in Hong Kong during the 2019-2020 Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement?

在大型示威事件當中，本港究竟有過內外資本家的總危機嗎？尤其是壟斷資本寡頭的總危機？

First of all, the US government won't stage any colour revolution if there is no direct demand / strong support from multi-national companies (monopoly capital) operating in a particular country or region. Therefore, so called 'mastermind(s)' is monopoly capital ultimately.

For instance, the Guatemalan Coup of 1954, in which The United Fruit Company (UFCO) demanded the Eisenhower administration to stage a CIA coup against the non-communist Jacobo Arbenz government. Thus the ultimate mastermind of the coup was UFCO not the US government.

''In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Latin American governments were characterized by economic policies that allowed for liberal foreign investments from wealthy countries like the United States. Military dictators led a number of these Latin American governments. The United Fruit Company (UFCO), an extremely successful American owned and run company, profited greatly from investments it made in Guatemala.

The business of United Fruit was bananas, and from bananas it had built a business empire in the Central American nations of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. The United States government was also interested in bananas, and had sponsored initiatives to promote the fruit in the American diet. Guatemala became known as a “banana republic,” a disdainful term for poor, developing countries that relied on a single cash crop, such as bananas, and were ruled by corrupt governments. Under the Guatemalan dictator Jorge Ubico, the United Fruit Company gained control of 42% of Guatemala’s land, and was exempted from paying taxes and import duties. Seventy-seven percent of all Guatemalan exports went to the United States; and 65% of imports to the country came from the United States.

The United Fruit Company was, essentially, a state within the Guatemalan state. It not only owned all of Guatemala's banana production and monopolized banana exports, it also owned the country's telephone and telegraph system, and almost all of its railroad track.

The United Fruit Company was well connected to the Eisenhower administration. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his New York law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, represented the company. Allen Dulles, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and brother of John Foster Dulles, had served on UFCO's Board of Trustees and owned shares of the company. Ed Whitman, the company's top public relations officer, was the husband of Ann Whitman, President Eisenhower's private secretary. Ed Whitman produced a film, Why the Kremlin Hates Bananas, which depicted UFCO fighting on the front line of the Cold War. The company’s efforts paid off. It picked up the expenses of journalists who travelled to Guatemala to learn its side of the crisis, and some of the most respected North American publications, including the New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, New York Herald Tribune, and New Leader, ran stories that pleased the company.'' (4)

People can easily find The United Fruit Company (UFCO)-like monopoly capitalists in Hong Kong. This classical case proved that any regime change attempt of US against particular foreign country is urged by multi-national companies operating in that country or region in the first place.

Another classical case is the Chile Coup Attempt of 1970. This time the monopolistic telecommunication company I.T.T. demanded the Nixon administration to stage a coup in Chile. Hence, the ultimate mastermind of the coup was I.T.T. not the US government at all.

''WASHINGTON, March 21—Jack Anderson said tonight that the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation had told the White House in 1970 it would be prepared to “assist financially in sums up to seven figures” to block the impending inauguration of Salvador Allende Gossens as Chile's President. In his syndicated column, distributed for publication in tomorrow's newspapers and dealing, like today's, with I.T.T. and the 1970 election of the Chilean Marxist, Mr. Anderson quoted from what he said was a long memorandum from a ranking company official on his discussions with Nixon Administration officials.

“The company's efforts, and Its fervent hopes for a military coup [in Chile], are spelled out in a remarkable set of secret documents from I.T.T.'s Washington office,” Mr. Anderson wrote. But, he said, “the documents indicate the company got a generally polite but cool reception from the White House and the State Department, although Ambassador to Chile Edward Kerry is reported to have been militantly anti‐Allende and friendly to I.T.T.'s cause.

[...] Mr. Anderson quoted in particular tonight from what he said was a memorandum dated Sept. 14, 1970, from J. D. Neal, the I.T.T.'s director of international relations, to W. R. Merriam, the head of the company's Washington office. Investments in Chile: Mr. Neal, who had joined I.T.T. after a long career in the State Department, was quoted as having said he had telephoned an aide to Henry A Kissinger, the White House adviser on national security of fairs, after having heard from Mr. Merriam certain “suggestions about Chile” that the company president, Harold S. had made. The telephone call was said to have been made to Viron P. Vaky, then Mr. Kissinger's staff adviser on Latin America and Mr. Neal was said to have conveyed to him “Mr. Geneen's deep concern about the Chile situation.” This concern was linked to the company's investments in Chile, including a 70 per cent interest in the Chile Telephone Company, which was taken over by the Allende Government last October, a telephone equipment manufacturing concern and two Sheraton hotels. Mr. Neal was quoted as writing in the memorandum that he “Told Mr. Vaky to tell Mr. Kissinger Mr. Geneen is willing to come to Washington to discuss I.T.T.'s interest and that we are prepared to assist financially in sums up to seven figures.”'' (5)

Again, the another classical case also proved that a regime change operation is primarily demanded by monopolistic multinational companies operating in a specified country or region.

Although Hong Kong colour revolutions followed the similar path, the major difference is that Hong Kong ''regime'' change attempts targeted the local government not the central government like any other case. It is quite impossible to estimate that overthrowing the local government is equal with overthrowing the central government. Thus their true aim was not to overthrow the local government. There are several reasons for this:

a) The top Hong Kong oligarch Ka-shing Li (1928-) himself denied any prospect of successful separatist independence from China.

''對於港獨問題，李嘉誠指港獨說「脫離現實」，港人不會認同，反問「香港有咩資格獨立呀？」被問及本港出現「本土」想法，李嘉誠指，香港是中國一部分。他又指，中央已多次重申本港「一國兩制」不變，認為見到中央的決心。他又以「黃台之瓜 何堪再摘」比喻香港現況，指不論政治派別為何，港人都不應再做傷害香港之事。被問及對2047問題的看法，李嘉誠回應指「2047