The principle communist method of manipulating political events is called “provocation.” It is a method that makes use of “agent provocateurs” who infiltrate noncommunist or anticommunist causes. These provocateurs initiate actions which lead to specific “reactions.” Through a dialectical calculus, sometimes employing a “scissors strategy,” the agent provocateurs set up a win-win situation by stirring up trouble.
Communist agents can even produce a split within an enemy camp which resolves into a “divide-and-conquer” game. Such games are ongoing in many countries, especially in the United States.
The strategy of provocation was invented in ancient China, probably before the Warring States period (475-221 B.C.). China was then a battleground of intrigue in which double agents, infiltrators and defectors were celebrated as heroes. In those years the many tricks of spy-craft were developed, written down and placed in collections of state documents. These papers were considered so potent, and so dangerous, that their secrecy was carefully guarded. In one historical episode, raiding parties from outside China demanded, as a condition of peace, to gain access to these same secret documents. Chinese officials refused to show these documents to foreigners, warning of grave consequences if outsiders learned ancient China’s secret mastery of such operations.
In light of Chinese history (and communist practice), it would be foolish to take events in Hong Kong at face value. There can be no doubt: Secret agents are at work within the Hong Kong Independence Movement. Chinese history tells us this must be so. But who are the agent provocateurs in this instance? What is the purpose of the provocation currently underway?
Superficially, the operation was triggered by an extradition bill — which the communists do not really care about. PRC State Security kidnaps whomever they want to arrest in Hong Kong. Legal extradition was never really an issue for the communists. Yet this was put forward as a catalyst. The purpose of this catalyst was to spark unrest, harvest advantages, and hurt enemies.
In the present instance two features of the operation are suggestive: First, to provoke U.S. legislation that includes a visa waiver for Chinese leaving Hong Kong. This effectively opens a channel for sending Chinese agents into America under the guise of support for freedom and democracy. Second, vandalism and violence is occurring throughout Hong Kong, but some of this violence is directed against private persons and businesses. This lawlessness is ideal for punishing business owners opposed to the Communist Party.
What about the government of Hong Kong?
The Chinese Ministry of State Security has had 22 years to infiltrate both the government of Hong Kong and the pro-democracy leadership. The former Chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong, Martin Lee, initially voted to put a different name on this same Democratic Party in the 1990s. He wanted the Party to be called the Hong Kong Communist Party (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3007990/democracy-will-come-china-one-day-says-veteran-hong-kong.) He now says this was clever foresight — a lawyerly attempt to steal the Communist Party’s brand; but everyone can see, plain as day, to whom this influential Chinese lawyer was signaling.
Despite these odd misadventures, Martin Lee’s current support for Hong Kong Independence is credited by the official communist press in Beijing, which — aside from calling him a foreign agent — generously forgets to mention his role in getting membership in the World Trade Organization for the PRC. Twenty years ago he deceptively argued that such membership would make the communists more democratic. It has not done so. One who understands the evils of communism does not promote communist state participation in an organization predicated on “the rule of law.” It was, in fact, a cynical disservice to have done so.
Thirty years earlier Lee won kudos from Beijing for getting a Hong Kong communist laborer acquitted from drug trafficking charges. He later led delegations of Hong Kong lawyers to Beijing. He could not have been a real enemy of the Communist Party — then or now. Such enemies are killed. They end up in the Laogai (prison camp system). But it is very useful for Beijing to have an enemy like Martin Lee. Even if he is sincere, his actions serve Beijing’s purposes. But is his sincerity to be credited?
Anyone who rubs shoulders with a criminal becomes contaminated to some degree. This is especially true when dealing with communists. A system that is dirty, that is based on evil deeds, cannot be safely flirted with. It cannot be the successful subject of diplomatic engagement. Every diplomat who thinks so, from Kissinger to Pompeo, is either an agent provocateur in his own right — or a jackass.
The Hong Kong Independence Movement is riddled with leaders who have flirted with the communists. The same can be said for the leadership of the United States; especially for prominent politicians — like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Diane Feinstein. They hail from San Francisco, the number one American city for Chinese infiltrators and agent provocateurs.
What more can be said?