Original:
Bloody chaos in Hong Kong as man bites politician's ear
This is a mixed up story. We're given a photo of a man who had his 'ear bitten off'. The article then proceeds to tell us 'At least four people were injured by a blade-wielding man'. Was it a 'blade-wielding' biting man or another man altogether? 'He was said to have argued with others over political issues before the incident.' But we have no idea from what 'political' angle he was coming.
Certain features tend to creep out of stories like this. For anyone casually browsing the news, which is what most people do, it's all too easy to conflate radical, violence, protesters, and chaos etc.
We can find out a bit about Andrew Chiu, the man who was regrettably bitten.
A Statist aspirant who perhaps, one day, dreams of being a Carrie Lam replacement (with some tweaks). Despite all the fine talk, he still believes in extortion as way to get you what he thinks is in your best interests. Does he deserve to have his ear bitten off for this delusion? Of course not.
"protesters succeeded in gaining access to shopping centers in several neighborhoods, forming human chains, chanting slogans and blocking entrances to prevent police officers from entering.
Although the protests were less violent than the previous day's, they ended in bloodshed when a man charged into a crowd that had gathered at the Cityplaza mall in the middle-class neighborhood of Tai Koo Shing."
A crowd, not a crowd of protesters. They may have been, but it's curious that it's not mentioned that way. So at this point we don't know if a person or persons, are knife wielding and/or biting, into crowds who may or may not be 'protesters'. But we are told that:
'Police said in a statement that they stormed into the shopping centers after activists started vandalizing interiors and smashing windows.' By any standards "vandalizing interiors and smashing windows" is a desperate way to make a political point. Especially one that everyone already understands. Really this just serves to make the State appear relatively reasonable. Who benefits from the destruction of property?
"activists have continued to demonstrate against what they describe as police brutality and overall frustration at a government they feel has refused to listen to them". Instead of ignoring the institutions of the State, they have made the mistake of engaging in the State constructed processes - only to be confronted by police brutality and indifference. But this is actually what they set themselves up for by voting. The vast majority of people who vote believe in some form of 'law and order' service provided by the State. Anyone who doesn't vote (like myself) doesn't believe in Democracy at all and may well, if non-violent, be an Agorist (whether consciously or otherwise).
Despite the nod to balanced reporting:
'The weekend's clashes were the latest bout of violence in Hong Kong's worst political crisis since the former British colony was returned to China in 1997. Protests began in early June against an extradition bill that would have sent suspects to face trial in mainland China, where Communist Party influence in the court system results in a 99.9 per cent conviction rate.'
That may be true, but the message that really emerges from this article, as is so often the case, is simply protesters, destruction, violence and chaos.
The reader is funneled into a false dichotomy (choice). Order vs chaos. Thus implicitly positioned somewhere on a spectrum between these two extremes. What seems more 'reasonable' at the end of the day (for most people the answer is simply a function of their background (programming))?
The choice is actually anarchy vs order/chaos (because 'order', taken to it's logical extreme in human affairs results in chaos at the individual level (example, the individual within the USSR/China/Cuba/Nazi Germany etc.)). Chaos for the individual, because the individual is reduced to being a mere tool of the State, self-sacrificing to the detriment of himself and everyone else, dragging the whole of society down to the lowest common denominator and eliminating all the advantages of economic and political development that enhance the quality of life.
The HK protesters, brave though they are, are making the simple point that the State destroys freedom. No need to shout and scream like people who are unable to handle themselves in a constructive way to make that point. I suggest simply withdrawing consent and trading outside the 'system' using the kinds of (State free) technologies I encourage below.