 But yes, this is, there's a huge context here and then it has, it has global implications and it has implications to the United States and it's, and of course, your question is, can the United States be great if it says, if it doesn't support, and we can talk about what support means. But if it doesn't support the demonstrators and I would say, no, I mean, the United States loses all moral authority, all moral high ground, all moral standing, if it will not morally, aggressively morally supports, support these people. Yeah. And the op ed that I put in the program notes again go to don't let it go.com if you want to a friend named Andrew had posted this op ed from Bloomberg, you know, basically puts out there the hypothesis that maybe some people are holding back, because they see that it could be another Tiananmen Square and in they don't want to be part of whoever is encouraging these people maybe to go out there to their deaths. But this, and I really like this paragraph of the piece he says, but is that enough of a reason to withhold enthusiastic support. After all the protesters surely have similar fears, but after internalizing the costs and benefits they have decided to risk their lives and liberties anyway. Surely, it is strange if the protesters who really do have something major to lose are braver than we outsiders are. Oh, I mean, that's a pathetic excuse the idea that we shouldn't do it because we're risking them they're already risking their lives. I mean that's just, again, moral cowardice. They are brave standing up to authority. I mean the President of the United States should be, you know, not tear down that wall but something like China respect your agreement your international agreements because if you don't, then there are consequences to not respect the international agreements, not tariffs, you know, I don't believe in tariffs. Right. But things like embargoes and things like other kind of restrictions that can, they can be placed on people who don't respect international agreements and this is a big agreement. It's an agreement signed by China and England in the UK. The UK has tried to object a number of UK ministers have have have object have said, you know, this is, you know, China's step back, the demonstrators are right, and China basically is told the UK to shut up and go home and not interfere. And this is a Chinese domestic issue. And so, so nobody nobody internationally nobody internationally is except for a few UK ministers who are then shut down by the Chinese have spoken out. And of course, all Trump says is, I think that we'll get out to today. He said speaking to reporters. I'm quoting here. I'm assuming the quote is true. Let's see. It's on Fox News. So yes, I seem to quote is true about Trump. I don't assume that quotes about from anybody else. They're trying, you know, but they're writing the Hong Kong thing is a very tough situation, very tough. We'll see what happens, but I'm sure to work out. I hope it works out for everybody, including China, by the way, there's Donald Trump sucking up to China, and hoping to work out not supporting the demonstrators. He's called the demonstrations riots. Yes. And, you know, talk about a Mao weakling. Everybody thinks this president is such a courageous president, because he's willing to put tariffs on the Chinese. But listen, listen, so I've been posting, you know, in support of this for days now. And I actually, I spent just kind of obscene amount of time with my very rudimentary Photoshop skills, making a frame, because I couldn't find the right frame with a beautiful flower. I don't know how you pronounce the name of the flower, but Bohini or something, the Hong Kong flower. There's this graphic that's used to support this. They now have a great frame. There's a frame on Facebook you can use. So go get the real frame. But anyway, I made this frame. And I put this picture out there. And I'm told, you know, I'm ugly, just like my heart, because I'm, you know, supporting the Chinese and all this. I mean, just tons from, you know, trolls, basically, you can tell that what a Twitter troll account looks like. It's a new account that has like no followers and whatever. But still, you know, real vicious stuff I'm getting. And, you know, one person I posted on my show page on Facebook, one of the articles. I think it was the article about the airport shutdown, right? They go into the airport and they actually ended up shutting down a whole bunch of flights. And I'll ask you what you think of it, Iran, because one person on the page said, aren't they just like Antifa, you know, shutting down freeways and stuff? Aren't they just like them, these protesters in Hong Kong, who flooded into the airport and basically shut down a bunch of flights that day? Well, I mean, they're fighting for freedom that there's a big difference between somebody fighting for freedom and somebody, you know, I'm generally not sympathetic demonstrators unless they are consciously doing civil disobedience in the name of, in the name of expanding rights. So I think civil rights movement when it did, when it did civil disobedience was completely appropriate and right. But I don't approve of people just marching in the street, whether it's a leftist cause or right wing cause or whatever. But when you're fighting, and when you're willing to take the consequences, which is what they're doing of civil disobedience and shutting it down, they're not getting a permit. They're doing, it's a revolution. And they're willing, as compared to all the Americans I know who, you know, speak a big, you know, give a big speech about revolution, but do zilch, nothing. These people are actually standing up to power, standing up to evil, and they are willing to declare, you know, their freedom. By the way, you know, the evil here is the Chinese regime. Now that doesn't make the Chinese regime communist. There are lots of evil regimes that are not communist. China is not a communist country. That's another question. Let me move to that question in a second, right? But so, so your take on this is because this is in a context where the protesters are essentially participating in a revolution, they are taking a principled stand as much as anybody who doesn't understand, you know, activism per se and stuff that, you know, people today, they're taking about as principled a stand as you can imagine against Chinese takeover of this, which is not only just in violation of some agreement that's on paper, right? I mean, the Chinese are trying to, you know, bring about a sooner takeover of Hong Kong via this extradition. That's the way I see it. It's like, you know, we don't get to really impose the laws there till 2047, but let's go ahead and kind of indirectly do it now via this treatment. Exactly. Exactly. They want a bill, right? They want to selectively be able to apply their laws to Hong Kong when it suits them and when they are going to impose with it, when they're going to impose the laws. And pretend that they're not actually taking over now. It's ridiculous. And of course, they get to point the governor. And I can't remember, they get appointed chief executive and I can't remember if the agreement with the UK allowed for some, I think they'd allowed for some kind of elements of democratic elections. But look, the idea here is that the people of Hong Kong are standing up against China imposing its will in a way that is going to violate their individual rights. There's a big problem in China right now that the judiciary, which used to be independent, is no longer independent. The judiciary is very heavily influenced by the Chinese. They put a lot of pressure on judges and that's another big problem. There's no rule of law separation of state from the judiciary, well, from executive, from the judiciary. They need checks and balances as part of a system that is going to consistently over time protect individual rights because the checks and balances will cancel out the human frailties and corruption is the idea, yes. And you need that. It's a robust checks and rights. And look, in its Hong Kong, that was part of a hallmark of Hong Kong. What made Hong Kong great is that it did have an independent judiciary and a rule of law and checks and balances and despite the fact that it didn't have voting, it didn't have that check and balance. It did have this idea of laws and objective laws and you stick by the laws and China's trying to try to subvert that. So there's a lot of ways into China is trying to subvert Hong Kong and these people are marching in the street in an attempt to stop that and at least to express their antagonism towards that and it really is in a sense a revolution just like the, I guess the orange revolution in Ukraine was an orange. I think it was orange in other revolutions in other countries where people went out into the streets. They weren't terrorists. They weren't terrorizing. They, and they were committing civil disobedience knowing that they were committing civil disobedience they were there to overthrow in a sense the regime and and there's a sense in which they are there to overthrow the regime peacefully. They're not using guns because they can't win their battle, but they are hoping to get world support the hoping to get the support of countries like the United States the mall support of the President of the United States and of course he is too much of a pragmatist who doesn't want to trade deal with China, and therefore will not upset them and that's why he adds in is the same many mates. He says, what was it? He says we'll see what happens but I'm sure to work out I hope it works out for everybody, including China sucking up to the Chinese, because he doesn't want this to distract from whatever levels he's trying to push to try to get some kind of trade deal because he could see so he can say he he's he's a winner but anyway we should at some point you should we should talk about what happens if the Chinese do clamp down and what it looks like Yeah, definitely and I want to get there but I have sort of an order in my mind so let me let me ask one more question about evaluating these protesters themselves and comparing them to Antifa and things like that. And one way that I put it to this guy was a little bit crude I just said, you know that the Chinese government is basically Antifa is what dream right so there is a distinction between these guys who are protesting against a takeover by the Chinese government which is basically what Antifa is fighting for. There's that distinction, but you know let's look at for instance you say they're peaceful and I think largely they have been peaceful, but one story that I've gotten again program notes don't let it go.com I've got it there. Thanks to Brooke, who posted it. She posted the story about the protesters using these green lasers to disable cameras, because the cameras are going to identify them. And now of course, as I mentioned just briefly earlier, Cathay Pacific, for instance, has now a policy that if you have been identified as participating in the protest then you aren't supposed to show up for work at Cathay Pacific. And so, you know, they want to remain anonymous while they're doing this and they are as far as I understand the laser will assume for the sake of argument that the laser is actually destroying the property that is these cameras. Well look they're violating property rights is a question I mean they're going on to property that's not theirs they're violating it but you again it's a revolution it's kind of a war and and and that's you have to recognize that. Now, you know the airport I don't know who owns the airport I don't know if the airport is private maybe it is maybe it isn't. I mean that would matter I guess somewhat. They did storm a government building in Hong Kong to their credit they didn't they didn't stop but they have obstructed businesses in Hong Kong look if there was if this was just a. I don't know we want higher wages or we want whatever, then I would be very much against this this is not. This is not just a little quibble about a particular policy of the Hong Kong government we want higher minimum wages or even if they were advocating for we want lower minimum wages even if they were advocating for was something positive, but it wasn't big it wasn't major it didn't it didn't represent the future. These people. And this is what China is so afraid of and this is why it should be afraid of it's legitimately legitimate they should be afraid of this. Yes, these people are declaring their independence from China the declaring revolution the declaring they don't want China. And that's what is scaring the Chinese regime and you know Trump said today that China is moving troops to the border with Hong Kong and and I'm not wouldn't surprise me at all that that is what is going to that that is going to be the end of this but we will talk about that. Okay yeah so that's and I agree with you completely if you know once you're in this context where you are revolting your it's a real revolution over something that is non trivial that is important enough to be out there. Essentially risking your life and your livelihood life right give me liberty or give me death Patrick Henry about you know it's we're almost at that level here. When they're doing that the idea that you're going to criticize them because they're destroying the piece of property that is the piece that's going to make horrible consequences come down upon them and make them unable to continue their revolution. I don't blame them in that context right you know there's certain contexts in which when you say look this is a break this you know we are breaking with you China of course they're not going to. Not actually advocating for breaking with China. Well okay so then they're saying Hong Kong you should give us top cover right and Hong Kong is not giving them top cover against China. Yeah. We want we want you to stick to this to one country two systems and we want our own system you know we'll see what happens in 2040 whatever 47 but for now we want you to respect the deal what we have a separate system. And but that's that's like a revolution given given the status quo. So I don't blame them for you know if they if they became real violent against innocent Hong Kong you know other innocent Hong Kong citizens that would be one thing. But so far most of violence has been initiated by the Hong Kong government. They've sent thugs to try to beat them up. I don't know enough about what happens as well. I don't know about the police and how the police has behaved it's hard to tell how to get objective you know news coverage about these things about anything but certainly about these about these protests. But generally I'm supportive the protest do I agree with everything they stand for no do I do I agree with everything they do probably not but the principle here is what counts and the principle is what America should be standing behind. Right and just to underline when you say you know it's not that they're doing this for a trivial reason. A huge concern with this extradition treaty is that China is going to use it to make it even easier to shut down any dissidents that will eventually I mean I mean really what what is it it's what's at stake here. We've got this globalist environment out there culturally where the people in Hong Kong can get the idea that they're going to resist the takeover by China in 2047. China doesn't want that. And in so far as maybe they're going to be people there as 2047 gets closer and closer, who are going to speak out against it and try to change things. China would like to shut it down now sooner rather than later and so they want to use these little ways to take control to control any of the conversation that's permitted to take place there. China wants to keep Hong Kong's free economic system they want to use it as a financial center but they don't want ideas they don't want it. So spending ideas throughout China that a that a pro freedom that a pro free speech that a pro representational government and they don't want that but that look there's a there's a reason why this is coming up now there's a reason why China's getting more aggressive in Hong Kong and the reason is in my view unequivocally American weakness. We've had now at least two presidents Obama and now Trump, who are unbelievably weak on China. They are they're weak on on on asserting American interests on defining American interest. Everybody anybody who thinks that the Trump understands American interests or advocates are American interest has no clue tariffs and his trade war or anti American and and don't represent true American interest and don't represent. I'll argue it is Chinese are just baffled by the stupidity of the Trump administration's trade policy and what what they are trying to figure out is how far they can go with Hong Kong, because the real target the thing that Chinese really want the Chinese really desires is Taiwan, what he really wants is Taiwan. And, you know, Hong Kong he's got so he'll get in 40 years 30 years or get it now. But Hong Kong is his Taiwan is is is whether what he really desires and what he's prodding and checking constantly is America's willingness will America defend Taiwan militarily because we have a defense treaty with Taiwan. And if not what would be the consequence and by the way, the more we get into a trade war with China, the more we we we we the more we distance ourselves we separate ourselves from China economically, the less leverage we have on China if it wants to go after Taiwan. What I believe today, what I called a new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think, meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, women or mystic revelations. A woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of the spare cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broads.