Hong Kong's "Occupy Central" is US-backed Sedition

The goal of the US in Hong Kong is clear - to turn the island into an epicenter of foreign-funded subversion with which to infect China's mainland more directly.

October 1, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Protesters of the "Occupy Central" movement in Hong Kong shout familiar slogans and adopt familiar tactics seen across the globe as part of the United States' immense political destabilization and regime change enterprise. Identifying the leaders, following the money, and examining Western coverage of these events reveal with certainty that yet again, Washington and Wall Street are busy at work to make China's island of Hong Kong as difficult to govern for Beijing as possible.

Naming Names: Who is Behind "Occupy Central?" 

Several names are repeatedly mentioned amid coverage of what is being called "Occupy Central," the latest in a long line of US-engineered color revolutions, and part of America's vast, ambitious global geopolitical reordering which started in earnest in 2011 under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring."

Benny Tai, a lecturer of law at the University of Hong Kong, is cited by various sources across the Western media as the primary organizer - however there are many "co-organizers" mentioned alongside him. The South China Morning Post in an article titled, "Occupy Central is on: Benny Tai rides wave of student protest to launch movement," mentions most of them (emphasis added):
Political heavyweights including Civic Party chairwoman Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, former head of the Catholic diocese Cardinal Jospeh Zen Zi-kiun and Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee Chu-ming addressed the crowd.
The Post also mentions (emphasis added): 
Jimmy Lai Chi-Ying, the embattled boss of Next Media who is under investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption over donations to pan-democrat politicians, said he arrived immediately after a call from Martin Lee Chu-ming.
Benny Tai regularly attends US State Department, National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its subsidiary the National Democratic Institute (NDI) funded and/or organized forums. Just this month, he spoke at a Design Democracy Hong Kong (NDI-funded) conference on political reform. He is also active at the University of Hong Kong's Centre for Comparative and Public Law (CCPL) - also funded by NDI. CCPL's 2013-2014 annual report lists Benny Tai as attending at least 3 of the center's functions, as well as heading one of the center's projects.


US Openly Approves Hong Kong Chaos it Created

Image: The US now openly supports chaos on the streets of Hong Kong, this
after condemning "occupy" protests in Bangkok earlier this year. The
difference being in Thailand, protests sought to oust a US proxy, Hong Kong
protests seek to put one into power. 
September 30, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - The "Occupy Central" protests in Hong Kong continue on - destabilizing the small southern Chinese island famous as an international hub for corporate-financier interests, and before that, the colonial ambitions of the British Empire. Those interests have been conspiring for years to peel the island away from Beijing after it was begrudgingly returned to China in the late 1990's, and use it as a springboard to further destabilize mainland China.

Behind the so-called "Occupy Central" protests, which masquerade as a "pro-democracy" movement seeking "universal suffrage" and "full democracy," is a deep and insidious network of foreign financial, political, and media support. Prominent among them is the US State Department and its National Endowment for Democracy (NED) as well as NED's subsidiary, the National Democratic Institute (NDI).

Now, the US has taken a much more overt stance in supporting the chaos their own manipulative networks have prepared and are now orchestrating. The White House has now officially backed "Occupy Central." Reuters in its article, "White House Shows Support For Aspirations Of Hong Kong People," would claim:
The White House is watching democracy protests in Hong Kong closely and supports the "aspirations of the Hong Kong people," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on Monday. "
The United States supports universal suffrage in Hong Kong in accordance with the Basic Law and we support the aspirations of the Hong Kong people," said Earnest, who also urged restraint on both sides.
US State Department Has Built Up and Directs "Occupy Central"

Image: The US through NED and its subsidiaries have a long history of
promoting subversion and division within China. 
Earnest's comments are verbatim the demands of "Occupy Central" protest leaders, but more importantly, verbatim the long-laid designs the US State Department's NDI articulates on its own webpage dedicated to its ongoing meddling in Hong Kong. The term "universal suffrage"and reference to "Basic Law" and its "interpretation" to mean "genuine democracy" is stated clearly on NDI's website which claims:
The Basic Law put in place a framework of governance, whereby special interest groups, or “functional constituencies,” maintain half of the seats in the Legislative Council (LegCo). At present, Hong Kong’s chief executive is also chosen by an undemocratically selected committee. According to the language of the Basic Law, however, “universal suffrage” is the “ultimate aim.” While “universal suffrage” remains undefined in the law, Hong Kong citizens have interpreted it to mean genuine democracy.

To push this agenda - which essentially is to prevent Beijing from vetting candidates running for office in Hong Kong, thus opening the door to politicians openly backed, funded, and directed by the US State Department - NDI lists an array of ongoing meddling it is carrying out on the island. It states:

Turn the Tables: Stopping Western Aggression in Syria

September 29, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) As the US begins token airstrikes on both sides of the Syrian-Iraqi border, the fighting capacity of the "Islamic State" or "ISIS," has seen no visible setbacks. This is because ISIS is in fact the very proxy mercenaries intentionally created to fight the West's proxy war against Iran and its arc of influence stretching from neighboring Iraq, through Syria, and into Lebanon. 

As early as 2007 - a full 4 years before the 2011 "Arab Spring" would begin - Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker article titled, ""The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" would warn specifically (emphasis added):
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
After the West's flooding of the region with billions of dollars worth of weapons, equipment, vehicles, training, and cash for the purpose of bolstering "moderate rebels," what has emerged is precisely the "extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam" and are "sympathetic to Al Qaeda" Hersh warned about in 2007. The West has thus far otherwise failed to explain who else besides extremists could have received the aid, or who is funding extremists above and beyond the collective support provided by the US, Europe, and the West's Middle Eastern partners, that have allowed these extremists to dominate the battlefield so decisively. 



The GMO Labeling Conundrum

September 28, 2014 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) It would seem that large agricultural corporations touting genetically modified organisms (GMOs) they claim possess enhanced benefits for farmers and consumers would be proud to differentiate their products on the shelves from organic and traditionally produced food. However that is not the case. Not only is big-ag attempting to hide the true nature of their products, but the many big-business food processors that incorporate GMO ingredients into their final products are likewise attempting to mislead consumers.

The obvious fear is that consumers will avoid GMO products in favor of those not labeled as modified. While other arguments have been made in attempts to justify not properly labeling food as genetically modified or not, the underlying theme appears to be the belief of big-ag that consumers' ignorance over the alleged safety of GMO products threatens their business and with it, innovations they claim are a benefit not only to their bottom lines, but to all of humanity.

Of course, beneath the layers of this "belief," is the reality that their products do not offer any overwhelming benefit to humanity, and in fact, in many ways, have become a scourge to humanity. Additionally, peripheral arguments, such as GMO being in no way different to organic products, thus there is no need to label them, are so divergent from logic and commonsense that a general suspicion and distrust has formed in the collective mind of the public in regards to big-ag and those pushing their products.

To counter the growing ire of the general public, big-ag has raised an army of professional propagandists peddling pro-GMO talking points in the form of books, websites, mainstream media reportage and even while posing as ordinary citizens simply expressing their "opinions" in comment sections and upon what are supposed to appear as independent personal blogs. They, to no one's surprise, repeat verbatim the talking points proposed by big-ag itself, and while anti-GMO activists eagerly wade into the fray with this army of propagandists, the only relevant question that should be asked seems to escape them all.


Ello -The Facebook Killer?

September 26, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LocalOrg) - Ello, a social network alternative to Facebook is expanding its user base immensely, even as it remains in beta testing. Market watchers and tech trend analysts attribute the influx of users indicative of Facebook's waning popularity due to its invasive, profit-driven, monopolistic, and downright creepy conduct. 

Facebook's incremental, manipulative policy and terms of use have been described as everything from a greedy business practice, to a government sanctioned means of mass manipulation and soft censorship.

It was inevitable that start-ups and activists would seek to offer Facebook users an alternative that allowed social media to be used as a tool of empowerment, not insidious manipulation and censorship. Ello appears to be tapping into that with its manifesto which states:

Your social network is owned by advertisers.
Every post you share, every friend you make and every link you follow is tracked, recorded and converted into data. Advertisers buy your data so they can show you more ads. You are the product that’s bought and sold.
We believe there is a better way. We believe in audacity. We believe in beauty, simplicity and transparency. We believe that the people who make things and the people who use them should be in partnership.
We believe a social network can be a tool for empowerment. Not a tool to deceive, coerce and manipulate — but a place to connect, create and celebrate life.
You are not a product.
In theory, not only does Ello's manifesto sound ideal, it is likely to attract a multitude of disillusioned Facebook users fed up with the big-tech's monopoly, but who have stayed aboard for a lack of a better alternative.