雖然這篇Oligarchs鄉民發文沒有被收入到精華區：在Oligarchs這個話題中，我們另外找到其它相關的精選爆讚文章
在 oligarchs產品中有6篇Facebook貼文，粉絲數超過9萬的網紅李怡，也在其Facebook貼文中提到， Battle between Freedom and Equality | Lee Yee A netizen left a comment under my article from a couple of days ago, and said that if Trump is re-elect...
同時也有10000部Youtube影片，追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル，也在其Youtube影片中提到，...
oligarchs 在 Angelli Instagram 的最讚貼文
2021-04-02 03:45:36
💪🏻❤🦅 March 8: Scavino posts Insta Story of Alaskan malamutes being pulled through snow in Russia March 27: Czech’s richest man (Petr Kellner) known ...
-
oligarchs 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳貼文
2021-10-01 05:19:08![post-title]()
-
oligarchs 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文
2021-10-01 05:10:45![post-title]()
-
oligarchs 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
2021-10-01 05:09:56![post-title]()
oligarchs 在 李怡 Facebook 的最佳貼文
Battle between Freedom and Equality | Lee Yee
A netizen left a comment under my article from a couple of days ago, and said that if Trump is re-elected, he would turn “dictatorial”, and pursue “Trump thinking as mainstream”. He said that he “divides the United States and gave birth to racism, white nationalism, and xenophobia”, which is disastrous to human civilization, etc.
Under the constitutional system of the United States, one will have to step down after one re-election, and there is no way to bring about a dictatorship. Moreover, just look at all the stormy attacks mainstream media throws towards him, how is one to become a dictator? In a multicultural America, how could any almighty notion exist? As for racism and xenophobia, the cited example is him crowning the novel coronavirus “Chinese virus”, and the media claimed that this has caused a sharp increase in anti-Chinese speech online. But the virus did originate in China, did it not?
Other than the infiltration of Chinese interests that drove the U.S. media’s anti-Trump campaign, it has also been the “leftard” ideologies that have dominated academia and the press. How does one define “leftard”? Something that So Keng-chit said a few days ago was very appropriate, "the definition of “leftard” is that they replace strong and weak with “wrong and “right”; strong must be “wrong”, and weak must be “right”. Leftards uplift the weak by putting down the bullies to attain moral high grounds. The leftards must oppose the United States, for the see the United States as strong. The leftards sympathize with Saddam Hussein, because compared with the United States, Saddam Hussein is weak. They cannot see that Saddam Hussein is strong compared with the Iraqis. Hence the ‘tard’ in leftard.”
It is not that they cannot see, they are just intentionally not seeing. The mainstream media reports about Iraq after Saddam Hussein had fallen were that there was no longer a stronghold of a government, which led to the loss of societal management. Bombs were exploding daily, and blood flooded the land of the country. People lost homes and livelihoods. However, data showed that in the later phase of Saddam Hussein’s regime, Iraq’s population was 26 million, and the per capita GDP was only US$625, not to mention that the inflation rate was high in the three digits. After the United States attacked Iraq and introduced the democratic system, the Iraqi population has risen to 35 million, the per capita GDP has increased to US$4,600, and the inflation rate has dropped to 6%. Despite the global economic slowdown, the Iraqi economy has grown by an average of 9.9% per year for more than a decade.
In addition, the mainstream media rarely reported the substantial progress in Afghanistan’s economy and people’s livelihood after the United States eradicated the Taliban regime before establishing a democratic system in Afghanistan. It is rarely reported that after South Africa got rid of the white regime, social security was horrifying. It is because such truthful reporting is not politically correct.
Shouldn’t the motto of news publishing be “all news worth reporting”? When political correctness overrides this creed, there is no longer press freedom.
The so-called political correctness stems from anti-discrimination. Anti-discrimination means upholding the concept that “all men are born equal”, and to protect vulnerable groups. Anti-discrimination used to be a kind of progress, since the starting point is not the interests of the majority of society, but the moral and spiritual demands. But when this kind of protection gradually develops into a disregard towards differences and the diversity of human life, it becomes leftards who wave around the banner of political correctness. If the welfare of new immigrants is treated the same as that of local residents, how is that different from obliterating the long-term tax payment of local residents? Using Black Lives Matter to rationalize violence and chaos, you get Black Lives Better, and ignore the fundamental problems of the root causes of issues such as the Black community’s slighting of education; with the police worrying that law enforcement will cause them trouble, the crime in the Black areas will increase. Anti-discrimination has developed into a state where even praising women for being beautiful is discrimination. Obama once praised the Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris as the most beautiful State Attorney General in the United States, and was then accused of discrimination by feminists. He was forced to apologize. To protect LGBT, many American college toilets no longer distinguish between men and women, making women fearful.
“All men are born equal” is a false proposition. Some people are born with a silver spoon in their mouths, and others are born in the slums of Africa. How are they born equal? American conservative Russel Kirk said that we must pay attention to diversity and differences. Only before God and a fair court can there be true quality; all other attempts to achieve equality will inevitably lead to societal stagnation. If the balance of natural differences and conventions is tipped in order to pursue equality for all, then it will not be long before tyrants or despicable oligarchs start to create new inequalities.
Socialism waves around the banner of equality, and has been breeding tyranny for a whole century. Modern leftards is another form of pursuit of equality, one that is destroying the freedom of human society. Freedom is more important than equality. If there is no freedom, there will be no equality among people who are not free.
This U.S. general election may as well be regarded as a battle between freedom and equality.
oligarchs 在 許文昌 Man-cheong Facebook 的最讚貼文
菲律賓杜泰特果然搞民粹攻擊商家，外國資本在彼國風險在升溫。
Duterte zeroed in on the telecom duopoly of PLDT and Globe Telecom as he railed against the country's business elites -- which he often brands "oligarchs" -- during his annual congressional address on Monday.
In his address, Duterte told the two telecom companies they had "better improve" or "I might just as well close all of you." The president said he will "expropriate" their assets.
oligarchs 在 Goodbye HK, Hello UK Facebook 的精選貼文
【818前後的外交角力】
國際外交新發展，無情緒「雙邊」視角理性觀察分享，適合任何立場人士服用。
從來都唔贊成香港人用「國際棄嬰」心態去睇國際局勢，因為國際外交博弈係需要時間同切入點，唔可能24小時批核。而另一邊廂，繼續指責no stake、廢青、搞事甚至暴徒亦唔見得有乜意義。國際社會將香港問題，提升外交層面已經係不可逆轉嘅客觀現實。放在眼前嘅就係，呢班年輕人（或者所謂嘅「廢青」同「暴徒」）用咗兩個月已經將「公民外交」（大可以話係「勾結外國勢力」）玩到一個極緻。當跌入國際貿易同政治外交博弈裡面，唔好話嗰二百加六個香港人，亦唔只七百萬人，地球上邊個唔關事？
8月19號美帝副總統Mike Pence（彭斯）表明，响美帝嘅立場上面，中美要達成協議嘅大前題（beginning with commitment），係要中央信守响1984年中英聯合聲明當中嘅承諾。結果中央電視新聞即晚就提醒彭斯補歷史課」，話攞聯合聲明呢份「過時無效文件」黎干涉內政，只會淪為國際笑柄（笑唔笑好？）。唔該回一回帶去到8月17號，美帝出tweet「指手畫腳」，唔覺意咁將香港變咗做中美談判嘅籌碼。而同日，加拿加同歐盟又「溫馨提示」，有份國際公約嘅當日。係咪好似漏咗邊個咁呢？無錯喇，被大部份人覺得無用嘅英（廢國）。
其實17號當日英國保守黨鷹派議員Daniel Hannah响《The Telegraph》出咗個專欄，詳細（有時間表地圖）講述香港近廿年嘅示威訴求同現況之餘，亦好有自知之明咁，展示英國哪怕廢，對香港能夠作出嘅實務外交作用。個專欄嘅題目係：”Hong Kong is an Island of Freedom. Britain cannot just ignore what is happening there..”。嗰嗱香港時廿年示威進程發展，英國佬道德責任懺悔文無謂討論。不過重點响最後嘅兩段嗰度，自問英國可以做咩呢（What can Britain do?）？
佢好Mean咁覺得英國今時唔同住日，可以做嘅制裁基本上係多餘，因為中國唔係非洲賊國（kleptocrats）或者俄羅斯寡頭政權（oligarchs），而且佢地嘅黨員係响倫敦Chelsea 有好多樓嘅（有無另外含意就唔知）。廢國可以做嘅就係响外交層面上（within the bounds of diplomatic protocol），用1984年簽署嘅中英聯合聲明不停施壓（pushing, firmly），令啲條款可以執行。佢都知，大家估下Boris Johnson知唔知？
就係短短呢三日，由8月17至20號，廢國、美帝、歐盟同加拿大呢班「外部勢力」，已經捉住咗聯合聲明呢個切入點，將全香港連埋裡面嗰七百萬人，送咗上去「外交神枱」，而中央電視台用「過時失效」去回應，下一步各方會點？更要留意嘅係，呢個星期七大工業國領袖會議（G7），美帝第一個會見嘅係廢國首相，英美deal之餘會傾啲乜呢？G7呢個「舊世界高級俱樂部」，除咗Brexit之外，有無陰毛鬼計呢？
Btw，如果1984年嘅中英聯合聲明「過時失效」，咁1992年美帝嘅香港政策法係基於咩定立嘅呢？而基本法當年又用咩原則黎草議嘅呢？----提醒唔知邊個補邏輯課...
原文傳送門s：
美國副總統8月19號演說全文：
https://www.whitehouse.gov/…/remarks-vice-president-pence-…/
英國保守黨議員Daniel Hannah專欄：
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/hong-kong-island-freedom-bri…/
#廢國的唯一作用
#英國實務外交
#香港已成局中角色
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
【《經濟學人》問香港點算？】
災難級難題懶人包，適合任何立場觀看
http://bit.ly/2Z0on7p
【《New York Times》催淚彈的獨立調查報導（告）】
http://bit.ly/2Hc3Fav
英國居留簽證懶人包（香港人限定）
http://bit.ly/2YUW9aO
英國移民生活網
重要舊文重溫
www.goodbyehkhellouk.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++