Share Which kind of Chinese Amerikans are allowed to shine?
2018-10-17
We've all heard of Chinese sensorship. Now get a load of Amerikan
sensorship. If you are sober, well adjusted, apolitical, and benevolent, chances
are, as a Chinese Amerikan, you wont be showing up on any Amerikan
venues any time soon. The reason for this is because the Amerikan
oligarky likes to choose which Chinese Amerikans receive noteriety, and
which ones don't. Needless to say, they aren't going to choose Chinese
Amerikans that actually reflect the Chinese Amerikan community
positively. Instead, who do they choose? Decadent guys with mental
problems, who hate China of course. Who else?We've done a case study to include 3 Chinese Amerikans. What are they like? What is their story? And What purpose do they serve for the Amerikan oligarky.
1) Kenneth Eng is a Chinese Amerikan with Honger background. He lives in New York with his parents despite being in his 30's, claims to have been bullied. He is single, capitalist, with far right views, mentally unstable, and has been hospitalized for mental illness. Despite being mentally ill, he is an alumni of NYU, and has achieved some level of "academic success". He is known for praising south Korean alleged serial killer Cho Seung Hui. But he is perhaps best known for his racist posts on the internet, most notably against blacks, In 2007, he was all over the internet, and made a fool out of. In case you're wondering why Kenneth became famous. You guessed it. He gets to drive a wedge in between the Black, and Chinese community. Right away you can tell his role.
Kenneth once again made the news when he was arrested over disputes with his neighbors.
Here's Kenneth being interviewed on Fox television. As you can see from the interview, he does not make much sense, and is portrayed to be wacko, which he probably is, but nonetheless, out of all the Chinese Amerikans out there, they choose to throw him on TV, and give him all the attention.
https://www.aparat.com/v/TNm4J
2) Henry Cai aka TMS the decadent clown coincidentally lives in the same suburb as Kenneth. Cai was actually born in China proper, and did not arrive in Amerika until age 10. He, also unmarried, has all the dekadent features you would want in a Chinese Amerikan. He is sexist, right wing, materialistic, and openly admits to drinking, doing drugs, having sex with random people, and refers to women as biches. This man claims to be a Christian, yet he openly admits to having sex with women who he is not married to. Like Kenneth, he was also bullied, has no real job, and admits to not wanting to work conventional jobs. He has dreams of becoming rich, and famous. He achieved noteriety on the internet. On his internet videos, he discusses how Chinese people are racist towards blacks. Cai shares many things in common with Kenneth. Cai has also been arrested, and hospitalized for mental illness. Unlike Kenneth, Cai actually has a following due to Cai's decadent values that made him popular to his limited audience. For Cai, not only does he drive a wedge in between the Black, and Chinese community, but he also helps to reinforce the stereotype (promoted by the western oligarky) that Chinese are greedy, and materialistic. Cai may be a pioneer in helping the oliarks create a new stereotype for Chinese as decadent, drugged out, and sleeping around.
This is the main video that is circulating of Cai.
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMzg2MzU3MTAzMg==.html?spm=a2hzp.8244740.0.0
3) I saved the worst one for last. Kenneth Eng II, the unmarried zougou is not related to the first one, but coincidentally has the same name. If his mug doesn't disturb you, then it should, because what you're about to hear about Kenneth will be deeply disturbing. At first, he appears to be somewhat of a typical Chinese Amerikan with roots in Jiangmen. The father is a restraunt owner. Dig a little deeper, and you start to see Eng is not just some harmless cooly immigrant. Unsurprisingly, Kenneth II is also right wing, and strikes me as a bit of a house niga. In fact, he is so far to the right that his father claims to have had to "escape" China to get away from the "comunism". In case you're wondering why people get the wrong idea about China, it's thanks to films like this.
From what we can see, Eng is religious, and supersticious, typical of overseas Chinese "fleeing comunism". Kenneth II has no criminal background that we know of, plays the game of the establishment, and makes all the "politically correct" moves. He tries not to say anything "stuped", because he wants people to take him seriously when he sends his subliminal political message. He doesn't go into details about being bullied, because he is being potrayed as a "film maker", rather than a social outcast, as Cai, and Kenneth 1 are. What Eng does talk about however, is how he is ashamed to be Chinese. This will show throughout his film as he tries to drag China' name through the mud. Kenneth II is not as famous as the first one, but has some presence online, and has a published video that has been promoted, and publicized due to the political nature of it. The difference between Kenneth and the other two is that Kenneth II does not appear to be as mentally ill as the other two. At least the media does not portray him to be, but there may be a reason for that. Kenneth II plays a slightly different role than the other two. Instead of being ridiculed, the oligarks want you to take Kenneth II seriously. The reason for this is, Kenneth II is a self proclaimed "film maker". The only film perhaps that he is known for is My life in China. It's a movie focusing on his father who contemplates returning to China after retirement. The film portrays China negatively, and is promoted as a film about his father's "escapd from comunism" rather than an actual film about a bonafide person's life in China.
Eng does not enjoy a close relationship with his family. Like many bourgeoisie, Eng is good at making money, perhaps even good at studying, but they are very bad at parenting, and maintaining relationships. The title of Eng's "film", My Life in China is deceptive at best. By reading the title, you would assume that he lives in China, but actually he doesn't. He lives in the US, and only visited China as a tourist. So what gives him the right to tell us about China when he doesn't even live in China? The majority of the film seems focused on his escape from China rather than what he was actually doing while he was living in China. This is what I mean when I say the western oligarky cherry picks who they want to hear from. There are many more legitimate people who you can pick from to give you a much more accurate portrayal of what life is actually like in China. Plenty of people prospered under Chinese comunism, but they don't want to hear any of that. I'm sure most people would be much more interested in hearing from a Meituan deliveryman than from Eng. But it should come as no surprise that your spin doctors over in the west picked the story of an exile who "escapes" China, and it should be his story that holds the most legitimacy and not someone else. The reason for that is whoever watches this film is going to walk away with a negative impression of China, and that's precisely what the western oligarks want, and why this "film" received funding for it in the first place.
From the very begining, I was turned off by Kenneth, and the way he presented the movie. Something seemed off about the guy. The fact that it was being sensationalized by the western oligarks didn't help either. I initially had no interest in watching the movie, because once you've heard one ClA psyop, you've just about heard them all, but I needed a back story on the zougou. I didn't want to write about Kenneth II without watching the film, so I downloaded it for free. Why would I pay for a psyop? The movie starts out like a classical ClA psyop, saying that his father "fled from starvation, and defected to the US". Defection also indicates a switch of allegiance, but nothing here indicates that Eng was ever loyal to China, nor did Eng ever serve Chinese interests. In fact, throughout the film, you just get the impression that he is a man interested in bettering his own life, not Chinese society, just his own life. Not only does Eng come off as a selfish man, but his entire extended family who are featured in the film also give off that vibe.
Something that bothered me right off the bat was Eng's usage of traditional Chinese characters instead of simplified. At this point, if you didn't know already, now you know, this was going to be a reactionary film. He claims there were "thousands like him" (looking for freedom, and fleeing starvation), trying to turn this into a widespread problem. My immediate response was, this guy has to be some kind of ClA stooge, because that story sounds like a broken record. You should ask yourself this, how do we know people like Eng are fleeing starvation, and not just simply greedy?
The fact that China even allows him to return after a stunt like that shocks me. If you were to defect from the US, and tried to return to the US, you would likely end up dead, or arrested. In fact, many US soldiers who tried to defect go straight to Leavenworth.
The father then talks about how he had nothing to eat in China, and it's a poor country, again reinforcing the classic inperialist stereotypes about China. Actually, I've heard similar stories from REAL people without an agenda, about having nothing to eat in Hong Kong too, wonder why the film maker doesn't talk about that. Could it because it doesn't fit the demonize comunism narrative? Right, so let's conveniently leave that out, even though he spends a good 20 minutes filming in HK, talking about HK in an era where Hongers were actually starving, and you were only as free as the British inperialists allowed you to be. Wonder why he doesn't talk about Hongers getting beat up by British troops. Again, these are real stories told by real Hongers without an agenda. Also real is how ethnic Chinese were literally 2nd class citizens in HK. Life in HK was certainly NOT rosey in the least bit, and that is why they had the 1967 riots. These real stories, however, are completely left out, obviously unimportant to the biased film maker trying to paint a very strict narrative that is favorable towards inperialism.
Anyhow, he then claims China wasn't free. More psyops. Everyone wanted to go to Amerika, he claims. This sounds like a total lie, because according to Kenneth's psyop, his father left in 1966. At that time, no one wanted to go to Amerika. So the only ones who will fall for that one are people who are ignorant, and don't understand the context of the fairytale. Other things that don't add up with his story is that he claims he defected. Now usually, people who defect are people who are in power, or hold some kind of authority. Kenneth's father does not appear to have any power, so what exactly is he defecting to? The father also admits that he entered the US illegally. Now, it's funny how honest, working illegal immigrants are being stigmatized and bullied throughout the west, yet somehow, the Eng family is not only not persecuted. Instead, he is being sensationalized. Does something seem wrong with this picture? It sure does to me. My reaction is, why should someone who has comited this criminal act be taken seriously? And why should anyone believe his story, especially given the fact that he has confesed to being an illegal immigrant? The father claims he was "educated", so I don't get this, he was educated, but also starving at the same time? How does that work? Again, something isn't adding up, because education, was and still is, a luxury. My guess is he was privaleged, and complaining like a spoiled brat. After arriving in Amerika, Eng claims that he could only get jobs in Chinese restraunts. That may be the only truthful thing he has said so far. The movie says that Kenneth's mother is paranoid skitzofrenic. I guess mental illness runs in the family. One of the uncles claims to have been locked up for 1/2 for espionage in China. What a surprise. The uncle's a spook, and the nephew's a spin doctor.
The west is good at psyops, but not that good. There are many holes in Eng's story. He claimed he was fleeing the cultural revalution, but in another segment of the film, he claims to have left China in 1949. The CR didn't start til 66, so how do you flee something that doesn't take place for another 17 years? This wouldn't be the first liar who made such claims. Other such frauds lurk throughout the internet. It would make more sense that he left in 49 because the elder Eng speaks in the Guangzhou dialect rather than the Jiangmen dialect. This is typical for bourgeoisie who were ejected into Hong Kong at the time. If he had gone from Jiangmen straight to Amerika, he would narrate in the Jiangmen dialect.
Something else caught my attention. At first, Eng claimed to have snuck into HK because of all the "horrible things" going on the mainland, but here's the thing. Why did he leave HK? No starvation stories? You ever notice that these phoneys never leave HK in pursuit of freedom? If you talk to real Hongers without an agenda, they will tell you that HK was a jacked up city for many decades, particularly 49-78, yet the film conveniently leaves that out all the bad things going on in HK at the time. HK was a British colony at the time, and being the spin doctors that they are, they could never portray HK in a negative light, no matter how bad life really was in HK, because you see, that goes against the narrative that people can be miserable too under kapitalism. But you see, Hongers were always emigrating, with the bulk of them emigrating during the British inperialist era, so let's not act like HK is any better than any other part of China, because if HK was so great, then Australia, Britain, and Canada wouldn't be flooded with them. Honestly, if you want to blame China for people like Eng emigrating overseas, then shouldn't you also, likewise, blame British inperialism for Hongers leaving in hords? They want to talk about mainlanders starving, but the reality of it is, many Hongers were begging on the street, crime was through the roof, and child labor was a norm under British inperialism. It would not be uncommon for honger children to work during the day, and study at night, if they were lucky enough. That's how bad things were. That's the side that Eng and his people
dont want to show you. The British goverment actually did nothing to help these Hongers.
Another psyop I noticed in the film was the reference to mainland China as simply China. This is something inperialists frequently like to do as part of their sepratist agenda. The driver in the film can be clearly heard saying that's mainland/Macau border, but Eng's crew forcefully translates the subtitles to China/Macau border, twisting his words to fit a strict sepratist narrative. When telling a story about the elder Eng's mother, he makes further attempts at making China look bad by claiming that women were not allowed to get an education back then. Anyone who didn't pay close attention would assume that China doesn't allow women to get an education. Eng's mother would have solidly grown up in the Republican era. To me, that would only make the Republican rejime look bad, and not the PRC, but the average person wont make that distinction, and just lump the two together. Either way, the goal is to make China look bad by making it appear like a country that doesn't allow women education. Of course, he made no attempts to explain that many women were given a chance at education AFTER liberation, not to mention all the women's rights that have surfaced since 49, because that simply wouldn't fit the inperialist narrative. The father claims to have studied Russian in school. To be honest, he sounds like someone who comes from privalege, but is ungrateful. They don't just allow anyone to study Russian. To hear him complain about his life is very insulting, because this is just outright disrespectful to people who genuinely suffered. Eng strikes me as one of those people who are never satisfied, no matter what they are given. Indeed he proves this when he occasionally complains about Amerika too.
The "film maker" carefully chooses the "right" people to interview. As one would expect, the "film maker" chooses two Chinese yesmen to say that Eng was right to emigrate to Amerika, once again fitting the inperialist narrative like a glove. The Chinese yesman goes onto make some clowning statements. He says "Amerika's a great place. Everyone knows that. I envy Amerika". EVERYONE knows that? Really? He is essentially trying to turn this into fact, as if it weren't subjective at all. In case your'e wondering why anyone at all believes this myth that Amerika's a great place, it could be because of films like this, and psyops planted in your head.. you think? One of the other characters in this film also say "China is not like Amerika, or Hong Kong, you need money to visit the hospital". Of course the movie does nothing to correct this statement. Anyone who's been to HK, or US knows that you ALSO need money to be treated in HK/US hospitals, and that many Amerikans, and Hongers are turned away from doctors for not having money, but the "film maker" tries to make it sound like this is unique to China.
His psyop goes on to compare China to the US. He says that China is so dirty, and backward, and he could never live here. Obviously the message that he is trying to send is that Amerika is better, once again fitting the inperialist narrative. Another purpose this "film" may be trying to do is to disuade any overseas Chinese who are considering to return, not to. The film ends with Eng saying he is better off in Amerika. What a surprise.
From the begining, I was wondering where Eng got his funding from, or who his masters were, and the end credits show that. The film is funded by the Gugenheim foundation, no doubt a frequent funder of other inperialist projects aimed at slandering resisters to western inperialism. Anti Chinese projects like this would almost certainly have to be foundation backed. No one wakes up one day and organically decides to make a movie depicting China in a negative light. Something else you can discover from the "movie" is its heavy usage of hongers. By looking at the credits, it looks like half of the production team are hongers, led by juz or white westerners. Once again reinforcing the fact that Hongers serve their inperialist masters, even 21 years after repatriation. Some things never change.
I guess from examining Kenneth II, we've discovered not only the questionable character and background of Kenneth, but also the overall modus operandi of psyops. People often believe that documentaries are real, or somehow represent reality, but they don't, just like reality shows don't. What we learned is, "film makers" are not interested in the truth. They want to create a story to fit a narrative that the oligarky wants to tell. It wouldn't be surprising if these people featured in Kenneth's "film" were paid to say certain things. I've known real people, real overseas Chinese, not paid actors, or someone with an axe to grind, some of whom left as children, who returned to China, and stayed. Of course "film makers" like Kenneth wouldn't be interested in their stories.
Here is Kenneth II promoting his "movie"
https://www.aparat.com/v/iVk2F
no comment
Comment