The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Breaking Chimerica
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In my review of Kroeber’s book on The Chinese Economy, I identified why the CPC was treating the Hong Kongers with kid gloves (relatively speaking):

Another facet of the FDI strategy was that much “foreign” investment was not really foreign. Nearly half of inbound direct investment has come from Hong Kong, and while much of that may simply reflect the activities of Hong Kong–based subsidiaries of American or European firms, it is clear that Hong Kong firms have been major investors in the mainland… Moreover, as much as a third of China’s reported FDI may in fact be “round-tripping”—investments by Chinese individuals and companies that are routed through companies in other jurisdictions, especially Hong Kong.

Now it appears that China has taken the decision to reintegrate Hong Kong ahead of schedule; in the process, it will lose its position as a privileged entrepot within the “Chimerica” world system, effectively eliminating it as China’s pipeline to Western capital and knowhow.

Given the Corona-accelerated drive towards the “Great Bifurcation” of the world economy between the American Blue Empire and the Sinosphere, I suppose the CPC sees the benefits as justifying the costs.

I am inclined to agree but YMMV.

As for Hong Kong itself, it was already in rapid, inexorable decline. It only arose to prominence by virtue of its unique legal regime and will now fade away into just another second-tier large Chinese city over the next decades.

 
Hide 153 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.

    If you are new to my work, start here

  2. … effectively eliminating it as China’s pipeline to Western capital and knowhow.

    Hong Kong is increasingly less fit for this purpose and is a thorn the Empire has repeatedly stuck into China’s backside. There is no upside to allowing HK to maintain its special status now that it is clear that the next Cold War is on like Donkey Kong.

    • Replies: @UK
    Why are you advocating for the crushing of a city with millions of people? It is weird how bizarrely authoritarian people get when they talk about foreign affairs as if they are talking about their favourite football team.
    , @Realist
    Agree
  3. I just went there the past year or so, and Tsingtao is very impressive, don’t knock it.

    • Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy
    Back during China’s late empire stages when the Western powers had divided up China into economic zones, the Liaoning Peninsula and Tsingtao were in Germany’s zone. Which obviously explains why the most successful beer to come out of China was Tsingtao’s namesake brand.
  4. Will we see real violence in Hong Kong? Cause I hope there will be violence.

    • Replies: @Dreadilk
    I doubt it. HK protesters are not real troops(football fans etc). They also have it good so they have a lot to lose. Chinese intelligence will take out the larpers and that will be it.
    , @Belarusian Dude
    Unfathomably based
    , @gate666
    what a scum.
  5. @The Alarmist

    ... effectively eliminating it as China’s pipeline to Western capital and knowhow.
     
    Hong Kong is increasingly less fit for this purpose and is a thorn the Empire has repeatedly stuck into China's backside. There is no upside to allowing HK to maintain its special status now that it is clear that the next Cold War is on like Donkey Kong.

    Why are you advocating for the crushing of a city with millions of people? It is weird how bizarrely authoritarian people get when they talk about foreign affairs as if they are talking about their favourite football team.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    You wonder why the Chinese are annoyed? Because it is China's city. Always was. The UK merely leased it from China after misappropriating control of the city after waging and winning its immoral Opium Wars to "correct" the trade balance created by Western demand for Chinese goods with little return flow, debilitating China's economy by plying its people with illicit drugs under the ægis of "Free Trade."

    If I was Xi, I might ask the US and UK to fix their own police states before commenting on internal Chinese affairs.

    , @JSQ

    Why are you advocating for the crushing of a city with millions of people?
     
    Fetish for authoritarian strongman types; quite common on the alt-right, probably due to developmental factors such as weak father figures, social rejection by other boys during adolescence, sheltered home life due to excessive mothering (ironically the same factors that predispose towards homosexuality, which is another discussion altogether...)
  6. @Felix Keverich
    Will we see real violence in Hong Kong? Cause I hope there will be violence.

    I doubt it. HK protesters are not real troops(football fans etc). They also have it good so they have a lot to lose. Chinese intelligence will take out the larpers and that will be it.

  7. I find it odd that the Hong Kong protesters fly American flags, wouldn’t it be more logical to fly British flags considering Hong Kong was founded by the British and was a British territory?

    I think it would make more sense for them to argue for autonomy/independence from the perspective of their British history rather than trying to invoke some sort of association with the US, considering Hong Kong has never been part of the US. It would make more sense for them to look to Singapore as a model for their own independence, which was obviously also a British territory.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    There is Russian joke “don’t look for truth where there is none”. To apply to HK protests, it can be modified “don’t look for sense where there is none”. These young fools fly the banner of their funders. They happened to be a convenient tool for the Empire to attempt damaging China. I don’t think that even those who funded these idiots and egged them on believed in their success. HK is inexorably going down, and any sensible person would understand that protesting against it is as fruitful as protesting against Earth gravity. I suspect Chinese did not want to crush them forcefully precisely because they are doomed to fail regardless.
    , @Mitleser
    Britain lost its special role in HK in 2000. Why bother appealing to them?

    While not all members of Hong Kong’s pro-establishment camp back the notion that the Joint Declaration is now void, many have insisted that Britain now merits no role in Hong Kong’s affairs. In a televised interview on December 5 with Hong Kong’s public broadcaster RTHK, Rita Fan, a former president of Hong Kong’s legislature and Hong Kong’s only representative to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in Beijing, argued that because the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group, established to ensure a smooth transition post-handover, was disbanded in 2000, that meant that Britain’s supervisory responsibility had lapsed.
     
    https://web.archive.org/web/20170703084221/http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/18/does-china-think-the-sino-british-joint-declaration-is-void/


    On the other hand, not only is the USA the dominant power, the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act passed by the US legislative is vital for Hong Kong's special international status.

    , @d dan

    "I think it would make more sense for them to argue for autonomy/independence from the perspective of their British history"
     
    Hong Kong is already largely autonomous.

    "It would make more sense for them to look to Singapore as a model for their own independence, which was obviously also a British territory."
     
    Apple and orange comparison. No, it doesn't make sense for it to get its independence. Texas and California have more grounds to get independence from US than Hong Kong from China.
    , @neutral

    I find it odd that the Hong Kong protesters fly American flags
     
    Because flying to the Israeli flag is too blatant. Those "protesters" are basically demanding to be ruled by the international jew, using the ZOG flag is acceptable to be shown in the propaganda media outlets.
    , @showmethereal
    Not really comparable (Hong Kong and Singapore)... Singapore was a part of the Malaysian Federation but was basically kicked out. Singapore had to make it a go on it's own. The Brits embarrassed China by taking Hong Kong. There was never any chance China was going to give it up and let it go.
    As to why wave American flags.... Britain isn't crazy enough to try to attack China. They are hoping the US is... Pretty dumb of them since that would be the end of Hong Kong.
    , @yakushimaru

    I find it odd that the Hong Kong protesters fly American flags
     
    Maybe it is the flag of the "Proposition Nation" that they are flying.
  8. 2020s: the decade everybody shot themselves in the ass in the defense of their infertile, aimless, mutated, entropic “nations”.

    ^World’s biggest governments in 2020

  9. The one pipeline that always seems to remain open to all sides in big power conflicts, is the Israeli one, and China-Israel ties are ballooning to equal and possibly exceed US-Israel ties, as China and Israel both lead and collaborate in creating ‘total surveillance world’

    Half a century ago, flows of tech from the USA to the USSR went through Israel, the USA allegedly thinking they were using Tel Aviv against Moscow, Moscow allegedly thinking the same in reverse

    And now, “We trust our Jewish friends!” says China, laughing off Mike Pompeo’s attempts to create a wedge between them and Israel
    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-china-says-we-trust-the-jewish-friends-after-pompeo-warns-israel-about-investments-1.8848309

    Even tho China’s ambassador to Israel Du Wei was found dead at his home near Tel Aviv a few days earlier … an Israel-based poster on 4chan saying Israel killed the Chinese Ambassador at China’s request, after Du Wei tried to defect and was double-crossed:
    https://www.henrymakow.com/2020/05/murdered-chinese-ambassador-tried-to-defect.html

    Sheldon Adelson, Jewish-Israeli billionaire, top USA Republican and also Netanyahu funder, friend of Trump … has been making most of his billions in Macau China casinos, in partnership with Beijing … Yet, despite all the trouble going on between USA and China, with Adelson able to call Trump anytime… Beijing doesn’t touch Adelson

    China welcomes 12 centres of the Mossad-tied Chabad, all with direct hotline to Jared Kushner’s Chabad in Washington DC, and ‘Putin’s Rabbi’ Berel Lazar at Chabad Moscow
    https://www.chabad.org/centers/default_cdo/country/China/jewish/Chabad-Lubavitch.htm

    ‘Chinese Self-Help Books Teach You to Be Like Jews’
    https://www.jta.org/jewniverse/2014/chinese-self-help-books-teach-you-to-be-like-the-jews

    ‘What the US can learn from Israel-China collaboration’
    https://www.wired.com/story/why-the-us-needs-to-engage-china-on-tech/

    China and Israel, it is what’s happening, it is replacing USA-Israel, and China has been bound up with European and Zionist Jewry ever since Mao, so this is nothing new:

    ‘Sidney Rittenberg: The Jew Behind Communist China’
    https://culturewars.com/news/sidney-rittenberg-china

    [MORE]

    ‘Secret Role of Jews in Founding Mao’s China’

  10. @Europe Europa
    I find it odd that the Hong Kong protesters fly American flags, wouldn't it be more logical to fly British flags considering Hong Kong was founded by the British and was a British territory?

    I think it would make more sense for them to argue for autonomy/independence from the perspective of their British history rather than trying to invoke some sort of association with the US, considering Hong Kong has never been part of the US. It would make more sense for them to look to Singapore as a model for their own independence, which was obviously also a British territory.

    There is Russian joke “don’t look for truth where there is none”. To apply to HK protests, it can be modified “don’t look for sense where there is none”. These young fools fly the banner of their funders. They happened to be a convenient tool for the Empire to attempt damaging China. I don’t think that even those who funded these idiots and egged them on believed in their success. HK is inexorably going down, and any sensible person would understand that protesting against it is as fruitful as protesting against Earth gravity. I suspect Chinese did not want to crush them forcefully precisely because they are doomed to fail regardless.

    • Agree: showmethereal
    • Replies: @22pp22
    The thugs are a small minority.

    These millions of people don't look either young or foolish to me. Maybe, as they actually live there, they know something you don't.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LysKEvjy1Yo
    , @Aedib
    Hong Kong Maidan will go to nowhere. China will not hesitate to crush it if neccesary. Otherwise, it will let it die.
  11. @Europe Europa
    I find it odd that the Hong Kong protesters fly American flags, wouldn't it be more logical to fly British flags considering Hong Kong was founded by the British and was a British territory?

    I think it would make more sense for them to argue for autonomy/independence from the perspective of their British history rather than trying to invoke some sort of association with the US, considering Hong Kong has never been part of the US. It would make more sense for them to look to Singapore as a model for their own independence, which was obviously also a British territory.

    Britain lost its special role in HK in 2000. Why bother appealing to them?

    While not all members of Hong Kong’s pro-establishment camp back the notion that the Joint Declaration is now void, many have insisted that Britain now merits no role in Hong Kong’s affairs. In a televised interview on December 5 with Hong Kong’s public broadcaster RTHK, Rita Fan, a former president of Hong Kong’s legislature and Hong Kong’s only representative to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in Beijing, argued that because the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group, established to ensure a smooth transition post-handover, was disbanded in 2000, that meant that Britain’s supervisory responsibility had lapsed.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170703084221/http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/18/does-china-think-the-sino-british-joint-declaration-is-void/

    On the other hand, not only is the USA the dominant power, the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act passed by the US legislative is vital for Hong Kong’s special international status.

    • Replies: @Europe Europa
    Because it's the only thing that makes them different from any other city in China and might give them some traction for an independence movement. Appealing to the US is no different to any other Chinese city potentially appealing to the US.

    I know most here understand very little about the UK and there is a lot of anti-British undercurrent on this site (which I think is an American trait to be honest), I notice if anyone even mentions Britain often the replies are snotty and dismissive like yours and others, probably not even aware that Hong Kong was built by Britain.

    I would go as far to say that Hong Kong is as historically British and has a right to be called British as much as many parts of Russia have to be called Russian.

  12. @Europe Europa
    I find it odd that the Hong Kong protesters fly American flags, wouldn't it be more logical to fly British flags considering Hong Kong was founded by the British and was a British territory?

    I think it would make more sense for them to argue for autonomy/independence from the perspective of their British history rather than trying to invoke some sort of association with the US, considering Hong Kong has never been part of the US. It would make more sense for them to look to Singapore as a model for their own independence, which was obviously also a British territory.

    “I think it would make more sense for them to argue for autonomy/independence from the perspective of their British history”

    Hong Kong is already largely autonomous.

    “It would make more sense for them to look to Singapore as a model for their own independence, which was obviously also a British territory.”

    Apple and orange comparison. No, it doesn’t make sense for it to get its independence. Texas and California have more grounds to get independence from US than Hong Kong from China.

  13. @Znzn
    I just went there the past year or so, and Tsingtao is very impressive, don't knock it.

    Back during China’s late empire stages when the Western powers had divided up China into economic zones, the Liaoning Peninsula and Tsingtao were in Germany’s zone. Which obviously explains why the most successful beer to come out of China was Tsingtao’s namesake brand.

  14. @Felix Keverich
    Will we see real violence in Hong Kong? Cause I hope there will be violence.

    Unfathomably based

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  15. It was made clear last year with the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act that Hongkong was not off limits to the punitive economic policies of the US. The trade war has gone beyond mere quid pro quo bargaining to an irreversible ratchet of ever tightening restrictions on the Chinese economy. Hongkong as Chinas portal to western capital was not held hostage in good faith be rather to be executed later at the United States leisure, preferably when it had fully entrenched its localist assets. Things going as they were, the pan dems would be astroturfed into a supermajority by next year which would lend credibility to an inevitable Hongkong provisional government with Joshua Wong as Guaido in direct opposition to Beijing. Weighing the cost it’s obvious why Beijing executed the hostage themselves.

    • Agree: showmethereal
  16. If you’re going to continue talking about the Great Bifurcation, Anatoly, you really should post a map here so that I and the rest of us here will know exactly which country will belong on which side of this bifurcation.

    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    This map is imperfect in many ways for example Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Malaysia, Nepal, Serbia all lean towards China but instead are labelled neutral. While Brazil, India and others should be labelled pro American. Please gentleman, add your opinions.


    https://i.redd.it/2qe412g36oj01.png
  17. The suggestion trotted out again in Conservative British papers and magazines is that Britain should take in Hong-Kongers as refugees

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Neocons are very aggressively pushing this meme.

    https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2020/05/bob-seely-while-we-are-distracted-by-the-virus-china-prepares-to-seize-hong-kong-and-crush-freedom.html
  18. @Mitleser
    Britain lost its special role in HK in 2000. Why bother appealing to them?

    While not all members of Hong Kong’s pro-establishment camp back the notion that the Joint Declaration is now void, many have insisted that Britain now merits no role in Hong Kong’s affairs. In a televised interview on December 5 with Hong Kong’s public broadcaster RTHK, Rita Fan, a former president of Hong Kong’s legislature and Hong Kong’s only representative to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in Beijing, argued that because the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group, established to ensure a smooth transition post-handover, was disbanded in 2000, that meant that Britain’s supervisory responsibility had lapsed.
     
    https://web.archive.org/web/20170703084221/http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/18/does-china-think-the-sino-british-joint-declaration-is-void/


    On the other hand, not only is the USA the dominant power, the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act passed by the US legislative is vital for Hong Kong's special international status.

    Because it’s the only thing that makes them different from any other city in China and might give them some traction for an independence movement. Appealing to the US is no different to any other Chinese city potentially appealing to the US.

    I know most here understand very little about the UK and there is a lot of anti-British undercurrent on this site (which I think is an American trait to be honest), I notice if anyone even mentions Britain often the replies are snotty and dismissive like yours and others, probably not even aware that Hong Kong was built by Britain.

    I would go as far to say that Hong Kong is as historically British and has a right to be called British as much as many parts of Russia have to be called Russian.

    • Disagree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @d dan

    "... Hong Kong was built by Britain."
     
    "Hong Kong was stolen by Britain." - fixed it for you.

    2 comments in this thread and already multiple mentions of "independence" - sounds like a true day-dreamer.
    , @Amerimutt Golems

    I know most here understand very little about the UK and there is a lot of anti-British undercurrent on this site (which I think is an American trait to be honest), I notice if anyone even mentions Britain often the replies are snotty and dismissive like yours and others, probably not even aware that Hong Kong was built by Britain.

     

    Isn't Britain the original Evil Empire in the American psyche? The U.S. also hosts many of your former enemies.

    I think the antipathy is mutual. To haughty Guardian, Independent and BBC apparatchiks like UR regular P Cockburn (who is actually a Paddy) America is a country of rustic, uncouth KKK types with guns and oppressed blacks.

    They also regard anyone who questions disastrous immigration policies in the UK and elsewhere (see third link below) in Europe as 'racist', 'far right', 'nazi' etc.

    As for Hong Kong it is just pragmatism. Britain has less leverage globally speaking compared to the ZOG Empire Inc. Your sly ruling class also needs capital inflows from China to help finance persistent trade deficits. See Conservative Friends of the Chinese and Alan Mak, MP.

    Why are Americans, on Quora, so anti-British?
    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Americans-on-Quora-so-anti-British

    Why do some British dislike the United States of America?
    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-British-dislike-the-United-States-of-America

    Immigration attitudes have barely changed – so why is far right on rise?
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/02/immigration-attitudes-have-barely-changed-why-far-right-on-rise

    , @Mitleser
    What makes it so different is the large autonomy permitted by PRC and USA.
    UK has no longer any relevant role to play.
    That is what your people wanted.

    “The Brits did not want to be involved with Hong Kong anymore. Hong Kong is [becoming] too much of an embarrassment to British trade with China and they want to wash their hands completely of Hong Kong,” veteran pro-democracy activist Martin Lee told FP in October.
     
    And what they deserve.

    Britain repeatedly put pressure on Portugal not to grant nationality to its colonial residents in Macau to prevent Hongkongers asking for the same treatment ahead of the two cities’ return to Chinese rule, recently declassified documents have revealed.

    Tensions between the countries in 1985 – as Portugal prepared to join the European Community, now the European Union – came to light via British cabinet files from the National Archives in London, which were made available in July.

    Activists in Hong Kong said the documents once again highlighted how “disgraceful” Britain had been in its treatment of the colony’s citizens in the period leading up to the 1997 handover.

    London had refused to confer residency rights on all but 50,000 Hongkongers and their families, granting others only the British National (Overseas) passport, which did not come with the right of abode.
     
    https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2156385/britains-disgraceful-pre-handover-efforts-deny-nationality
  19. @Europe Europa
    Because it's the only thing that makes them different from any other city in China and might give them some traction for an independence movement. Appealing to the US is no different to any other Chinese city potentially appealing to the US.

    I know most here understand very little about the UK and there is a lot of anti-British undercurrent on this site (which I think is an American trait to be honest), I notice if anyone even mentions Britain often the replies are snotty and dismissive like yours and others, probably not even aware that Hong Kong was built by Britain.

    I would go as far to say that Hong Kong is as historically British and has a right to be called British as much as many parts of Russia have to be called Russian.

    “… Hong Kong was built by Britain.”

    “Hong Kong was stolen by Britain.” – fixed it for you.

    2 comments in this thread and already multiple mentions of “independence” – sounds like a true day-dreamer.

    • Replies: @Europe Europa
    A lot of Chinese say Vladivostok and the Russian Far East is their stolen land that they will one day reclaim for their ancestors, and using the same logic as you are I would agree with them. Or can only the British "steal" land and not the Russians? Typical anti-British nonsense typical of this site.

    The British built the modern city of Hong Kong just as much as the Russians built Vladivostok.

    , @reiner Tor
    There was no Hong Kong before the British showed up, just some fishing villages.
    , @jimmyriddle
    We stole it and we built it.

    Ditto North America and Australia.
  20. What are Chinese SAM capabilities, are they capable of detecting B-2s?

  21. @Kent Nationalist
    The suggestion trotted out again in Conservative British papers and magazines is that Britain should take in Hong-Kongers as refugees
  22. @d dan

    "... Hong Kong was built by Britain."
     
    "Hong Kong was stolen by Britain." - fixed it for you.

    2 comments in this thread and already multiple mentions of "independence" - sounds like a true day-dreamer.

    A lot of Chinese say Vladivostok and the Russian Far East is their stolen land that they will one day reclaim for their ancestors, and using the same logic as you are I would agree with them. Or can only the British “steal” land and not the Russians? Typical anti-British nonsense typical of this site.

    The British built the modern city of Hong Kong just as much as the Russians built Vladivostok.

    • Replies: @Simpleguest

    The British built the modern city of Hong Kong just as much as the Russians built Vladivostok.
     
    While speaking of differences, Vladivostok is the home port of the Russian Pacific fleet.
    By the way, it doesn's strike me as particularly British to complain the way you do. Are you sure you are British?
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Russians are much less irritating.
    , @d dan

    "Or can only the British “steal” land and not the Russians?"
     
    Historically, they both did steal. Modern leaders have largely settled those land claims peacefully. Stating obvious historical fact has nothing to do with being "anti-British nonsense".

    "The British built the modern city of Hong Kong ..."
     
    Please let me know how many laborers did British sent to Hong Kong to build those skyscrapers, ports, roads, subways... No? Granted, British contributed in some aspects like laws and order, international connections, etc. But Hong Kong was largely built by Hong Kongers, i.e. Chinese.

    British had a lot of colonies - some became successful and other failed miserably. It is so revealing that British of today only *take ownership* of the successful ones but feel *no responsibility* about the failed ones.

  23. @Europe Europa
    Because it's the only thing that makes them different from any other city in China and might give them some traction for an independence movement. Appealing to the US is no different to any other Chinese city potentially appealing to the US.

    I know most here understand very little about the UK and there is a lot of anti-British undercurrent on this site (which I think is an American trait to be honest), I notice if anyone even mentions Britain often the replies are snotty and dismissive like yours and others, probably not even aware that Hong Kong was built by Britain.

    I would go as far to say that Hong Kong is as historically British and has a right to be called British as much as many parts of Russia have to be called Russian.

    I know most here understand very little about the UK and there is a lot of anti-British undercurrent on this site (which I think is an American trait to be honest), I notice if anyone even mentions Britain often the replies are snotty and dismissive like yours and others, probably not even aware that Hong Kong was built by Britain.

    Isn’t Britain the original Evil Empire in the American psyche? The U.S. also hosts many of your former enemies.

    I think the antipathy is mutual. To haughty Guardian, Independent and BBC apparatchiks like UR regular P Cockburn (who is actually a Paddy) America is a country of rustic, uncouth KKK types with guns and oppressed blacks.

    They also regard anyone who questions disastrous immigration policies in the UK and elsewhere (see third link below) in Europe as ‘racist’, ‘far right’, ‘nazi’ etc.

    As for Hong Kong it is just pragmatism. Britain has less leverage globally speaking compared to the ZOG Empire Inc. Your sly ruling class also needs capital inflows from China to help finance persistent trade deficits. See Conservative Friends of the Chinese and Alan Mak, MP.

    Why are Americans, on Quora, so anti-British?
    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Americans-on-Quora-so-anti-British

    Why do some British dislike the United States of America?
    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-British-dislike-the-United-States-of-America

    Immigration attitudes have barely changed – so why is far right on rise?
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/02/immigration-attitudes-have-barely-changed-why-far-right-on-rise

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
    I am always surprised how few Oriental MPs there are, compared to Indians or Africans.
  24. @Europe Europa
    A lot of Chinese say Vladivostok and the Russian Far East is their stolen land that they will one day reclaim for their ancestors, and using the same logic as you are I would agree with them. Or can only the British "steal" land and not the Russians? Typical anti-British nonsense typical of this site.

    The British built the modern city of Hong Kong just as much as the Russians built Vladivostok.

    The British built the modern city of Hong Kong just as much as the Russians built Vladivostok.

    While speaking of differences, Vladivostok is the home port of the Russian Pacific fleet.
    By the way, it doesn’s strike me as particularly British to complain the way you do. Are you sure you are British?

    • Replies: @Europe Europa
    As in most British are cucks or totally indifferent who just take criticism and attacks from foreigners without arguing back or defending their country? Unfortunately I tend to agree.

    You'd be more likely to an angry response from a British person by insulting their city/county than the country as a whole.

    , @animalogic
    "it doesn’s strike me as particularly British to complain the way you do. Are you sure you are British?"
    Sure? In Australia the "whinging pom" is part of the Aust' mythos.
  25. @Amerimutt Golems

    I know most here understand very little about the UK and there is a lot of anti-British undercurrent on this site (which I think is an American trait to be honest), I notice if anyone even mentions Britain often the replies are snotty and dismissive like yours and others, probably not even aware that Hong Kong was built by Britain.

     

    Isn't Britain the original Evil Empire in the American psyche? The U.S. also hosts many of your former enemies.

    I think the antipathy is mutual. To haughty Guardian, Independent and BBC apparatchiks like UR regular P Cockburn (who is actually a Paddy) America is a country of rustic, uncouth KKK types with guns and oppressed blacks.

    They also regard anyone who questions disastrous immigration policies in the UK and elsewhere (see third link below) in Europe as 'racist', 'far right', 'nazi' etc.

    As for Hong Kong it is just pragmatism. Britain has less leverage globally speaking compared to the ZOG Empire Inc. Your sly ruling class also needs capital inflows from China to help finance persistent trade deficits. See Conservative Friends of the Chinese and Alan Mak, MP.

    Why are Americans, on Quora, so anti-British?
    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Americans-on-Quora-so-anti-British

    Why do some British dislike the United States of America?
    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-British-dislike-the-United-States-of-America

    Immigration attitudes have barely changed – so why is far right on rise?
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/02/immigration-attitudes-have-barely-changed-why-far-right-on-rise

    I am always surprised how few Oriental MPs there are, compared to Indians or Africans.

  26. @Europe Europa
    Because it's the only thing that makes them different from any other city in China and might give them some traction for an independence movement. Appealing to the US is no different to any other Chinese city potentially appealing to the US.

    I know most here understand very little about the UK and there is a lot of anti-British undercurrent on this site (which I think is an American trait to be honest), I notice if anyone even mentions Britain often the replies are snotty and dismissive like yours and others, probably not even aware that Hong Kong was built by Britain.

    I would go as far to say that Hong Kong is as historically British and has a right to be called British as much as many parts of Russia have to be called Russian.

    What makes it so different is the large autonomy permitted by PRC and USA.
    UK has no longer any relevant role to play.
    That is what your people wanted.

    “The Brits did not want to be involved with Hong Kong anymore. Hong Kong is [becoming] too much of an embarrassment to British trade with China and they want to wash their hands completely of Hong Kong,” veteran pro-democracy activist Martin Lee told FP in October.

    And what they deserve.

    Britain repeatedly put pressure on Portugal not to grant nationality to its colonial residents in Macau to prevent Hongkongers asking for the same treatment ahead of the two cities’ return to Chinese rule, recently declassified documents have revealed.

    Tensions between the countries in 1985 – as Portugal prepared to join the European Community, now the European Union – came to light via British cabinet files from the National Archives in London, which were made available in July.

    Activists in Hong Kong said the documents once again highlighted how “disgraceful” Britain had been in its treatment of the colony’s citizens in the period leading up to the 1997 handover.

    London had refused to confer residency rights on all but 50,000 Hongkongers and their families, granting others only the British National (Overseas) passport, which did not come with the right of abode.

    https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2156385/britains-disgraceful-pre-handover-efforts-deny-nationality

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist

    Britain repeatedly put pressure on Portugal not to grant nationality to its colonial residents in Macau to prevent Hongkongers asking for the same treatment ahead of the two cities’ return to Chinese rule, recently declassified documents have revealed.

     

    Based John Major, I guess
  27. @Europe Europa
    I find it odd that the Hong Kong protesters fly American flags, wouldn't it be more logical to fly British flags considering Hong Kong was founded by the British and was a British territory?

    I think it would make more sense for them to argue for autonomy/independence from the perspective of their British history rather than trying to invoke some sort of association with the US, considering Hong Kong has never been part of the US. It would make more sense for them to look to Singapore as a model for their own independence, which was obviously also a British territory.

    I find it odd that the Hong Kong protesters fly American flags

    Because flying to the Israeli flag is too blatant. Those “protesters” are basically demanding to be ruled by the international jew, using the ZOG flag is acceptable to be shown in the propaganda media outlets.

  28. @AnonFromTN
    There is Russian joke “don’t look for truth where there is none”. To apply to HK protests, it can be modified “don’t look for sense where there is none”. These young fools fly the banner of their funders. They happened to be a convenient tool for the Empire to attempt damaging China. I don’t think that even those who funded these idiots and egged them on believed in their success. HK is inexorably going down, and any sensible person would understand that protesting against it is as fruitful as protesting against Earth gravity. I suspect Chinese did not want to crush them forcefully precisely because they are doomed to fail regardless.

    The thugs are a small minority.

    These millions of people don’t look either young or foolish to me. Maybe, as they actually live there, they know something you don’t.

    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @mal
    The way I understand it, there are two things going on (aside from our usual suspects trying to stir up trouble). Unfortunately for the denizens of Hong Kong, they are mutually exclusive.

    First, they protest unbearable living conditions for lower classes (rent's too high). Second, they protest Hong Kong's relative decline in importance to mainland China and geopolitically in general, and the loss of power and privileges that come with that.

    Unfortunately, it their former power and privileges that caused their rent to be high in the first place. Power and privilege attract rich people who bid up prices. Works the same everywhere. Prime example is San Francisco where the homeless shoot up heroin next to super rich Facebook people. Power and privileges and cheap rent are mutually exclusive.

    Since Hong Kong failed to understand their reality, mainland China will have to explain it to them. But on the bright side, once Hong Kong is equalized with other Chinese cities, the rich won't bid up prices as much anymore as the the power center shifts, and rents will become more affordable.
    , @AnonFromTN
    Shouldn’t we remember how this whole thing started? HK did not have a law to extradite a murderer to Taiwan. Big China got involved only because HK belongs to it. Does it strike you as natural that non-extradition of a murderer to Taiwan all of a sudden inflamed HKers? Isn’t it logical to hypothesize that only external forces with substantial funds could have used this lame pretext to attempt doing some damage to China. The instigators do not give a hoot about HK as such. They don't care that the only side that is going to be seriously damaged is HK.
  29. @Mitleser
    What makes it so different is the large autonomy permitted by PRC and USA.
    UK has no longer any relevant role to play.
    That is what your people wanted.

    “The Brits did not want to be involved with Hong Kong anymore. Hong Kong is [becoming] too much of an embarrassment to British trade with China and they want to wash their hands completely of Hong Kong,” veteran pro-democracy activist Martin Lee told FP in October.
     
    And what they deserve.

    Britain repeatedly put pressure on Portugal not to grant nationality to its colonial residents in Macau to prevent Hongkongers asking for the same treatment ahead of the two cities’ return to Chinese rule, recently declassified documents have revealed.

    Tensions between the countries in 1985 – as Portugal prepared to join the European Community, now the European Union – came to light via British cabinet files from the National Archives in London, which were made available in July.

    Activists in Hong Kong said the documents once again highlighted how “disgraceful” Britain had been in its treatment of the colony’s citizens in the period leading up to the 1997 handover.

    London had refused to confer residency rights on all but 50,000 Hongkongers and their families, granting others only the British National (Overseas) passport, which did not come with the right of abode.
     
    https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2156385/britains-disgraceful-pre-handover-efforts-deny-nationality

    Britain repeatedly put pressure on Portugal not to grant nationality to its colonial residents in Macau to prevent Hongkongers asking for the same treatment ahead of the two cities’ return to Chinese rule, recently declassified documents have revealed.

    Based John Major, I guess

    • LOL: LondonBob
  30. @UK
    Why are you advocating for the crushing of a city with millions of people? It is weird how bizarrely authoritarian people get when they talk about foreign affairs as if they are talking about their favourite football team.

    You wonder why the Chinese are annoyed? Because it is China’s city. Always was. The UK merely leased it from China after misappropriating control of the city after waging and winning its immoral Opium Wars to “correct” the trade balance created by Western demand for Chinese goods with little return flow, debilitating China’s economy by plying its people with illicit drugs under the ægis of “Free Trade.”

    If I was Xi, I might ask the US and UK to fix their own police states before commenting on internal Chinese affairs.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    The British annexed/leased the territory.
    The city itself was a product of the British colonial era and did not exist in the previous Chinese Imperial era.

    The same applies to certain other Chinese cities like Macau and Harbin which became cities thanks to European colonization in China.
  31. @Simpleguest

    The British built the modern city of Hong Kong just as much as the Russians built Vladivostok.
     
    While speaking of differences, Vladivostok is the home port of the Russian Pacific fleet.
    By the way, it doesn's strike me as particularly British to complain the way you do. Are you sure you are British?

    As in most British are cucks or totally indifferent who just take criticism and attacks from foreigners without arguing back or defending their country? Unfortunately I tend to agree.

    You’d be more likely to an angry response from a British person by insulting their city/county than the country as a whole.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Hotheaded, shouty Meds combining short physical stature with short tempers fail to understand that not rising to the slightest provocation does not necessarily constitute cucking.
  32. @The Alarmist
    You wonder why the Chinese are annoyed? Because it is China's city. Always was. The UK merely leased it from China after misappropriating control of the city after waging and winning its immoral Opium Wars to "correct" the trade balance created by Western demand for Chinese goods with little return flow, debilitating China's economy by plying its people with illicit drugs under the ægis of "Free Trade."

    If I was Xi, I might ask the US and UK to fix their own police states before commenting on internal Chinese affairs.

    The British annexed/leased the territory.
    The city itself was a product of the British colonial era and did not exist in the previous Chinese Imperial era.

    The same applies to certain other Chinese cities like Macau and Harbin which became cities thanks to European colonization in China.

    • Replies: @Realist

    The city itself was a product of the British colonial era and did not exist in the previous Chinese Imperial era.

    The same applies to certain other Chinese cities like Macau and Harbin which became cities thanks to European colonization in China.
     
    That is an inane, meaningless point. The same is true for Boston, New York City and hundreds of other...now American cities. What is the purpose of your comments?
    , @The Alarmist
    Gott sei Dank, daß die Europäer die Welt zivilisiert haben, bevor sie versucht haben, sie in zwei Weltkriegen zu zerstören.

    Sind Sie wirklich so doof?
  33. 128 says:

    OT, but why is stupid and cruel ageism from White people and Westerners in general where old people are treated as social throwaways, in East Asian societies old people are venerated and their presence is treated as a blessing because of the experience and wisdom that they impart due to having lived so long, I mean Subotai was still performing at an A into his late 60s, Lee Kuan Yew was still going strong mentally into his 80s, and Nguyen Giap was still performing at an A level way way way past retirement age, maybe the reason why your society is so screwed up is because Westerners treated old people as factory rejects fit for the scrap heap past 50, unlike Asian cultures and societies based on Confucian cultures? I can also add Sima Yi to this list. Maybe if you Westerners did not treat your old people like throwaways you would not have these social problems right now.

    • Replies: @BS
    Looking at the American political elite (pretty much all over 70!) I really don't think that Westerners have any particular revulsion for old people. You're mistaking apathy for antipathy.
    , @Kent Nationalist

    in East Asian societies old people are venerated and their presence is treated as a blessing because of the experience and wisdom that they impart due to having lived so long
     
    This would all sound much more plausible if I didn't know how old Chinese women actually behave
    , @Europe Europa
    In the UK a widely believed stereotype is that Southern Europeans, especially the Spanish, are very "family oriented" and respect and venerate their elderly much more than the British do.

    Although I think how Spain and Italy handled the pandemic and the high levels of death/abandonment in their "care" homes has dented that stereotype considerably, I was surprised to hear how many elderly care homes there are in Spain and Italy considering in Britain we are lead to believe that they are non-existent in Southern Europe.
    , @Thumbhead Forney
    Only someone who hasn't been to Seoul and see old grandmothers picking through the trash or prostituting themselves in the park would ever claim with a straight face that "Asians love their old people."

    Confucian feel-good bullshit is just that, bullshit.
  34. @Europe Europa
    As in most British are cucks or totally indifferent who just take criticism and attacks from foreigners without arguing back or defending their country? Unfortunately I tend to agree.

    You'd be more likely to an angry response from a British person by insulting their city/county than the country as a whole.

    Hotheaded, shouty Meds combining short physical stature with short tempers fail to understand that not rising to the slightest provocation does not necessarily constitute cucking.

    • Agree: Pater
    • LOL: UK
  35. @d dan

    "... Hong Kong was built by Britain."
     
    "Hong Kong was stolen by Britain." - fixed it for you.

    2 comments in this thread and already multiple mentions of "independence" - sounds like a true day-dreamer.

    There was no Hong Kong before the British showed up, just some fishing villages.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
    True... And aside from the British Opium dealers and their servants - the Chinese there were dirt poor. Then came the era of the comprador which was facilitated by the British stealing tea and then everything else... But still most Chinese in Hong Kong were dirt poor. It wasn't until the Shanghai business men and capital holders fled to Hong Kong in the Japanese invasion and then the civil war that Hong Kong really became a business hub.
    The original purpose of Hong Kong was simply to act as sort of a British FTZ to trade with Canton - aka - Guangzhou. I guess you didn't realize China had a massive trade surplus with the west back then as well. The only difference is China is industrialized now and has modern weapons.
  36. Much idle speculation: it’s not going to damage Hong Kong’s autonomy at all. The Chinese said so themselves.

    https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3085845/two-sessions-national-security-law-will-not-damage-hong-kongs

  37. @Felix Keverich
    Will we see real violence in Hong Kong? Cause I hope there will be violence.

    what a scum.

  38. @d dan

    "... Hong Kong was built by Britain."
     
    "Hong Kong was stolen by Britain." - fixed it for you.

    2 comments in this thread and already multiple mentions of "independence" - sounds like a true day-dreamer.

    We stole it and we built it.

    Ditto North America and Australia.

    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    Ditto Suva, Kingston, Mombosa, Lagos, and Kampala.
    , @larchmont
    North America and Australia were settler colonies for Britons. Hong Kong of course wasn't. It was a trading port with a mostly Chinese population, and the Britons there were mainly transient merchants.
  39. @128
    OT, but why is stupid and cruel ageism from White people and Westerners in general where old people are treated as social throwaways, in East Asian societies old people are venerated and their presence is treated as a blessing because of the experience and wisdom that they impart due to having lived so long, I mean Subotai was still performing at an A into his late 60s, Lee Kuan Yew was still going strong mentally into his 80s, and Nguyen Giap was still performing at an A level way way way past retirement age, maybe the reason why your society is so screwed up is because Westerners treated old people as factory rejects fit for the scrap heap past 50, unlike Asian cultures and societies based on Confucian cultures? I can also add Sima Yi to this list. Maybe if you Westerners did not treat your old people like throwaways you would not have these social problems right now.

    Looking at the American political elite (pretty much all over 70!) I really don’t think that Westerners have any particular revulsion for old people. You’re mistaking apathy for antipathy.

  40. @128
    OT, but why is stupid and cruel ageism from White people and Westerners in general where old people are treated as social throwaways, in East Asian societies old people are venerated and their presence is treated as a blessing because of the experience and wisdom that they impart due to having lived so long, I mean Subotai was still performing at an A into his late 60s, Lee Kuan Yew was still going strong mentally into his 80s, and Nguyen Giap was still performing at an A level way way way past retirement age, maybe the reason why your society is so screwed up is because Westerners treated old people as factory rejects fit for the scrap heap past 50, unlike Asian cultures and societies based on Confucian cultures? I can also add Sima Yi to this list. Maybe if you Westerners did not treat your old people like throwaways you would not have these social problems right now.

    in East Asian societies old people are venerated and their presence is treated as a blessing because of the experience and wisdom that they impart due to having lived so long

    This would all sound much more plausible if I didn’t know how old Chinese women actually behave

  41. @Mr. XYZ
    If you're going to continue talking about the Great Bifurcation, Anatoly, you really should post a map here so that I and the rest of us here will know exactly which country will belong on which side of this bifurcation.

    This map is imperfect in many ways for example Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Malaysia, Nepal, Serbia all lean towards China but instead are labelled neutral. While Brazil, India and others should be labelled pro American. Please gentleman, add your opinions.

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    And here's one for the serious geopolitical analyst, Philippines vs China.

    Where the real action at !

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSosLeJWfN5E5bcdmKJpw1o4zT6XLTHSFBtBTUav-hfJepuhX0A&usqp.jpg

    , @Costa
    While Bolsonaro's government is indeed pro-American, especially with Trump in the White House, the Military (which I would consider neutral) and significant part of our economic elite isn't, as well as most of our bureaucrats and intellectuals. The agro-business, which supports Bolsonaro, actually wants to get closer and closer to China. There was a huge backlash when one of Bolsonaro's sons tweeted about China being responsible for the pandemic.

    So if a conflict were to happen now and the government sided with the US, some general would probably kick Bolsonaro out, whose approval ratings are around 25%.
    , @showmethereal
    Agreed... Though Brazil itself isn't really Pro-America. That's why the US has intervened so much there to sabotage left wing parties over the decades. Bolsonaro is the latest product - which helps explain his incompetence in handling covid-19
  42. @Blinky Bill
    This map is imperfect in many ways for example Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Malaysia, Nepal, Serbia all lean towards China but instead are labelled neutral. While Brazil, India and others should be labelled pro American. Please gentleman, add your opinions.


    https://i.redd.it/2qe412g36oj01.png

    And here’s one for the serious geopolitical analyst, Philippines vs China.

    Where the real action at !

    [MORE]

  43. @128
    OT, but why is stupid and cruel ageism from White people and Westerners in general where old people are treated as social throwaways, in East Asian societies old people are venerated and their presence is treated as a blessing because of the experience and wisdom that they impart due to having lived so long, I mean Subotai was still performing at an A into his late 60s, Lee Kuan Yew was still going strong mentally into his 80s, and Nguyen Giap was still performing at an A level way way way past retirement age, maybe the reason why your society is so screwed up is because Westerners treated old people as factory rejects fit for the scrap heap past 50, unlike Asian cultures and societies based on Confucian cultures? I can also add Sima Yi to this list. Maybe if you Westerners did not treat your old people like throwaways you would not have these social problems right now.

    In the UK a widely believed stereotype is that Southern Europeans, especially the Spanish, are very “family oriented” and respect and venerate their elderly much more than the British do.

    Although I think how Spain and Italy handled the pandemic and the high levels of death/abandonment in their “care” homes has dented that stereotype considerably, I was surprised to hear how many elderly care homes there are in Spain and Italy considering in Britain we are lead to believe that they are non-existent in Southern Europe.

  44. 128 says:

    Well there are only 350 million Americans and 1.4 billion Chinese, even if the Chinese have the nukes to kill every single American on US soil, it still would not come close to the 1.4 billion Chinese that US nukes could kill on Chinese soil, plus China’s 4,000 year old civilization would literally be reduced to ashes (maybe the Americans could even use cobalt salted nukes to salt the earth, so to speak), so they have more to lose, if Russia wants to join the party the Americans also have enough nukes to kill every single Russian alive on Russian soil, or the Americans can always use nerve gas if the nukes are lacking.

    • Replies: @yakushimaru
    But is TW a core interest of the US?

    The prices the US was willing to pay for Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghan were clearly less than tens of thousands of US soldiers. The price for TW I'd imagine is surely not at the scale of say the West Coast of the US?

    What China is asking for is to keep the current ambiguity re TW. The only reason some US thinkers, say Bannon, want to provoke a war is that they want to use the opportunity to KO China.

    But, if we may bring on a little bit of libertarian thinking, it is not the Country that has an interest, it is the people, the leadership. In a KO level fight with CCP and China, the sure bet is that the entire leadership, the whole elite groups of every country would've been changed. Think about WWI.
  45. @jimmyriddle
    We stole it and we built it.

    Ditto North America and Australia.

    Ditto Suva, Kingston, Mombosa, Lagos, and Kampala.

  46. @The Alarmist

    ... effectively eliminating it as China’s pipeline to Western capital and knowhow.
     
    Hong Kong is increasingly less fit for this purpose and is a thorn the Empire has repeatedly stuck into China's backside. There is no upside to allowing HK to maintain its special status now that it is clear that the next Cold War is on like Donkey Kong.

    Agree

  47. Maybe the US should build up its VX stockpile again?

  48. @Mitleser
    The British annexed/leased the territory.
    The city itself was a product of the British colonial era and did not exist in the previous Chinese Imperial era.

    The same applies to certain other Chinese cities like Macau and Harbin which became cities thanks to European colonization in China.

    The city itself was a product of the British colonial era and did not exist in the previous Chinese Imperial era.

    The same applies to certain other Chinese cities like Macau and Harbin which became cities thanks to European colonization in China.

    That is an inane, meaningless point. The same is true for Boston, New York City and hundreds of other…now American cities. What is the purpose of your comments?

  49. The English built Singapore and Hong Kong, but choose not to build Fiji or Jamaica, or countless other places in their empire. Why ? I suppose for the same reasons the Americans chose to build Taiwan but not the Philippines into a modern industrialised country. Because the Anglo Saxon loves and cares for the Chinese, like no other people on earth. 😂😂😂

    • Agree: d dan
    • Troll: EldnahYm
    • Replies: @antibeast


    The English built Singapore and Hong Kong, but choose not to build Fiji or Jamaica, or countless other places in their empire. Why ? I suppose for the same reasons the Americans chose to build Taiwan but not the Philippines into a modern industrialised country. Because the Anglo Saxon loves and cares for the Chinese, like no other people on earth.

     

    The British didn't give a hoot about Singapore and Hong Kong because they were just colonial port cities serving the Opium trade between China and India. Most of the Chinese immigrants to Hong Kong were dirt-poor coolies who were treated with racist contempt by the British colonials. The same with British Malaya where Singapore really took off only after being expelled from Malaysia. Taiwan was ruled under Martial Law by Chiang Kai-shek who hired German military advisers and acquired Japanese industrial technology to develop and industrialize Taiwan. Chiang never got along with racist Anglo-Saxons but he got along fine with Russians and Germans. He sent his only biological son, Chiang Ching-kuo, to study in Russia where he met and married a Russian lady, Faina Ipat'evna Vakhreva, who became Faina Chiang Fang-liang. He sent his adopted son, Chiang Wei-kuo, to study in Nazi Germany where he became an officer in the Wehrmacht.

    The idea that racist Anglo-Saxons "love" the Chinese by selling them Opium is laughable.
  50. @Mitleser
    The British annexed/leased the territory.
    The city itself was a product of the British colonial era and did not exist in the previous Chinese Imperial era.

    The same applies to certain other Chinese cities like Macau and Harbin which became cities thanks to European colonization in China.

    Gott sei Dank, daß die Europäer die Welt zivilisiert haben, bevor sie versucht haben, sie in zwei Weltkriegen zu zerstören.

    Sind Sie wirklich so doof?

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    Warum diese Aufregung über historische Tatsachen, den europäischen Ursprung mancher heutiger chinesischer Städte?
    Die Kolonisierung hatte für das Land nicht nur negative Auswirkungen.
  51. @Europe Europa
    A lot of Chinese say Vladivostok and the Russian Far East is their stolen land that they will one day reclaim for their ancestors, and using the same logic as you are I would agree with them. Or can only the British "steal" land and not the Russians? Typical anti-British nonsense typical of this site.

    The British built the modern city of Hong Kong just as much as the Russians built Vladivostok.

    Russians are much less irritating.

  52. mal says:
    @22pp22
    The thugs are a small minority.

    These millions of people don't look either young or foolish to me. Maybe, as they actually live there, they know something you don't.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LysKEvjy1Yo

    The way I understand it, there are two things going on (aside from our usual suspects trying to stir up trouble). Unfortunately for the denizens of Hong Kong, they are mutually exclusive.

    First, they protest unbearable living conditions for lower classes (rent’s too high). Second, they protest Hong Kong’s relative decline in importance to mainland China and geopolitically in general, and the loss of power and privileges that come with that.

    Unfortunately, it their former power and privileges that caused their rent to be high in the first place. Power and privilege attract rich people who bid up prices. Works the same everywhere. Prime example is San Francisco where the homeless shoot up heroin next to super rich Facebook people. Power and privileges and cheap rent are mutually exclusive.

    Since Hong Kong failed to understand their reality, mainland China will have to explain it to them. But on the bright side, once Hong Kong is equalized with other Chinese cities, the rich won’t bid up prices as much anymore as the the power center shifts, and rents will become more affordable.

    • Replies: @22pp22
    "Since Hong Kong failed to understand their reality, mainland China will have to explain it to them."

    That sentence captures the totalitarian mindset perfectly.
  53. @Blinky Bill
    This map is imperfect in many ways for example Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Malaysia, Nepal, Serbia all lean towards China but instead are labelled neutral. While Brazil, India and others should be labelled pro American. Please gentleman, add your opinions.


    https://i.redd.it/2qe412g36oj01.png

    While Bolsonaro’s government is indeed pro-American, especially with Trump in the White House, the Military (which I would consider neutral) and significant part of our economic elite isn’t, as well as most of our bureaucrats and intellectuals. The agro-business, which supports Bolsonaro, actually wants to get closer and closer to China. There was a huge backlash when one of Bolsonaro’s sons tweeted about China being responsible for the pandemic.

    So if a conflict were to happen now and the government sided with the US, some general would probably kick Bolsonaro out, whose approval ratings are around 25%.

    • Thanks: Blinky Bill
  54. JSQ says:
    @UK
    Why are you advocating for the crushing of a city with millions of people? It is weird how bizarrely authoritarian people get when they talk about foreign affairs as if they are talking about their favourite football team.

    Why are you advocating for the crushing of a city with millions of people?

    Fetish for authoritarian strongman types; quite common on the alt-right, probably due to developmental factors such as weak father figures, social rejection by other boys during adolescence, sheltered home life due to excessive mothering (ironically the same factors that predispose towards homosexuality, which is another discussion altogether…)

    • Replies: @neutral
    Let me guess this is that Indian Thomm using another name. This homosexuality attack narrative is patently ridiculous, liberals worship faggotry as the holiest of holies, so now to use that as an insult against your enemies is contradicting your own ideology, but you are clearly too dumb to see the problem with that absurd argument.
  55. @The Alarmist
    Gott sei Dank, daß die Europäer die Welt zivilisiert haben, bevor sie versucht haben, sie in zwei Weltkriegen zu zerstören.

    Sind Sie wirklich so doof?

    Warum diese Aufregung über historische Tatsachen, den europäischen Ursprung mancher heutiger chinesischer Städte?
    Die Kolonisierung hatte für das Land nicht nur negative Auswirkungen.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    Stimmt, dennoch ist Hong Kong heutzutage immer noch eine Chinesische Stadt. Kein anderes Land kann über Chinas Innenpolitik entscheiden.
  56. @Europe Europa
    A lot of Chinese say Vladivostok and the Russian Far East is their stolen land that they will one day reclaim for their ancestors, and using the same logic as you are I would agree with them. Or can only the British "steal" land and not the Russians? Typical anti-British nonsense typical of this site.

    The British built the modern city of Hong Kong just as much as the Russians built Vladivostok.

    “Or can only the British “steal” land and not the Russians?”

    Historically, they both did steal. Modern leaders have largely settled those land claims peacefully. Stating obvious historical fact has nothing to do with being “anti-British nonsense”.

    “The British built the modern city of Hong Kong …”

    Please let me know how many laborers did British sent to Hong Kong to build those skyscrapers, ports, roads, subways… No? Granted, British contributed in some aspects like laws and order, international connections, etc. But Hong Kong was largely built by Hong Kongers, i.e. Chinese.

    British had a lot of colonies – some became successful and other failed miserably. It is so revealing that British of today only *take ownership* of the successful ones but feel *no responsibility* about the failed ones.

    • Replies: @antibeast


    Please let me know how many laborers did British sent to Hong Kong to build those skyscrapers, ports, roads, subways… No? Granted, British contributed in some aspects like laws and order, international connections, etc. But Hong Kong was largely built by Hong Kongers, i.e. Chinese.

     

    Hong Kong had a reputation for being this shitty little place infested with gangs, opium, whores, smugglers, etc. Only after the British and Shanghai Capitalists started moving there to escape the Civil War in mainland China did HK started developing as a modern city. And it was Chinese entrepreneurs like Li Ka-shing who made their fortunes by building mass-housing in HK because the racist Brits didn't give a shit about the dirt-poor Chinese coolies living in urban slums in HK.


    British had a lot of colonies – some became successful and other failed miserably. It is so revealing that British of today only *take ownership* of the successful ones but feel *no responsibility* about the failed ones.

     

    The Brits like to take credit for giving "democracy" to HK when they never did anything except rule HK as a colony. Only after the British left did China grant "democracy" to HK by allowing them autonomy in local affairs.
    , @reiner Tor
    Well, you can argue that it was not the British but the Hong Kong people (the present population and their ancestors) who built it. (It was actually both, since the British legal framework and the hardworking and entrepreneurial locals were both needed for the successful development of the city.)

    But what is certain is that it was neither the Mainland government nor the people of the Mainland who built it or had anything to do with its success. So the language about “stealing” is highly inappropriate coming from the Mainland government, people, or their supporters, while speaking tough things against the protests supported by the overwhelming majority of the Hong Kong people.

    Of course, legally, militarily, and politically it’s the Mainland government who is in charge, and for better or worse, it’s going to stay that way. I don’t much sympathize with the protesters’ pro-American or pro-Globohomo sentiments, and I despise their major supporters in the West as well. So I don’t wish the protesters to succeed geopolitically, but I don’t sympathize with the views expressed here by Mainland supporters about how Hong Kong needs to be crushed.
    , @EldnahYm

    British had a lot of colonies – some became successful and other failed miserably. It is so revealing that British of today only *take ownership* of the successful ones but feel *no responsibility* about the failed ones.
     
    Retarded bio-Leninism is the reason for this. What you view as failures are mostly not, when taking into account differences in populations. The British brought economic growth most places they went. This still has a legacy today in the use of the English language. India's economic niche in IT for example is almost entirely due to English language adoption, and has little to do with the talent of the population.

    In the heydays of the British Empire, if local disease didn't take them out, the British could go just about anywhere and economic growth followed. The world is a different place today of course, where the U.K. is a U.S. vassal governed by useless people.
    , @AnonFromTN

    It is so revealing that British of today only *take ownership* of the successful ones but feel *no responsibility* about the failed ones.
     
    Isn’t it equally revealing that they don’t take responsibility for their greatest failure – formerly Great formerly Britain.
  57. @JSQ

    Why are you advocating for the crushing of a city with millions of people?
     
    Fetish for authoritarian strongman types; quite common on the alt-right, probably due to developmental factors such as weak father figures, social rejection by other boys during adolescence, sheltered home life due to excessive mothering (ironically the same factors that predispose towards homosexuality, which is another discussion altogether...)

    Let me guess this is that Indian Thomm using another name. This homosexuality attack narrative is patently ridiculous, liberals worship faggotry as the holiest of holies, so now to use that as an insult against your enemies is contradicting your own ideology, but you are clearly too dumb to see the problem with that absurd argument.

  58. @mal
    The way I understand it, there are two things going on (aside from our usual suspects trying to stir up trouble). Unfortunately for the denizens of Hong Kong, they are mutually exclusive.

    First, they protest unbearable living conditions for lower classes (rent's too high). Second, they protest Hong Kong's relative decline in importance to mainland China and geopolitically in general, and the loss of power and privileges that come with that.

    Unfortunately, it their former power and privileges that caused their rent to be high in the first place. Power and privilege attract rich people who bid up prices. Works the same everywhere. Prime example is San Francisco where the homeless shoot up heroin next to super rich Facebook people. Power and privileges and cheap rent are mutually exclusive.

    Since Hong Kong failed to understand their reality, mainland China will have to explain it to them. But on the bright side, once Hong Kong is equalized with other Chinese cities, the rich won't bid up prices as much anymore as the the power center shifts, and rents will become more affordable.

    “Since Hong Kong failed to understand their reality, mainland China will have to explain it to them.”

    That sentence captures the totalitarian mindset perfectly.

    • Replies: @mal
    Is there a better alternative? Hong Kong protests do not damage mainland China, they damage Hong Kong. The demonstrators break windows and set fire to their own store fronts, not mainland Chinese ones. Commerce and business get paralyzed, and Hong Kong economy gets crushed. Who benefits from this, aside from US, and ironically, CCP who can point fingers and tell others "don't be stupid and set yourself on fire, don't be like Hong Kong"?
  59. @Mitleser
    Warum diese Aufregung über historische Tatsachen, den europäischen Ursprung mancher heutiger chinesischer Städte?
    Die Kolonisierung hatte für das Land nicht nur negative Auswirkungen.

    Stimmt, dennoch ist Hong Kong heutzutage immer noch eine Chinesische Stadt. Kein anderes Land kann über Chinas Innenpolitik entscheiden.

  60. @Europe Europa
    I find it odd that the Hong Kong protesters fly American flags, wouldn't it be more logical to fly British flags considering Hong Kong was founded by the British and was a British territory?

    I think it would make more sense for them to argue for autonomy/independence from the perspective of their British history rather than trying to invoke some sort of association with the US, considering Hong Kong has never been part of the US. It would make more sense for them to look to Singapore as a model for their own independence, which was obviously also a British territory.

    Not really comparable (Hong Kong and Singapore)… Singapore was a part of the Malaysian Federation but was basically kicked out. Singapore had to make it a go on it’s own. The Brits embarrassed China by taking Hong Kong. There was never any chance China was going to give it up and let it go.
    As to why wave American flags…. Britain isn’t crazy enough to try to attack China. They are hoping the US is… Pretty dumb of them since that would be the end of Hong Kong.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    It's not dumb, it is MAD, hence it makes sense.
  61. @reiner Tor
    There was no Hong Kong before the British showed up, just some fishing villages.

    True… And aside from the British Opium dealers and their servants – the Chinese there were dirt poor. Then came the era of the comprador which was facilitated by the British stealing tea and then everything else… But still most Chinese in Hong Kong were dirt poor. It wasn’t until the Shanghai business men and capital holders fled to Hong Kong in the Japanese invasion and then the civil war that Hong Kong really became a business hub.
    The original purpose of Hong Kong was simply to act as sort of a British FTZ to trade with Canton – aka – Guangzhou. I guess you didn’t realize China had a massive trade surplus with the west back then as well. The only difference is China is industrialized now and has modern weapons.

    • Thanks: HammerJack
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    I guess you didn’t realize China had a massive trade surplus with the west back then as well.
     
    I don’t know why you think so. The trade surplus was the major reason for the Opium Wars, since the British couldn’t really sell anything to China, while they wanted to keep buying Chinese goods, and correctly understood that by opening China up for opium imports, they’d be able to increase the amount of their imports from China.
  62. mal says:
    @22pp22
    "Since Hong Kong failed to understand their reality, mainland China will have to explain it to them."

    That sentence captures the totalitarian mindset perfectly.

    Is there a better alternative? Hong Kong protests do not damage mainland China, they damage Hong Kong. The demonstrators break windows and set fire to their own store fronts, not mainland Chinese ones. Commerce and business get paralyzed, and Hong Kong economy gets crushed. Who benefits from this, aside from US, and ironically, CCP who can point fingers and tell others “don’t be stupid and set yourself on fire, don’t be like Hong Kong”?

    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    To much pointless rubbish like this going on in Hong Kong.

    https://twitter.com/CarlZha/status/1154768374418702339?s=20
  63. @Blinky Bill
    This map is imperfect in many ways for example Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Malaysia, Nepal, Serbia all lean towards China but instead are labelled neutral. While Brazil, India and others should be labelled pro American. Please gentleman, add your opinions.


    https://i.redd.it/2qe412g36oj01.png

    Agreed… Though Brazil itself isn’t really Pro-America. That’s why the US has intervened so much there to sabotage left wing parties over the decades. Bolsonaro is the latest product – which helps explain his incompetence in handling covid-19

    • Thanks: Blinky Bill
  64. @mal
    Is there a better alternative? Hong Kong protests do not damage mainland China, they damage Hong Kong. The demonstrators break windows and set fire to their own store fronts, not mainland Chinese ones. Commerce and business get paralyzed, and Hong Kong economy gets crushed. Who benefits from this, aside from US, and ironically, CCP who can point fingers and tell others "don't be stupid and set yourself on fire, don't be like Hong Kong"?

    To much pointless rubbish like this going on in Hong Kong.

    [MORE]

    • Agree: mal
    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    Too much.
  65. @showmethereal
    Not really comparable (Hong Kong and Singapore)... Singapore was a part of the Malaysian Federation but was basically kicked out. Singapore had to make it a go on it's own. The Brits embarrassed China by taking Hong Kong. There was never any chance China was going to give it up and let it go.
    As to why wave American flags.... Britain isn't crazy enough to try to attack China. They are hoping the US is... Pretty dumb of them since that would be the end of Hong Kong.

    It’s not dumb, it is MAD, hence it makes sense.

  66. @Blinky Bill
    To much pointless rubbish like this going on in Hong Kong.

    https://twitter.com/CarlZha/status/1154768374418702339?s=20

    Too much.

  67. @jimmyriddle
    We stole it and we built it.

    Ditto North America and Australia.

    North America and Australia were settler colonies for Britons. Hong Kong of course wasn’t. It was a trading port with a mostly Chinese population, and the Britons there were mainly transient merchants.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    The British settlers stole the lands of the natives of America and Australia.
  68. utu says:

    The legal issues of Hong Kong favor China. However Taiwan could make a good case for its independence and new political climate its claim to sovereignty will be recognized. Taiwan was never Chinese. The US should show the way. If the US wants to stop China Taiwan is the place to start.

    • Replies: @d dan
    Ahh, yet another ignorant westerner commenting on China, base on feeling rather than facts.

    "Taiwan .... its independence and new political climate its claim to sovereignty will be recognized. "
     
    China has made it clear that it is willing to escalate to nuclear war, if necessary, to make sure Taiwan remain part of China. Tell me which country will "recognize" Taiwan's "independence". Also, Taiwan's constitution states that it is part of China.

    "Taiwan was never Chinese"
     
    LOL. Taiwan was part of China earlier than the existence of many western countries. Tell me why "Taiwan was never Chinese"? Do Taiwan share the same ethnicity, language, culture, tradition, custom, religion, or history with Chinese? Maybe I will learn new thing from you?
    , @showmethereal
    Taiwan was never Chinese?? Huh??? The Japanese took it from the Qing Dynasty - just as Britain took Hong Kong from the Qing.... As part of her surrender Japan had to give back everything she took from China (Taiwan and the Spratly and Paracel islands were among those specifically listed). That is why the Nationalists retreated to Taiwan... It was again part of the country. As for as "The US should show the way". Exactly how many civil wars does the US need to get involved in and it blow up in people's face to learn a lesson??? They were already supporting the Nationalists in the first place when they lost... The Communists even made off with a lot of the abandoned US weapons the Nationalists left.
    , @EldnahYm
    There are no significant U.S. interests in Taiwan. That has never stopped U.S. elites of course, but they are not going to take on China militarily over Taiwan. What U.S. elites want is a passive-aggressive, faggy Cold War 2.0.

    If Taiwanese had mass conscription, were willing to destroy themselves just to keep the mainlanders out, and had invested more into military over decades, they might conceivably be able to prevent a maritime invasion if they had help from the Japanese. But since they have barely tried to defend themselves, the only thing keeping the Chinese from taking over Taiwan is the high cost of the operation.

    There is no reason for the U.S. to do anything to Taiwan other than sell them military hardware and at most show token support.
  69. @utu
    The legal issues of Hong Kong favor China. However Taiwan could make a good case for its independence and new political climate its claim to sovereignty will be recognized. Taiwan was never Chinese. The US should show the way. If the US wants to stop China Taiwan is the place to start.

    Ahh, yet another ignorant westerner commenting on China, base on feeling rather than facts.

    “Taiwan …. its independence and new political climate its claim to sovereignty will be recognized. “

    China has made it clear that it is willing to escalate to nuclear war, if necessary, to make sure Taiwan remain part of China. Tell me which country will “recognize” Taiwan’s “independence”. Also, Taiwan’s constitution states that it is part of China.

    “Taiwan was never Chinese”

    LOL. Taiwan was part of China earlier than the existence of many western countries. Tell me why “Taiwan was never Chinese”? Do Taiwan share the same ethnicity, language, culture, tradition, custom, religion, or history with Chinese? Maybe I will learn new thing from you?

    • Replies: @utu
    Native Taiwanese are not Chinese. Taiwan was first colonized by Dutch. In a tiny part of Taiwan Kingdom of Tungning that was Chinese was established in 17th century. In 1895 in accordance with international law Taiwan was ceded to Japan. Chinese returned after WWII but they were anti-communist Kuomintang.

    Communist China or any other kind of mainland China has no valid legal claims to Taiwan. If referendum was conducted in Taiwan 95% would vote for sovereignty.
    , @reiner Tor

    Taiwan was part of China earlier than the existence of many western countries.
     
    Taiwan became Chinese just a few centuries ago, hardly some ancient claim. Actually one contentious issue between the Europeans and the Qing emperors in the early 19th century was the presence of pirates on the island. The Qing representatives claimed sovereignty over the island, yet simultaneously (and no doubt accurately) stated that they had no control over the pirates. Under European concepts of sovereignty it meant that the Chinese were not the sovereign rulers of the area, since they had no effective control over some parts of the island. (Though they at least had sovereignty over some parts of the island.)
  70. utu says:
    @d dan
    Ahh, yet another ignorant westerner commenting on China, base on feeling rather than facts.

    "Taiwan .... its independence and new political climate its claim to sovereignty will be recognized. "
     
    China has made it clear that it is willing to escalate to nuclear war, if necessary, to make sure Taiwan remain part of China. Tell me which country will "recognize" Taiwan's "independence". Also, Taiwan's constitution states that it is part of China.

    "Taiwan was never Chinese"
     
    LOL. Taiwan was part of China earlier than the existence of many western countries. Tell me why "Taiwan was never Chinese"? Do Taiwan share the same ethnicity, language, culture, tradition, custom, religion, or history with Chinese? Maybe I will learn new thing from you?

    Native Taiwanese are not Chinese. Taiwan was first colonized by Dutch. In a tiny part of Taiwan Kingdom of Tungning that was Chinese was established in 17th century. In 1895 in accordance with international law Taiwan was ceded to Japan. Chinese returned after WWII but they were anti-communist Kuomintang.

    Communist China or any other kind of mainland China has no valid legal claims to Taiwan. If referendum was conducted in Taiwan 95% would vote for sovereignty.

    • Replies: @yakushimaru
    "Native Taiwanese" is a tiny minority.

    Taiwan was firmly part of China since at least the end of Ming. I think majority of Taiwan residents were Ethnic Han since then, but I am not sure.

    If they really wanted independence, they could've go for it when Taiwan was much richer in comparison and mainland China was much less capable militarily.

    They do not want to be ruled by CCP a sentiment that is understandable, but they are doing everyone a disservice by taking on a risky road like as if readying themselves to be martyrs, provoking a carnage in the strait, and becoming ever more a rabid and yet smallish enemy of mainland.

    If COVID-19 in Wuhan happened in the 1980s, Taiwan would've sent in nurses and doctors, pretty much like every other provinces of mainland China did, and their nurses would've exhibitted a higher professional quality. The fear of CCP and their own weakening have made them dislike common Chinese people nowadays. Not unlike what is happening in HK in this regard.
    , @d dan
    Oh boy. So much twist of logic in such a short post.

    "Native Taiwanese are not Chinese..."
     
    Firstly, you can only claim that native Taiwanese are not Han, you can't claim that they are not Chinese. Secondly, the majority of Taiwanese are Han, and therefore Chinese.

    For you to claim that Taiwan is never Chinese because their Native Taiwanese are not Han, is like claiming US is never American because Native American are not White - both involve leaps of logic.


    "Taiwan was first colonized by Dutch."
     
    Yes, for a short period. But what is the relevance of this fact on whether Taiwan was Chinese? Are you trying to claim Taiwan was more Dutch than Chinese? Hong Kong was colonized by UK for much longer, what has it to do with whether Hong Kong is Chinese?

    "In 1895 in accordance with international law Taiwan was ceded to Japan. "
     
    Yes, ceded through a war of aggression by Japan, which was hardly any "international law". Furthermore, that cession was subsequently nullified with the defeat of Japan in WW2.

    "Chinese returned after WWII but they were anti-communist Kuomintang."
     
    Communist or Kuomintang (KMT), they were both Chinese - just different political parties. California has been firmly in Democrat Party for a long time - are you claiming that it is not part of US because of GOP President?

    "Communist China or any other kind of mainland China has no valid legal claims to Taiwan. "
     
    LOL. Communist party had no claim of Beijing before 1949 too. Whether Taiwan is part of China has nothing to do with which political party is in power in the mainland. Whether California is part of US has nothing to do with which political party is in power in Washington. Furthermore, even Taiwanese constitution clearly states that Taiwan is part of China - what else could be more legal than their constitution?

    "If referendum was conducted in Taiwan 95% would vote for sovereignty.
     
    Highly disputed and problematic statement for the following reasons:
    1. No referendum has ever been conducted - so this is more a conjecture than proven fact.
    2. Most Taiwanese consistently indicate they prefer status quo, not independence nor unification.
    3. Neither PRC nor ROC constitutions allow secession by referendum. So even if your statement is true, it has no legal ground in China nor Taiwan courts.
    4. Even on moral ground, 95% Taiwanese's wish still does not justify secession because it should also depend on the opinion of mainland Chinese, which are almost 100% opposing that. If California wants out - do you think the other 49 states have no legal rights nor moral grounds to object?
    , @Daniel Chieh
    ROC claims all of China. Legally kinda difficult to back out of that now.
  71. @utu
    Native Taiwanese are not Chinese. Taiwan was first colonized by Dutch. In a tiny part of Taiwan Kingdom of Tungning that was Chinese was established in 17th century. In 1895 in accordance with international law Taiwan was ceded to Japan. Chinese returned after WWII but they were anti-communist Kuomintang.

    Communist China or any other kind of mainland China has no valid legal claims to Taiwan. If referendum was conducted in Taiwan 95% would vote for sovereignty.

    “Native Taiwanese” is a tiny minority.

    Taiwan was firmly part of China since at least the end of Ming. I think majority of Taiwan residents were Ethnic Han since then, but I am not sure.

    If they really wanted independence, they could’ve go for it when Taiwan was much richer in comparison and mainland China was much less capable militarily.

    They do not want to be ruled by CCP a sentiment that is understandable, but they are doing everyone a disservice by taking on a risky road like as if readying themselves to be martyrs, provoking a carnage in the strait, and becoming ever more a rabid and yet smallish enemy of mainland.

    If COVID-19 in Wuhan happened in the 1980s, Taiwan would’ve sent in nurses and doctors, pretty much like every other provinces of mainland China did, and their nurses would’ve exhibitted a higher professional quality. The fear of CCP and their own weakening have made them dislike common Chinese people nowadays. Not unlike what is happening in HK in this regard.

    • Agree: showmethereal
    • Replies: @utu
    "If they really wanted independence, they could’ve go for it when Taiwan was much richer in comparison and mainland China was much less capable militarily." - Red herring. Kuomintang was in power with official pretense that they were the legitimate government of the whole China. Only when China got richer and stronger this pretense had to be dropped and the anti-Kuomintang Taiwanese could be heard.

    The point is that they want independence and the issue is how to proceed when faced with the belligerent China whose reaction to any mention of Taiwan independence is borderline psychotic.

    "...made them dislike common Chinese people nowadays."- Why should they like common mainland Chinese who are blinded with rabid chauvinism and are ready to eat up all Taiwanese before lunch?

    More and more I feel that the US should look into Taiwan dust off all treaties it had with Taiwan and use Taiwan it as the place where the line in the sand is drawn if indeed the US is ready to contest and stop China.
    , @showmethereal
    Very true. The dirty secret is that aside from what the DPP says - Taiwan medical professionals were collaborating with the mainland even during this. It's all optics to try a ploy to get recognized by the WHO. That goes along exactly with what you are saying though.
    Hey - even in the 2010's she was allowed to be an observer at the WHO with Beijing permission because the KMT was in power and uphold the One China Policy.
  72. @larchmont
    North America and Australia were settler colonies for Britons. Hong Kong of course wasn't. It was a trading port with a mostly Chinese population, and the Britons there were mainly transient merchants.

    The British settlers stole the lands of the natives of America and Australia.

    • Thanks: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Pater
    Conquered & Purchased not 'Stole'
  73. @128
    Well there are only 350 million Americans and 1.4 billion Chinese, even if the Chinese have the nukes to kill every single American on US soil, it still would not come close to the 1.4 billion Chinese that US nukes could kill on Chinese soil, plus China's 4,000 year old civilization would literally be reduced to ashes (maybe the Americans could even use cobalt salted nukes to salt the earth, so to speak), so they have more to lose, if Russia wants to join the party the Americans also have enough nukes to kill every single Russian alive on Russian soil, or the Americans can always use nerve gas if the nukes are lacking.

    But is TW a core interest of the US?

    The prices the US was willing to pay for Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghan were clearly less than tens of thousands of US soldiers. The price for TW I’d imagine is surely not at the scale of say the West Coast of the US?

    What China is asking for is to keep the current ambiguity re TW. The only reason some US thinkers, say Bannon, want to provoke a war is that they want to use the opportunity to KO China.

    But, if we may bring on a little bit of libertarian thinking, it is not the Country that has an interest, it is the people, the leadership. In a KO level fight with CCP and China, the sure bet is that the entire leadership, the whole elite groups of every country would’ve been changed. Think about WWI.

  74. @utu
    Native Taiwanese are not Chinese. Taiwan was first colonized by Dutch. In a tiny part of Taiwan Kingdom of Tungning that was Chinese was established in 17th century. In 1895 in accordance with international law Taiwan was ceded to Japan. Chinese returned after WWII but they were anti-communist Kuomintang.

    Communist China or any other kind of mainland China has no valid legal claims to Taiwan. If referendum was conducted in Taiwan 95% would vote for sovereignty.

    Oh boy. So much twist of logic in such a short post.

    “Native Taiwanese are not Chinese…”

    Firstly, you can only claim that native Taiwanese are not Han, you can’t claim that they are not Chinese. Secondly, the majority of Taiwanese are Han, and therefore Chinese.

    For you to claim that Taiwan is never Chinese because their Native Taiwanese are not Han, is like claiming US is never American because Native American are not White – both involve leaps of logic.

    “Taiwan was first colonized by Dutch.”

    Yes, for a short period. But what is the relevance of this fact on whether Taiwan was Chinese? Are you trying to claim Taiwan was more Dutch than Chinese? Hong Kong was colonized by UK for much longer, what has it to do with whether Hong Kong is Chinese?

    “In 1895 in accordance with international law Taiwan was ceded to Japan. “

    Yes, ceded through a war of aggression by Japan, which was hardly any “international law”. Furthermore, that cession was subsequently nullified with the defeat of Japan in WW2.

    “Chinese returned after WWII but they were anti-communist Kuomintang.”

    Communist or Kuomintang (KMT), they were both Chinese – just different political parties. California has been firmly in Democrat Party for a long time – are you claiming that it is not part of US because of GOP President?

    “Communist China or any other kind of mainland China has no valid legal claims to Taiwan. “

    LOL. Communist party had no claim of Beijing before 1949 too. Whether Taiwan is part of China has nothing to do with which political party is in power in the mainland. Whether California is part of US has nothing to do with which political party is in power in Washington. Furthermore, even Taiwanese constitution clearly states that Taiwan is part of China – what else could be more legal than their constitution?

    “If referendum was conducted in Taiwan 95% would vote for sovereignty.

    Highly disputed and problematic statement for the following reasons:
    1. No referendum has ever been conducted – so this is more a conjecture than proven fact.
    2. Most Taiwanese consistently indicate they prefer status quo, not independence nor unification.
    3. Neither PRC nor ROC constitutions allow secession by referendum. So even if your statement is true, it has no legal ground in China nor Taiwan courts.
    4. Even on moral ground, 95% Taiwanese’s wish still does not justify secession because it should also depend on the opinion of mainland Chinese, which are almost 100% opposing that. If California wants out – do you think the other 49 states have no legal rights nor moral grounds to object?

    • Replies: @utu
    "Neither PRC nor ROC constitutions allow secession by referendum. " - Moronic argument and a lie. Taiwan is not seceding as it never was a part of PRC. The referendum is not necessary to give the ROC government mandate to proclaim the sovereignty.

    The US should dust off all treaties and agreements it had with Taiwan and proceed with its support of Taiwan sovereignty as its official policy towards China.

    , @AaronB
    The real question I would ask you, d dan, is why do you care.

    What does it say about China that it is willing to go to war to force a population that does not want to be ruled by it, to be ruled by it.

    When America expanded, states like Arizona and Texas asked to be part of the union - the US government didn't threaten them.

    What does it say that China has to try and force areas on its fringe to become part of it, whereas American fringe areas were eager to become part of the union.

    China is enormous and doing well - that it wants to swallow up fringe areas that have to be dragged kicking and screaming just makes clear the difference between a totalitarian government and a democracy like the US was when Texas etc was eager to join.

    The CCP might have been the necessary medicine to recover from the chaos of the 20th century. I am not one of those who think the CCP was an unalloyed evil. It may have been right for the unique conditions mainland China was facing - at least for a time. It has done much good in mainland China.

    But clearly, people who don't need extreme medicine do not want totalitarian rule. They hate it. Successful places like Taiwan and Hong Kong have no need for CCP rule and China trying to force them kicking and screaming into the fold just shows that China has internalized its own rhetoric about "wolf politics".

    After China swallows its fringe areas, who thinks its gonna stop there? The Chinese political class itself frankly tells the world that it believes in "wolf politics" - there is huge discussion in China about how China needs to develop "wolf qualities".

    The CCP itself, while useful as a transitory stage, is slowly become obsolete even for mainland China - of course, all elites want to maintain their rule, however unjust and repressive.

    But there will come a point in China where the order and stability provided by the CCP, will no longer be worth its repression. The Chinese people will have matured.

    I'm not saying China will become a democracy - even Japan is a democracy only in name. But the repressive nature of the ruling party will soften and ease up - and the need to forcibly rule people who don't want to be ruled by you because of an ego trip will also ease up. Historically, Legalism tends never to last very long in China. There is always a tension between order and freedom in every civilization - sometimes for brief periods too much order is needed, but that never lasts.

    As for America, we ate sadly moving in the direction of Chinese totalitarianism - although thank God no where near that, yet. And there are few voices speaking against it - Ron Unz for instance worships the CCP and would love to have a similarly repressive government - with HIS ideas in control, of course. Ditto the entire alt-right.
  75. @Blinky Bill
    The English built Singapore and Hong Kong, but choose not to build Fiji or Jamaica, or countless other places in their empire. Why ? I suppose for the same reasons the Americans chose to build Taiwan but not the Philippines into a modern industrialised country. Because the Anglo Saxon loves and cares for the Chinese, like no other people on earth. 😂😂😂

    The English built Singapore and Hong Kong, but choose not to build Fiji or Jamaica, or countless other places in their empire. Why ? I suppose for the same reasons the Americans chose to build Taiwan but not the Philippines into a modern industrialised country. Because the Anglo Saxon loves and cares for the Chinese, like no other people on earth.

    The British didn’t give a hoot about Singapore and Hong Kong because they were just colonial port cities serving the Opium trade between China and India. Most of the Chinese immigrants to Hong Kong were dirt-poor coolies who were treated with racist contempt by the British colonials. The same with British Malaya where Singapore really took off only after being expelled from Malaysia. Taiwan was ruled under Martial Law by Chiang Kai-shek who hired German military advisers and acquired Japanese industrial technology to develop and industrialize Taiwan. Chiang never got along with racist Anglo-Saxons but he got along fine with Russians and Germans. He sent his only biological son, Chiang Ching-kuo, to study in Russia where he met and married a Russian lady, Faina Ipat’evna Vakhreva, who became Faina Chiang Fang-liang. He sent his adopted son, Chiang Wei-kuo, to study in Nazi Germany where he became an officer in the Wehrmacht.

    The idea that racist Anglo-Saxons “love” the Chinese by selling them Opium is laughable.

    • Replies: @Thumbhead Forney
    The funny thing about the Opium War is that most of the ruling elites in Qing China were a bunch of degenerate opium addicts themselves. Opium was a popular leisure drug way, way before that war. China's objection to the British drug dealers was that they didn't want their peasants to turn into opium junkies - that was a for the elite, peasants are supposed to get to work.
  76. @128
    OT, but why is stupid and cruel ageism from White people and Westerners in general where old people are treated as social throwaways, in East Asian societies old people are venerated and their presence is treated as a blessing because of the experience and wisdom that they impart due to having lived so long, I mean Subotai was still performing at an A into his late 60s, Lee Kuan Yew was still going strong mentally into his 80s, and Nguyen Giap was still performing at an A level way way way past retirement age, maybe the reason why your society is so screwed up is because Westerners treated old people as factory rejects fit for the scrap heap past 50, unlike Asian cultures and societies based on Confucian cultures? I can also add Sima Yi to this list. Maybe if you Westerners did not treat your old people like throwaways you would not have these social problems right now.

    Only someone who hasn’t been to Seoul and see old grandmothers picking through the trash or prostituting themselves in the park would ever claim with a straight face that “Asians love their old people.”

    Confucian feel-good bullshit is just that, bullshit.

    • Replies: @128
    Because the youth were corrupted by Western values, that is why they act that way now? I made the point that the phenomenon of abandoned elderly is due to the spread of individualistic Western culture among the youth in Est Asia, which leads them to treat the elderly badly, plus demographic policies like the one child policy which led to children being spoiled silly by their parents and grandparents, which leads to an entitled mentality among the youth.
  77. @antibeast


    The English built Singapore and Hong Kong, but choose not to build Fiji or Jamaica, or countless other places in their empire. Why ? I suppose for the same reasons the Americans chose to build Taiwan but not the Philippines into a modern industrialised country. Because the Anglo Saxon loves and cares for the Chinese, like no other people on earth.

     

    The British didn't give a hoot about Singapore and Hong Kong because they were just colonial port cities serving the Opium trade between China and India. Most of the Chinese immigrants to Hong Kong were dirt-poor coolies who were treated with racist contempt by the British colonials. The same with British Malaya where Singapore really took off only after being expelled from Malaysia. Taiwan was ruled under Martial Law by Chiang Kai-shek who hired German military advisers and acquired Japanese industrial technology to develop and industrialize Taiwan. Chiang never got along with racist Anglo-Saxons but he got along fine with Russians and Germans. He sent his only biological son, Chiang Ching-kuo, to study in Russia where he met and married a Russian lady, Faina Ipat'evna Vakhreva, who became Faina Chiang Fang-liang. He sent his adopted son, Chiang Wei-kuo, to study in Nazi Germany where he became an officer in the Wehrmacht.

    The idea that racist Anglo-Saxons "love" the Chinese by selling them Opium is laughable.

    The funny thing about the Opium War is that most of the ruling elites in Qing China were a bunch of degenerate opium addicts themselves. Opium was a popular leisure drug way, way before that war. China’s objection to the British drug dealers was that they didn’t want their peasants to turn into opium junkies – that was a for the elite, peasants are supposed to get to work.

    • Replies: @antibeast


    The funny thing about the Opium War is that most of the ruling elites in Qing China were a bunch of degenerate opium addicts themselves. Opium was a popular leisure drug way, way before that war. China’s objection to the British drug dealers was that they didn’t want their peasants to turn into opium junkies – that was a for the elite, peasants are supposed to get to work.

     

    That's like saying the USA fought the drug war against drug cartels in Latin America because drugs are for rich WASP preppies but not for poor whites and blacks on welfare who are supposed to work and not do drugs. And guess who's the biggest drug lord in the USA today? The CIA!!!

    LFMAO!
    , @showmethereal
    What is your point??? The elites sniff a lot of cocaine here... But it becomes a problem when the masses got hooked on crack. You don't get the difference??? The one difference is Colombia didn't invade the US and force the US to allow the lower classes to smoke crack. The Opium epidemic perpetrated on China was worse than the crack epidemic in the US... Opium is more addictive.
  78. @d dan

    "Or can only the British “steal” land and not the Russians?"
     
    Historically, they both did steal. Modern leaders have largely settled those land claims peacefully. Stating obvious historical fact has nothing to do with being "anti-British nonsense".

    "The British built the modern city of Hong Kong ..."
     
    Please let me know how many laborers did British sent to Hong Kong to build those skyscrapers, ports, roads, subways... No? Granted, British contributed in some aspects like laws and order, international connections, etc. But Hong Kong was largely built by Hong Kongers, i.e. Chinese.

    British had a lot of colonies - some became successful and other failed miserably. It is so revealing that British of today only *take ownership* of the successful ones but feel *no responsibility* about the failed ones.

    Please let me know how many laborers did British sent to Hong Kong to build those skyscrapers, ports, roads, subways… No? Granted, British contributed in some aspects like laws and order, international connections, etc. But Hong Kong was largely built by Hong Kongers, i.e. Chinese.

    Hong Kong had a reputation for being this shitty little place infested with gangs, opium, whores, smugglers, etc. Only after the British and Shanghai Capitalists started moving there to escape the Civil War in mainland China did HK started developing as a modern city. And it was Chinese entrepreneurs like Li Ka-shing who made their fortunes by building mass-housing in HK because the racist Brits didn’t give a shit about the dirt-poor Chinese coolies living in urban slums in HK.

    British had a lot of colonies – some became successful and other failed miserably. It is so revealing that British of today only *take ownership* of the successful ones but feel *no responsibility* about the failed ones.

    The Brits like to take credit for giving “democracy” to HK when they never did anything except rule HK as a colony. Only after the British left did China grant “democracy” to HK by allowing them autonomy in local affairs.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    There is the claim that the PRC insisted that the British do not democratize Hong Kong or else they would invade them. What is your counter-argument against that?

    https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/cantile_1958_vjmedia-com-hk.jpg

    Not long thereafter, in 1960, Liao Chengzhi, China’s director of “overseas Chinese affairs,” told Hong Kong union representatives that China’s leaders would “not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories liberated” if the Brits allowed self-governance:
     
    https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/liao-chengzhi_vjmedia-com-hk.jpg

    These documents—which, perhaps unbeknownst to the People’s Daily, Hong Kong journalists have been busily mining (link in Chinese)—show that not only were the Brits mulling granting Hong Kong self-governance in the 1950s; it was the Chinese government under Mao Zedong who quashed these plans, threatening invasion. And the very reason Mao didn’t seize Hong Kong in the first place was so that the People’s Republic could enjoy the economic fruits of Britain’s colonial governance.
     
    https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-stillborn-democracy/
  79. @Thumbhead Forney
    The funny thing about the Opium War is that most of the ruling elites in Qing China were a bunch of degenerate opium addicts themselves. Opium was a popular leisure drug way, way before that war. China's objection to the British drug dealers was that they didn't want their peasants to turn into opium junkies - that was a for the elite, peasants are supposed to get to work.

    The funny thing about the Opium War is that most of the ruling elites in Qing China were a bunch of degenerate opium addicts themselves. Opium was a popular leisure drug way, way before that war. China’s objection to the British drug dealers was that they didn’t want their peasants to turn into opium junkies – that was a for the elite, peasants are supposed to get to work.

    That’s like saying the USA fought the drug war against drug cartels in Latin America because drugs are for rich WASP preppies but not for poor whites and blacks on welfare who are supposed to work and not do drugs. And guess who’s the biggest drug lord in the USA today? The CIA!!!

    LFMAO!

    • Troll: HammerJack
  80. @Europe Europa
    I find it odd that the Hong Kong protesters fly American flags, wouldn't it be more logical to fly British flags considering Hong Kong was founded by the British and was a British territory?

    I think it would make more sense for them to argue for autonomy/independence from the perspective of their British history rather than trying to invoke some sort of association with the US, considering Hong Kong has never been part of the US. It would make more sense for them to look to Singapore as a model for their own independence, which was obviously also a British territory.

    I find it odd that the Hong Kong protesters fly American flags

    Maybe it is the flag of the “Proposition Nation” that they are flying.

  81. @Simpleguest

    The British built the modern city of Hong Kong just as much as the Russians built Vladivostok.
     
    While speaking of differences, Vladivostok is the home port of the Russian Pacific fleet.
    By the way, it doesn's strike me as particularly British to complain the way you do. Are you sure you are British?

    “it doesn’s strike me as particularly British to complain the way you do. Are you sure you are British?”
    Sure? In Australia the “whinging pom” is part of the Aust’ mythos.

  82. @antibeast


    Please let me know how many laborers did British sent to Hong Kong to build those skyscrapers, ports, roads, subways… No? Granted, British contributed in some aspects like laws and order, international connections, etc. But Hong Kong was largely built by Hong Kongers, i.e. Chinese.

     

    Hong Kong had a reputation for being this shitty little place infested with gangs, opium, whores, smugglers, etc. Only after the British and Shanghai Capitalists started moving there to escape the Civil War in mainland China did HK started developing as a modern city. And it was Chinese entrepreneurs like Li Ka-shing who made their fortunes by building mass-housing in HK because the racist Brits didn't give a shit about the dirt-poor Chinese coolies living in urban slums in HK.


    British had a lot of colonies – some became successful and other failed miserably. It is so revealing that British of today only *take ownership* of the successful ones but feel *no responsibility* about the failed ones.

     

    The Brits like to take credit for giving "democracy" to HK when they never did anything except rule HK as a colony. Only after the British left did China grant "democracy" to HK by allowing them autonomy in local affairs.

    There is the claim that the PRC insisted that the British do not democratize Hong Kong or else they would invade them. What is your counter-argument against that?

    Not long thereafter, in 1960, Liao Chengzhi, China’s director of “overseas Chinese affairs,” told Hong Kong union representatives that China’s leaders would “not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories liberated” if the Brits allowed self-governance:

    These documents—which, perhaps unbeknownst to the People’s Daily, Hong Kong journalists have been busily mining (link in Chinese)—show that not only were the Brits mulling granting Hong Kong self-governance in the 1950s; it was the Chinese government under Mao Zedong who quashed these plans, threatening invasion. And the very reason Mao didn’t seize Hong Kong in the first place was so that the People’s Republic could enjoy the economic fruits of Britain’s colonial governance.

    https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-stillborn-democracy/

    • Replies: @antibeast
    Do you know about the 1967 HK riots which left 51 dead? Guess what? The British squashed the HK rioters because they're were Communist sympathizers. See this link:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/world/asia/hong-kong-1967-riots.html

    Why would the British grant autonomy to HK which would have been subverted by Communists? The argument that you've presented contradicts the post-war history of the Cold War when the British fought the Communists in British Malaya while the French (and later Americans) fought the Communists in Indochina.
  83. @Mitleser
    There is the claim that the PRC insisted that the British do not democratize Hong Kong or else they would invade them. What is your counter-argument against that?

    https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/cantile_1958_vjmedia-com-hk.jpg

    Not long thereafter, in 1960, Liao Chengzhi, China’s director of “overseas Chinese affairs,” told Hong Kong union representatives that China’s leaders would “not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories liberated” if the Brits allowed self-governance:
     
    https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/liao-chengzhi_vjmedia-com-hk.jpg

    These documents—which, perhaps unbeknownst to the People’s Daily, Hong Kong journalists have been busily mining (link in Chinese)—show that not only were the Brits mulling granting Hong Kong self-governance in the 1950s; it was the Chinese government under Mao Zedong who quashed these plans, threatening invasion. And the very reason Mao didn’t seize Hong Kong in the first place was so that the People’s Republic could enjoy the economic fruits of Britain’s colonial governance.
     
    https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-stillborn-democracy/

    Do you know about the 1967 HK riots which left 51 dead? Guess what? The British squashed the HK rioters because they’re were Communist sympathizers. See this link:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/world/asia/hong-kong-1967-riots.html

    Why would the British grant autonomy to HK which would have been subverted by Communists? The argument that you’ve presented contradicts the post-war history of the Cold War when the British fought the Communists in British Malaya while the French (and later Americans) fought the Communists in Indochina.

    • Agree: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Mitleser
    Because it was a greater threat to the Communists than to the British who were withdrawing from the region anyway.
    HK was one of the main destinations of Chinese who rejected the rule of the CPC and migrated from the Mainland. Why would they let Communists subvert their city state?

    What happened in Malaya supports this. The local Communists failed to defeat the pro-British and anti-Communist locals, followed by Malaya getting independence in 1957.
  84. @d dan

    "Or can only the British “steal” land and not the Russians?"
     
    Historically, they both did steal. Modern leaders have largely settled those land claims peacefully. Stating obvious historical fact has nothing to do with being "anti-British nonsense".

    "The British built the modern city of Hong Kong ..."
     
    Please let me know how many laborers did British sent to Hong Kong to build those skyscrapers, ports, roads, subways... No? Granted, British contributed in some aspects like laws and order, international connections, etc. But Hong Kong was largely built by Hong Kongers, i.e. Chinese.

    British had a lot of colonies - some became successful and other failed miserably. It is so revealing that British of today only *take ownership* of the successful ones but feel *no responsibility* about the failed ones.

    Well, you can argue that it was not the British but the Hong Kong people (the present population and their ancestors) who built it. (It was actually both, since the British legal framework and the hardworking and entrepreneurial locals were both needed for the successful development of the city.)

    But what is certain is that it was neither the Mainland government nor the people of the Mainland who built it or had anything to do with its success. So the language about “stealing” is highly inappropriate coming from the Mainland government, people, or their supporters, while speaking tough things against the protests supported by the overwhelming majority of the Hong Kong people.

    Of course, legally, militarily, and politically it’s the Mainland government who is in charge, and for better or worse, it’s going to stay that way. I don’t much sympathize with the protesters’ pro-American or pro-Globohomo sentiments, and I despise their major supporters in the West as well. So I don’t wish the protesters to succeed geopolitically, but I don’t sympathize with the views expressed here by Mainland supporters about how Hong Kong needs to be crushed.

    • Replies: @d dan

    "So the language about “stealing” is highly inappropriate coming from the Mainland government, "
     
    The land was stolen from Qinq dynasty - that is not a difficult or controversial concept, right?

    "I don’t sympathize with the views expressed here by Mainland supporters about how Hong Kong needs to be crushed."
     
    They are not trying to crush Hong Kong - the city, the economy, the people, their livelihood, their welfare, or even their political freedom, etc. They are trying to crush their " pro-American" sentiment, their political ambition and their treasonous behaviors.
  85. @showmethereal
    True... And aside from the British Opium dealers and their servants - the Chinese there were dirt poor. Then came the era of the comprador which was facilitated by the British stealing tea and then everything else... But still most Chinese in Hong Kong were dirt poor. It wasn't until the Shanghai business men and capital holders fled to Hong Kong in the Japanese invasion and then the civil war that Hong Kong really became a business hub.
    The original purpose of Hong Kong was simply to act as sort of a British FTZ to trade with Canton - aka - Guangzhou. I guess you didn't realize China had a massive trade surplus with the west back then as well. The only difference is China is industrialized now and has modern weapons.

    I guess you didn’t realize China had a massive trade surplus with the west back then as well.

    I don’t know why you think so. The trade surplus was the major reason for the Opium Wars, since the British couldn’t really sell anything to China, while they wanted to keep buying Chinese goods, and correctly understood that by opening China up for opium imports, they’d be able to increase the amount of their imports from China.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
    The point I was making is that Hong Kong is a trading post - just now it's financial rather than real goods. That was always it's purpose. But it's not as if the British introduced the concept to southern China. Canton was where the emperor allowed foreigners to trade - so the British wanted their own rules and laws - so they set up Hong Kong just downstream. So the reason Hong Kong has pride issues is now that the mainland has become a trading nation again. Hong Kong has lost the shine it had. Hong Kong only became an international hub in the past few decades. It only existed as an entryway to China.
  86. @antibeast
    Do you know about the 1967 HK riots which left 51 dead? Guess what? The British squashed the HK rioters because they're were Communist sympathizers. See this link:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/world/asia/hong-kong-1967-riots.html

    Why would the British grant autonomy to HK which would have been subverted by Communists? The argument that you've presented contradicts the post-war history of the Cold War when the British fought the Communists in British Malaya while the French (and later Americans) fought the Communists in Indochina.

    Because it was a greater threat to the Communists than to the British who were withdrawing from the region anyway.
    HK was one of the main destinations of Chinese who rejected the rule of the CPC and migrated from the Mainland. Why would they let Communists subvert their city state?

    What happened in Malaya supports this. The local Communists failed to defeat the pro-British and anti-Communist locals, followed by Malaya getting independence in 1957.

    • Replies: @antibeast

    Because it was a greater threat to the Communists than to the British who were withdrawing from the region anyway. HK was one of the main destinations of Chinese who rejected the rule of the CPC and migrated from the Mainland. Why would they let Communists subvert their city state?


     

    You mean the British would not allow the Communists to subvert HK? Of course. The British had every reason to suspect that the Chinese who fled to HK could turn into a potential fifth-column for the Communists as what happened in South Vietnam which was infiltrated and subverted by the Vietcong.

    What happened in Malaya supports this. The local Communists failed to defeat the pro-British and anti-Communist locals, followed by Malaya getting independence in 1957.


     

    What happened in Malaya was the British had to fight the Communists during the Malayan Emergency which lasted until 1960. The HK riots occurred in 1967, thus confirming British fears of Communist infiltration and subversion of HK. The idea that the British wanted to give "democracy" to HK is nonsensical given the geopolitical realities of the Cold War which was in full swing in Asia at the time with the Korean War followed by the Malayan Emergency and then the Vietnam War. The CIA supported Suharto's bloody anti-Communist purge in Indonesia as well as Marcos' declaration of Martial Law in the Philippines. Both South Korea and Taiwan had been placed under Martial Law with Park Chung-hee and Chiang Kai-shek ruling as military dictators, respectively.

    The Cold War was anti-Communist not pro-Democracy. Nothing "democratic" about Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Philippines, Indonesia but they were anti-Communists.

  87. @d dan
    Ahh, yet another ignorant westerner commenting on China, base on feeling rather than facts.

    "Taiwan .... its independence and new political climate its claim to sovereignty will be recognized. "
     
    China has made it clear that it is willing to escalate to nuclear war, if necessary, to make sure Taiwan remain part of China. Tell me which country will "recognize" Taiwan's "independence". Also, Taiwan's constitution states that it is part of China.

    "Taiwan was never Chinese"
     
    LOL. Taiwan was part of China earlier than the existence of many western countries. Tell me why "Taiwan was never Chinese"? Do Taiwan share the same ethnicity, language, culture, tradition, custom, religion, or history with Chinese? Maybe I will learn new thing from you?

    Taiwan was part of China earlier than the existence of many western countries.

    Taiwan became Chinese just a few centuries ago, hardly some ancient claim. Actually one contentious issue between the Europeans and the Qing emperors in the early 19th century was the presence of pirates on the island. The Qing representatives claimed sovereignty over the island, yet simultaneously (and no doubt accurately) stated that they had no control over the pirates. Under European concepts of sovereignty it meant that the Chinese were not the sovereign rulers of the area, since they had no effective control over some parts of the island. (Though they at least had sovereignty over some parts of the island.)

    • Replies: @yakushimaru
    You are making it sound as if TW are claiming independence because of historical studies. Honestly it got nothing to do about ancient history, but the fear of CPC rule.

    And your citing of historical arguments are pretty weak. In anycase I think it is just distraction, so I am not going into that direction.

    From mainland's point of view, CPC is trying to keep things as it was and using economic development, aka Karlin's strategy, to get bigger and bigger advantage.
  88. @Thumbhead Forney
    Only someone who hasn't been to Seoul and see old grandmothers picking through the trash or prostituting themselves in the park would ever claim with a straight face that "Asians love their old people."

    Confucian feel-good bullshit is just that, bullshit.

    Because the youth were corrupted by Western values, that is why they act that way now? I made the point that the phenomenon of abandoned elderly is due to the spread of individualistic Western culture among the youth in Est Asia, which leads them to treat the elderly badly, plus demographic policies like the one child policy which led to children being spoiled silly by their parents and grandparents, which leads to an entitled mentality among the youth.

  89. @Mitleser
    Because it was a greater threat to the Communists than to the British who were withdrawing from the region anyway.
    HK was one of the main destinations of Chinese who rejected the rule of the CPC and migrated from the Mainland. Why would they let Communists subvert their city state?

    What happened in Malaya supports this. The local Communists failed to defeat the pro-British and anti-Communist locals, followed by Malaya getting independence in 1957.

    Because it was a greater threat to the Communists than to the British who were withdrawing from the region anyway. HK was one of the main destinations of Chinese who rejected the rule of the CPC and migrated from the Mainland. Why would they let Communists subvert their city state?

    You mean the British would not allow the Communists to subvert HK? Of course. The British had every reason to suspect that the Chinese who fled to HK could turn into a potential fifth-column for the Communists as what happened in South Vietnam which was infiltrated and subverted by the Vietcong.

    What happened in Malaya supports this. The local Communists failed to defeat the pro-British and anti-Communist locals, followed by Malaya getting independence in 1957.

    What happened in Malaya was the British had to fight the Communists during the Malayan Emergency which lasted until 1960. The HK riots occurred in 1967, thus confirming British fears of Communist infiltration and subversion of HK. The idea that the British wanted to give “democracy” to HK is nonsensical given the geopolitical realities of the Cold War which was in full swing in Asia at the time with the Korean War followed by the Malayan Emergency and then the Vietnam War. The CIA supported Suharto’s bloody anti-Communist purge in Indonesia as well as Marcos’ declaration of Martial Law in the Philippines. Both South Korea and Taiwan had been placed under Martial Law with Park Chung-hee and Chiang Kai-shek ruling as military dictators, respectively.

    The Cold War was anti-Communist not pro-Democracy. Nothing “democratic” about Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Philippines, Indonesia but they were anti-Communists.

  90. @reiner Tor

    Taiwan was part of China earlier than the existence of many western countries.
     
    Taiwan became Chinese just a few centuries ago, hardly some ancient claim. Actually one contentious issue between the Europeans and the Qing emperors in the early 19th century was the presence of pirates on the island. The Qing representatives claimed sovereignty over the island, yet simultaneously (and no doubt accurately) stated that they had no control over the pirates. Under European concepts of sovereignty it meant that the Chinese were not the sovereign rulers of the area, since they had no effective control over some parts of the island. (Though they at least had sovereignty over some parts of the island.)

    You are making it sound as if TW are claiming independence because of historical studies. Honestly it got nothing to do about ancient history, but the fear of CPC rule.

    And your citing of historical arguments are pretty weak. In anycase I think it is just distraction, so I am not going into that direction.

    From mainland’s point of view, CPC is trying to keep things as it was and using economic development, aka Karlin’s strategy, to get bigger and bigger advantage.

  91. utu says:
    @yakushimaru
    "Native Taiwanese" is a tiny minority.

    Taiwan was firmly part of China since at least the end of Ming. I think majority of Taiwan residents were Ethnic Han since then, but I am not sure.

    If they really wanted independence, they could've go for it when Taiwan was much richer in comparison and mainland China was much less capable militarily.

    They do not want to be ruled by CCP a sentiment that is understandable, but they are doing everyone a disservice by taking on a risky road like as if readying themselves to be martyrs, provoking a carnage in the strait, and becoming ever more a rabid and yet smallish enemy of mainland.

    If COVID-19 in Wuhan happened in the 1980s, Taiwan would've sent in nurses and doctors, pretty much like every other provinces of mainland China did, and their nurses would've exhibitted a higher professional quality. The fear of CCP and their own weakening have made them dislike common Chinese people nowadays. Not unlike what is happening in HK in this regard.

    “If they really wanted independence, they could’ve go for it when Taiwan was much richer in comparison and mainland China was much less capable militarily.” – Red herring. Kuomintang was in power with official pretense that they were the legitimate government of the whole China. Only when China got richer and stronger this pretense had to be dropped and the anti-Kuomintang Taiwanese could be heard.

    The point is that they want independence and the issue is how to proceed when faced with the belligerent China whose reaction to any mention of Taiwan independence is borderline psychotic.

    “…made them dislike common Chinese people nowadays.“- Why should they like common mainland Chinese who are blinded with rabid chauvinism and are ready to eat up all Taiwanese before lunch?

    More and more I feel that the US should look into Taiwan dust off all treaties it had with Taiwan and use Taiwan it as the place where the line in the sand is drawn if indeed the US is ready to contest and stop China.

  92. @d dan
    Oh boy. So much twist of logic in such a short post.

    "Native Taiwanese are not Chinese..."
     
    Firstly, you can only claim that native Taiwanese are not Han, you can't claim that they are not Chinese. Secondly, the majority of Taiwanese are Han, and therefore Chinese.

    For you to claim that Taiwan is never Chinese because their Native Taiwanese are not Han, is like claiming US is never American because Native American are not White - both involve leaps of logic.


    "Taiwan was first colonized by Dutch."
     
    Yes, for a short period. But what is the relevance of this fact on whether Taiwan was Chinese? Are you trying to claim Taiwan was more Dutch than Chinese? Hong Kong was colonized by UK for much longer, what has it to do with whether Hong Kong is Chinese?

    "In 1895 in accordance with international law Taiwan was ceded to Japan. "
     
    Yes, ceded through a war of aggression by Japan, which was hardly any "international law". Furthermore, that cession was subsequently nullified with the defeat of Japan in WW2.

    "Chinese returned after WWII but they were anti-communist Kuomintang."
     
    Communist or Kuomintang (KMT), they were both Chinese - just different political parties. California has been firmly in Democrat Party for a long time - are you claiming that it is not part of US because of GOP President?

    "Communist China or any other kind of mainland China has no valid legal claims to Taiwan. "
     
    LOL. Communist party had no claim of Beijing before 1949 too. Whether Taiwan is part of China has nothing to do with which political party is in power in the mainland. Whether California is part of US has nothing to do with which political party is in power in Washington. Furthermore, even Taiwanese constitution clearly states that Taiwan is part of China - what else could be more legal than their constitution?

    "If referendum was conducted in Taiwan 95% would vote for sovereignty.
     
    Highly disputed and problematic statement for the following reasons:
    1. No referendum has ever been conducted - so this is more a conjecture than proven fact.
    2. Most Taiwanese consistently indicate they prefer status quo, not independence nor unification.
    3. Neither PRC nor ROC constitutions allow secession by referendum. So even if your statement is true, it has no legal ground in China nor Taiwan courts.
    4. Even on moral ground, 95% Taiwanese's wish still does not justify secession because it should also depend on the opinion of mainland Chinese, which are almost 100% opposing that. If California wants out - do you think the other 49 states have no legal rights nor moral grounds to object?

    “Neither PRC nor ROC constitutions allow secession by referendum. “ – Moronic argument and a lie. Taiwan is not seceding as it never was a part of PRC. The referendum is not necessary to give the ROC government mandate to proclaim the sovereignty.

    The US should dust off all treaties and agreements it had with Taiwan and proceed with its support of Taiwan sovereignty as its official policy towards China.

    • Replies: @d dan


    “Neither PRC nor ROC constitutions allow secession by referendum. “
     
    Moronic argument and a lie. Taiwan is not seceding as it never was a part of PRC. The referendum is not necessary to give the ROC government mandate to proclaim the sovereignty.
     
    I know my comment may be too long for you - but at least try to read the important points before replying.

    Of course, everyone knows ROC currently has "sovereignty" (as in the power to rule) over the island - that maybe your semantic sleight of hand - but the question is whether it is/should be an independent state. Since ROC Constitution states that Taiwan is part of mainland China. the key to "independence" is to break its tie (i.e. to secede) from mainland. Therefore, it needs to amend its constitution. Yes, referendum is irrelevant and insufficient - but it was you who brought it up as if it gives justification to the independence issue.

    Maybe a picture will be worth a thousands words for you. Look at what ROC claims:
    https://external-preview.redd.it/mmywZWxoPXT9Szg-x4FXWkwlblM7MKmRYWYTdWq36O0.jpg?auto=webp&s=4b654320b33bd46d63a40d9785bb1b1a28b68084

    "The US should dust off all treaties and agreements it had with Taiwan and proceed with its support of Taiwan sovereignty as its official policy towards China."
     
    You failed in your attempt to make case for "Taiwan was never Chinese." But you still insist US should support a "Taiwan sovereignty" - a classic example of making decision by emotion - not facts nor logic.
  93. @reiner Tor
    Well, you can argue that it was not the British but the Hong Kong people (the present population and their ancestors) who built it. (It was actually both, since the British legal framework and the hardworking and entrepreneurial locals were both needed for the successful development of the city.)

    But what is certain is that it was neither the Mainland government nor the people of the Mainland who built it or had anything to do with its success. So the language about “stealing” is highly inappropriate coming from the Mainland government, people, or their supporters, while speaking tough things against the protests supported by the overwhelming majority of the Hong Kong people.

    Of course, legally, militarily, and politically it’s the Mainland government who is in charge, and for better or worse, it’s going to stay that way. I don’t much sympathize with the protesters’ pro-American or pro-Globohomo sentiments, and I despise their major supporters in the West as well. So I don’t wish the protesters to succeed geopolitically, but I don’t sympathize with the views expressed here by Mainland supporters about how Hong Kong needs to be crushed.

    “So the language about “stealing” is highly inappropriate coming from the Mainland government, “

    The land was stolen from Qinq dynasty – that is not a difficult or controversial concept, right?

    “I don’t sympathize with the views expressed here by Mainland supporters about how Hong Kong needs to be crushed.”

    They are not trying to crush Hong Kong – the city, the economy, the people, their livelihood, their welfare, or even their political freedom, etc. They are trying to crush their ” pro-American” sentiment, their political ambition and their treasonous behaviors.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    The land was stolen from Qinq dynasty – that is not a difficult or controversial concept, right?
     

    Incorrect.

    The land was conquered by the British.

    The Qing government ceded Hong Kong island to the United Kingdom, and then proceeded to lease the New Territories to Britain.

    Classical international law (rather than the modern globohomo nonsense) always recognized the Right of Conquest.

  94. @utu
    The legal issues of Hong Kong favor China. However Taiwan could make a good case for its independence and new political climate its claim to sovereignty will be recognized. Taiwan was never Chinese. The US should show the way. If the US wants to stop China Taiwan is the place to start.

    Taiwan was never Chinese?? Huh??? The Japanese took it from the Qing Dynasty – just as Britain took Hong Kong from the Qing…. As part of her surrender Japan had to give back everything she took from China (Taiwan and the Spratly and Paracel islands were among those specifically listed). That is why the Nationalists retreated to Taiwan… It was again part of the country. As for as “The US should show the way”. Exactly how many civil wars does the US need to get involved in and it blow up in people’s face to learn a lesson??? They were already supporting the Nationalists in the first place when they lost… The Communists even made off with a lot of the abandoned US weapons the Nationalists left.

  95. @yakushimaru
    "Native Taiwanese" is a tiny minority.

    Taiwan was firmly part of China since at least the end of Ming. I think majority of Taiwan residents were Ethnic Han since then, but I am not sure.

    If they really wanted independence, they could've go for it when Taiwan was much richer in comparison and mainland China was much less capable militarily.

    They do not want to be ruled by CCP a sentiment that is understandable, but they are doing everyone a disservice by taking on a risky road like as if readying themselves to be martyrs, provoking a carnage in the strait, and becoming ever more a rabid and yet smallish enemy of mainland.

    If COVID-19 in Wuhan happened in the 1980s, Taiwan would've sent in nurses and doctors, pretty much like every other provinces of mainland China did, and their nurses would've exhibitted a higher professional quality. The fear of CCP and their own weakening have made them dislike common Chinese people nowadays. Not unlike what is happening in HK in this regard.

    Very true. The dirty secret is that aside from what the DPP says – Taiwan medical professionals were collaborating with the mainland even during this. It’s all optics to try a ploy to get recognized by the WHO. That goes along exactly with what you are saying though.
    Hey – even in the 2010’s she was allowed to be an observer at the WHO with Beijing permission because the KMT was in power and uphold the One China Policy.

  96. In anycase, I hope the Chinese on both sides of the strait are not so foolish to have a “hot” confrontation.

    I believe there is an Aesop Fable on this.

    RE the breaking up of Chimerica. How is it supposed to make America great again? When both sides are trying to win over countries inbetween, and when you take into consideration that the average American and Chinese workers are not unlike in terms of competitiveness, that somehow plastic toy or other widgets made by expensive US workers will be selling just fine?

  97. @Thumbhead Forney
    The funny thing about the Opium War is that most of the ruling elites in Qing China were a bunch of degenerate opium addicts themselves. Opium was a popular leisure drug way, way before that war. China's objection to the British drug dealers was that they didn't want their peasants to turn into opium junkies - that was a for the elite, peasants are supposed to get to work.

    What is your point??? The elites sniff a lot of cocaine here… But it becomes a problem when the masses got hooked on crack. You don’t get the difference??? The one difference is Colombia didn’t invade the US and force the US to allow the lower classes to smoke crack. The Opium epidemic perpetrated on China was worse than the crack epidemic in the US… Opium is more addictive.

  98. @d dan
    Oh boy. So much twist of logic in such a short post.

    "Native Taiwanese are not Chinese..."
     
    Firstly, you can only claim that native Taiwanese are not Han, you can't claim that they are not Chinese. Secondly, the majority of Taiwanese are Han, and therefore Chinese.

    For you to claim that Taiwan is never Chinese because their Native Taiwanese are not Han, is like claiming US is never American because Native American are not White - both involve leaps of logic.


    "Taiwan was first colonized by Dutch."
     
    Yes, for a short period. But what is the relevance of this fact on whether Taiwan was Chinese? Are you trying to claim Taiwan was more Dutch than Chinese? Hong Kong was colonized by UK for much longer, what has it to do with whether Hong Kong is Chinese?

    "In 1895 in accordance with international law Taiwan was ceded to Japan. "
     
    Yes, ceded through a war of aggression by Japan, which was hardly any "international law". Furthermore, that cession was subsequently nullified with the defeat of Japan in WW2.

    "Chinese returned after WWII but they were anti-communist Kuomintang."
     
    Communist or Kuomintang (KMT), they were both Chinese - just different political parties. California has been firmly in Democrat Party for a long time - are you claiming that it is not part of US because of GOP President?

    "Communist China or any other kind of mainland China has no valid legal claims to Taiwan. "
     
    LOL. Communist party had no claim of Beijing before 1949 too. Whether Taiwan is part of China has nothing to do with which political party is in power in the mainland. Whether California is part of US has nothing to do with which political party is in power in Washington. Furthermore, even Taiwanese constitution clearly states that Taiwan is part of China - what else could be more legal than their constitution?

    "If referendum was conducted in Taiwan 95% would vote for sovereignty.
     
    Highly disputed and problematic statement for the following reasons:
    1. No referendum has ever been conducted - so this is more a conjecture than proven fact.
    2. Most Taiwanese consistently indicate they prefer status quo, not independence nor unification.
    3. Neither PRC nor ROC constitutions allow secession by referendum. So even if your statement is true, it has no legal ground in China nor Taiwan courts.
    4. Even on moral ground, 95% Taiwanese's wish still does not justify secession because it should also depend on the opinion of mainland Chinese, which are almost 100% opposing that. If California wants out - do you think the other 49 states have no legal rights nor moral grounds to object?

    The real question I would ask you, d dan, is why do you care.

    What does it say about China that it is willing to go to war to force a population that does not want to be ruled by it, to be ruled by it.

    When America expanded, states like Arizona and Texas asked to be part of the union – the US government didn’t threaten them.

    What does it say that China has to try and force areas on its fringe to become part of it, whereas American fringe areas were eager to become part of the union.

    China is enormous and doing well – that it wants to swallow up fringe areas that have to be dragged kicking and screaming just makes clear the difference between a totalitarian government and a democracy like the US was when Texas etc was eager to join.

    The CCP might have been the necessary medicine to recover from the chaos of the 20th century. I am not one of those who think the CCP was an unalloyed evil. It may have been right for the unique conditions mainland China was facing – at least for a time. It has done much good in mainland China.

    But clearly, people who don’t need extreme medicine do not want totalitarian rule. They hate it. Successful places like Taiwan and Hong Kong have no need for CCP rule and China trying to force them kicking and screaming into the fold just shows that China has internalized its own rhetoric about “wolf politics”.

    After China swallows its fringe areas, who thinks its gonna stop there? The Chinese political class itself frankly tells the world that it believes in “wolf politics” – there is huge discussion in China about how China needs to develop “wolf qualities”.

    The CCP itself, while useful as a transitory stage, is slowly become obsolete even for mainland China – of course, all elites want to maintain their rule, however unjust and repressive.

    But there will come a point in China where the order and stability provided by the CCP, will no longer be worth its repression. The Chinese people will have matured.

    I’m not saying China will become a democracy – even Japan is a democracy only in name. But the repressive nature of the ruling party will soften and ease up – and the need to forcibly rule people who don’t want to be ruled by you because of an ego trip will also ease up. Historically, Legalism tends never to last very long in China. There is always a tension between order and freedom in every civilization – sometimes for brief periods too much order is needed, but that never lasts.

    As for America, we ate sadly moving in the direction of Chinese totalitarianism – although thank God no where near that, yet. And there are few voices speaking against it – Ron Unz for instance worships the CCP and would love to have a similarly repressive government – with HIS ideas in control, of course. Ditto the entire alt-right.

    • Replies: @d dan
    You post displays your hypocrisy.

    "The real question I would ask you, d dan, is why do you care."
     
    Why don't you ask instead: why do so many westerners care - they care so much they are willing to ask US to risk nuclear war with China.

    "What does it say about China that it is willing to go to war to force a population that does not want to be ruled by it, to be ruled by it."
     
    Because it is part of the law and constitution of the country - that the land belongs to China. If the people does not like to be ruled by a particular government, they are free to immigrate. Otherwise, they can try to change the government - peacefully, or violently if they think it warrants. I happen to believe PRC government is much more responsive to people wishes - much more than the governments of most western countries. So why don't you guys start your revolution first before talking about China.

    Furthermore, if Taiwanese wants independence - it needs consents from mainland Chinese too, because they too have rights and interests in the island. It is no different than if California wants to secede - it needs consents from the other 49 states.

    "When America expanded, states like Arizona and Texas asked to be part of the union – the US government didn’t threaten them."
     
    Pure BS. Native Americans must all be dying to be part of the union. The US didn't have war of aggression with Mexico, ...

    As for the rest of your irrelevant comment - I leave it to you and other western hypocrites.
  99. @d dan

    "So the language about “stealing” is highly inappropriate coming from the Mainland government, "
     
    The land was stolen from Qinq dynasty - that is not a difficult or controversial concept, right?

    "I don’t sympathize with the views expressed here by Mainland supporters about how Hong Kong needs to be crushed."
     
    They are not trying to crush Hong Kong - the city, the economy, the people, their livelihood, their welfare, or even their political freedom, etc. They are trying to crush their " pro-American" sentiment, their political ambition and their treasonous behaviors.

    The land was stolen from Qinq dynasty – that is not a difficult or controversial concept, right?

    Incorrect.

    The land was conquered by the British.

    The Qing government ceded Hong Kong island to the United Kingdom, and then proceeded to lease the New Territories to Britain.

    Classical international law (rather than the modern globohomo nonsense) always recognized the Right of Conquest.

    • Replies: @d dan

    "Incorrect.

    The land was conquered by the British."
     
    Conquered, stolen, robbed - "what difference does it make?" - by a famous crook.
    , @yakushimaru
    If the British didn't just "Conquer" the land, but also kicked off or killed off the native people, and prevented neighboring immigrations, like what the English speaking people managed to do in Australia and North America, but failed to accomplish in say South Africa, ...

    However, the great grandkids always eventually become soft, ...

    OTOH, the kids also likely get smarter that they invent Lawspeak, ...

    But, like someone asked in another comment, what do I care? As long as there is peace and development.
  100. @utu
    "Neither PRC nor ROC constitutions allow secession by referendum. " - Moronic argument and a lie. Taiwan is not seceding as it never was a part of PRC. The referendum is not necessary to give the ROC government mandate to proclaim the sovereignty.

    The US should dust off all treaties and agreements it had with Taiwan and proceed with its support of Taiwan sovereignty as its official policy towards China.

    “Neither PRC nor ROC constitutions allow secession by referendum. “

    Moronic argument and a lie. Taiwan is not seceding as it never was a part of PRC. The referendum is not necessary to give the ROC government mandate to proclaim the sovereignty.

    I know my comment may be too long for you – but at least try to read the important points before replying.

    Of course, everyone knows ROC currently has “sovereignty” (as in the power to rule) over the island – that maybe your semantic sleight of hand – but the question is whether it is/should be an independent state. Since ROC Constitution states that Taiwan is part of mainland China. the key to “independence” is to break its tie (i.e. to secede) from mainland. Therefore, it needs to amend its constitution. Yes, referendum is irrelevant and insufficient – but it was you who brought it up as if it gives justification to the independence issue.

    Maybe a picture will be worth a thousands words for you. Look at what ROC claims:

    “The US should dust off all treaties and agreements it had with Taiwan and proceed with its support of Taiwan sovereignty as its official policy towards China.”

    You failed in your attempt to make case for “Taiwan was never Chinese.” But you still insist US should support a “Taiwan sovereignty” – a classic example of making decision by emotion – not facts nor logic.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
    True... Though the ROC did eventually give up the claims to Outer Mongolia.. I guess they finally got over being betrayed by the US - who negotiated that deal with Stalin.
  101. @utu
    Native Taiwanese are not Chinese. Taiwan was first colonized by Dutch. In a tiny part of Taiwan Kingdom of Tungning that was Chinese was established in 17th century. In 1895 in accordance with international law Taiwan was ceded to Japan. Chinese returned after WWII but they were anti-communist Kuomintang.

    Communist China or any other kind of mainland China has no valid legal claims to Taiwan. If referendum was conducted in Taiwan 95% would vote for sovereignty.

    ROC claims all of China. Legally kinda difficult to back out of that now.

    • Replies: @utu
    I understand. Taiwan could cut off form the past impose by the Kuomintang invaders.
  102. @AaronB
    The real question I would ask you, d dan, is why do you care.

    What does it say about China that it is willing to go to war to force a population that does not want to be ruled by it, to be ruled by it.

    When America expanded, states like Arizona and Texas asked to be part of the union - the US government didn't threaten them.

    What does it say that China has to try and force areas on its fringe to become part of it, whereas American fringe areas were eager to become part of the union.

    China is enormous and doing well - that it wants to swallow up fringe areas that have to be dragged kicking and screaming just makes clear the difference between a totalitarian government and a democracy like the US was when Texas etc was eager to join.

    The CCP might have been the necessary medicine to recover from the chaos of the 20th century. I am not one of those who think the CCP was an unalloyed evil. It may have been right for the unique conditions mainland China was facing - at least for a time. It has done much good in mainland China.

    But clearly, people who don't need extreme medicine do not want totalitarian rule. They hate it. Successful places like Taiwan and Hong Kong have no need for CCP rule and China trying to force them kicking and screaming into the fold just shows that China has internalized its own rhetoric about "wolf politics".

    After China swallows its fringe areas, who thinks its gonna stop there? The Chinese political class itself frankly tells the world that it believes in "wolf politics" - there is huge discussion in China about how China needs to develop "wolf qualities".

    The CCP itself, while useful as a transitory stage, is slowly become obsolete even for mainland China - of course, all elites want to maintain their rule, however unjust and repressive.

    But there will come a point in China where the order and stability provided by the CCP, will no longer be worth its repression. The Chinese people will have matured.

    I'm not saying China will become a democracy - even Japan is a democracy only in name. But the repressive nature of the ruling party will soften and ease up - and the need to forcibly rule people who don't want to be ruled by you because of an ego trip will also ease up. Historically, Legalism tends never to last very long in China. There is always a tension between order and freedom in every civilization - sometimes for brief periods too much order is needed, but that never lasts.

    As for America, we ate sadly moving in the direction of Chinese totalitarianism - although thank God no where near that, yet. And there are few voices speaking against it - Ron Unz for instance worships the CCP and would love to have a similarly repressive government - with HIS ideas in control, of course. Ditto the entire alt-right.

    You post displays your hypocrisy.

    “The real question I would ask you, d dan, is why do you care.”

    Why don’t you ask instead: why do so many westerners care – they care so much they are willing to ask US to risk nuclear war with China.

    “What does it say about China that it is willing to go to war to force a population that does not want to be ruled by it, to be ruled by it.”

    Because it is part of the law and constitution of the country – that the land belongs to China. If the people does not like to be ruled by a particular government, they are free to immigrate. Otherwise, they can try to change the government – peacefully, or violently if they think it warrants. I happen to believe PRC government is much more responsive to people wishes – much more than the governments of most western countries. So why don’t you guys start your revolution first before talking about China.

    Furthermore, if Taiwanese wants independence – it needs consents from mainland Chinese too, because they too have rights and interests in the island. It is no different than if California wants to secede – it needs consents from the other 49 states.

    “When America expanded, states like Arizona and Texas asked to be part of the union – the US government didn’t threaten them.”

    Pure BS. Native Americans must all be dying to be part of the union. The US didn’t have war of aggression with Mexico, …

    As for the rest of your irrelevant comment – I leave it to you and other western hypocrites.

    • Replies: @AaronB

    Pure BS. Native Americans must all be dying to be part of the union. The US didn’t have war of aggression with Mexico, …
     
    Sure, America fought Mexicans, a foreign people, but the Anglo settlers of those states wanted to become part of America.

    That your racial and cultural kin do not wish to be ruled by you is highly significant.

    The analogous situation was the American Revolution against Britain - this was a situation where Anglos also fought fiercely to not be ruled by their racial and cultural kin - and for the exact same reason as Taiwan and Hong Kong do today. No one likes tyranny.

    Because it is part of the law and constitution of the country – that the land belongs to China. If
     
    All that legal stuff is not what in am talking about. I am talking about simple common sense notions of natural morality - why wish to rule over people who do not wish to be ruled by you? Especially fringe areas that haven't been ruled by you in a very long time.

    Where's the justice in that? And doesn't that just mean you're an egotistic control-freak?

    We all know people in our personal lives who try and control us and rule over us - we generally don't like these people, and correctly realize that they have a serious ego problem.

    So why is China so much about "control" of others? Why this need to control people - both their own people and others?

    It is no different than if California wants to secede – it needs consents from the other 49 states
     
    California can secede if it wants to as far as I'm concerned. I would be totally against forcing any one to stay in any union they don't wish to. In general, in the West, regions can secede if a majority wish to - Scotland, etc.

    Although trying to extend your rule forcibly over a people you haven't ruled in a long time is very different.

    Why don’t you ask instead: why do so many westerners care – they care so much they are willing to ask US to risk nuclear war with China.
     
    Well, I generally think people who love freedom should help and support others who love freedom against totalitarians. Kind of we're all in this together against the tyrants, band of brothers kind of thing.

    Problem is, America and the order it represents and oversees is very much less free than it used to be and is slowly becoming more repressive and less free - and I am not even talking about the SJW kind of thing. Just in every day life its noticeable that dissent from the religion of making money and controlling everything is less and less tolerated.

    So the religion of control is hardly limited to China.

    So even though China is very unfree, that doesn't mean America represents freedom - I don't think in simple binaries like most of the crude commenters of Unz.

    But unfortunately, instead of trying to make us freer, people like Ron Unz want to push towards an even less free Chinese model.
  103. @Thorfinnsson

    The land was stolen from Qinq dynasty – that is not a difficult or controversial concept, right?
     

    Incorrect.

    The land was conquered by the British.

    The Qing government ceded Hong Kong island to the United Kingdom, and then proceeded to lease the New Territories to Britain.

    Classical international law (rather than the modern globohomo nonsense) always recognized the Right of Conquest.

    “Incorrect.

    The land was conquered by the British.”

    Conquered, stolen, robbed – “what difference does it make?” – by a famous crook.

  104. @d dan
    You post displays your hypocrisy.

    "The real question I would ask you, d dan, is why do you care."
     
    Why don't you ask instead: why do so many westerners care - they care so much they are willing to ask US to risk nuclear war with China.

    "What does it say about China that it is willing to go to war to force a population that does not want to be ruled by it, to be ruled by it."
     
    Because it is part of the law and constitution of the country - that the land belongs to China. If the people does not like to be ruled by a particular government, they are free to immigrate. Otherwise, they can try to change the government - peacefully, or violently if they think it warrants. I happen to believe PRC government is much more responsive to people wishes - much more than the governments of most western countries. So why don't you guys start your revolution first before talking about China.

    Furthermore, if Taiwanese wants independence - it needs consents from mainland Chinese too, because they too have rights and interests in the island. It is no different than if California wants to secede - it needs consents from the other 49 states.

    "When America expanded, states like Arizona and Texas asked to be part of the union – the US government didn’t threaten them."
     
    Pure BS. Native Americans must all be dying to be part of the union. The US didn't have war of aggression with Mexico, ...

    As for the rest of your irrelevant comment - I leave it to you and other western hypocrites.

    Pure BS. Native Americans must all be dying to be part of the union. The US didn’t have war of aggression with Mexico, …

    Sure, America fought Mexicans, a foreign people, but the Anglo settlers of those states wanted to become part of America.

    That your racial and cultural kin do not wish to be ruled by you is highly significant.

    The analogous situation was the American Revolution against Britain – this was a situation where Anglos also fought fiercely to not be ruled by their racial and cultural kin – and for the exact same reason as Taiwan and Hong Kong do today. No one likes tyranny.

    Because it is part of the law and constitution of the country – that the land belongs to China. If

    All that legal stuff is not what in am talking about. I am talking about simple common sense notions of natural morality – why wish to rule over people who do not wish to be ruled by you? Especially fringe areas that haven’t been ruled by you in a very long time.

    Where’s the justice in that? And doesn’t that just mean you’re an egotistic control-freak?

    We all know people in our personal lives who try and control us and rule over us – we generally don’t like these people, and correctly realize that they have a serious ego problem.

    So why is China so much about “control” of others? Why this need to control people – both their own people and others?

    It is no different than if California wants to secede – it needs consents from the other 49 states

    California can secede if it wants to as far as I’m concerned. I would be totally against forcing any one to stay in any union they don’t wish to. In general, in the West, regions can secede if a majority wish to – Scotland, etc.

    Although trying to extend your rule forcibly over a people you haven’t ruled in a long time is very different.

    Why don’t you ask instead: why do so many westerners care – they care so much they are willing to ask US to risk nuclear war with China.

    Well, I generally think people who love freedom should help and support others who love freedom against totalitarians. Kind of we’re all in this together against the tyrants, band of brothers kind of thing.

    Problem is, America and the order it represents and oversees is very much less free than it used to be and is slowly becoming more repressive and less free – and I am not even talking about the SJW kind of thing. Just in every day life its noticeable that dissent from the religion of making money and controlling everything is less and less tolerated.

    So the religion of control is hardly limited to China.

    So even though China is very unfree, that doesn’t mean America represents freedom – I don’t think in simple binaries like most of the crude commenters of Unz.

    But unfortunately, instead of trying to make us freer, people like Ron Unz want to push towards an even less free Chinese model.

    • Agree: Charon
    • Replies: @showmethereal
    "California can secede if it wants to as far as I’m concerned. I would be totally against forcing any one to stay in any union they don’t wish to"

    Doesn't matter what you want... It matters what the law is.. If a referendum passed in California and was brought to the Congress there would have to be a super majority in the Congress would have to vote for it to happen. How likely do you think that would be?? Slim to none... Though I have a feeling many would gladly vote to get rid of Puerto Rico as a territory.... Well as long as there is an agreement to let US troops use it whenever they want.
    , @d dan

    "That your racial and cultural kin do not wish to be ruled by you is highly significant."
     
    No, this is totally normal in many parts of the world and in human history. You think all whites prefer Trump than Obama? And what about American Civil War - you believe the fairy tale that Lincoln wanted to free slave? Many southern whites hated their northern kin too.

    "All that legal stuff is not what in am talking about. I am talking about simple common sense notions of natural morality – why wish to rule over people who do not wish to be ruled by you? Especially fringe areas that haven’t been ruled by you in a very long time."
     
    Yes, in the ideal world, we don't need police and everyone should just live happily respecting each other forever... Until then, we need laws and order, and we need national government, and we need control. It is up to Chinese people to decide whether its government oversteps those necessity and violates their morality, not foreigners.

    "California can secede if it wants to as far as I’m concerned. I would be totally against forcing any one to stay in any union they don’t wish to."
     
    US Constitution currently doesn't allow that. Why don't you lobby the change of constitution to free its people first? I guarantee there will be at least dozens of independence states formed by native Americans, Latinos, black nationalists, white nationalists, jew nationalists, Eskimo or Hawaiians, ... within a few years after the change of US constitution. I personally is confident that I can organize a movement to garner enough votes for at least a mini China republic out of NY or San Franc. China towns in 3 months.

    "In general, in the West, regions can secede if a majority wish to – Scotland, etc."
     
    Firstly, I don't believe Scotland will be allowed to be independent even if they have won the vote. There would certainly be years of roadblocks ahead. Secondly, heard of Catalan independence?

    "Well, I generally think people who love freedom should help and support others who love freedom against totalitarians. Kind of we’re all in this together against the tyrants, band of brothers kind of thing."
     
    Sure. I also think people should care about their own countries first. You don't understand Chinese, nor Taiwanese, nor Iraqi, nor Afghan. You should learn from your history how your "help and support" *always* turned out.
    , @UK

    egotistic control-freak?
     
    Bingo.

    So much of foreign affairs commentary is just people's egos selecting an avatar (normally a country) and then trying to massage themselves through identifying with the exploits of that country.

    It is reminiscent of the bloke who lectured me for hours on why I just had to use Mac instead of Windows...I liked Windows and am a very casual user...why does he care if I use a different operating system?

    He'll say it is for my benefit but it obviously was not. Just the lecture was not worth whatever the purported benefit of moving from a system, that I am perfectly happy and comfortable with, to another could ever bring. Nor was it for his actual benefit, like making his product better. It was just a very annoying ego trip and we could have had a much better time.

    on this note, I think some quite immature women probably identify this as mansplaining. Of course, they are often engaging in some serious self-criticism without realising, but that's another matter.

    Indeed, practically everyone has been guilty of such things. It is pretty normal stuff in one context or another, I've certainly done it - if in increasingly subtle ways as I got older - but once you really, really, really see it, it is a bit sad and alienating and genuinely disappointing.

    I'm not quite clear on how I feel about this seeing it everywhere myself, and this quarantine is kind of annoying because I can't really go out and look. Perhaps it is just shame in how stupid and egotistical I must have sounded to so many people who could see through me in the past. Then again, maybe I am just sad at all of the times I missed to actually make a proper connection and the wonderful people I never really got to know or even know if they really were wonderful at all.
    , @antibeast


    The analogous situation was the American Revolution against Britain – this was a situation where Anglos also fought fiercely to not be ruled by their racial and cultural kin – and for the exact same reason as Taiwan and Hong Kong do today. No one likes tyranny.

     

    Sorry to interrupt your discussion but you're missing something here.

    The analogous situation would be the American Civil War between the North and the South -- this was a situation where the Yanks fought fiercely against the South to prevent it from seceding from the USA.
  105. @d dan

    "Or can only the British “steal” land and not the Russians?"
     
    Historically, they both did steal. Modern leaders have largely settled those land claims peacefully. Stating obvious historical fact has nothing to do with being "anti-British nonsense".

    "The British built the modern city of Hong Kong ..."
     
    Please let me know how many laborers did British sent to Hong Kong to build those skyscrapers, ports, roads, subways... No? Granted, British contributed in some aspects like laws and order, international connections, etc. But Hong Kong was largely built by Hong Kongers, i.e. Chinese.

    British had a lot of colonies - some became successful and other failed miserably. It is so revealing that British of today only *take ownership* of the successful ones but feel *no responsibility* about the failed ones.

    British had a lot of colonies – some became successful and other failed miserably. It is so revealing that British of today only *take ownership* of the successful ones but feel *no responsibility* about the failed ones.

    Retarded bio-Leninism is the reason for this. What you view as failures are mostly not, when taking into account differences in populations. The British brought economic growth most places they went. This still has a legacy today in the use of the English language. India’s economic niche in IT for example is almost entirely due to English language adoption, and has little to do with the talent of the population.

    In the heydays of the British Empire, if local disease didn’t take them out, the British could go just about anywhere and economic growth followed. The world is a different place today of course, where the U.K. is a U.S. vassal governed by useless people.

  106. @utu
    The legal issues of Hong Kong favor China. However Taiwan could make a good case for its independence and new political climate its claim to sovereignty will be recognized. Taiwan was never Chinese. The US should show the way. If the US wants to stop China Taiwan is the place to start.

    There are no significant U.S. interests in Taiwan. That has never stopped U.S. elites of course, but they are not going to take on China militarily over Taiwan. What U.S. elites want is a passive-aggressive, faggy Cold War 2.0.

    If Taiwanese had mass conscription, were willing to destroy themselves just to keep the mainlanders out, and had invested more into military over decades, they might conceivably be able to prevent a maritime invasion if they had help from the Japanese. But since they have barely tried to defend themselves, the only thing keeping the Chinese from taking over Taiwan is the high cost of the operation.

    There is no reason for the U.S. to do anything to Taiwan other than sell them military hardware and at most show token support.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
    Good points. To dig further... Most who make comments like 'utu' don't realize that the only thing that stopped Taiwan from being taken while the Chinese civil war was "hot" was the Korean War. Mao and his team made the conscious decision that it was better to have US troops 80 miles away in Taiwan rather right at the border at the Yalu River. The Soviets were training their airforce and navy to go take back Taiwan. But plans changed so - they preferred to push the US back down to the 38th parallel of the Korean Peninsula. History is far more complex than fiction.
  107. @reiner Tor

    I guess you didn’t realize China had a massive trade surplus with the west back then as well.
     
    I don’t know why you think so. The trade surplus was the major reason for the Opium Wars, since the British couldn’t really sell anything to China, while they wanted to keep buying Chinese goods, and correctly understood that by opening China up for opium imports, they’d be able to increase the amount of their imports from China.

    The point I was making is that Hong Kong is a trading post – just now it’s financial rather than real goods. That was always it’s purpose. But it’s not as if the British introduced the concept to southern China. Canton was where the emperor allowed foreigners to trade – so the British wanted their own rules and laws – so they set up Hong Kong just downstream. So the reason Hong Kong has pride issues is now that the mainland has become a trading nation again. Hong Kong has lost the shine it had. Hong Kong only became an international hub in the past few decades. It only existed as an entryway to China.

  108. @EldnahYm
    There are no significant U.S. interests in Taiwan. That has never stopped U.S. elites of course, but they are not going to take on China militarily over Taiwan. What U.S. elites want is a passive-aggressive, faggy Cold War 2.0.

    If Taiwanese had mass conscription, were willing to destroy themselves just to keep the mainlanders out, and had invested more into military over decades, they might conceivably be able to prevent a maritime invasion if they had help from the Japanese. But since they have barely tried to defend themselves, the only thing keeping the Chinese from taking over Taiwan is the high cost of the operation.

    There is no reason for the U.S. to do anything to Taiwan other than sell them military hardware and at most show token support.

    Good points. To dig further… Most who make comments like ‘utu’ don’t realize that the only thing that stopped Taiwan from being taken while the Chinese civil war was “hot” was the Korean War. Mao and his team made the conscious decision that it was better to have US troops 80 miles away in Taiwan rather right at the border at the Yalu River. The Soviets were training their airforce and navy to go take back Taiwan. But plans changed so – they preferred to push the US back down to the 38th parallel of the Korean Peninsula. History is far more complex than fiction.

  109. @AaronB

    Pure BS. Native Americans must all be dying to be part of the union. The US didn’t have war of aggression with Mexico, …
     
    Sure, America fought Mexicans, a foreign people, but the Anglo settlers of those states wanted to become part of America.

    That your racial and cultural kin do not wish to be ruled by you is highly significant.

    The analogous situation was the American Revolution against Britain - this was a situation where Anglos also fought fiercely to not be ruled by their racial and cultural kin - and for the exact same reason as Taiwan and Hong Kong do today. No one likes tyranny.

    Because it is part of the law and constitution of the country – that the land belongs to China. If
     
    All that legal stuff is not what in am talking about. I am talking about simple common sense notions of natural morality - why wish to rule over people who do not wish to be ruled by you? Especially fringe areas that haven't been ruled by you in a very long time.

    Where's the justice in that? And doesn't that just mean you're an egotistic control-freak?

    We all know people in our personal lives who try and control us and rule over us - we generally don't like these people, and correctly realize that they have a serious ego problem.

    So why is China so much about "control" of others? Why this need to control people - both their own people and others?

    It is no different than if California wants to secede – it needs consents from the other 49 states
     
    California can secede if it wants to as far as I'm concerned. I would be totally against forcing any one to stay in any union they don't wish to. In general, in the West, regions can secede if a majority wish to - Scotland, etc.

    Although trying to extend your rule forcibly over a people you haven't ruled in a long time is very different.

    Why don’t you ask instead: why do so many westerners care – they care so much they are willing to ask US to risk nuclear war with China.
     
    Well, I generally think people who love freedom should help and support others who love freedom against totalitarians. Kind of we're all in this together against the tyrants, band of brothers kind of thing.

    Problem is, America and the order it represents and oversees is very much less free than it used to be and is slowly becoming more repressive and less free - and I am not even talking about the SJW kind of thing. Just in every day life its noticeable that dissent from the religion of making money and controlling everything is less and less tolerated.

    So the religion of control is hardly limited to China.

    So even though China is very unfree, that doesn't mean America represents freedom - I don't think in simple binaries like most of the crude commenters of Unz.

    But unfortunately, instead of trying to make us freer, people like Ron Unz want to push towards an even less free Chinese model.

    “California can secede if it wants to as far as I’m concerned. I would be totally against forcing any one to stay in any union they don’t wish to”

    Doesn’t matter what you want… It matters what the law is.. If a referendum passed in California and was brought to the Congress there would have to be a super majority in the Congress would have to vote for it to happen. How likely do you think that would be?? Slim to none… Though I have a feeling many would gladly vote to get rid of Puerto Rico as a territory…. Well as long as there is an agreement to let US troops use it whenever they want.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    I already explained I'm not interested in the legal aspects of this situation. Laws are just tools humans use to organize their competition with each other according to an agreed upon set of standards. Lots of laws are plainly immoral.

    The best that can be said about laws is that they create predictability, which is necessary for humans, but to make an idol out of laws is stupid.

    I'm interested in the simple common sense morality of the situation.

    How is it just to use violence to force your rule over another people who don't want it? And what does your desire to control others say about you?

    I'm not saying America is fantastic. I think both America and China are part of a global trend towards "over-control" - in all aspects of life, including thought and emotion - and that the negative aspects of both of these countries stem from this source. I think this is tied to the technological mindset. I just think China is further advanced down this road, although in different ways.

    I'm being asked to see China has benevolent and innocuous, but the facts don't support that. That does not mean I "support" America.

    The kind of world I want to live in is represented by neither America nor China - Karlin talks of the break up of "Chimerica", but it is in fact two strands of the same global strain fighting each other for supremacy. They are versions of the same beast.

    I'm dismayed to see supposed challengers of the American system, like this site, merely support a more extreme variant of the negative trends in America. That merely shows to me that everyone wants to be a tyrant - just with their system being imposed - and there is no true dissent from modernism. Like National Socialism and Communism, we are once again being offered a choice within the same narrow ideological spectrum.

    No one has yet figured out a way to actually challenge the underlying assumptions of modernity itself and break out into a new paradigm - maybe its not a question of who gets to control for what purpose, but to not seek to over-control? - and we remain stuck recycling various versions of modernity based on the same assumptions.

    In the long run, systems of over-control build up so much pressure with their repressions that they eventually explode. Legalism lasted the least long of all of China's systems. With this Covid panic, we are perhaps being given a taste of how the modernist system will implode - under its own weight.
    , @Astuteobservor II
    I am surprised you can hold a conversation with the Zionist who can kill brain cells with his stupid comments.
  110. @AaronB

    Pure BS. Native Americans must all be dying to be part of the union. The US didn’t have war of aggression with Mexico, …
     
    Sure, America fought Mexicans, a foreign people, but the Anglo settlers of those states wanted to become part of America.

    That your racial and cultural kin do not wish to be ruled by you is highly significant.

    The analogous situation was the American Revolution against Britain - this was a situation where Anglos also fought fiercely to not be ruled by their racial and cultural kin - and for the exact same reason as Taiwan and Hong Kong do today. No one likes tyranny.

    Because it is part of the law and constitution of the country – that the land belongs to China. If
     
    All that legal stuff is not what in am talking about. I am talking about simple common sense notions of natural morality - why wish to rule over people who do not wish to be ruled by you? Especially fringe areas that haven't been ruled by you in a very long time.

    Where's the justice in that? And doesn't that just mean you're an egotistic control-freak?

    We all know people in our personal lives who try and control us and rule over us - we generally don't like these people, and correctly realize that they have a serious ego problem.

    So why is China so much about "control" of others? Why this need to control people - both their own people and others?

    It is no different than if California wants to secede – it needs consents from the other 49 states
     
    California can secede if it wants to as far as I'm concerned. I would be totally against forcing any one to stay in any union they don't wish to. In general, in the West, regions can secede if a majority wish to - Scotland, etc.

    Although trying to extend your rule forcibly over a people you haven't ruled in a long time is very different.

    Why don’t you ask instead: why do so many westerners care – they care so much they are willing to ask US to risk nuclear war with China.
     
    Well, I generally think people who love freedom should help and support others who love freedom against totalitarians. Kind of we're all in this together against the tyrants, band of brothers kind of thing.

    Problem is, America and the order it represents and oversees is very much less free than it used to be and is slowly becoming more repressive and less free - and I am not even talking about the SJW kind of thing. Just in every day life its noticeable that dissent from the religion of making money and controlling everything is less and less tolerated.

    So the religion of control is hardly limited to China.

    So even though China is very unfree, that doesn't mean America represents freedom - I don't think in simple binaries like most of the crude commenters of Unz.

    But unfortunately, instead of trying to make us freer, people like Ron Unz want to push towards an even less free Chinese model.

    “That your racial and cultural kin do not wish to be ruled by you is highly significant.”

    No, this is totally normal in many parts of the world and in human history. You think all whites prefer Trump than Obama? And what about American Civil War – you believe the fairy tale that Lincoln wanted to free slave? Many southern whites hated their northern kin too.

    “All that legal stuff is not what in am talking about. I am talking about simple common sense notions of natural morality – why wish to rule over people who do not wish to be ruled by you? Especially fringe areas that haven’t been ruled by you in a very long time.”

    Yes, in the ideal world, we don’t need police and everyone should just live happily respecting each other forever… Until then, we need laws and order, and we need national government, and we need control. It is up to Chinese people to decide whether its government oversteps those necessity and violates their morality, not foreigners.

    “California can secede if it wants to as far as I’m concerned. I would be totally against forcing any one to stay in any union they don’t wish to.”

    US Constitution currently doesn’t allow that. Why don’t you lobby the change of constitution to free its people first? I guarantee there will be at least dozens of independence states formed by native Americans, Latinos, black nationalists, white nationalists, jew nationalists, Eskimo or Hawaiians, … within a few years after the change of US constitution. I personally is confident that I can organize a movement to garner enough votes for at least a mini China republic out of NY or San Franc. China towns in 3 months.

    “In general, in the West, regions can secede if a majority wish to – Scotland, etc.”

    Firstly, I don’t believe Scotland will be allowed to be independent even if they have won the vote. There would certainly be years of roadblocks ahead. Secondly, heard of Catalan independence?

    “Well, I generally think people who love freedom should help and support others who love freedom against totalitarians. Kind of we’re all in this together against the tyrants, band of brothers kind of thing.”

    Sure. I also think people should care about their own countries first. You don’t understand Chinese, nor Taiwanese, nor Iraqi, nor Afghan. You should learn from your history how your “help and support” *always* turned out.

  111. @showmethereal
    "California can secede if it wants to as far as I’m concerned. I would be totally against forcing any one to stay in any union they don’t wish to"

    Doesn't matter what you want... It matters what the law is.. If a referendum passed in California and was brought to the Congress there would have to be a super majority in the Congress would have to vote for it to happen. How likely do you think that would be?? Slim to none... Though I have a feeling many would gladly vote to get rid of Puerto Rico as a territory.... Well as long as there is an agreement to let US troops use it whenever they want.

    I already explained I’m not interested in the legal aspects of this situation. Laws are just tools humans use to organize their competition with each other according to an agreed upon set of standards. Lots of laws are plainly immoral.

    The best that can be said about laws is that they create predictability, which is necessary for humans, but to make an idol out of laws is stupid.

    I’m interested in the simple common sense morality of the situation.

    How is it just to use violence to force your rule over another people who don’t want it? And what does your desire to control others say about you?

    I’m not saying America is fantastic. I think both America and China are part of a global trend towards “over-control” – in all aspects of life, including thought and emotion – and that the negative aspects of both of these countries stem from this source. I think this is tied to the technological mindset. I just think China is further advanced down this road, although in different ways.

    I’m being asked to see China has benevolent and innocuous, but the facts don’t support that. That does not mean I “support” America.

    The kind of world I want to live in is represented by neither America nor China – Karlin talks of the break up of “Chimerica”, but it is in fact two strands of the same global strain fighting each other for supremacy. They are versions of the same beast.

    I’m dismayed to see supposed challengers of the American system, like this site, merely support a more extreme variant of the negative trends in America. That merely shows to me that everyone wants to be a tyrant – just with their system being imposed – and there is no true dissent from modernism. Like National Socialism and Communism, we are once again being offered a choice within the same narrow ideological spectrum.

    No one has yet figured out a way to actually challenge the underlying assumptions of modernity itself and break out into a new paradigm – maybe its not a question of who gets to control for what purpose, but to not seek to over-control? – and we remain stuck recycling various versions of modernity based on the same assumptions.

    In the long run, systems of over-control build up so much pressure with their repressions that they eventually explode. Legalism lasted the least long of all of China’s systems. With this Covid panic, we are perhaps being given a taste of how the modernist system will implode – under its own weight.

  112. As the decoupling is completed. All restraints on the Chinese would be off.

    First Hong Kong, soon Taiwan.

    If decoupling can be completed within the next few years, I am 100% certain Taiwan will be taken by China soon after.

    During this economic tug of words, China is renegotiating the free trade agreement with SK n JP. Renewing the push to modernized inner China so all their eggs are not on the coastlines.

    The CCP isn’t stupid after all. They finally woke up 8 years after Asian pivot.

    • Replies: @d dan

    "As the decoupling is completed. All restraints on the Chinese would be off."
     
    You should notice that the thread has morphed from "Breaking Chimerica" to "Breaking China". I know it spells almost the same - but you can never know what "intelligent" commenters think.

    As they say, the two most favorite ways for westerners to throw tantrum are to break a lot of chinas and to blame a lot on China.

  113. @showmethereal
    "California can secede if it wants to as far as I’m concerned. I would be totally against forcing any one to stay in any union they don’t wish to"

    Doesn't matter what you want... It matters what the law is.. If a referendum passed in California and was brought to the Congress there would have to be a super majority in the Congress would have to vote for it to happen. How likely do you think that would be?? Slim to none... Though I have a feeling many would gladly vote to get rid of Puerto Rico as a territory.... Well as long as there is an agreement to let US troops use it whenever they want.

    I am surprised you can hold a conversation with the Zionist who can kill brain cells with his stupid comments.

  114. UK says:
    @AaronB

    Pure BS. Native Americans must all be dying to be part of the union. The US didn’t have war of aggression with Mexico, …
     
    Sure, America fought Mexicans, a foreign people, but the Anglo settlers of those states wanted to become part of America.

    That your racial and cultural kin do not wish to be ruled by you is highly significant.

    The analogous situation was the American Revolution against Britain - this was a situation where Anglos also fought fiercely to not be ruled by their racial and cultural kin - and for the exact same reason as Taiwan and Hong Kong do today. No one likes tyranny.

    Because it is part of the law and constitution of the country – that the land belongs to China. If
     
    All that legal stuff is not what in am talking about. I am talking about simple common sense notions of natural morality - why wish to rule over people who do not wish to be ruled by you? Especially fringe areas that haven't been ruled by you in a very long time.

    Where's the justice in that? And doesn't that just mean you're an egotistic control-freak?

    We all know people in our personal lives who try and control us and rule over us - we generally don't like these people, and correctly realize that they have a serious ego problem.

    So why is China so much about "control" of others? Why this need to control people - both their own people and others?

    It is no different than if California wants to secede – it needs consents from the other 49 states
     
    California can secede if it wants to as far as I'm concerned. I would be totally against forcing any one to stay in any union they don't wish to. In general, in the West, regions can secede if a majority wish to - Scotland, etc.

    Although trying to extend your rule forcibly over a people you haven't ruled in a long time is very different.

    Why don’t you ask instead: why do so many westerners care – they care so much they are willing to ask US to risk nuclear war with China.
     
    Well, I generally think people who love freedom should help and support others who love freedom against totalitarians. Kind of we're all in this together against the tyrants, band of brothers kind of thing.

    Problem is, America and the order it represents and oversees is very much less free than it used to be and is slowly becoming more repressive and less free - and I am not even talking about the SJW kind of thing. Just in every day life its noticeable that dissent from the religion of making money and controlling everything is less and less tolerated.

    So the religion of control is hardly limited to China.

    So even though China is very unfree, that doesn't mean America represents freedom - I don't think in simple binaries like most of the crude commenters of Unz.

    But unfortunately, instead of trying to make us freer, people like Ron Unz want to push towards an even less free Chinese model.

    egotistic control-freak?

    Bingo.

    So much of foreign affairs commentary is just people’s egos selecting an avatar (normally a country) and then trying to massage themselves through identifying with the exploits of that country.

    It is reminiscent of the bloke who lectured me for hours on why I just had to use Mac instead of Windows…I liked Windows and am a very casual user…why does he care if I use a different operating system?

    He’ll say it is for my benefit but it obviously was not. Just the lecture was not worth whatever the purported benefit of moving from a system, that I am perfectly happy and comfortable with, to another could ever bring. Nor was it for his actual benefit, like making his product better. It was just a very annoying ego trip and we could have had a much better time.

    on this note, I think some quite immature women probably identify this as mansplaining. Of course, they are often engaging in some serious self-criticism without realising, but that’s another matter.

    Indeed, practically everyone has been guilty of such things. It is pretty normal stuff in one context or another, I’ve certainly done it – if in increasingly subtle ways as I got older – but once you really, really, really see it, it is a bit sad and alienating and genuinely disappointing.

    I’m not quite clear on how I feel about this seeing it everywhere myself, and this quarantine is kind of annoying because I can’t really go out and look. Perhaps it is just shame in how stupid and egotistical I must have sounded to so many people who could see through me in the past. Then again, maybe I am just sad at all of the times I missed to actually make a proper connection and the wonderful people I never really got to know or even know if they really were wonderful at all.

    • Replies: @AaronB

    So much of foreign affairs commentary is just people’s egos selecting an avatar (normally a country) and then trying to massage themselves through identifying with the exploits of that country.
     
    This is so true. And you see it especially with that particular little country in the Middle East. Which is why it's generally pointless to argue "facts" and no one is ever convinced by logic. Your football team is your football team, chosen for reasons of archaic symbolism that go down to the roots of your identity. And you remain atavistically loyal to your football team.

    We've all town done, I've done it, and I'm sure ill do it again. Its an ineradicable human tendency. The only thing one can do is laugh at oneself and not take oneself so seriously :) We are all fools, all of us. No need even yo stop doing it if it fulfills the emotional needs of the moment as long as you recognize it and laugh a bit at what you're doing.

    Gentle laughter - not at all malicious - is probably the only truly profound commentary on human affairs.
  115. @Astuteobservor II
    As the decoupling is completed. All restraints on the Chinese would be off.

    First Hong Kong, soon Taiwan.

    If decoupling can be completed within the next few years, I am 100% certain Taiwan will be taken by China soon after.

    During this economic tug of words, China is renegotiating the free trade agreement with SK n JP. Renewing the push to modernized inner China so all their eggs are not on the coastlines.

    The CCP isn't stupid after all. They finally woke up 8 years after Asian pivot.

    “As the decoupling is completed. All restraints on the Chinese would be off.”

    You should notice that the thread has morphed from “Breaking Chimerica” to “Breaking China”. I know it spells almost the same – but you can never know what “intelligent” commenters think.

    As they say, the two most favorite ways for westerners to throw tantrum are to break a lot of chinas and to blame a lot on China.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    No one is trying to break China. Some people here don't like the CCP, because they oppose any kind of excessive over-control, but the main editorial line on Unz is admiration for the authoritative nature of the CCP and the fervent wish that America move in that direction.

    A big part of that is admiration for cold, inhuman "efficiency" on the part of tech types like Ron Unz and Karlin - but also because they are not in principle opposed to harsh authoritarianism, just as long as they get to determine the rules.

    While I too admire efficiency, I think being too efficient means being soulless. And an overly efficient society will be a dull and uncreative one.

    For my part, I wish both China and the US - and the globe - move away from its growing control-freak tendencies. But it is a global tendency that will likely grow until it implodes under its own pressure - not too far off, I think.

    The question of Taiwan is an interesting one - will allowing China to gobble it up appease it or will just embolden it to try again somewhere else? What does history say?

    My hope is that China eventually gives up its - historically understandable - attempt to throw its weight around and be a bully and pioneers a new kind of technological civilization, rooted in its Taoist past, that combines integration with and respect for Nature while remaining on the cutting edge of modernity. But such an attitude would be a shift away from a power-hungry attitude.

    Combining the best of East and West to pioneer something truly new - so much better than this absurd attempt to imitate 19th century European nationalist nonsense.

    Nor am I suggesting China merely submit to an American led world order than can also be unfair - American power is declining anyways and we have our own transformation to make towards a less power hungry attitude.

    Of course, what I want is irrelevant, and history will take its inevitable course as human folly makes all the decisions.

    I guess the only thing to do is enjoy the ride and have fun.
  116. @Daniel Chieh
    ROC claims all of China. Legally kinda difficult to back out of that now.

    I understand. Taiwan could cut off form the past impose by the Kuomintang invaders.

  117. @d dan

    "As the decoupling is completed. All restraints on the Chinese would be off."
     
    You should notice that the thread has morphed from "Breaking Chimerica" to "Breaking China". I know it spells almost the same - but you can never know what "intelligent" commenters think.

    As they say, the two most favorite ways for westerners to throw tantrum are to break a lot of chinas and to blame a lot on China.

    No one is trying to break China. Some people here don’t like the CCP, because they oppose any kind of excessive over-control, but the main editorial line on Unz is admiration for the authoritative nature of the CCP and the fervent wish that America move in that direction.

    A big part of that is admiration for cold, inhuman “efficiency” on the part of tech types like Ron Unz and Karlin – but also because they are not in principle opposed to harsh authoritarianism, just as long as they get to determine the rules.

    While I too admire efficiency, I think being too efficient means being soulless. And an overly efficient society will be a dull and uncreative one.

    For my part, I wish both China and the US – and the globe – move away from its growing control-freak tendencies. But it is a global tendency that will likely grow until it implodes under its own pressure – not too far off, I think.

    The question of Taiwan is an interesting one – will allowing China to gobble it up appease it or will just embolden it to try again somewhere else? What does history say?

    My hope is that China eventually gives up its – historically understandable – attempt to throw its weight around and be a bully and pioneers a new kind of technological civilization, rooted in its Taoist past, that combines integration with and respect for Nature while remaining on the cutting edge of modernity. But such an attitude would be a shift away from a power-hungry attitude.

    Combining the best of East and West to pioneer something truly new – so much better than this absurd attempt to imitate 19th century European nationalist nonsense.

    Nor am I suggesting China merely submit to an American led world order than can also be unfair – American power is declining anyways and we have our own transformation to make towards a less power hungry attitude.

    Of course, what I want is irrelevant, and history will take its inevitable course as human folly makes all the decisions.

    I guess the only thing to do is enjoy the ride and have fun.

    • Replies: @d dan

    "excessive over-control", "cold", "inhuman", "harsh authoritarianism", "soulless", "control-freak", "bully" ...
     
    Look at yourself. These are PLENTY of words you throw out in a short post to describe or insinuate about Chinese government, the people or its current culture. The unstated assumptions therefore also imply that Chinese people are either stupid, unenlightened, brainwashed, or coward; and commenters like me and other China supporters are either paid trolls or idiots.

    This despite the facts that you are unlikely to read and speak Chinese, unlikely to stay or study in China for a long time, unlikely to have too much interactions with Chinese government, unlike.... As I noted previously - you know too little about Chinese.

    In my opinion, the reason that conversations with you, utu, and other westerners are going nowhere is not because any one side is fool - but because one side has a superiority attitude.

  118. @UK

    egotistic control-freak?
     
    Bingo.

    So much of foreign affairs commentary is just people's egos selecting an avatar (normally a country) and then trying to massage themselves through identifying with the exploits of that country.

    It is reminiscent of the bloke who lectured me for hours on why I just had to use Mac instead of Windows...I liked Windows and am a very casual user...why does he care if I use a different operating system?

    He'll say it is for my benefit but it obviously was not. Just the lecture was not worth whatever the purported benefit of moving from a system, that I am perfectly happy and comfortable with, to another could ever bring. Nor was it for his actual benefit, like making his product better. It was just a very annoying ego trip and we could have had a much better time.

    on this note, I think some quite immature women probably identify this as mansplaining. Of course, they are often engaging in some serious self-criticism without realising, but that's another matter.

    Indeed, practically everyone has been guilty of such things. It is pretty normal stuff in one context or another, I've certainly done it - if in increasingly subtle ways as I got older - but once you really, really, really see it, it is a bit sad and alienating and genuinely disappointing.

    I'm not quite clear on how I feel about this seeing it everywhere myself, and this quarantine is kind of annoying because I can't really go out and look. Perhaps it is just shame in how stupid and egotistical I must have sounded to so many people who could see through me in the past. Then again, maybe I am just sad at all of the times I missed to actually make a proper connection and the wonderful people I never really got to know or even know if they really were wonderful at all.

    So much of foreign affairs commentary is just people’s egos selecting an avatar (normally a country) and then trying to massage themselves through identifying with the exploits of that country.

    This is so true. And you see it especially with that particular little country in the Middle East. Which is why it’s generally pointless to argue “facts” and no one is ever convinced by logic. Your football team is your football team, chosen for reasons of archaic symbolism that go down to the roots of your identity. And you remain atavistically loyal to your football team.

    We’ve all town done, I’ve done it, and I’m sure ill do it again. Its an ineradicable human tendency. The only thing one can do is laugh at oneself and not take oneself so seriously 🙂 We are all fools, all of us. No need even yo stop doing it if it fulfills the emotional needs of the moment as long as you recognize it and laugh a bit at what you’re doing.

    Gentle laughter – not at all malicious – is probably the only truly profound commentary on human affairs.

  119. @AaronB

    Pure BS. Native Americans must all be dying to be part of the union. The US didn’t have war of aggression with Mexico, …
     
    Sure, America fought Mexicans, a foreign people, but the Anglo settlers of those states wanted to become part of America.

    That your racial and cultural kin do not wish to be ruled by you is highly significant.

    The analogous situation was the American Revolution against Britain - this was a situation where Anglos also fought fiercely to not be ruled by their racial and cultural kin - and for the exact same reason as Taiwan and Hong Kong do today. No one likes tyranny.

    Because it is part of the law and constitution of the country – that the land belongs to China. If
     
    All that legal stuff is not what in am talking about. I am talking about simple common sense notions of natural morality - why wish to rule over people who do not wish to be ruled by you? Especially fringe areas that haven't been ruled by you in a very long time.

    Where's the justice in that? And doesn't that just mean you're an egotistic control-freak?

    We all know people in our personal lives who try and control us and rule over us - we generally don't like these people, and correctly realize that they have a serious ego problem.

    So why is China so much about "control" of others? Why this need to control people - both their own people and others?

    It is no different than if California wants to secede – it needs consents from the other 49 states
     
    California can secede if it wants to as far as I'm concerned. I would be totally against forcing any one to stay in any union they don't wish to. In general, in the West, regions can secede if a majority wish to - Scotland, etc.

    Although trying to extend your rule forcibly over a people you haven't ruled in a long time is very different.

    Why don’t you ask instead: why do so many westerners care – they care so much they are willing to ask US to risk nuclear war with China.
     
    Well, I generally think people who love freedom should help and support others who love freedom against totalitarians. Kind of we're all in this together against the tyrants, band of brothers kind of thing.

    Problem is, America and the order it represents and oversees is very much less free than it used to be and is slowly becoming more repressive and less free - and I am not even talking about the SJW kind of thing. Just in every day life its noticeable that dissent from the religion of making money and controlling everything is less and less tolerated.

    So the religion of control is hardly limited to China.

    So even though China is very unfree, that doesn't mean America represents freedom - I don't think in simple binaries like most of the crude commenters of Unz.

    But unfortunately, instead of trying to make us freer, people like Ron Unz want to push towards an even less free Chinese model.

    The analogous situation was the American Revolution against Britain – this was a situation where Anglos also fought fiercely to not be ruled by their racial and cultural kin – and for the exact same reason as Taiwan and Hong Kong do today. No one likes tyranny.

    Sorry to interrupt your discussion but you’re missing something here.

    The analogous situation would be the American Civil War between the North and the South — this was a situation where the Yanks fought fiercely against the South to prevent it from seceding from the USA.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    I think that would be more like if Beijing was fighting Shanghai or something like that.

    This is more a situation where a smaller outpost does not want to be ruled by the larger mainland - so more like Britain and the early American colonies in this situation.

    Civil wars involving roughly equal chunks are much bigger stakes because they involve serious resources.

    Still, I'm totally opposed to that too.
  120. @Seraphim
    The British settlers stole the lands of the natives of America and Australia.

    Conquered & Purchased not ‘Stole’

  121. @AaronB
    No one is trying to break China. Some people here don't like the CCP, because they oppose any kind of excessive over-control, but the main editorial line on Unz is admiration for the authoritative nature of the CCP and the fervent wish that America move in that direction.

    A big part of that is admiration for cold, inhuman "efficiency" on the part of tech types like Ron Unz and Karlin - but also because they are not in principle opposed to harsh authoritarianism, just as long as they get to determine the rules.

    While I too admire efficiency, I think being too efficient means being soulless. And an overly efficient society will be a dull and uncreative one.

    For my part, I wish both China and the US - and the globe - move away from its growing control-freak tendencies. But it is a global tendency that will likely grow until it implodes under its own pressure - not too far off, I think.

    The question of Taiwan is an interesting one - will allowing China to gobble it up appease it or will just embolden it to try again somewhere else? What does history say?

    My hope is that China eventually gives up its - historically understandable - attempt to throw its weight around and be a bully and pioneers a new kind of technological civilization, rooted in its Taoist past, that combines integration with and respect for Nature while remaining on the cutting edge of modernity. But such an attitude would be a shift away from a power-hungry attitude.

    Combining the best of East and West to pioneer something truly new - so much better than this absurd attempt to imitate 19th century European nationalist nonsense.

    Nor am I suggesting China merely submit to an American led world order than can also be unfair - American power is declining anyways and we have our own transformation to make towards a less power hungry attitude.

    Of course, what I want is irrelevant, and history will take its inevitable course as human folly makes all the decisions.

    I guess the only thing to do is enjoy the ride and have fun.

    “excessive over-control”, “cold”, “inhuman”, “harsh authoritarianism”, “soulless”, “control-freak”, “bully” …

    Look at yourself. These are PLENTY of words you throw out in a short post to describe or insinuate about Chinese government, the people or its current culture. The unstated assumptions therefore also imply that Chinese people are either stupid, unenlightened, brainwashed, or coward; and commenters like me and other China supporters are either paid trolls or idiots.

    This despite the facts that you are unlikely to read and speak Chinese, unlikely to stay or study in China for a long time, unlikely to have too much interactions with Chinese government, unlike…. As I noted previously – you know too little about Chinese.

    In my opinion, the reason that conversations with you, utu, and other westerners are going nowhere is not because any one side is fool – but because one side has a superiority attitude.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    I am not describing the Chinese people - but the CCP.

    And I don't think Chinese people are stupid for supporting it until now, and continuing to give it some level of support. At this particular period, China needed growth and order more than anything. It was a bargain with the devil that sometimes has to be made.

    But things are changing. There is already significant unhappiness within mainland China at the regime, as we saw emerge over this pandemic, that had to be brutally crushed.

    And since dissent is punished so harshly, and information restricted, its hard to know what the Chinese people truly want. Then of course there is much nationalist propaganda designed to direct anger outwards.

    I have been at pains to make clear I am not a Western triumphalist who simply thinks the West is better than China. In fact, what I dislike about China I think is a global trend that originated in the West and is also infecting the West. And I think China's traditional culture is uniquely suited to provide the global antitode to the negative trends originating in the West.

    China can be a global leader in leading the world towards a new attitude towards technology and modernity.
  122. @d dan


    “Neither PRC nor ROC constitutions allow secession by referendum. “
     
    Moronic argument and a lie. Taiwan is not seceding as it never was a part of PRC. The referendum is not necessary to give the ROC government mandate to proclaim the sovereignty.
     
    I know my comment may be too long for you - but at least try to read the important points before replying.

    Of course, everyone knows ROC currently has "sovereignty" (as in the power to rule) over the island - that maybe your semantic sleight of hand - but the question is whether it is/should be an independent state. Since ROC Constitution states that Taiwan is part of mainland China. the key to "independence" is to break its tie (i.e. to secede) from mainland. Therefore, it needs to amend its constitution. Yes, referendum is irrelevant and insufficient - but it was you who brought it up as if it gives justification to the independence issue.

    Maybe a picture will be worth a thousands words for you. Look at what ROC claims:
    https://external-preview.redd.it/mmywZWxoPXT9Szg-x4FXWkwlblM7MKmRYWYTdWq36O0.jpg?auto=webp&s=4b654320b33bd46d63a40d9785bb1b1a28b68084

    "The US should dust off all treaties and agreements it had with Taiwan and proceed with its support of Taiwan sovereignty as its official policy towards China."
     
    You failed in your attempt to make case for "Taiwan was never Chinese." But you still insist US should support a "Taiwan sovereignty" - a classic example of making decision by emotion - not facts nor logic.

    True… Though the ROC did eventually give up the claims to Outer Mongolia.. I guess they finally got over being betrayed by the US – who negotiated that deal with Stalin.

  123. @d dan

    "excessive over-control", "cold", "inhuman", "harsh authoritarianism", "soulless", "control-freak", "bully" ...
     
    Look at yourself. These are PLENTY of words you throw out in a short post to describe or insinuate about Chinese government, the people or its current culture. The unstated assumptions therefore also imply that Chinese people are either stupid, unenlightened, brainwashed, or coward; and commenters like me and other China supporters are either paid trolls or idiots.

    This despite the facts that you are unlikely to read and speak Chinese, unlikely to stay or study in China for a long time, unlikely to have too much interactions with Chinese government, unlike.... As I noted previously - you know too little about Chinese.

    In my opinion, the reason that conversations with you, utu, and other westerners are going nowhere is not because any one side is fool - but because one side has a superiority attitude.

    I am not describing the Chinese people – but the CCP.

    And I don’t think Chinese people are stupid for supporting it until now, and continuing to give it some level of support. At this particular period, China needed growth and order more than anything. It was a bargain with the devil that sometimes has to be made.

    But things are changing. There is already significant unhappiness within mainland China at the regime, as we saw emerge over this pandemic, that had to be brutally crushed.

    And since dissent is punished so harshly, and information restricted, its hard to know what the Chinese people truly want. Then of course there is much nationalist propaganda designed to direct anger outwards.

    I have been at pains to make clear I am not a Western triumphalist who simply thinks the West is better than China. In fact, what I dislike about China I think is a global trend that originated in the West and is also infecting the West. And I think China’s traditional culture is uniquely suited to provide the global antitode to the negative trends originating in the West.

    China can be a global leader in leading the world towards a new attitude towards technology and modernity.

    • LOL: Daniel Chieh
  124. @antibeast


    The analogous situation was the American Revolution against Britain – this was a situation where Anglos also fought fiercely to not be ruled by their racial and cultural kin – and for the exact same reason as Taiwan and Hong Kong do today. No one likes tyranny.

     

    Sorry to interrupt your discussion but you're missing something here.

    The analogous situation would be the American Civil War between the North and the South -- this was a situation where the Yanks fought fiercely against the South to prevent it from seceding from the USA.

    I think that would be more like if Beijing was fighting Shanghai or something like that.

    This is more a situation where a smaller outpost does not want to be ruled by the larger mainland – so more like Britain and the early American colonies in this situation.

    Civil wars involving roughly equal chunks are much bigger stakes because they involve serious resources.

    Still, I’m totally opposed to that too.

    • Replies: @antibeast

    I think that would be more like if Beijing was fighting Shanghai or something like that.


     

    You seem to be grasping at straws here. The situation in Taiwan is exactly the by-product of the Chinese Civil War after Mao won against Chiang who fled to Taiwan where he moved the capital of the ROC government.

    This is more a situation where a smaller outpost does not want to be ruled by the larger mainland – so more like Britain and the early American colonies in this situation.


     

    The American Revolution was the byproduct of a rebellion by the American Colonies against the British Empire while the American Civil War was a war between two States within one Nation. So both the American and Chinese Civil Wars are analogous to each other because they involved the division of a Nation into two States.

    Civil wars involving roughly equal chunks are much bigger stakes because they involve serious resources.


     

    Civil wars have nothing to do with the size of territories involved but have everything to do with political conflicts within Sovereign Nations. Both the American and Chinese Civil Wars were exactly the by-product of political conflicts within the USA and China respectively.

    Still, I’m totally opposed to that too.


     

    Methinks you're just making things up.
  125. @AaronB
    I think that would be more like if Beijing was fighting Shanghai or something like that.

    This is more a situation where a smaller outpost does not want to be ruled by the larger mainland - so more like Britain and the early American colonies in this situation.

    Civil wars involving roughly equal chunks are much bigger stakes because they involve serious resources.

    Still, I'm totally opposed to that too.

    I think that would be more like if Beijing was fighting Shanghai or something like that.

    You seem to be grasping at straws here. The situation in Taiwan is exactly the by-product of the Chinese Civil War after Mao won against Chiang who fled to Taiwan where he moved the capital of the ROC government.

    This is more a situation where a smaller outpost does not want to be ruled by the larger mainland – so more like Britain and the early American colonies in this situation.

    The American Revolution was the byproduct of a rebellion by the American Colonies against the British Empire while the American Civil War was a war between two States within one Nation. So both the American and Chinese Civil Wars are analogous to each other because they involved the division of a Nation into two States.

    Civil wars involving roughly equal chunks are much bigger stakes because they involve serious resources.

    Civil wars have nothing to do with the size of territories involved but have everything to do with political conflicts within Sovereign Nations. Both the American and Chinese Civil Wars were exactly the by-product of political conflicts within the USA and China respectively.

    Still, I’m totally opposed to that too.

    Methinks you’re just making things up.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    You're entitled to your opinion. I don't think the situation is at all similar, for reasons I regard as obvious.

    And to be clear, I am also opposed to forcibly stopping any large population that no longer wishes to be ruled by a particular government system from leaving if they wish. So I am against Civil Wars.

    However, I think upsetting the status quo and trying to force small populations to be ruled by you against their will when you are doing well and have no particular need to do so, out of sheer ego, is worse.

    Threatening nuclear war to do so is insane.

    Civil Wars involving large and important territories are stupid enough, and pure power politics - the elites of one side doesn't wish to lose the resources and productive capacity of the other side, which would considerably diminish their overall power and wealth, so seek to compel them by force to remain. But seeking to rule over fringe ares out of pure ego is worse.

    Well, at least it shows what we are dealing with.

    I'm not "demonizing" the CCP - there is nothing unique about this in human history. It's quite normal to want to expand and increase ones power, or just assert ones ego, or just push others around because you can.

    But benevolence this ain't.
  126. @Thorfinnsson

    The land was stolen from Qinq dynasty – that is not a difficult or controversial concept, right?
     

    Incorrect.

    The land was conquered by the British.

    The Qing government ceded Hong Kong island to the United Kingdom, and then proceeded to lease the New Territories to Britain.

    Classical international law (rather than the modern globohomo nonsense) always recognized the Right of Conquest.

    If the British didn’t just “Conquer” the land, but also kicked off or killed off the native people, and prevented neighboring immigrations, like what the English speaking people managed to do in Australia and North America, but failed to accomplish in say South Africa, …

    However, the great grandkids always eventually become soft, …

    OTOH, the kids also likely get smarter that they invent Lawspeak, …

    But, like someone asked in another comment, what do I care? As long as there is peace and development.

    • Agree: showmethereal
  127. @antibeast

    I think that would be more like if Beijing was fighting Shanghai or something like that.


     

    You seem to be grasping at straws here. The situation in Taiwan is exactly the by-product of the Chinese Civil War after Mao won against Chiang who fled to Taiwan where he moved the capital of the ROC government.

    This is more a situation where a smaller outpost does not want to be ruled by the larger mainland – so more like Britain and the early American colonies in this situation.


     

    The American Revolution was the byproduct of a rebellion by the American Colonies against the British Empire while the American Civil War was a war between two States within one Nation. So both the American and Chinese Civil Wars are analogous to each other because they involved the division of a Nation into two States.

    Civil wars involving roughly equal chunks are much bigger stakes because they involve serious resources.


     

    Civil wars have nothing to do with the size of territories involved but have everything to do with political conflicts within Sovereign Nations. Both the American and Chinese Civil Wars were exactly the by-product of political conflicts within the USA and China respectively.

    Still, I’m totally opposed to that too.


     

    Methinks you're just making things up.

    You’re entitled to your opinion. I don’t think the situation is at all similar, for reasons I regard as obvious.

    And to be clear, I am also opposed to forcibly stopping any large population that no longer wishes to be ruled by a particular government system from leaving if they wish. So I am against Civil Wars.

    However, I think upsetting the status quo and trying to force small populations to be ruled by you against their will when you are doing well and have no particular need to do so, out of sheer ego, is worse.

    Threatening nuclear war to do so is insane.

    Civil Wars involving large and important territories are stupid enough, and pure power politics – the elites of one side doesn’t wish to lose the resources and productive capacity of the other side, which would considerably diminish their overall power and wealth, so seek to compel them by force to remain. But seeking to rule over fringe ares out of pure ego is worse.

    Well, at least it shows what we are dealing with.

    I’m not “demonizing” the CCP – there is nothing unique about this in human history. It’s quite normal to want to expand and increase ones power, or just assert ones ego, or just push others around because you can.

    But benevolence this ain’t.

    • Replies: @Malenfant

    However, I think upsetting the status quo and trying to force small populations to be ruled by you against their will when you are doing well and have no particular need to do so, out of sheer ego, is worse.

    Threatening nuclear war to do so is insane.
     
    Threatening who with nuclear war?

    China isn't threatening Hong Kong with nukes. (If it wanted to depopulate the city, it could simply shut off the water supply, as Hong Kong's fresh water comes from sources in China.)

    But if China decides to crack-down on those absolute faggots in Hong Kong who are waving around American flags, and if America takes this as its cue to confront China, it might come to war. A conventional war around Taiwan favors China, so the use of nukes isn't terribly likely. But, to be sure, the losing side might decide to let the missiles fly...

    This doesn't mean that the Chinese are threatening nuclear war over an internal matter. They're basically saying, "don't butt in; this is none of your affair, and we're prepared to go all the way." This sort of posturing and American belligerence are two sides of the same coin. I don't think that much will come of it, but time will tell, I suppose!
    , @d dan

    "trying to force small populations to be ruled by you against their will,... out of sheer ego,..."
     
    Already refuted that point. It is because of law and order, national unity, national security, popular demands (in mainland), etc, not ego. Your moral ground has to give way to those priorities - and the priority should be decided by the Chinese government and its people, not foreigners. Obviously, you won't accept opposing view, not even acknowledging there are points of contest.

    Please tell who has bigger ego - you or Chinese government?

    As I said before: it will be more productive for you to review why the conversation (between intelligent and well-meaning persons) is not going forward, rather than trying to fathom on the Taiwanese issue that you lack the background knowledge.

  128. @AaronB
    You're entitled to your opinion. I don't think the situation is at all similar, for reasons I regard as obvious.

    And to be clear, I am also opposed to forcibly stopping any large population that no longer wishes to be ruled by a particular government system from leaving if they wish. So I am against Civil Wars.

    However, I think upsetting the status quo and trying to force small populations to be ruled by you against their will when you are doing well and have no particular need to do so, out of sheer ego, is worse.

    Threatening nuclear war to do so is insane.

    Civil Wars involving large and important territories are stupid enough, and pure power politics - the elites of one side doesn't wish to lose the resources and productive capacity of the other side, which would considerably diminish their overall power and wealth, so seek to compel them by force to remain. But seeking to rule over fringe ares out of pure ego is worse.

    Well, at least it shows what we are dealing with.

    I'm not "demonizing" the CCP - there is nothing unique about this in human history. It's quite normal to want to expand and increase ones power, or just assert ones ego, or just push others around because you can.

    But benevolence this ain't.

    However, I think upsetting the status quo and trying to force small populations to be ruled by you against their will when you are doing well and have no particular need to do so, out of sheer ego, is worse.

    Threatening nuclear war to do so is insane.

    Threatening who with nuclear war?

    China isn’t threatening Hong Kong with nukes. (If it wanted to depopulate the city, it could simply shut off the water supply, as Hong Kong’s fresh water comes from sources in China.)

    But if China decides to crack-down on those absolute faggots in Hong Kong who are waving around American flags, and if America takes this as its cue to confront China, it might come to war. A conventional war around Taiwan favors China, so the use of nukes isn’t terribly likely. But, to be sure, the losing side might decide to let the missiles fly…

    This doesn’t mean that the Chinese are threatening nuclear war over an internal matter. They’re basically saying, “don’t butt in; this is none of your affair, and we’re prepared to go all the way.” This sort of posturing and American belligerence are two sides of the same coin. I don’t think that much will come of it, but time will tell, I suppose!

  129. @AaronB
    You're entitled to your opinion. I don't think the situation is at all similar, for reasons I regard as obvious.

    And to be clear, I am also opposed to forcibly stopping any large population that no longer wishes to be ruled by a particular government system from leaving if they wish. So I am against Civil Wars.

    However, I think upsetting the status quo and trying to force small populations to be ruled by you against their will when you are doing well and have no particular need to do so, out of sheer ego, is worse.

    Threatening nuclear war to do so is insane.

    Civil Wars involving large and important territories are stupid enough, and pure power politics - the elites of one side doesn't wish to lose the resources and productive capacity of the other side, which would considerably diminish their overall power and wealth, so seek to compel them by force to remain. But seeking to rule over fringe ares out of pure ego is worse.

    Well, at least it shows what we are dealing with.

    I'm not "demonizing" the CCP - there is nothing unique about this in human history. It's quite normal to want to expand and increase ones power, or just assert ones ego, or just push others around because you can.

    But benevolence this ain't.

    “trying to force small populations to be ruled by you against their will,… out of sheer ego,…”

    Already refuted that point. It is because of law and order, national unity, national security, popular demands (in mainland), etc, not ego. Your moral ground has to give way to those priorities – and the priority should be decided by the Chinese government and its people, not foreigners. Obviously, you won’t accept opposing view, not even acknowledging there are points of contest.

    Please tell who has bigger ego – you or Chinese government?

    As I said before: it will be more productive for you to review why the conversation (between intelligent and well-meaning persons) is not going forward, rather than trying to fathom on the Taiwanese issue that you lack the background knowledge.

  130. @AnonFromTN
    There is Russian joke “don’t look for truth where there is none”. To apply to HK protests, it can be modified “don’t look for sense where there is none”. These young fools fly the banner of their funders. They happened to be a convenient tool for the Empire to attempt damaging China. I don’t think that even those who funded these idiots and egged them on believed in their success. HK is inexorably going down, and any sensible person would understand that protesting against it is as fruitful as protesting against Earth gravity. I suspect Chinese did not want to crush them forcefully precisely because they are doomed to fail regardless.

    Hong Kong Maidan will go to nowhere. China will not hesitate to crush it if neccesary. Otherwise, it will let it die.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN

    China will not hesitate to crush it if neccesary. Otherwise, it will let it die.
     
    HK is doomed either way. If Chinese authorities are really mad at HK, they would let it die a protracted and painful natural death, rather than mercifully kill it quickly. So far HK morons did everything in their power to make Beijing seriously mad at them, even waved American flags.
  131. As for Hong Kong itself, it was already in rapid, inexorable decline. It only arose to prominence by virtue of its unique legal regime and will now fade away into just another second-tier large Chinese city over the next decades.

    I think none of you guys have any idea what you are talking about. I am a born and bred HKer who actually runs a business here.

    HK is successful for two reasons, It is an entrepôt and It have low taxes. It have nothing to do with legal system, freedom and all those “virtue signalling” ideals that White people like to espoused. It is cold hard zero sum economics.

    I will never leave Hk even if it burns to the ground as long as the tax system is intact and there is NO democracy.

    Democracy is worst than communism by far since child molesters, psychopaths and even worst, people with a 2 digit IQ can vote. Look what happened…America had a lawyer, then an actor, then a blackie, then a reality TV show star as president.

    Pretty sure American will get a transgender president someday.

    • Replies: @Rattus Norwegius
    "Democracy is worst than communism by far since child molesters, psychopaths and even worst, people with a 2 digit IQ can vote. Look what happened…America had a lawyer, then an actor, then a blackie, then a reality TV show star as president."

    I wonder if you have been 'burned' personally during the Hong Kong protests. Then in the aftermath developed an aversion to democracy? But do you really think democracy is bad?

    While you may think another system is preferable, that does not mean that democracy is bad. Is it fair to base your judgement of democracy on your experience of civil strife in Hong Kong, aswell as on Chinese language media in (PRC, HK, ROC)?

    Also is the Hong Kong protests really about democracy, and not about identity politics?

    , @showmethereal
    Good points... I have to ask - are you Teochew - Taishanese - Hakka or another non Cantonese group? If so - who do the different groups tend to feel in the current morass? I personally only know people who left years ago. None of them seems to favor the rioters.
  132. @Aedib
    Hong Kong Maidan will go to nowhere. China will not hesitate to crush it if neccesary. Otherwise, it will let it die.

    China will not hesitate to crush it if neccesary. Otherwise, it will let it die.

    HK is doomed either way. If Chinese authorities are really mad at HK, they would let it die a protracted and painful natural death, rather than mercifully kill it quickly. So far HK morons did everything in their power to make Beijing seriously mad at them, even waved American flags.

  133. @22pp22
    The thugs are a small minority.

    These millions of people don't look either young or foolish to me. Maybe, as they actually live there, they know something you don't.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LysKEvjy1Yo

    Shouldn’t we remember how this whole thing started? HK did not have a law to extradite a murderer to Taiwan. Big China got involved only because HK belongs to it. Does it strike you as natural that non-extradition of a murderer to Taiwan all of a sudden inflamed HKers? Isn’t it logical to hypothesize that only external forces with substantial funds could have used this lame pretext to attempt doing some damage to China. The instigators do not give a hoot about HK as such. They don’t care that the only side that is going to be seriously damaged is HK.

  134. @d dan

    "Or can only the British “steal” land and not the Russians?"
     
    Historically, they both did steal. Modern leaders have largely settled those land claims peacefully. Stating obvious historical fact has nothing to do with being "anti-British nonsense".

    "The British built the modern city of Hong Kong ..."
     
    Please let me know how many laborers did British sent to Hong Kong to build those skyscrapers, ports, roads, subways... No? Granted, British contributed in some aspects like laws and order, international connections, etc. But Hong Kong was largely built by Hong Kongers, i.e. Chinese.

    British had a lot of colonies - some became successful and other failed miserably. It is so revealing that British of today only *take ownership* of the successful ones but feel *no responsibility* about the failed ones.

    It is so revealing that British of today only *take ownership* of the successful ones but feel *no responsibility* about the failed ones.

    Isn’t it equally revealing that they don’t take responsibility for their greatest failure – formerly Great formerly Britain.

  135. @Chinaman

    As for Hong Kong itself, it was already in rapid, inexorable decline. It only arose to prominence by virtue of its unique legal regime and will now fade away into just another second-tier large Chinese city over the next decades.
     
    I think none of you guys have any idea what you are talking about. I am a born and bred HKer who actually runs a business here.

    HK is successful for two reasons, It is an entrepôt and It have low taxes. It have nothing to do with legal system, freedom and all those “virtue signalling” ideals that White people like to espoused. It is cold hard zero sum economics.

    I will never leave Hk even if it burns to the ground as long as the tax system is intact and there is NO democracy.

    Democracy is worst than communism by far since child molesters, psychopaths and even worst, people with a 2 digit IQ can vote. Look what happened...America had a lawyer, then an actor, then a blackie, then a reality TV show star as president.

    Pretty sure American will get a transgender president someday.

    “Democracy is worst than communism by far since child molesters, psychopaths and even worst, people with a 2 digit IQ can vote. Look what happened…America had a lawyer, then an actor, then a blackie, then a reality TV show star as president.”

    I wonder if you have been ‘burned’ personally during the Hong Kong protests. Then in the aftermath developed an aversion to democracy? But do you really think democracy is bad?

    While you may think another system is preferable, that does not mean that democracy is bad. Is it fair to base your judgement of democracy on your experience of civil strife in Hong Kong, aswell as on Chinese language media in (PRC, HK, ROC)?

    Also is the Hong Kong protests really about democracy, and not about identity politics?

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    Nah, more like making a stink to make China look bad on the world stage. And yes, those protesters are only worth that much. I am 100% sure the US side harbors zero fantasies regarding this protest.

    I actually pity the protesters very much. They are just fodder in this word of wars between USA n China.
    , @Chinaman
    give me an example of an important social institution that functions as a Democracy. Schools, military, churches, all private companies are authoritarian and fascist. All of these large Organization have a supreme leader and hierarchical in nature. If the truth be known, it is Authoritarianism and meritocracy that give rise to order and the modern world. It is funny people voluntarily forfeit all their freedoms When they go to work but will lay down their life to fight for their freedom once they leave the office.

    Why don’t we let student vote on their curriculum? Why don’t we let soldiers decide whether to land on Normandy during WW2?

    Democracy is an insane idea but it provides an illusion of equality to the general populace.

    Let’s me ask you this... do you really think blacks, LGBT, Chinese commies and those with a 2 digit IQ should be given the vote?
  136. @Rattus Norwegius
    "Democracy is worst than communism by far since child molesters, psychopaths and even worst, people with a 2 digit IQ can vote. Look what happened…America had a lawyer, then an actor, then a blackie, then a reality TV show star as president."

    I wonder if you have been 'burned' personally during the Hong Kong protests. Then in the aftermath developed an aversion to democracy? But do you really think democracy is bad?

    While you may think another system is preferable, that does not mean that democracy is bad. Is it fair to base your judgement of democracy on your experience of civil strife in Hong Kong, aswell as on Chinese language media in (PRC, HK, ROC)?

    Also is the Hong Kong protests really about democracy, and not about identity politics?

    Nah, more like making a stink to make China look bad on the world stage. And yes, those protesters are only worth that much. I am 100% sure the US side harbors zero fantasies regarding this protest.

    I actually pity the protesters very much. They are just fodder in this word of wars between USA n China.

  137. @Rattus Norwegius
    "Democracy is worst than communism by far since child molesters, psychopaths and even worst, people with a 2 digit IQ can vote. Look what happened…America had a lawyer, then an actor, then a blackie, then a reality TV show star as president."

    I wonder if you have been 'burned' personally during the Hong Kong protests. Then in the aftermath developed an aversion to democracy? But do you really think democracy is bad?

    While you may think another system is preferable, that does not mean that democracy is bad. Is it fair to base your judgement of democracy on your experience of civil strife in Hong Kong, aswell as on Chinese language media in (PRC, HK, ROC)?

    Also is the Hong Kong protests really about democracy, and not about identity politics?

    give me an example of an important social institution that functions as a Democracy. Schools, military, churches, all private companies are authoritarian and fascist. All of these large Organization have a supreme leader and hierarchical in nature. If the truth be known, it is Authoritarianism and meritocracy that give rise to order and the modern world. It is funny people voluntarily forfeit all their freedoms When they go to work but will lay down their life to fight for their freedom once they leave the office.

    Why don’t we let student vote on their curriculum? Why don’t we let soldiers decide whether to land on Normandy during WW2?

    Democracy is an insane idea but it provides an illusion of equality to the general populace.

    Let’s me ask you this… do you really think blacks, LGBT, Chinese commies and those with a 2 digit IQ should be given the vote?

    • Replies: @Rattus Norwegius
    One of the most important functions of democracy is giving legitimacy. Thus democracy often leads to less social unrest. The social unrest that exists is channeled into less radical and dangerous forms.

    Even if important institutions such as workplaces function for the most part as autocratic institutions, this does not mean that there is not room for democracy. Democracy within a corporation or project can increase it's legitimacy aswell as increase people's own attachment to it. The democratic state also allows interest groups and voters to influence legislation. Ofcourse interest groups do not depend on democracy to exist. Interest groups existed in feudal states, absolutist monarchies and do exist in modern PPC. Just as they exist now in democratic ROC, and existed before during ROC's more autocratic days.

    Democracy may also increase the populations likelihood to indentify as stakeholders in society. Though it it is not dependent on democracy.

    Also few democracies if any function as absolute democracies. Most democracies function within certain limits. These limits are arguably more important than the democracy itself. One can ask if there exists today a autocracy that has a more successfull limits inorder to dissuade social ills. Social ills such as cronyism, corruption and nepotism.

    That said i am not a democracy absolutist.

    Do you not think that you are falling for a trap when you denounce democracy and push for a alternative system? That seems like falling right into the trap Pompeo has laid, when he claims that USA and China is in a 'systemic competition'. I would ask if Pompeo and his ilk would have no problem with Chinese development and economic competition, had China been as democratic as Canada. Most likely it's a mix of both. The lack of democracy is alienating to some extent, while Chinas growth is somewhat intimidating.
  138. By the way, did you see this proposed legislation? It probably won’t go anywhere, but it’s beautiful… and it should make quite a few Chinese students very nervous.

    https://www.cotton.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1371

    “Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) and Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) today unveiled the SECURE CAMPUS Act, legislation that would prohibit Chinese nationals from receiving visas to the United States for graduate or post-graduate studies in STEM fields. The bill would also place restrictions on participants in Chinese foreign talent-recruitment programs, such as the Thousand Talents Program. Congressman David Kustoff (R-Tennessee) will introduce companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

    “The Chinese Communist Party has long used American universities to conduct espionage on the United States. What’s worse is that their efforts exploit gaps in current law. It’s time for that to end. The SECURE CAMPUS Act will protect our national security and maintain the integrity of the American research enterprise,” said Senator Cotton.”

    • Replies: @Blinky Bill

    and it should make quite a few Chinese students very nervous.
     
    Why ?
  139. @blatnoi
    By the way, did you see this proposed legislation? It probably won't go anywhere, but it's beautiful... and it should make quite a few Chinese students very nervous.

    https://www.cotton.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1371

    "Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) and Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) today unveiled the SECURE CAMPUS Act, legislation that would prohibit Chinese nationals from receiving visas to the United States for graduate or post-graduate studies in STEM fields. The bill would also place restrictions on participants in Chinese foreign talent-recruitment programs, such as the Thousand Talents Program. Congressman David Kustoff (R-Tennessee) will introduce companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

    "The Chinese Communist Party has long used American universities to conduct espionage on the United States. What's worse is that their efforts exploit gaps in current law. It's time for that to end. The SECURE CAMPUS Act will protect our national security and maintain the integrity of the American research enterprise," said Senator Cotton."

    and it should make quite a few Chinese students very nervous.

    Why ?

    • Replies: @blatnoi
    Let's see, if the legislation is passed, and if they are a current student somewhere in the middle of their PhD, then they have a chance of being deported and never finishing, wasting a couple of years of their life and being those number of years behind peers who stayed in China.

    Already Chinese students in the US were afraid to go back to China during their PhD, since you only get an entry visa you have to use for three month, and then you stay for the PhD. Every time you leave, your re-entry to the country has to be approved by the border police or whatever their name is, and sometimes they refuse and then you're stuck in China for a few months re-applying for a new visa. This greatly affects your work in the lab and many American bosses are slave drivers and can fire you if you're gone for that long. And if the border police never allow you back, then your PhD is over. This is why my wife, who is a Russian citizen who also had that type of visa, never went back to visit her family for five years until the PhD was over.

    Also, those who are thinking of coming, will always have the thought hanging over them that this type of legislation can be passed since Americans are going crazy apparently. Definitely if they do come, they have to keep in mind that they very realistically can't risk seeing their family for five years.

    In fact, this should make quite a number of foreign science students and postdocs nervous, even if it doesn't pass. The fact that this has been moved up to a topic of discussion means the idea is not taboo.

    It would also be terrible for American science industry since it depends on cheap Chinese postdocs. That's why it won't pass probably. But it's a great own goal in that it will make Chinese considering coming think twice.
  140. @Blinky Bill

    and it should make quite a few Chinese students very nervous.
     
    Why ?

    Let’s see, if the legislation is passed, and if they are a current student somewhere in the middle of their PhD, then they have a chance of being deported and never finishing, wasting a couple of years of their life and being those number of years behind peers who stayed in China.

    Already Chinese students in the US were afraid to go back to China during their PhD, since you only get an entry visa you have to use for three month, and then you stay for the PhD. Every time you leave, your re-entry to the country has to be approved by the border police or whatever their name is, and sometimes they refuse and then you’re stuck in China for a few months re-applying for a new visa. This greatly affects your work in the lab and many American bosses are slave drivers and can fire you if you’re gone for that long. And if the border police never allow you back, then your PhD is over. This is why my wife, who is a Russian citizen who also had that type of visa, never went back to visit her family for five years until the PhD was over.

    Also, those who are thinking of coming, will always have the thought hanging over them that this type of legislation can be passed since Americans are going crazy apparently. Definitely if they do come, they have to keep in mind that they very realistically can’t risk seeing their family for five years.

    In fact, this should make quite a number of foreign science students and postdocs nervous, even if it doesn’t pass. The fact that this has been moved up to a topic of discussion means the idea is not taboo.

    It would also be terrible for American science industry since it depends on cheap Chinese postdocs. That’s why it won’t pass probably. But it’s a great own goal in that it will make Chinese considering coming think twice.

    • Thanks: Blinky Bill
    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    Thank you for the prompt and detailed response. The purpose of my question was to elicit a more complete understanding of your opinion of this subject, not to be trite. I have to say I agree with most of your analysis but not all.

    Let’s see, if the legislation is passed,
     
    You're totally right on this point, this legislation is unlikely to be passed due to the fact that the Americans benefit far more from this arrangement then do the Chinese. They would lose billions of dollars, that Chinese students subsidizes the American tertiary education industry with each year. In addition to losing a porprtion of the intellectual elite of China. The United States has essentially been brain draining China over the last 40 years, all that would end. Highly unlikely the Americans would go down that path.

    if they are a current student somewhere in the middle of their PhD, then they have a chance of being deported and never finishing, wasting a couple of years of their life and being those number of years behind peers who stayed in China.
     
    This is true, but such people represent a tiny fraction of the Chinese American Student body(for want of a better term). After the election of Trump in 2016, this was a calculated risk many of them were willing to take and in my opinion will still pay off. For those starting PhD's now it isn't a risk worth taking. It is better for them to come to the realisation that United States is no longer the land of opportunity for them now, rather than later in their careers, academic or otherwise.
    , @Blinky Bill

    Already Chinese students in the US were afraid to go back to China during their PhD, since you only get an entry visa you have to use for three month, and then you stay for the PhD. Every time you leave, your re-entry to the country has to be approved by the border police or whatever their name is, and sometimes they refuse and then you’re stuck in China for a few months re-applying for a new visa. This greatly affects your work in the lab and many American bosses are slave drivers and can fire you if you’re gone for that long. And if the border police never allow you back, then your PhD is over. This is why my wife, who is a Russian citizen who also had that type of visa, never went back to visit her family for five years until the PhD was over.
     
    Totally agree with this statement, Chinese/foreign PhD's have always received a raw deal, been exploited while contributing so much to US scientific and economic development. If this is indeed coming to an end(which I doubt) a few will be nervous but the vast majority should rejoice.

    Also, those who are thinking of coming, will always have the thought hanging over them that this type of legislation can be passed since Americans are going crazy apparently. Definitely if they do come, they have to keep in mind that they very realistically can’t risk seeing their family for five years.
     
    This should make the decision of Chinese students easy and clear. America isn't the place for you, don't come, don't pay, don't contribute. There are other options, take them.

    In fact, this should make quite a number of foreign science students and postdocs nervous, even if it doesn’t pass. The fact that this has been moved up to a topic of discussion means the idea is not taboo.
     
    The more the merrier. This should bring clarity to their lives. The United States is unreliable, seek alternatives.

    It would also be terrible for American science industry since it depends on cheap Chinese postdocs. That’s why it won’t pass probably. But it’s a great own goal in that it will make Chinese considering coming think twice.

     

    This I agree with a 100%. They instead will be contributing to China's scientific and economic development. While living happier lives without been treated as thieves or criminals. Nothing to be nervous about for the vast majority of Chinese students. This is what makes it truly beautiful.
    , @showmethereal
    You are correct... But never underestimate the stupidity of the US Congress... Nor the craziness of the current President.
  141. @blatnoi
    Let's see, if the legislation is passed, and if they are a current student somewhere in the middle of their PhD, then they have a chance of being deported and never finishing, wasting a couple of years of their life and being those number of years behind peers who stayed in China.

    Already Chinese students in the US were afraid to go back to China during their PhD, since you only get an entry visa you have to use for three month, and then you stay for the PhD. Every time you leave, your re-entry to the country has to be approved by the border police or whatever their name is, and sometimes they refuse and then you're stuck in China for a few months re-applying for a new visa. This greatly affects your work in the lab and many American bosses are slave drivers and can fire you if you're gone for that long. And if the border police never allow you back, then your PhD is over. This is why my wife, who is a Russian citizen who also had that type of visa, never went back to visit her family for five years until the PhD was over.

    Also, those who are thinking of coming, will always have the thought hanging over them that this type of legislation can be passed since Americans are going crazy apparently. Definitely if they do come, they have to keep in mind that they very realistically can't risk seeing their family for five years.

    In fact, this should make quite a number of foreign science students and postdocs nervous, even if it doesn't pass. The fact that this has been moved up to a topic of discussion means the idea is not taboo.

    It would also be terrible for American science industry since it depends on cheap Chinese postdocs. That's why it won't pass probably. But it's a great own goal in that it will make Chinese considering coming think twice.

    Thank you for the prompt and detailed response. The purpose of my question was to elicit a more complete understanding of your opinion of this subject, not to be trite. I have to say I agree with most of your analysis but not all.

    Let’s see, if the legislation is passed,

    You’re totally right on this point, this legislation is unlikely to be passed due to the fact that the Americans benefit far more from this arrangement then do the Chinese. They would lose billions of dollars, that Chinese students subsidizes the American tertiary education industry with each year. In addition to losing a porprtion of the intellectual elite of China. The United States has essentially been brain draining China over the last 40 years, all that would end. Highly unlikely the Americans would go down that path.

    if they are a current student somewhere in the middle of their PhD, then they have a chance of being deported and never finishing, wasting a couple of years of their life and being those number of years behind peers who stayed in China.

    This is true, but such people represent a tiny fraction of the Chinese American Student body(for want of a better term). After the election of Trump in 2016, this was a calculated risk many of them were willing to take and in my opinion will still pay off. For those starting PhD’s now it isn’t a risk worth taking. It is better for them to come to the realisation that United States is no longer the land of opportunity for them now, rather than later in their careers, academic or otherwise.

  142. @blatnoi
    Let's see, if the legislation is passed, and if they are a current student somewhere in the middle of their PhD, then they have a chance of being deported and never finishing, wasting a couple of years of their life and being those number of years behind peers who stayed in China.

    Already Chinese students in the US were afraid to go back to China during their PhD, since you only get an entry visa you have to use for three month, and then you stay for the PhD. Every time you leave, your re-entry to the country has to be approved by the border police or whatever their name is, and sometimes they refuse and then you're stuck in China for a few months re-applying for a new visa. This greatly affects your work in the lab and many American bosses are slave drivers and can fire you if you're gone for that long. And if the border police never allow you back, then your PhD is over. This is why my wife, who is a Russian citizen who also had that type of visa, never went back to visit her family for five years until the PhD was over.

    Also, those who are thinking of coming, will always have the thought hanging over them that this type of legislation can be passed since Americans are going crazy apparently. Definitely if they do come, they have to keep in mind that they very realistically can't risk seeing their family for five years.

    In fact, this should make quite a number of foreign science students and postdocs nervous, even if it doesn't pass. The fact that this has been moved up to a topic of discussion means the idea is not taboo.

    It would also be terrible for American science industry since it depends on cheap Chinese postdocs. That's why it won't pass probably. But it's a great own goal in that it will make Chinese considering coming think twice.

    Already Chinese students in the US were afraid to go back to China during their PhD, since you only get an entry visa you have to use for three month, and then you stay for the PhD. Every time you leave, your re-entry to the country has to be approved by the border police or whatever their name is, and sometimes they refuse and then you’re stuck in China for a few months re-applying for a new visa. This greatly affects your work in the lab and many American bosses are slave drivers and can fire you if you’re gone for that long. And if the border police never allow you back, then your PhD is over. This is why my wife, who is a Russian citizen who also had that type of visa, never went back to visit her family for five years until the PhD was over.

    Totally agree with this statement, Chinese/foreign PhD’s have always received a raw deal, been exploited while contributing so much to US scientific and economic development. If this is indeed coming to an end(which I doubt) a few will be nervous but the vast majority should rejoice.

    Also, those who are thinking of coming, will always have the thought hanging over them that this type of legislation can be passed since Americans are going crazy apparently. Definitely if they do come, they have to keep in mind that they very realistically can’t risk seeing their family for five years.

    This should make the decision of Chinese students easy and clear. America isn’t the place for you, don’t come, don’t pay, don’t contribute. There are other options, take them.

    In fact, this should make quite a number of foreign science students and postdocs nervous, even if it doesn’t pass. The fact that this has been moved up to a topic of discussion means the idea is not taboo.

    The more the merrier. This should bring clarity to their lives. The United States is unreliable, seek alternatives.

    It would also be terrible for American science industry since it depends on cheap Chinese postdocs. That’s why it won’t pass probably. But it’s a great own goal in that it will make Chinese considering coming think twice.

    This I agree with a 100%. They instead will be contributing to China’s scientific and economic development. While living happier lives without been treated as thieves or criminals. Nothing to be nervous about for the vast majority of Chinese students. This is what makes it truly beautiful.

    • Replies: @Rattus Norwegius
    "Totally agree with this statement, Chinese/foreign PhD’s have always received a raw deal, been exploited while contributing so much to US scientific and economic development."
    How are the student exploited?Is not the reason many students come to USA, often americo-phillia.

    Also does this 'exploitation' extend to students from American allies such as UK, Japan, Germany, Poland, etc?
  143. @Chinaman
    give me an example of an important social institution that functions as a Democracy. Schools, military, churches, all private companies are authoritarian and fascist. All of these large Organization have a supreme leader and hierarchical in nature. If the truth be known, it is Authoritarianism and meritocracy that give rise to order and the modern world. It is funny people voluntarily forfeit all their freedoms When they go to work but will lay down their life to fight for their freedom once they leave the office.

    Why don’t we let student vote on their curriculum? Why don’t we let soldiers decide whether to land on Normandy during WW2?

    Democracy is an insane idea but it provides an illusion of equality to the general populace.

    Let’s me ask you this... do you really think blacks, LGBT, Chinese commies and those with a 2 digit IQ should be given the vote?

    One of the most important functions of democracy is giving legitimacy. Thus democracy often leads to less social unrest. The social unrest that exists is channeled into less radical and dangerous forms.

    Even if important institutions such as workplaces function for the most part as autocratic institutions, this does not mean that there is not room for democracy. Democracy within a corporation or project can increase it’s legitimacy aswell as increase people’s own attachment to it. The democratic state also allows interest groups and voters to influence legislation. Ofcourse interest groups do not depend on democracy to exist. Interest groups existed in feudal states, absolutist monarchies and do exist in modern PPC. Just as they exist now in democratic ROC, and existed before during ROC’s more autocratic days.

    Democracy may also increase the populations likelihood to indentify as stakeholders in society. Though it it is not dependent on democracy.

    Also few democracies if any function as absolute democracies. Most democracies function within certain limits. These limits are arguably more important than the democracy itself. One can ask if there exists today a autocracy that has a more successfull limits inorder to dissuade social ills. Social ills such as cronyism, corruption and nepotism.

    That said i am not a democracy absolutist.

    Do you not think that you are falling for a trap when you denounce democracy and push for a alternative system? That seems like falling right into the trap Pompeo has laid, when he claims that USA and China is in a ‘systemic competition’. I would ask if Pompeo and his ilk would have no problem with Chinese development and economic competition, had China been as democratic as Canada. Most likely it’s a mix of both. The lack of democracy is alienating to some extent, while Chinas growth is somewhat intimidating.

    • Replies: @Blinky Bill

    I would ask if Pompeo and his ilk would have no problem with Chinese development and economic competition, had China been as democratic as Canada. Most likely it’s a mix of both. The lack of democracy is alienating to some extent, while Chinas growth is somewhat intimidating.
     
    Did Russia's switch to democracy in the 90's end American aggression towards it. Or rather did it encourage the United States to go in for the kill ? Expansion of NATO right to Russia's borders, support for Chechnyas independence, looting of the Russian economy, bombing of Russian allies (Serbia), the wholesale humiliation of the Russian people and Nation etc.
    , @showmethereal
    To your last sentence... Nah... Look what happened to Japan in the 70's and 80's when she was challenging the US for economic prowess... Japan is a democracy and is militarily occupied by the US... She does nothing without the approval of Uncle Sam. Yet she was demonized (including by Trump - which you can find he used the same rhetoric that he now uses against China). Her companies were harassed and her economy then neutered by the Plaza Accord.
  144. @Blinky Bill

    Already Chinese students in the US were afraid to go back to China during their PhD, since you only get an entry visa you have to use for three month, and then you stay for the PhD. Every time you leave, your re-entry to the country has to be approved by the border police or whatever their name is, and sometimes they refuse and then you’re stuck in China for a few months re-applying for a new visa. This greatly affects your work in the lab and many American bosses are slave drivers and can fire you if you’re gone for that long. And if the border police never allow you back, then your PhD is over. This is why my wife, who is a Russian citizen who also had that type of visa, never went back to visit her family for five years until the PhD was over.
     
    Totally agree with this statement, Chinese/foreign PhD's have always received a raw deal, been exploited while contributing so much to US scientific and economic development. If this is indeed coming to an end(which I doubt) a few will be nervous but the vast majority should rejoice.

    Also, those who are thinking of coming, will always have the thought hanging over them that this type of legislation can be passed since Americans are going crazy apparently. Definitely if they do come, they have to keep in mind that they very realistically can’t risk seeing their family for five years.
     
    This should make the decision of Chinese students easy and clear. America isn't the place for you, don't come, don't pay, don't contribute. There are other options, take them.

    In fact, this should make quite a number of foreign science students and postdocs nervous, even if it doesn’t pass. The fact that this has been moved up to a topic of discussion means the idea is not taboo.
     
    The more the merrier. This should bring clarity to their lives. The United States is unreliable, seek alternatives.

    It would also be terrible for American science industry since it depends on cheap Chinese postdocs. That’s why it won’t pass probably. But it’s a great own goal in that it will make Chinese considering coming think twice.

     

    This I agree with a 100%. They instead will be contributing to China's scientific and economic development. While living happier lives without been treated as thieves or criminals. Nothing to be nervous about for the vast majority of Chinese students. This is what makes it truly beautiful.

    “Totally agree with this statement, Chinese/foreign PhD’s have always received a raw deal, been exploited while contributing so much to US scientific and economic development.”
    How are the student exploited?Is not the reason many students come to USA, often americo-phillia.

    Also does this ‘exploitation’ extend to students from American allies such as UK, Japan, Germany, Poland, etc?

    • Replies: @Blinky Bill

    Also does this ‘exploitation’ extend to students from American allies such as UK, Japan, Germany, Poland, etc?
     
    Yes, but to a lesser extent.

    How are the students exploited ?
     
    Talk to some postdocs they'll fill you in. As for undergrads hundreds of thousands of dollars for what are essentially worthless pieces of paper.

    often americo-phillia.
     
    A disease that needs to die.
  145. @Rattus Norwegius
    "Totally agree with this statement, Chinese/foreign PhD’s have always received a raw deal, been exploited while contributing so much to US scientific and economic development."
    How are the student exploited?Is not the reason many students come to USA, often americo-phillia.

    Also does this 'exploitation' extend to students from American allies such as UK, Japan, Germany, Poland, etc?

    Also does this ‘exploitation’ extend to students from American allies such as UK, Japan, Germany, Poland, etc?

    Yes, but to a lesser extent.

    How are the students exploited ?

    Talk to some postdocs they’ll fill you in. As for undergrads hundreds of thousands of dollars for what are essentially worthless pieces of paper.

    often americo-phillia.

    A disease that needs to die.

  146. @Rattus Norwegius
    One of the most important functions of democracy is giving legitimacy. Thus democracy often leads to less social unrest. The social unrest that exists is channeled into less radical and dangerous forms.

    Even if important institutions such as workplaces function for the most part as autocratic institutions, this does not mean that there is not room for democracy. Democracy within a corporation or project can increase it's legitimacy aswell as increase people's own attachment to it. The democratic state also allows interest groups and voters to influence legislation. Ofcourse interest groups do not depend on democracy to exist. Interest groups existed in feudal states, absolutist monarchies and do exist in modern PPC. Just as they exist now in democratic ROC, and existed before during ROC's more autocratic days.

    Democracy may also increase the populations likelihood to indentify as stakeholders in society. Though it it is not dependent on democracy.

    Also few democracies if any function as absolute democracies. Most democracies function within certain limits. These limits are arguably more important than the democracy itself. One can ask if there exists today a autocracy that has a more successfull limits inorder to dissuade social ills. Social ills such as cronyism, corruption and nepotism.

    That said i am not a democracy absolutist.

    Do you not think that you are falling for a trap when you denounce democracy and push for a alternative system? That seems like falling right into the trap Pompeo has laid, when he claims that USA and China is in a 'systemic competition'. I would ask if Pompeo and his ilk would have no problem with Chinese development and economic competition, had China been as democratic as Canada. Most likely it's a mix of both. The lack of democracy is alienating to some extent, while Chinas growth is somewhat intimidating.

    I would ask if Pompeo and his ilk would have no problem with Chinese development and economic competition, had China been as democratic as Canada. Most likely it’s a mix of both. The lack of democracy is alienating to some extent, while Chinas growth is somewhat intimidating.

    Did Russia’s switch to democracy in the 90’s end American aggression towards it. Or rather did it encourage the United States to go in for the kill ? Expansion of NATO right to Russia’s borders, support for Chechnyas independence, looting of the Russian economy, bombing of Russian allies (Serbia), the wholesale humiliation of the Russian people and Nation etc.

  147. “Thank you for the prompt and detailed response. The purpose of my question was to elicit a more complete understanding of your opinion of this subject, not to be trite.”

    Ah, no problem. I wrote a short post with a link because I just didn’t know if anyone was interested in the topic. But in terms of responses… I often disappear for a few days, often because I have to focus on my work or at home and can’t afford to concentrate on writing a reply, and then when I come back, I figure that I’m better off not commenting on a thread. So while I will try, but I can’t guarantee that I will always be able to put my thoughts into words on these topics.

    I’m not really that anti-American, but I have been pretty upset at the country’s foreign policy over the last 7-8 years, so I’m not going to be too upset if this dries up their science workforce. I know a few professors at below top 30 universities who can only afford to keep their labs running with Chinese graduate students and postdocs. This bill only applies to graduate students and postdocs in the sciences actually (not undergrads as from your later comment). From my link: “Bars PRC nationals from receiving student or research visas to the United States for graduate or post-graduate studies in STEM fields.” I think that because it states it that explicitly, it’s more damaging.

    This is the same senator that posted the following tweet:

    “If Chinese students want to come here and study Shakespeare & the Federalist Papers, that’s what they need to learn from America. They don’t need to learn quantum computing.”

    • Thanks: Blinky Bill
  148. “How are the student exploited?Is not the reason many students come to USA, often americo-phillia.”

    To add to Blinky Bill’s comment, yes you are basically exploited as cheap labor in today’s academia if you are a graduate student or postdoc. Yes, you get a salary, but it’s only possible to save money if you eat Ramen and Taco Bell and don’t drive a car. It’s an apprenticeship system and there is promise of a bigger payoff at the end. In the US the bosses can be hit and miss, so some are good, and about half have mental problems that makes your stay in the lab a bit hellish. This system is also actually bad for Americans as they are undercut by cheap overseas labor, so not that many want to go into STEM grad school or be postdocs. Also the bosses are used to screaming at people who are afraid to lose their visa, and often deal badly with locals or people from Europe who while still worried that they might kill their career in science if they break with an abusive boss, are not that worried about their livelihood as much. That’s why this bill is so perfect. It would destroy their cheap labor pool, but instead of increasing wages for domestic students, it would collapse the system as the bosses would not be able to deal with the money and entitlement from locals until maybe a decade has passed, and in the meantime, the US science system would be left far behind. Of course, they could replace Chinese by Indians, but the immediate shock of going cold turkey would be too great and there would still be significant damage. Not to mention lots of Chinese-Americans who work in science would start feeling like they were viewed with suspicion, and many would not let their children go into science, or would tell them to leave the country.

    I was also a foreign STEM grad student in the US, but I didn’t come because of ‘americo-philia’ I think. One half of students in my year in my department were Chinese (well 40%, but ~50% of those who finished) and they seemed to be getting better at speaking English and more Sinophilic during my stay there with each subsequent class. I was mostly indifferent to the US, but you can’t ignore the job opportunities and the fact that if you get a degree there, then you’re much better positioned to get a job there as well and make lots of money. Of course, after I got my degree, with some very good publications, I left because I couldn’t stand living there anymore. Might have had something to do with my environment in grad school… Maybe if I held out a few more years, I would have been loving it in Silicon Valley living in a mansion, but I doubt it. I guess I could have stayed in my own country and did grad school there, as the US is not that higher in standards of living compared to Russia or China and we have a robust research system, but I wanted a change of scenery.

    • Agree: Blinky Bill
  149. @Chinaman

    As for Hong Kong itself, it was already in rapid, inexorable decline. It only arose to prominence by virtue of its unique legal regime and will now fade away into just another second-tier large Chinese city over the next decades.
     
    I think none of you guys have any idea what you are talking about. I am a born and bred HKer who actually runs a business here.

    HK is successful for two reasons, It is an entrepôt and It have low taxes. It have nothing to do with legal system, freedom and all those “virtue signalling” ideals that White people like to espoused. It is cold hard zero sum economics.

    I will never leave Hk even if it burns to the ground as long as the tax system is intact and there is NO democracy.

    Democracy is worst than communism by far since child molesters, psychopaths and even worst, people with a 2 digit IQ can vote. Look what happened...America had a lawyer, then an actor, then a blackie, then a reality TV show star as president.

    Pretty sure American will get a transgender president someday.

    Good points… I have to ask – are you Teochew – Taishanese – Hakka or another non Cantonese group? If so – who do the different groups tend to feel in the current morass? I personally only know people who left years ago. None of them seems to favor the rioters.

  150. @blatnoi
    Let's see, if the legislation is passed, and if they are a current student somewhere in the middle of their PhD, then they have a chance of being deported and never finishing, wasting a couple of years of their life and being those number of years behind peers who stayed in China.

    Already Chinese students in the US were afraid to go back to China during their PhD, since you only get an entry visa you have to use for three month, and then you stay for the PhD. Every time you leave, your re-entry to the country has to be approved by the border police or whatever their name is, and sometimes they refuse and then you're stuck in China for a few months re-applying for a new visa. This greatly affects your work in the lab and many American bosses are slave drivers and can fire you if you're gone for that long. And if the border police never allow you back, then your PhD is over. This is why my wife, who is a Russian citizen who also had that type of visa, never went back to visit her family for five years until the PhD was over.

    Also, those who are thinking of coming, will always have the thought hanging over them that this type of legislation can be passed since Americans are going crazy apparently. Definitely if they do come, they have to keep in mind that they very realistically can't risk seeing their family for five years.

    In fact, this should make quite a number of foreign science students and postdocs nervous, even if it doesn't pass. The fact that this has been moved up to a topic of discussion means the idea is not taboo.

    It would also be terrible for American science industry since it depends on cheap Chinese postdocs. That's why it won't pass probably. But it's a great own goal in that it will make Chinese considering coming think twice.

    You are correct… But never underestimate the stupidity of the US Congress… Nor the craziness of the current President.

    • Replies: @blatnoi
    Ah... looks like you are correct and it happened on May 29th. I underestimated, in this case the 'craziness of president'. Jury is still out on the 'stupidity of congress'. Still, it doesn't deport yet those who are in the country, and it might not be permanent, but this sends a pretty clear signal to one third of America's graduate student and postdoc workforce.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspension-entry-nonimmigrants-certain-students-researchers-peoples-republic-china/


    "The PRC authorities use some Chinese students, mostly post‑graduate students and post-doctorate researchers, to operate as non-traditional collectors of intellectual property. Thus, students or researchers from the PRC studying or researching beyond the undergraduate level who are or have been associated with the PLA are at high risk of being exploited or co-opted by the PRC authorities and provide particular cause for concern. In light of the above, I have determined that the entry of certain nationals of the PRC seeking to enter the United States pursuant to an F or J visa to study or conduct research in the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."
  151. @Rattus Norwegius
    One of the most important functions of democracy is giving legitimacy. Thus democracy often leads to less social unrest. The social unrest that exists is channeled into less radical and dangerous forms.

    Even if important institutions such as workplaces function for the most part as autocratic institutions, this does not mean that there is not room for democracy. Democracy within a corporation or project can increase it's legitimacy aswell as increase people's own attachment to it. The democratic state also allows interest groups and voters to influence legislation. Ofcourse interest groups do not depend on democracy to exist. Interest groups existed in feudal states, absolutist monarchies and do exist in modern PPC. Just as they exist now in democratic ROC, and existed before during ROC's more autocratic days.

    Democracy may also increase the populations likelihood to indentify as stakeholders in society. Though it it is not dependent on democracy.

    Also few democracies if any function as absolute democracies. Most democracies function within certain limits. These limits are arguably more important than the democracy itself. One can ask if there exists today a autocracy that has a more successfull limits inorder to dissuade social ills. Social ills such as cronyism, corruption and nepotism.

    That said i am not a democracy absolutist.

    Do you not think that you are falling for a trap when you denounce democracy and push for a alternative system? That seems like falling right into the trap Pompeo has laid, when he claims that USA and China is in a 'systemic competition'. I would ask if Pompeo and his ilk would have no problem with Chinese development and economic competition, had China been as democratic as Canada. Most likely it's a mix of both. The lack of democracy is alienating to some extent, while Chinas growth is somewhat intimidating.

    To your last sentence… Nah… Look what happened to Japan in the 70’s and 80’s when she was challenging the US for economic prowess… Japan is a democracy and is militarily occupied by the US… She does nothing without the approval of Uncle Sam. Yet she was demonized (including by Trump – which you can find he used the same rhetoric that he now uses against China). Her companies were harassed and her economy then neutered by the Plaza Accord.

  152. @showmethereal
    You are correct... But never underestimate the stupidity of the US Congress... Nor the craziness of the current President.

    Ah… looks like you are correct and it happened on May 29th. I underestimated, in this case the ‘craziness of president’. Jury is still out on the ‘stupidity of congress’. Still, it doesn’t deport yet those who are in the country, and it might not be permanent, but this sends a pretty clear signal to one third of America’s graduate student and postdoc workforce.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspension-entry-nonimmigrants-certain-students-researchers-peoples-republic-china/

    “The PRC authorities use some Chinese students, mostly post‑graduate students and post-doctorate researchers, to operate as non-traditional collectors of intellectual property. Thus, students or researchers from the PRC studying or researching beyond the undergraduate level who are or have been associated with the PLA are at high risk of being exploited or co-opted by the PRC authorities and provide particular cause for concern. In light of the above, I have determined that the entry of certain nationals of the PRC seeking to enter the United States pursuant to an F or J visa to study or conduct research in the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

    • Replies: @showmethereal
    Well I mean all intelligence agencies - including the CIA and NSA recruit from the top students at home and wherever they operate abroad. So this is all optics
  153. @blatnoi
    Ah... looks like you are correct and it happened on May 29th. I underestimated, in this case the 'craziness of president'. Jury is still out on the 'stupidity of congress'. Still, it doesn't deport yet those who are in the country, and it might not be permanent, but this sends a pretty clear signal to one third of America's graduate student and postdoc workforce.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspension-entry-nonimmigrants-certain-students-researchers-peoples-republic-china/


    "The PRC authorities use some Chinese students, mostly post‑graduate students and post-doctorate researchers, to operate as non-traditional collectors of intellectual property. Thus, students or researchers from the PRC studying or researching beyond the undergraduate level who are or have been associated with the PLA are at high risk of being exploited or co-opted by the PRC authorities and provide particular cause for concern. In light of the above, I have determined that the entry of certain nationals of the PRC seeking to enter the United States pursuant to an F or J visa to study or conduct research in the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."

    Well I mean all intelligence agencies – including the CIA and NSA recruit from the top students at home and wherever they operate abroad. So this is all optics

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS