Bloody Shovel 3

We will drown and nobody shall save us


There's an old saying, that Paris would be lovely without the Parisians. I don't actually agree with that. They can be a bit arrogant, sure, but on the whole I find Parisian men quite civil and Parisian women classy and sexy. So I hope they stay.

There is one place though where that saying absolutely fits. Hong Kong. HK is a very cool city. It is a first world city built on a landscape of high tropical mountains, and you can see how the force of modern industry has made humans conquer the environment, fitting skyscrapers into the mountain bedrock and open-air escalators to reach them with ease.

Hong Kong also produced Hong Kong cinema, one

of the few non Anglo film industries with a distinctive style and which aims to

entertain and not preach to the viewers. There's also Hong Kong music, which...

well, no, that's pretty bad. On the other hand Hong Kong has, in my view, one

the best food industries in the world, or at least had until 5 years ago when

mainland China started to up its game. All in all, Hong Kong is a great place.

I used to go often and enjoy every visit

But that doesn't mean it has a great people. Oh no. Hong Kong is indeed a cool city, but it would be much cooler if you just replaced its population wholesale. Hong Kongers are, generally speaking, a bunch of rude, uncultured, materialistic, annoying, semi-glossic, entitled twats with a chip on their shoulder, who think they're hot shit because they were lucky enough to be licking British ass while their fellow Chinese fell under the boot of Communism for 3 decades. Their average looks, famously the ugliest in China, don’t add to their appeal.

So what's going on in Hong Kong? A massive

riot sponsored and organized by the United States Government, that’s what’s

happening. What we call a “color revolution”. Funds by USG’s National Endowment

for Democracy have been revealed, US diplomatic staff have been found

organizing the rioters, and the whole mass of Western journalists (i.e. half

the Cathedral) have been pushing the most egregious propaganda for weeks.

There’s nothing special, nothing unique about this. Color revolutions aren’t

new. This isn’t the first one, and won’t be the last one. The day Germany grows

a pair and starts to push back against US meddling in European politics, rest

assured that Berlin will burn for weeks under a massive Antifa riot lionized by

the US press.

That said, the US isn’t that powerful. Not that generous; the money USG is sending around isn't enough to motivate every single rioter to get out of home. USG isn't stupid and it only pulls the trigger in places where the powder is already plentiful and ready to burn. It needs a fifth column of people willing to burn it all, a place where people hate the status quo so much they’d rather sell their country to USG. Hong Kong is indeed such a place.

How did that happen? To put it briefly, Hong

Kongers think they are a superior people to the rest of China, and to the

bottom of their hearts hate being ruled by Beijing. This isn’t about Communism

or muh Freedom or muh Human Rights. This is a basic, deep problem of

self-perceived social status. As I’ve said again and again, 90% of human

concerns are about social status. Hong Kongers think China is low-status and

hate every association with it. On the flip side, Hong Kongers think that Japan

is high status. Also England. Well, the Anglosphere as a whole. So they revel

in associating with it. Hong Kongers will spend 2,000 dollars to get on a plane

on a Friday evening to fly 5 hours to Japan and spend the weekend there eating

lame high-carb food and buying cosmetics that don’t really work just to be able

to go back and say they've been to Japan again. That’s on Hong Kong where work

hours are long and leisure time very precious. But that’s just part of the


Why do HK people think China is so low status? Well because for a long time, and for a critical time period in Hong Kong history, the time period where Hong Kong’s population stabilised and its culture took form, China was indeed a poor shithole of peasants who shat in the street and were ruled by a bunch of retarded communists. Societies are just an aggregation of people, and people are dumb and stubborn. Memories taken as a child get fixed as culture, and are almost impossible to update after adulthood. Hong Kong collectively grew up being somewhat understandably disgusted by China's backwardness. That all that is 40 years in the past and Chinese living standards in most cities are by now higher than in Hong Kong just doesn’t register to them. They just won’t admit it, the same way old men never admit their experiences just aren’t relevant anymore. Things never change if that change results in lower status to oneself. That’s how human brains operate. Scale that to a whole society and it can be brutal.

When shown that salaries in Shanghai are

higher, the food is better, apartments are incomparably bigger and better

designed, internet services are an order of magnitude better; Hong Kongers just

double down and talk about Human Rights and Internet Freedom not because they

actually care; but because that’s all they have left to justify their

culturally engrained sense of superiority. Even if you get a HKer to admit that

Human Rights is all bullshit he’ll just come and say that Cantonese is a

superior language and Mandarin just isn’t as expressive. Which is rich, as

Cantonese, which has for decades had a workable writing system, is almost never

written in practice, because the local intellectuals never bothered to learn

and spread it. All literature in Hong Kong is written in 1920 style Mandarin

prose, read out loud in Cantonese but with Mandarin grammar. It’s as if all

books in Italy were written in 19th century-style French but read

out in Italian pronunciation, and all Italian kids learned to write in French

at school, with Italian writing being an extremely low-class affair left for

tabloids and shady internet forums.

Most Hong Kongers can't even type Chinese characters phonetically, resulting in typing speeds several times slower than in China, or people just typing in English because it’s easier on the hands. These aren’t people who really care about their linguistic culture. They're just arrogant chauvinists. It’s ethnocentrism at its most retarded.

Hong Kong exists because the Hong Kong

economy exists, and that exists because as China went communist, Hong Kong was

the only sizeable place with a decent commercially-minded government and a land

border with China. Hong Kong was the middleman for making business in China,

and as China opened up and developed, the economic rationale for Hong Kong

slowly eroded. Again, starting salaries for college grads in Hong Kong are

already lower than in the richest cities in China. Hong Kongers aren't superior

anymore, by any metric. The city is decaying, little by little, and there's

nothing unnatural about that. Urban economies rise and fall, that’s just a

normal result of economic cycles. Happens all the time in every country.

In normal circumstances when a city's economy starts to falter, young people just pack up and leave for growing cities. But HKers won’t do that. They may leave the country, move to the Anglosphere if they have a chance (not to Japan, that’s only suitable for LARPing in the weekends, the language is too hard), but the vast majority of HKers would hang themselves in the nearest lamp post before considering the logical option of just packing up and moving to Dongguan. Why? Because China is low status, and they are high status. Why? Because it has always been like that, Mommy and Granny told them so. So they will stay, and complain endlessly about why HK isn't as rich as they believe they're entitled to be. A life is not worth living if you can't live in a 50sqm apartment and hire a Filipina to clean it because you're too busy commuting to your corporate lawyer secretary job.

It doesn’t help that there’s much fucked in

Hong Kong for it being a tax haven where all of China is parking their money in

real estate, and the government is captured by Lee Ka-shing and fellow

oligarchs. But hey, that's the whole point of Hong Kong. The day it stops being

a tax haven run by oligarchs is the day the economy actually collapses

completely. There’s just no other point to the place. People should stop

whining and just move where their productivity can actually afford them human

living standards.

But again, they won't move. Why? Because they think they're hot shit, they’re superior to those people living in places with lower rents. And why are they so fucking stubborn? Because Hong Kong is (or used to be) a city state, and it has its own culture. And culture is extremely hard to change. Basically impossible without organized, constant state intervention (i.e. violence) applied for decades.

This is the clusterfuck that is Hong Kong

today, where basically a majority of higher educated young people have

collectively become Antifa in a desperate attempt to retain a distinctive

culture which is just destined to die. But culture dies hard, and cultures

which give you a sense of status superiority are basically permanent. They

won’t die, you have to kill them. The culture, I mean.

I could go on on how annoying and duplicitous and violent-yet effeminate and just outright evil the Hong Kong protesters are being, beating people to a pulp, throwing bricks and fire bombs into people’s houses, vandalizing the whole city while jumping in the air crying bloody murder like soccer places every time a policeman just but looks at them. Violently preventing foreign families with small children from going reaching airplanes to go home, justifying openly the targeting of policemen’s families. See at how HK rioters operate and (if you still had any) you will lose all hope in the power of rationality and debate. If the motivation is strong enough, people will lie, steal, hit and steal like there’s no tomorrow. Sociopathy can be induced. Very easily.

It’s quite the sight to see to what insane

lengths Hong Kongers go to slander China and make it public that they just

won't be associated with it. This in a city where the majority of population

moved from China barely 50 years ago! See this Hong Kong “scholar” arguing that

China is a cannibalistic culture, where eating human meat was just part of the

usual savagery of life. Nothing to do with Hong Kong themselves, of course; the

light of British enlightenment and bastardized Christianity (you really gotta

check out local Christians for yourself, it’s hilarious) has purified them of

all that yellow savagery.

But the Hong Kong riots have a deeper lesson than just how evil people can become when they want to, how a basic sense of honesty and decency go down the drain when a movement is allowed to be captured by its left-wing of sociopathic status maximizers. The deeper lesson here is about the Patchwork, this old libertarian concept about competitive governance inherited by neoreaction. The idea that bad government is the result of a lack of competition, that countries today are overall too large, and an ideal world would have city-state sized countries experimenting with different types of government and culture, and having them compete to develop the most effective ways of managing human affairs.

The problem with that is provincialism, the

nativism of small places. Political units tend to develop particular cultures

among the population. Humans all want to be high status. Absent obvious signs

to the contrary, given enough time humans will convince themselves they are

indeed high status. Smaller political units will do it just the same as bigger

political units. Poor places will do it just the same as rich places. Hong

Kong, historically a malarial rock with at most a few dozen fishing huts, think

they are hot shit, a paradise of civility and hard work with the most moral

people and the wittiest language in human history. North Korea, a miserable half

of what already was a destitute slave nation of Chinese emperors for 2,000

years, a country which still struggles to feed its own population, thinks

they’re hot shit too, heroes of anti-imperialism and the birthplace of

everything worthwhile in Asian history.

A patchwork city who is underperforming economically compared to some neighbouring city isn’t just going to copy whatever government structures or cultural practices of a richer neighbour. Most likely it will just come up with some lame rationalization about how their backwardness is actually just a sign of their superior status, and before changing a iota of its own habits, will rather go to war with the richer city for having the audacity of not accepting the poor city’s cultural superiority. That’s just what humans do. That's exactly what all the Greek polis did until they were invaded and thrown to the dustbin of history by Macedon and Rome.

Larger countries

indeed can become complacent; but the mechanisms that produce that aren’t just

about size, it’s just humans being humans and culture being stubborn. What a

bigger size gives you is more time to decay until the whole thing collapses;

while city states have less ability to be unproductive until they collapse or

get invaded. But that’s the thing: Science advances one funeral at a time. The

Invisible Hand of Capitalism works its magic through bankruptcies, redistributing

idle capital into productive purposes. Underperforming city states in a

patchwork must also be annihilated if the competitive principle is to work: but

unlike libertarians who assume that underperforming city states would just lose

their assets (its capital and population) and see it redistributed elsewhere, humans

don’t work like that. People will stay and deny the decline until the bitter

end. It will always end in violence, either through invasion and takeover by a

foreign power, or if that is not an option, through the violent rebellion of

the deracinate locals going full retard on nativism so they can assign status

on their own without looking out of their own borders into the real world.

This is Hong Kong we’re talking about, the textbook example of rampant free market capitalism, a monument to the power of impersonal Capital, the unlikeliest of global cities, with its skinny skyscrapers built on top of a typhoon-prone tropical rocky island. And yet this very monument to rootless capitalism has evolved one of the nastiest and dumbest forms of chauvinist culture you can encounter on earth, and that provincialism, ignited by USG’s agitation machine, is menacing to bring down the economy now too, undergoing now the closest thing to a Cultural Revolution the world has seen since Mao’s days. And that one was a top-down conspiracy orchestrated by Mao and his cronies! Hong Kong youngsters are destroying their own city this on their own.

After the

successful rebellion of the United States against Britain, there was this

debate about the powers of the Federal government. One of the best arguments of

the federalists, who won in the end, was the dangers of the dangers of local

tyranny. The fact that a state is small doesn’t necessarily mean it will be better

controlled by its citizens, it could very well be captured by a strong man or a

few families and run as an effectively feudal state forever. They should have

added the stultifying effects of local cultures without ease of movement of its

citizens. That’s not so much of a problem in the Anglosphere, with a common

language for 500 million people across 20 million square kilometres, but places

with a more distinctive culture, especially if they have their own small

language, can go full retard very easily. Even Scotland, which merely has a (admittedly

strange) dialect of English, is going full retard in their cultural

distinctiveness, again rationalizing its economic failure by reassigning status

locally to be whatever it is that can make them feel superior to their neighbors.

Ever since I started this blog I’ve felt ambivalent about nation-states. I will readily agree that globalism is a plague and that different forms of government are suitable for different peoples, diversity in government being generally a good thing. And yet the pursuit of diversity and distinctiveness for its own sake has also always striked me as a conspiracy of academic collectionists. One thousand languages are dying every year! Big fucking deal. As a linguist I do feel sorry I’ll lose some potential objects of study, but my entertainment isn’t a good enough reason to keep alive things that are meant to die. Should I care if some yellow frog in the Amazon is going extinct? Hell no. Unless it tastes good, but if it did we’d be farming it already. Is it a world priority the conservation of the Latvian national identity? Would it be a big deal if Denmark were to disappear as a distinct unit? What about Ireland? Doesn’t seem that they care themselves that much about their own culture.

Do the nations of

the earth have a right to preserve their own culture? Many antiglobalists would

instinctually answer “yes”. But the proper answer to that question is that

there’s no such thing as “rights”. Some cultures are good, some cultures are

bad; some nations make sense, some nations just don’t have the means to

subsist, and so won’t, and should be allowed to dissolve, instead of insisting

on keeping everything alive artificially, making the world a ethnic group zoo

where every single distinct culture which existed at the end of World War 2

must be preserved as part of the American project to freeze everything at the

moment where its power was at its peak.

What is a “nation” anyway? What is a “people”? The usual attributes are easy to spot: common language and folklore, self-perceived status as a unit distinct to its neighbors. But all those attributes didn’t come out of thin air. They evolved over time, and they evolved because they worked in their particular historical environment. If perceiving yourself as a distinct nation implied your annihilation after a few weeks, like, say, in the case of a Mongol subtribe under the rule of the Khans, or a small fief close to the Kingdom of France, well odds are you aren’t going to perceive yourself as a distinct nation, because the moment you do you get invaded and destroyed. If national status gets you money, women, and lionized in the international press as a Champion of Liberty, well odds are that the among the most impressionable people on earth, i.e. young men and women, who the West has the retarded habit of assembling daily in these places we call Universities, are going to feel like a nation very very fast.

In other words, ethnocentrism

only exists when it pays. While many in the far right talk about pathological altruism

and a lack of ethnocentrism dooming many white nations, it is important to

understand under which conditions does ethnocentrism actually work to produce a

powerful nation. Not always. Not at all.

Is China going to

destroy Hong Kong the way France destroyed all its regional cultures? Not

outright, that’s not how the Communist Party of China does things. The CPC are

real believers in materialism. They really think that Uyghurs for example go

into Islamism because their poor, and the day they’re lifted out of poverty

(through education, of course. The blind belief in Education is the one thing

that the West learned from Confucians and then re-exported as one of the main

tenets of Progressivism) they’ll just become deracinated hedonists like

everyone else. The propaganda line about Hong Kong right now is that a lack of economic

opportunity for young Hong Kongese, in addition to outright mobilization by the

United States of the worst thugs and lowlifes in the city, is behind the riots.

Which is completely missing the point. No amount of money is going to change the

deeply engrained feeling of status superiority of the HKese towards China. It

would only make it worse. The same way that more money would make Muslims even

more arrogant and violent towards outsiders. The comparison with Muslims really

is apt. Two million Hong Kong citizens demonstrated against the extradition

bill. It doesn’t mean that two million people participated in the violent

riots, the beatings of police and dissenting citizens, the physical wrecking of

roads, the blockage of the airport. But they won’t condemn it either. “These

kids are just too hot headed but their heart is in the right place”. The sort of

thing that your average Muslim says about Al Qaeda.

The only effective answer to make Hong Kong a loyal city for China is one that nobody wants to hear: cultural genocide. It would basically take that to make a majority of Hong Kong residents stand up and sing the Chinese anthem with enthusiasm. But that takes decades of very unpleasant effort, especially in a time, as ours, where the prevalent ideology of the Anglo-Jewish elite ruling the American empire and its vassals is committed to the preservation of ethnic identity across the world as a supreme moral mission. A very crafty version of classical divide and conquer, but based on the Holocaust story. Discouraging Cantonese in schools would be tantamount to Auschwitz, HKers will tell you with a straight face.

Right now China’s

propaganda department is putting videos of HK protesters with American flags

shitting on China and beating up Chinese citizens 24/7, proving to mainlanders

what a bunch of despicable traitors the HKese are. The victimist narrative is

working wonders and a pretty massive boycott on everything Hong Kong has

already started. China is gearing up to play the long game, as it can’t afford

to get sanctioned by USG and its allies on trumped charges of “massacring

students” as happened after June 1989 in Tian’anmen. Hong Kong isn’t that important.

It’s funny that Progressivism holds racism as the supreme evil, and yet spares no effort in supporting provincialism and ethnic chauvinism, which are basically the same primal xenophobic instinct, but applied in a narrower and much more irrational way. Races after all do differ in behavior in much larger ways than neighboring ethnic groups. But that’s how Bioleninism works: you’re allowed, even encouraged to hate your family, especially your smarter and more productive relations. What you’re not allowed is to hate complete strangers, especially the nastiest and most hostile ones.


Leave a Reply
  • Great article. I agree that the HK situation is quite a reality check for neocameralism. Patchs simply won't admit that they have failed, and shutting them down from the outside will be bloody and painful.

    • Neocameralism and Moldbug's "patchwork" are different things. Neocameralism is a design for a (single) state -- basically, fascistic corporate rule. Patchwork is Moldbug's vision of the ideal world, including a very large number of city-states, presumably many of which would be neocameralists but with such large numbers, not all. Anyway, with terms defined, I'll still disagree with you and Spandrell. I agree that people in general won't admit they have failed. This is true of governments, corporations, cultures, and individuals. But so what? The question is not whether that's a human tendency. It is. The question is how does the entity deal with it, and (for competing types of entities), which deal with it better than others. I submit that patchwork deals with failure better than the American Empire. I also submit that neocameralism deals with failure much better than other designs for states, in particular modern liberal "democracy".

      • Agreed. Why must bad patches be "shut down from outside"? How does a patch somewhere on this earth not doing well bother your patch? And when some problem comes to your patch, it may be that that failed patch might have some of the solution that your patch forgot. You might steal their solution and don't even need to thank them, since they are too poor to care. Of course some patches might get invaded or conquered. So what? It's a far cry to make conquering and shutting down patches some kind of moral imperative, to the point where we have to worry how hard it will be to cleanse the world of patches we think are underperforming. That seems to me the opposite of the patchwork concept. Competing patches are not like businesses competing in a marketplace. They are like different families or dynasties. They can fail by low birthrates or emigration just fine, or drag on for centuries. I'm sure there are tribes of pygmies living in Papau New Guinea right now, and their existence doesn't bother you one bit. No need to "fix" them. Maybe they'll be conquered, or maybe they'll live on, no biggie either way. The problem is conflating the situation of Hong Kong with the patchwork. HK is gone. It has been given over to China in 1997. In a few decades, it will cease to be independent entirely. The situation in HK is how does a patch absorb another patch it decided to conquer. China can always say "Screw it, we're pulling out of HK. Be independent." But it doesn't want to, it wants to absorb that patch for some (misguided?) reason, and so it has trouble doing so. 100% of that trouble is at the door of mainland China for insisting it must vacuum HK up, instead of leaving it alone. They are well within their rights, and certainly have the power to swallow HK, but I don't have a lot of sympathy if they get a stomach ache. In the patchwork, every patch will have to face that decision -- whether the pain of swallowing a weak patch is worth the stomach ache or not. That's the same decision faced by historical nations as well -- this has absolutely nothing to do with neocameralism. It should, however, give pause to China as to what to do with Taiwan. This idea that China has to absorb every nation with an ethnic Chinese majority is just an odd notion. I am not saying it's a bad idea, but I wonder why they would want to.

        • Territory blows up when it is (a) invaded (b) self-destructed culturally (c) falls behind militarily or economically (d) encircled A smaller separate territory, like HK, has to glom onto its giant neighbor in some way, acting as a leech in the night. That being the case, it reverses the invasion process. Hong Kong is still rich. The billionaire Li pulls his puppet strings from there and he isn't the only centimillionaire. What is a centimillionaire? It is a man who believes he lives with destiny and uses an ATM to prove it.

  • Well-p, it seems like the point is "The strongest survives, the weakest dies, but because of American Empire - the weakest somehow survive". Still, I dont really get the idea of some details. If I do remember correctly (I may not), You said that to preserve European Culture, locals have to stop being pussies, grow a pair and kick out arabian/negroes invaders. Still, in case of Hong Kong, who are trying to preserve a shadow of their "cultural superiority" with that much arrogance, you say that the most preferable scenario is to crush them with Chinese tank treads. Still, they do just fight to assert their status. Moreover, I have a lot of questions about China's role in contemporary status-quo from the perspective of NRx (at least - your thoughts). Because, wellp, it seems that the CCP is just the same bone in the throat as the Cathedral, with the main difference of being a regional superpower (Asia Africa). If the main point is "They are bad cuz they are sponsored by status-quo Cathedral and American Empire" - that makes sense, though (even on intuitive level, at least for me and, probably, other NRx-collegues). But if not - are they bad only because they are arrogant, unnoble and trying to desperately protect their doomed culture? If I misunderstood something - I'm sorry.

    • Their cultural superiority is gone because mainland China has surpassed them by now. All they are now doing is adopting modern western SJW stuff so they can keep claiming to be superior on different grounds; they want to preserve that subjective superiority, not the objective cultural traits themselves. They're not waving Hong Kong flags, they're waving British and American ones.

      They could give up and accept their status as fellow Chinese; which would entail much less surrender to evil than white European nations are asked to do, with African invasion, gaymarriage, radical feminism and the whole SJW package which is now mandatory.

      • Well, if so - then, I understood everything correctly. Thanks :^) Also - yea, If they do wave American/British flag instead of Hong Kongian - what is the even sense of their existance as Hong Kongian? It is like if San Marinians wave Italian Flag, or Ukrainians waving flag of EU alongside with our own...? Wait...oh SHI The point is - I do try to say that protecting own sovereignty is a noble course, yet - you have to be able to protect it instead of selling it to some third party, ESPECIALLY if it is Cathedral. That truth is, for some reason, is barely understandable for politicians of young states. Maybe because they're retarts, most likely.

      • Their cultural superiority is gone because mainland China has surpassed them by now. All they are now doing is adopting modern western SJW stuff so they can keep claiming to be superior on different grounds
        SJW stuff is designed for that - it exists so people with no personal virtues can have the "virtue" of having the correct beliefs. Look at the situation in that light - HKers aren't better looking (I'll trust Spandrell's judgement on that point as the local expert), they're not richer, they don't have a great future full of interesting work - they just have the ugly reality of looking on as people they consider beneath them surpass them in every way. Does that sound familiar? So they adopt SJW virtues which have the side effect of totally wrecking the place (in the SJW's native environment they wreck the enemy's stuff faster than their own because that belief system lets its adherents parasite enemy orgs and they wreck the parasited org - not so in the China / HK situation where China continues along and HKers wreck their own city's ability to conduct business).

        • HK protesters are routinely displaying Trump and Pepe the frog pictures. How does that make them SJWs? And Antifa in the US are marching with Chinese flags at the same time! I think Spandrell is very confused on that point. Otherwise, great article.

  • I actually agree with the majority of what you say, expect with a few caveats about Mainland vs Hong Kong differences, with the Hong Kong still ahead of the Mainland in many ways: Wages for the lower and middle classes are actually higher in Hong Kong than the Mainland, and in the case of the working class, much higher. Its just that Hong Kong cost of living is very high so quality of life may be better in the Mainland. On the other hand, the Mainland does have major quality control issues with a lot of everyday life consumer products. First world-quality products, including imports from just about anywhere in the world, are readily available, but everything is at a mark-up, and out of reach from the lower middle and working classes. Ole is such a chain in all sizable Chinese cities: Shanghai and Beijing specifically have specialty supermarkets specializing in Western or Japanese produce. Hong Kong doesn't have stifling censorship, but the Mainland does. This is a major annoyance, big enough to dent quality of life, if one needs frequent contact with foreigners, such as researchers, expats, or international businessmen. YouTube videos loading at 360p can be very frustrating after a while. There's much more detail being paid into infrastructure in HK than the Mainland. Mainland infrastructure is better from a macro perspective. The sheer size and beauty and complexity is hard to beat. It's the little things that Hong Kong do much better such as quality of signage, the cleanliness of bathrooms, the amount of lighting, and A/C. The Mainland has a penchant of barely turning on the A/C and using dim lighting and unpolished marble floors. At the HK-Shenzhen border, the HK side feels very first world: Its essentially British infrastructure but 50-50 Chinese and English. On the Shenzhen side, the building itself is just as nice as the customs building on the HK side, but you have little things like: Dirty bathrooms, dim lighting, a couple of taxi touts, the occasional comically translated Chinglish sign, or the funniest of all at the Futian checkpoint: To remind people to obey security checks, instead of using a proper PA announcement they just place a portable loudspeaker on a table with a pre-recorded low quality message that repeats over and over again (I kid you not). On the other hand, infrastructure built in the last 5 years are at Hong Kong standards. Older infrastructure in China is still very bad and mostly haven't been updated to first world standards. Also, in the Mainland, there's a lot of corner-cutting among the working class, much more so than the Hong Kongers: There's a reason why there's such a massive parallel trading industry not just in Hong Kong but also to a lesser extent South Korea, Japan, and even Australia: People in the Mainland trust overseas products much more so than domestic products. Up until the eve of the protests, many, many Mainlanders are rushing to study, work, and live in Hong Kong because of perceived prestige. Mainlanders are slaves to prestige and before the protests, Hong Kong was still considered more prestigious than the Mainland. This is why so many Mainlanders send their kids abroad: Its just so much more prestigious to have your kid living overseas, and overseas degrees are seen as prestigious even if somewhere like Tsinghua or Fudan is much more competitive and with higher quality education. There's also an international, first world vibe in Hong Kong that no Mainland city is able to replicate yet. But Shanghai is rapidly catching up. Even within the Mainland there's a sense of superiority: Shanghainese people write off the rest of China as country bumpkins and the rest of China considers Shanghainese to be arrogant pricks full of weak beta males. This has declined after Shanghainese has been banned from education since 1992, although a revival of Shanghainese has started around 2012: Kids born since then have regained the ability to speak Shanghainese. There's a lot of pride in holding Shanghai and Beijing hukous: pride in being natives of a superior city is what's reviving Shanghainese while dialects in the rest of the more transplant-heavy regions of China continues to wither away at alarming rates.

  • I think you have a point but you are too focused on that single point. Like you said, it's human nature to seek high status. But that high status and sense of superiority need evidence to back up, otherwise it's too cheap to worth anything. Millions of HKers cross the border daily to visit mainland China, do you really think that those HKers are so blind to ignore China's development and justify their sense of superiority? The Chinese government is right. The riots are mainly due to the lack of social mobility for young people (because of the ruling of the tycoon oligarchy), in addition to USG meddling. When the youngsters see no hope for home ownership ever and social mobility, some form of catharsis is just a matter of time. Ironically, the Chinese government isn't completely innocent at this outcome. After all, the HK basic law that has enabled the ruiling of real estate tycoon was enacted by the Chinese government and is supposed to last 50 years. The universal suffrage the rioters ask for doesn't seem that unreasonable given that the Chinese government could do nothing about the HK legCo until 2047. Look, everything you say about HongKong is more or less the same in Singapore except for the home ownership. Do Singaporeans hold such hostility towards mainland Chinese or even their own nondemocratic and authoritarian government?

    • Oh come on. Why ask for democracy if it's going to be dismantled by 2047? If Hong Kong is too expensive they should move to Guangzhou. I still don't buy that the tycoons are so evil and the whole thing easily avoidable. Look at Hong Kong. Every piece of flat land is already occupied. It's not like they have huge plots of empty land available to develop close to employment centers. Hong Kong is packed already.

      • 1st, these riots smack of the an attempt at a color revolution . Trying this on China is ridiculous. The Chinese unlike much of the Middle East are intelligent, disciplined with a strong lock of government and forewarning of this kind of thing being a US favorite tactic. The PRC clearly understands the situation and will have no trouble shutting putting an end to the effort. Good on them. However expecting people to move just to chase coin and to live as rootless vagabonds is extremely destructive to society in general . Truth is if you want to preserve a culture in modernity people have to be able to have roots. This means being born to a place and being able to live among the people of that place for one's entire life with work enough to pay the bills. Certainly one cannot expect constant growth but one can reasonably expect the state to be looking out for other interests than enriching a few rich people as well. Also someone my mentions the Jews. Orthodox Jews do pretty well in the fertility department but they "own" certain areas via simply living there in numbers and by political power. I suppose every group could adapt some of these customs but that would surely end modernity as well. Secular, rootless Jews outside Israel have terrible fertility and no future , low asian or european and on top of that around half maybe more are mixed race and lose Jewish identity. Since rooted people may not be possible in modernity this means cultural continuity is also not possible which means cultures, all of the except the most rooted in religion will die. Amishness and high religiosity for the win Well in a few centuries in the West anyway.

    • Transparency International probably won't show you high level corruptions, but overall, corruption level in Hong Kong is way way better than China. It ranks 14/180 compared to China's 87/180. This could be one of the big reasons people just don't want to move to Dongguan.

      • I do not believe transparency international. Their ratings are political and contrary to my experience. They are fine with corruption provided it is done by the right people in the right way.

  • I'm still wondering why the cops don't shut down the more violent protests for good, maybe enjoying that sweet double overtime pay? As of a week or two ago, the mob instigator crowd was crying about how over 800 people or so were arrested and 1200 tear gas grenades fired over the span of 2 months, claiming this was police brutality. The numbers are meant to "shock" but the actions of the Hong Kong police are what a Western police force will use in a single day during a major riot. Lam's strategy of doing nothing and letting things boil may or may not be the wisest course of action, but as the saying goes, never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. There aren't that many "hardcore" rioters, simplest thing to do is once engaged, move cops behind them and block the roads with vehicles. Use an armoured car or bulldozer to smash their zip tied barriers and them club them senseless and arrest them for rioting. Stops the madness on the streets and the rest can get on with their powerless bourgeoisie peaceful protests that everyone ignores.

    • Yes, or blocking entrance to the airport and trains. It's not rocket science.

  • Forgive me for what may seem like a dumb question, as I am not embedded in the Chinese sphere as you are. I've never even visited, though I hope to at some point. Is it true that China (even if we are just including the 1st tier cities) is in totality richer than Hong Kong? While I don't doubt that at the upper levels salaries are greater than or equal to those in Hong Kong, there seems to be a high level of income inequality within 1st tier cities. Is it not possible that life for the average uneducated person is, at this stage, better in HK? So a portion of the protesters actually do fare better in Hong Kong. Hong Kong does have a higher than average gini coefficient, it just seems that tier 1 cities have even higher ones than Hong Kong in the .7 to .9 range. Of course this could be wrong, outdated, propaganda, whatever. It is very difficult to get accurate information about China as a Westerner who speaks no Chinese, having to sift through propaganda on both sides.

    • Living standards for middle and upper class people are higher in tier 1 cities in China; and probably tier 2 by now. People live in larger apartments, buy cars more often, work less time and enjoy better services. The working class may have a better deal HK as of now. There's just too many of them in China.

      • There is a level of refinement lacking in China that the massive investment just can't buy. It is a lot of small details and intangibles that make Hongkong more palatable to those used to western standards. The slight edge in modern amenities and services aside, mainland Chinese do have it better when it comes to the more macroscopic elements of quality of life and what they don't know they can't miss. They marry after soon after graduation in their early 20s, buy decent sized apartments, have children before 30 and generally seem to hit all of life's traditional milestones without much hindrance. Their peers in Hongkong may have to live with their parents out of necessity, not by choice until their 30s, at which point they may finally find some similarly withered mate to rent or buy some shoebox apartment and resign the rest of their overworked lives to keeping a cat or two. I would want to smash the system too if that was my lot in life.

  • Great article, neatly boils down and explains a confusing phenomenon. I'm certain you're right about the HK mindset, their entire national consciousness seems to boil down to disdain for mainlanders, and they'll adopt whatever metric they need to uphold that superiority, even if they were actively aware that it would lead to trans kids, mass migration, and empowered wahmen (the wahmen are already pretty empowered though). It's pretty mind-boggling how 99% of the right, even the "dissident" right who claim to have at least a rudimentary understanding of how leftist power operates, is suddenly jumping into agreement with Cathedral journos thinking this is all about muh freedomz and muh human rights. You may be one of the only people I've seen with a better take. Partly related but mostly tangential: what do you think about the increased migration from Africa to China? Also, according to Western media, China's planning on introducing #metoo laws in their civil code. Does China have its own bioleninist cathedral, or are they paying lip service because they're not yet powerful enough to tell globohomo to fuck off?

    • China has its own problems with feminism, mostly homegrown. Women earn good money now, lots of powerful men have only daughters, so the power balance has been tilting towards women for decades now. It's not too bad, and divorce laws are very male friendly as of now. And western style feminism is publicly acknowledged as being foreign interference. African migration to China is not really growing, and the Guangzhou ghetto has been mostly dissolved.

      • Japan has adult son adoption who subsequently marry their daughters. Wonder why chinese havent adopted that. If one cannot have son. One can still get a son-in-law who can be adopted as heir.

        • It does happen, but Chinese are much more familial than the Japanese. They like their own blood.

          • @Spandrell Ok. Although that option is definitely 2nd best and there is an option of ensuing a competent son-in-law.

      • >It's not too bad You're definitely more knowledgeable than I am about China, but I instinctively have to push back on this one. >tl;dr Chinese finishing school causes feminist outcry and gets shut down by government This stuff moves really fast. 65 years ago the sort of stuff that Chinese school got shut down for was being taught to girls in *public* schools in the USA. The USA passed sex discrimination laws in 1964, China in 2007. Give it another 10 years or so and China may well catch up to the US. As far as mass immigration goes, China probably has less to worry about because it has a bigger population. But it always starts small and grows exponentially. Germany had "temporary" workers that they promised would leave, then never kicked them out, now there's a whole flood of economic migrants. Japan is starting the same process now. Perhaps I'm drawing too many parallels to Western countries, but it seems like all it would take for China to open the floodgates to Africa is some giant corporation that wants cheap labor cutting deals with politicians. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the hypocrisy and modern decadence that HK so enthusiastically embraces is pretty much global at this point, arguably inherent to any developed society where people aren't killing each other in wars every generation. It's just a matter of time before it sinks in to every population with an average IQ > 85. In that way, I'm almost more sympathetic to the protesters, since it's unclear that aligning with China is much better than being a US puppet state from any perspective.

  • My travels in China have been limited to Hong Kong and Guangdong province, so perhaps my observations don’t apply to places like Shanghai and Beijing. But in comparing Hong Kong to Shenzhen, there are some points that need to be made, particularly since China’s stated plan in response to the protests is to “build up” Shenzhen and make it better than Hong Kong. It has a way to go in many respects. I agree with most everything AquariusAnon said above. Hong Kong food industries: Hong Kong and mainland have different food safety and quality standards. Food is more expensive in Hong Kong than in Shenzhen but it also tastes different. This is true of everything from expensive restaurants to McDonalds. There is also the issue of variety. Hong Kong has it, Shenzhen does not. If you go to an Italian or Mexican restaurant in Hong Kong, you get Italian or Mexican food. In Shenzhen, you get a rather pathetic imitation, with inferior ingredients. “Hong Kongers are, generally speaking, a bunch of rude, uncultured, materialistic, annoying, semi-glossic, entitled twats.” This is equally true of Shenzheners. The difference is that Hong Kong people actually have style and some sophistication, whereas mainlander tuhao look ridiculous and have obnoxious personalities, the result of having acquired money without ever acquiring manners or education. “Their average looks, famously the ugliest in China” Sorry but no way. Cross the border and compare Shenzhen or Guangzhou girls. But for the moment let’s chalk that up to personal taste and instead note that one of the things which makes Hong Kong girls better looking is their healthier skin. Why do they have that? Two reasons: better quality beauty products (which the aforementioned traders always grab) and better nutrition. The current chaos notwithstanding, Hong Kong generally has a sense of order. People know how to queue, and how to use a toilet rather than a sidewalk (even with a dearth of public toilets). Standards of cleanliness, both on the street and inside buildings, are higher than anywhere I've seen on the mainland. “the vast majority of HKers would hang themselves in the nearest lamp post before considering the logical option of just packing up and moving to Dongguan” - Because even if you have an apartment three times as big for one quarter of the price, you still have to live in Dongguan, which is a shithole. The little differences in Hong Kong add up to a lot in terms of quality of living. The attitude problem you identify in Hong Kongers is real, but that’s not the only thing keeping them from moving to Dongguan or Guangzhou. “It doesn’t help that there’s much fucked in Hong Kong for it being a tax haven where all of China is parking their money in real estate, and the government is captured by Lee Ka-shing and fellow oligarchs.” This is the root of the problem, which hardly anyone talks about. The stupid Murkans think Hong Kong wants muh freedumb and the stupid protesters think Beijing is the reason for all their troubles. Meanwhile, the city’s oligarchs are laughing. (And I have no doubt Murkan blackhands are fanning the flames and are responsible for the most violent protesters.) P.S. Hong Kong music bad? How can you not love melodramatic Cantonese renditions of American 80s power ballads?

    • If you really think Hong Kong people have more sophistication (!) and girls have better skin (!!!) I have nothing to say to you. I just think you should stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking.

      • Like I said I can only base it on my limited observations comparing Hong Kong to Guangzhou and Shenzhen. Maybe northern Chinese are more sophisticated and the girls have better skin, I don't know.

  • Many people in the Rightosphere talks about the Anglo American Empire and how it meddles in everyone's country with muh democracy and freedom. They are not wrong, but guess what? There is a group of ethnicity that massively eggs on these developments. And all for the interests of themselves or for their own clique within their ethnicity. I have partial ancestry from China, so what happens in China concerns me greatly. Hong Kong, like it or not, outperforms China on basic material prosperity, institutional and social trust, food safety and medical care, and many other reasons. You don't see as many Hong Kongers moving to China as mainland Chinese moving to Hong Kong to enjoy things you don't get in mainland China. And as someone who's in love with Chinese traditions, I cannot say that the current Chinese government are really doing their best to improve their own country, from a traditional Confucian perspective or from a modern economic perspective. I cannot and will not support the CCP under any circumstance. You need to look at how Chinese communist nationalists are protesting against the Hong Kongers and their supporters in Australia, Canada, NZ and elsewhere to see how drone-like and prone to violence they are. Of course there are violent protesters in Hong Kong too, but in the overseas field, the mainlanders are failing to show the world why they should support China, with their Communist flags, their Ferraris and big speakers blasting Chinese songs. Not to mention many of these protests are run by students who can't speak decent English, and prone to swear off. There is a lot more to say about the moral and spiritual status of most mainlanders, but I can't say they are the best of the Chinese race at the moment. Now, come to the Chinese government themselves. They recently did this : You see how they just buy easily into the "muh evil whitey Westerners" narrative? This is the same government that partnered up with the US decades ago via the arch globalist Kissinger. And Kissinger still enjoys star status in China. They have great relations with the Bidens and the Clintons. And lately, I have seen China partnering up with certain leftists from the anti-imperialist sphere (Venezuela, Iran, Russia) to portrays how the USA is racist and such, thus buying into the Cathedral's narrative. Such action will only contribute further to the destabilization of Western countries. Both the current Chicoms and the USG are the enemies of civilization. Everyone should be careful in supporting the Chicoms because they seem more "based" than the US at the moment. By the way, the Chicoms don't need to show the world how "inclusive" they are compared to the "racist" USA, yet this is what is on CCTV English: . My recommendation is to support alt-Chinese folks who are racially aware and know the real history of the CCP, and alt-East Asian people, of which your acquaintance Augustus Manchurius is one. By the look of it, if China gets into a civil war (between say, Xi Jinping and Jiang Zemin), then the country will go into the cycle of disunion and reunion again. I'd say that, if that's the case and if you love China, you better find ways to build your local power and become a warlord who can bring order to chaos.

    • Supporting Manchurius? Seriously dude. Chinese separatists are all a bunch of crazies, but Dongbei separatism is just retarded.

      • The question is not about separatism, but about whether you can create order out of chaos. If China disunites, then chaos will come, and whoever can provide order, will become the warlord. Whether he wants to restore the Kingdom of Manchuria, is not as important as this.

        • And I believe China will disunite, not because I want to, but because it's the nature of the Chinese communists. Their coming to power is not backed by the Mandate of Heaven, since they are officially atheists. So any person who wants to stand above other CCP politburo members and become the Emperor, will attract great antagonism. Xi Jinping wants to be the Emperor, but could he afford to fight against other power holders in the party?

          • China never really did the religion thing for their government, though; some of the best emperors, such as Emperor Taizong were well known for their limited concession to spiritual concerns. The more spiritual Mahayana Buddhism which spread in medieval China, for example, proceeded to promptly build up gigantic Inexhaustible Treasuries and irritated the dynastic government by essentially becoming gigantic concentrations of wealth. By 511 AD, there were degrees condemning monks for high-interest loans, and by 713 AD, the government launched seizures against temples.

          • I might be crazy indeed. But looking at the power struggle inside the party, who can say that they are united? You have read Chinese histories all these years. How many dynasties ended up broken because of court intrigues and power struggles? These days, for CCP top officials, there's no Heaven or Earth, only party or power.

          • Chinese Emperors didn't sponsor religions, but they also didn't put themselves above any of them, unlike the Communists, who have been known to insist that Mao Zedong is just as good as Confucius himself.

          • "How many dynasties ended up broken because of court intrigues and power struggles?" Not that many? Certainly succession struggles could be argued to have weakened dynasties, but the actual immediate causes of weaknesses were usually simple corruption and decadence, leading to strengthened rebellions, one could even argue that the Chu-Han contention was a version of that. Tight control and strength, regardless of court intrigues, actually led to continued stability. Emperor Taizong for his part was well known for never having the time to do anything spiritual. I also believe the idea that Xi wants to be Emperor, per se, to be mistaken. Its a different dynamic, despite certain similarities. Much of that could be said of China as a whole.

    • "When shown that salaries in Shanghai are higher, the food is better, apartments are incomparably bigger and better designed, internet services are an order of magnitude better ... " And there are slums in Shanghai where those things are limited or don't exist. And Shanghai is part of mainland China. The Hong Kongers want things better than that, even if their conditions right now are not as good as Shanghai. By the way, Shanghai also has a lot of investments from Western countries.

    • People like Li Shuo (Augustus Manchurius) are pure shitposters who seek dopamine rushes from calling people like themselves shinajin, and the more sophisticated of them (e.g. Liu Zhongjing) are banking on local Party officials and cliques which they tirelessly lick the asses of (whom, to their credit, they know are the only way any change could even come, per the principle of conservation of power/sovereignty). If you mean their ideas are good then that is fair I suppose but a large portion of their ideas are incoherent shitposts facilitating an elaborate process of internet-based entertainment, and the rest is conventional wisdom almost any adult in China and even the world know but do not act upon because of greater pressures. This rant is quite tangential, but I don't want anyone to have the wrong idea that these people are somehow gates to oriental wisdom or whatever

  • You sound like Kevin Williamson. The “anywhere people” chauvinism rubs me the wrong way.

      • He’s saying you sound like a cosmopolitan, à la Kevin Williamson, who thinks that weak parochial people should die and we should all celebrate it. Best exemplified by this piece of writing by Williamson “The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.”

      • “Huh” as in you don’t know who that is or in you dont realize that you have paraphrased the last third of his column?

        • If Hong Kong deserves to die how many other societies don't make the cut? I sincerely hope you just possess a lot of personal animus towards the people of Hong Kong. A society may not be objectively the best in the world but one in which the people don't collectively see it as such is in deep trouble. The myth is more important than the truth. If you want to be a social Darwinist on a macro scale then isn't the globohomo anglosphere the fittest of all? You appear to be arguing that individuals in Hong Kong abandon all familial and social ties to maximize their individual economic opportunities and morally condemning them for not doing so. On a societal scale you are declaring Hong Kong to be sick and not just predicting the death of the patient but demanding that he just commit suicide on the spot. Personally, my respect for corrupt, second-world countries that refuse to get with the program grows day by day. One day, I may expatriate to one. I hope their citizens don't all move to Berlin and London.

          • Cry me a river. Cities rise and fall. Economies grow and contract. That you are being priced out of the city where you're raised is tough, yes, nobody enjoys that. But that doesn't give you a right to riot, break public property and stab policemen. You move to a nearby place and go on with your life, as we all did. Nobody has a right to enjoy sustained economic development in the city of their birth. That's just not possible.

          • Yes, he is definitely personally biased against Hong Kongers for some reason, which I clearly don't understand. Both Hong Kong and Mainland China have their pros and cons. It's just a matter of preference. Too bad that given the choice, most people even in the Mainland would rather choose Hong Kong. Mainlanders often pay an obscene amount of money for HKIDs and Hong Kong property, or have their kids go to Hong Kong schools. But I don't see Hong Kongers clamoring for a PRC hukou or sending them to a PRC public school. Case in point: Every morning look at the sheer amount of Shenzhen kids crossing the border to go to public school in Hong Kong. I don't see masses of Hong Kong kids crossing the border to go to even Nanshan District public schools, let alone Bao'an or Luohu. Martin Jacques at least has a very understandable reason for hating Hong Kong, after his wife died in a Hong Kong hospital due to medical negligence. I would too if I were in his shoes. But I really wonder what did Hong Kong do to spandrell.

      • Um, OK. Cry me a river, policemen rise and fall. Nobody likes to get stabbed. You should have been faster and stronger. Move on. [S:You will be polite in my blog, or not comment]

  • This is a good piece, but as other commenters have pointed out, it is let down by your false claim that HK is being outstripped by China. The only mainland city which can compete with HK in terms of living standards/quality of life etc is Shanghai, and even that is arguable. The rest of the Tier 1s are still far behind, the Tier 2 are decades behind, and the remaining 99% of the country is light years away.

    • I just don't agree, and I've lived in both Hong Kong, tier 1 and tier 2 cities in China.

      The only big advantage Hong Kong still has by now is better medical care. Western food in Hong Kong isn't even that good, and that's not a problem except for stubborn expats.

  • I'm with hbd chick. No way are a group of populations as numerous and dispersed as the Han all identical. Yes, HK Chinese tend to inflate their own sense of uniqueness, but that doesn't mean they aren't different from the great mass of mainlanders to some degree. Call good Samaritans the narcissism of small differences if you wish; it's still nice to receive help immediately upon collapse from insulin shock rather than being left to die. Lots of usable real estate sits idle in tycoon land banks thanks to Hong Kong's fuck-backwards public revenue system. Very little incentive to develop those properties into reasonably priced housing.

    • Hong Kongers are mostly from Cantonese stock, 90% of which live in the mainland. What's the difference there?

      I keep hearing that story about idle land; but where is it? Look at a map. Almost every inch of flat land in Hong Kong is housing 50 story beehive flats.

  • In the Anglosphere press, I always hear normies making fun of Chinese state media for going on about the CIA, pointing at any random white guy in HK and labeling them an intelligence operative/asset. How much public attention does Beijing focus on NGOs, foreign civil service, and Western media in general?

  • "Most likely it will just come up with some lame rationalization about how their backwardness is actually just a sign of their superior status, and before changing a iota of its own habits, will rather go to war with the richer city for having the audacity of not accepting the poor city’s cultural superiority" This is exactly the kind of thing that I keep talking about under "subjective status" although "illusionary status" might be better. That while, yes, status is in the eye of the beholder, there is a difference if it is actually in the eye of the beholder. Or if you just think it is in it. Or if you just think it should be in it and get angry because it isn't and come up with justifications, conspiracy theories (Surely HKers also say they are getting poorer because China is conspiring to rob them of their well deserved money? These types always say this.) and stories about past glories. One typical thing is to double down, try to ignore the external world and just keep performing the kinds of things they used to in the past when things went better for them, as a kind of ritual and tradition. Now, the likely reason I am not really getting much attention to this argument is that only losers do this. The people who actually rule the world, who really matter, like, Washington, don't LARP. They have very keen eyes for seeing and grabbing actual status. But most of the world is losers. And they absolutely do this. They don't work on getting real status, they just want to sit around and tell each other stories why should they have high status and how they, in a certain (bullshit) sense are still better than others. Recently I had a stupid spell and thus started preaching absolutism to a group of libertarians. It went differently as I expected as they told me absolutists don't actually govern shit, and told me about this book which seems to be right up your alley as it says absolutism in Southeast Asia didn't actually govern shit. Which implies patchwork is not necessary for a monarchy to not turn into tyranny.

    • That's an interesting book, but the argument is way overdone. The state ruled all the best land, more land as it grew stronger, and now rules all of it.

      • The writ of the state runs mighty thin in large parts of the Philippines. The result, however, is not anarcho utopia, but rather that large scale economic activity is impossible. The result is neither socialism nor capitalism, but self sufficiency plus the gift economy plus remittances from kinfolk who go overseas or get jobs where the writ of the state does run. And it turns out that self sufficiency plus the gift economy is a mighty tough way to hack out a living.

  • I enjoyed this article and the loads of information about the current situation in HK. But I have trouble tying together the various strands of this argument. You argue: 1. HK is inferior to Mainland China (OK, that's subjective, but let's say to an informed outside observer, they would prefer to live in Mainland China rather than in HK *right now*) 2. Yet HK does not acknowledge its inferiority. (Of course not. Somalia doesn't acknowledge its inferiority, why should HK?) 3. This is because HK has developed a nativist culture that refuses to acknowledge how much better the mainland is (Yes, this is one of the criteria of developing a native culture, or a separate identity from the mainland.) 4. Therefore this reveals a failure in nativism (huh? It's the definition of nativism!) 5. The only solution for China to turn HK into a patriotic and willing part of China is cultural annihilation (Of course). As to point 4, take a look at Poland. It was constantly invaded and at one point completely disappeared. Now those intransigent Poles, the inferior nation to the superior Germans and Swedes, those who refused to be assimilated, turn out to be one of the last bulwarks in Europe. The Czechs were wiped off the map for a few hundred years and also re-emerged. So we see that a diversity of cultures is an advantage for purposes of robustness across changing circumstances even though it's a disadvantage for purposes of efficiency during any particular set of circumstances. If, for example, China were to descend into another cultural revolution or deeper into a cult of personality for Xi, then HK would start looking better again. So tying all this together, we have: - Political control is not cultural control. - Cultures do die over time due to normal assimilation and birthrate decline/emigration, but the process takes a long time and is unpredictable. The only way to force cultural control over short periods is cultural genocide via forced population transfers, murder, or similar techniques -- let's call these "Extreme Measures". And as Stalin discovered, even these extreme measures can often fail, and of course they are very expensive. - Cultures, by virtue of their differences, can be inferior in some circumstances and then emerge superior when the circumstances change, perhaps hundreds of years later. - Cultures emerge unpredictably and not necessarily from moral reasons, whether a rape of Sabine women or greedy Cantonese emigrating to a diseased ridden rock to exploit trade loopholes, or Latin refugees taking shelter in a diseased ridden Venetian swamps to hide from goths. * * * And your conclusions are that this is some sort of problem, whereas really it just a problem for mainland China's program of enforcing both cultural and political homogeneity on all areas with an ethnic Chinese majority. That is an ambitious, bizarre, and fragile program. No one would consider enforcing political and cultural homogeneity on all European whites, for example. Long term, this program will fail at least a few times, and will require a lot of Extreme Measures, whether what is happening in Xinjiang, or previously Tibet, or HK, or in the future Taiwan. And China is going to keep having these problems as different cultures form within it due to the fact that both genetically and culturally China is a heterogenous nation with at least the diversity that you saw in the old Holy Roman Empire, but China is insisting on keeping the whole thing together at all costs. That means Extreme Measures forever. On the one hand, that provides stability and peace, but on the other hand, that monoculture means failure modes are truly catastrophic. Bad government becomes bad government for all Chinese. At the same time, it requires a great deal of energy and discipline. And at some point, generally during a failure, that discipline/energy is going to dissipate and then different cultures are going to break off and form their autonomous areas or even nations. China's will and energy are not infinite, and over time, just as old cultures naturally die off, new ones are naturally born, even if we think the source of the birth is illegitimate. The rape of the Sabines was not legitimate, but it doesn't matter why people in one place have a different identity, all that matters is that they do. It is completely irrelevant whether HK is better or worse than mainland China. All that matters is that it sees itself as different. Once that happens, China has 2 options -- a) leave HK alone and admit a foreign culture living in its territory, content to have political but not cultural domination. Or b) go the Xinjiang route and adopt Extreme Measures yet again. The problem for China is that its economy is dependent on exporting to the West, who although they don't really give a shit about what happens in Xinjiang, do care about what happens to HK. So Extreme Measures are unlikely to happen as they would risk destroying China's unbalanced economy. At least until China rebalances, it's going to have to content itself with political, but not cultural, control over HK, and the HK people know it. Whether they are good people, or bad people, is beside the point. Whether they "deserve" to have a unique identity is beside the point. Whether their stereotypes of mainlanders are accurate is unimportant. None of those things matter. They shouldn't matter to you and they certainly don't matter to anyone outside of China. All that matters is that HK has its own cultural identity, and China is currently in no position to crush it. Everything else is hurt feelings.

    • I'm saying nativism is making Hong Kong poorer, dumber and more unpleasant. And that's a bad thing. What's your point?

      • Because it's not doing any of these things. The recognition of difference creates nativism. Nativism doesn't create the difference, it reflects it. Once there is a difference in culture and people consider themselves a different group, who are you to insist that no, they are wrong, they should be part of the same group? It is completely beside the point that they are not doing exactly the same as other groups. Why not just let them be? If they really are worse off, declining birth rates and out migration will shrink them down over time. Additionally, having different nations with their own cultures provides for some robustness over monoculture, so it benefits the race as a whole, even if bothers you somehow that somewhere on this earth is a culture not doing as well as mainland China and it must be found and rooted out.

        • Oh, the old liberal argument that culture is sacred and God-given and government should by no means interfere with it.

          • That's not my argument. You seem to be complaining that swallowing HK is giving a stomach ache to China. This is why independent cultures continue to exist, even after they are materially conquered. You are complaining about this price, and I am pointing out that this is reality. It is not good or bad, but that's how it is. There are benefits and costs. A cost is that not the most efficient solution exists at any point in time. Less efficient solution exist alongside more efficient solutions, and the less efficient solutions refuse to change. This bothers you, but a benefit is robustness. As circumstances change, those cultures who were better adapted in the past might fall behind and cultures that were backwards might spring ahead. So nature creates diversity in which people value their peculiarity, whether you like it or not, they are hardwired to this, and this stubbornness provides resilience against changing circumstances. You wish there would be some easy way to destroy HK culture because it is inferior, sort of like a free marketeer confused that a business that isn't the most efficient continues to operate. That is very ideological, simple thinking. I'm pointing out that not only does the world not work that way, but that there are good survival reasons for not working this way.

  • The similarities between Hong Kong and Barcelona are stark. 1. Both have a fake "national" culture that is indistinct from China and Spain, except for what Globohomo has implanted 2. They're both regional capitals of globohomo financial capitalism 3. Their economies are driven by real estate speculation 4. Most young natives can't afford to reproduce The only major difference is that Hong Kong has not yet started to import massive amounts of Africans and Arabs

  • On HK vs Shenzhen: If you want a more authentic Chinese experience, Shenzhen would be better as there are still very few foreigners. You also get a slice of Mainland culture from all over the country due to its status as a migrant city. For expats or even Chinese people with a more Westernized mindset, Hong Kong still wins hands down. The different culture formed during the British colonial times really affects the general vibe of the city in just about every facet. Crossing the border at Luohu or Futian you instantly get the vibe that you are in a de facto foreign country on either side. It is just easier to relate to Hong Kongers for those coming from overseas. Besides, expat culture is formed differently in Hong Kong than Shenzhen having been around for over a century. There's nothing resembling SoHo in Shenzhen not just in number of foreigners and quality of restaurants, but the general life. There likely won't be for decades. Hong Kong bureaucracy can be inept at times, but things actually work just like you'd expect in a first world country. Chinese bureaucracy can be mind boggling, with a lot of paperwork that doesn't make sense and the enforcement of the law can be arbitrary: Chinese law is extremely strict but they rarely enforce it properly. Also, corruption hasn't been eradicated in China at all. As of 2016, I still remember bribery. There's a reason why most Hong Kongers anywhere in the Mainland are only there temporarily, for money making purposes exclusively, and send their kids to international schools. And these are the pro-Beijing ones. Everyday life simply functions so differently between Hong Kong and the Mainland that Hong Kongers in the Mainland generally feel like living in a foreign country that's difficult to adjust to, and vice versa. For example, Hong Kong's educational system and internet ecosystem isn't just different from the Mainland's: It's different enough to be incompatible. And the average girl in Hong Kong is hotter than the average girl in Shenzhen. Shenzhen has so many peasant girls with weird fashion sense and give off a distinct peasant vibe. Hong Kong doesn't have that. They are better dressed and "Westernized" in a way that its just easier to make a connection with them. On the other hand, HK girls are inferior wife material, though I'd rather deal with HK inlaws than Mainland inlaws. Shenzhen might be Tier 1 economically, but it still generally feels like a Tier 2 city. The masses of peasant migrants, the mediocre upkeep of otherwise really nice places, and the group exercises that restaurant waiters do after their shift all give it an unmistakable Tier 2 vibe. I would call Shenzhen the largest and most developed Tier 2 city, not a Tier 1. There's only really one Tier 1 city in China, and that's Shanghai. Beijing is Tier 1.5. Tier 2 cities in China still have a set of issues that not even Shanghainese natives can truly feel comfortable living in. Non-regional food in Tier 2 cities are no better than the "authentic" Chinese restaurants overseas, and the Western food that are not 5 star hotel restaurants is generally laughable, with some exceptions. Not to mention nongs and tuhaos combined form the majority of the population in Tier 2 and below cities. China has come a long way, but it still has a LONG way to go before you can call a city like Shenzhen or Chengdu superior to Hong Kong.

    • "And the average girl in Hong Kong is hotter than the average girl in Shenzhen" This invalidates everything you said and will ever say. For God's sake just look around. I obviosuly know that Hong Kong is a more Westernized place and it's generally more comfortable for white people to live. I've lived there. I didn't find the local Hong Kongers so easy to relate to, nor did any other expat out there that I knew, but ok, it is marginally more comfortable as a Westerner if you just won't learn the language and eat local food. But so what? I'm not in the business of conspiring so everywhere in the world becomes more comfortable for your average white normie.

      • Yes, I looked around in Shenzhen. All those migrant workers from Hunan, Sichuan, Guangxi, and the like tend to be ugly, have weird fashion sense, and poor skin and teeth. And migrant workers form the majority of Shenzhen. And Shenzhen is full of IT bugmen, too many for my tastes. Not just bugmen but a lot of bugwomen too. Hong Kong, at least before the protests, is the best city in Greater China, hands down. Shanghai is second. Taipei is third. The end.

        • Just admit you are an ethnocentric HKer and let's be done with the fiction of rational argument here.

  • For what it worths, some folks I know who travelled around China and HK 12 years ago would say HK's superiority complex is well-grounded. That you can sit in a park without people spitting all around you. They are better dressed. They are helpful to Western tourists. It's cleaner. Lack of masses of peasants. They said it was the first place they saw in the whole world that has a huge, five-story mall only for top-end luxury brands. Not only an Armani boutique but also an Armani bookstore and Armani confectionery. These things apparently exist. In HK. But 12 years is 12 years. They are of course a bunch of SWPL types. Of course they like HK. Snobs like snobbish places.

    • The main problem with the Mainland is that while the standard of living in the Mainland has caught up and is actually good for those who are upper middle class and above, the majority of people still have a third world mentality. Things like lack of manners, barging into subway trains, ostentatious gaudy displays of wealth, refusal to treat host countries with respect when abroad, cutting corners in details, sour grapes mentality, and a host of other similar issues can be really annoying to deal with for those on the receiving end. There's a reason why specifically those with seemingly the highest quality of life in China are also the ones most likely to have a second residence and children overseas. It's very much a developing country with a first world facade. All I'm gonna say is that: 大陆人的素质还是没跟上。不好好学习别人的优点,反省自己的缺点,就开始自以为是。有钱不代表可以横着走。总有一天会被人家收拾。这种样子,不管是香港人也好、老外也好、甚至于有教养的大陆人都好,看得惯才怪呢!

      • 现在没那么夸张。几十年前日本也没素质,香港更没素质, 现在不就好好的吗?再说了,大陆农民工素质差就能解释香港人暴动到处打砸抢烧?得了吧。

        • Because life sucks for Hong Kong youth and they are now officially worse off than their parents. You need to understand WHY this happened in the first place. You are right that Hong Kongers do have a different culture and that anti-Mainland sentiments runs high in Hong Kong. And with the public sentiment fearing and resenting the Mainland as it is, how was it even possible for the extradition law to even have popular support? Nobody wanted it, not even the tycoons. And now the extradition law protests have opened the cultural clash and the quality of life decline can of worms: this is our result. You do have to know that while Hong Kongers never trusted the Mainland govt, sentiment towards it was good around 2008 or so, with the Chinese identity being at an all time high. After too many Mainlanders were let in after 2010 or so, and CCP politics really changed, both internally and externally, after what happened in 2012, Hong Kongers previous fear towards the CCP has turned into full blown anger and resentment. And yes, there is plenty of land in Hong Kong. The area near the border? That can be built out but the environmentalists will never, ever allow that to happen because they want to "preserve the wetlands". The villages in the New Territories? The Heung Yee Kuk will never, ever let them from getting bulldozed and replaced with high rises. And of course, the policies of Donald Tsang, backed by the tycoons, caused housing prices to shoot through the roof the last decade or so. 香港人没素质?别搞笑了!香港的确会看到很多素质差的表现,但是这基本上全部都是大陆客。马路上到处都是大陆人! 香港的确很多不见市面的人或不善良的人,但是大家都很文明。香港人做事还是很守规矩的,有教养的。我没听说谁看到香港游客头疼,但是大陆人呢?没有一个国家的人看得管他们的!到那里去,香港人都比大陆人受欢迎!即便在大陆,香港人闹事前还是被受尊重的!中产阶级以上的香港人华侨腔还是挺浓的。 你没发现大陆旅行团一多的地方,大家都跑远。还是整天看到垃圾乱丢,讲话太大声,不守别人家的规矩。一点对周围环境的意思都没有! 土豪比农民还跟糟糕。农民至少不会看不起人。土豪呢?以为自己有点小钱就认为自己天下最厉害!香港那么多陆客,又是土豪、 又是农民, 两种不一样的文化、 思想、 理念碰撞,结果就是这样子。

          • 我说当年的香港人没素质。说实话现在素质也高不到哪去。爱排队就是文明?他妈的香港出租车拒载的还少啊?一般商铺的服务态还不如内地呢。 你觉得现在饿日本人台湾人干得出来黑衣暴徒正在干的那些事吗?不可能。

            农民的确吵,没文化。土豪也确实很烦人。所以呢?别那么玻璃心吧,看几个没教养的同胞就举着外国国旗,唱着外国国歌,到处打砸抢烧闹独立?至于吗??香港人也许有教养,可没有尊严,没有底线。 北京人上海人也讨厌外地人,可不止于像香港人那么恶毒,那么不讲道理,那么没有底线。香港人这几个月的所作所为保证了既不会独立,也不会在中国里面得到任何好处。香港完了,中央必定要整死香港。那也是应得的。

  • The one absolutely important takeaway for Chinese/HK authorities is: stop housing speculation dead. It wouldn't make a huge difference if house prices were, say, 20% lower, which is probably as much as you could get with a rational housing policy. But it would make life easier for a significant slice of the population, especially younger workers, those most prone to riot. Singapore, an actual city-state, has been killing off speculation (and God knows there's no place to build there either) by making it expensive to hold and transfer houses as investments. That's the government's explicit policy: they don't want a country made up of rentiers and property tycoons. But that has a negative effect on economic growth (fewer jobs for realtors, for example) so only the well-protected heirs of Lee Kuan Yew have been able to pull it off, overcoming fear of electoral consequences.

    • They've been doing that in the mainland; restrictions are pretty hard in most places. It's not as serious as in Singapore but getting there. HK...

      • Bad thinking. Haven't we learnt that socialism does not work? Real estate should be owned by private capitalists, who make the most profitable use of it. Lets free the market and scarcity will disappear. BTW, in my country too there are insurmountable obstacles to build, to sell (sales tax of twenty percent), to rent and in general, invest in property. Of course, prices are prohibitive for everyone.

    • HK's negligible income and corporate tax rate is made possible by selling public land to raise revenue which for that reason and other vested interests are kept artificially scarce. For similar reasons the Chinese property market is also played by local governments to fill their coffers since they don't get much of a cut from national tax revenues. This is why the national governments cooling measures have limited effect, since none of the local authorities are really enthusiastic about a cooling market.

  • Good points regarding status. This is a universal impulse that also drives some of the animus and hostility towards China from the US, including the alt-right and far-right in the US who normally despise the reigning political and cultural regime in the US. Status is fixed and zero-sum, and everyone in the US, whether an SJW or an alt-rightist, is going to derive to a large extent their status from the US being the most powerful state and largest economy in the world. If China becomes much more powerful and richer, and suddenly a billion people are as well off or even better off than Americans are, American status will decline accordingly, no matter what happens in America, simply because status is a relative feature. This is partly why most alt-rightists will ultimately tolerate an extremely leftist social and political climate domestically over declining in status.

    • I've been reading the comments from top to bottom, and wondering when someone will point out the similarity between the current attitude toward China in the US and that of Hong Kongers toward mainland Chinese.

  • That Hongkongers are ugly and puffed up is an infantile interpretation of the situation. There were some very important rights going with a Hong Kong passport and residence permit. For example, they were untouched by what was going on in the mainland such the Cultural Revolution, the one-baby massacre, etc. China is not a paradise, many try to move their savings and their children to the West. They know why. If I were a Hongkonger and see the re-education of the Uyghurs, I would have a premonition of the things that may come.

    • "One baby massacre". If you're just going to parrot western propaganda I have nothing to say to you.

      • I was there and told them that the one-baby decision was a big mistake. I told them that China's fertility bonanza will not last and that they will miss every unborn child. East Asians are not a naturally fertile race, they always had to struggle very hard to maintain their numbers. The population sink was always sucking them in, at the family and the nation levels too. Money comes and goes, but the unborn will not be waiting for them to change their mind and order them to be born.

            • "East Asians are not a naturally fertile race, they always had to struggle very hard to maintain their numbers" is such a retarded thing to say you should be grateful I'm not banning you outright.

          • The higher the IQ, the fewer children. That is true in Ancient Greece and modern Japan. Chinese are no morons.

            • "Always had to struggle very hard to maintain their numbers" is just not true. All of East Asia has a history of rapid population growth until they hit a famine. Hell, it was China's demographic history that inspired Malthus to come up with his theories.

              Today, yeah, Asia has fertility issues, but not too different from what Europe has.

          • Always had the impression that life in China was hard and unforgiving, and that the Chinese had to work very hard just to survive. I never heard of California-type beach bums in China. I may be wrong, of course.

        • China is literally THE most populous country in the world. Japan is 10th. Vietnam is 15th (ethnically and culturally, the Vietnamese are closer to East Asians than Southeast Asians). Korea would be 20th if it wasn't split in half. How the hell are they "not a naturally fertile race"? They are almost one quarter of the entire world's population.

          • As I said, they work very hard. For Haitians it comes effortlessly, naturally. I am talking about my impression, your numbers are correct.

      • Man, you allow more freedom of expression on this blog, till proof to the contrary, than I have seen allowed in, well, 98% of blogs and places where one can leave comments on the Internet. However, if there's one topic which can't be discussed evenly, it's anything that relates to China. I tend to despise people who praise countries where life runs under conditions very different from where they live — we this done much times on "intelligent people's" blogs and in their comments and so on. But I gather you live there. So there's no basis to disrespect your position, and since you live there. Your position is Chinese nationalism. All -isms, nationalisms as well as globalisms and antinationalisms, I said all -isms, are sets of ideas and beliefs, by necessity not much internally consistent nor much even, people wed themselves to because... well because that's a strong human tendency. But you can't discuss evenly about something with someone who's in love with it. Some things may be Western propaganda, some things may be realities which is comfortable to judge Western propaganda, and in any event, saying "propaganda" as an inherently negative thing... should be done by someone who is on the side of a country where the press/information "has" no propaganda. Otherwise one should say: that's the propaganda I don't like, it's against the propaganda I like. Anyway, I have never commented on China-related matters at this blog, and will continue like that.

  • How to turn a locust into a first rate human? Get him into HK for 50 years..... evolution has never been that fast!

  • Excellent analysis Spandrell. Is it the perils of nativism, or the perils of imported democratic ideologies posing as nativism? The CCP has innovated and of the best alternatives to democracy to date, in the last 30 years. Not quite Moldbug’s formalism, but a unique, highly competent, locally loved (but hated by the Cathedral) technocracy with peaceful power transitions, internal checks. One of the best innovations is the natural immune system to Western progressivist thought. This aspect of the fight between HK and China is really understated, and even anti-protestor folks are afraid to make the alternative-to-democracy argument. There is indeed a philosophical basis for Beijing’s power structure and superiority to chaos that goes beyond GDP growth and new apartments China has very little reason to preserve “two systems with universal suffrage” all the way to 2047 as the system is failing before our eyes. Sure, some fifth columnists still want to hide capital there, but the biggest threat is allowing the poison to spread. Instead they should just experiment with various “reforms” in the Moldbuggian sense

    • I don't think it is that simple. From afar they don't look Communist or Socialist anymore. From closer, there are still stuff like that. And interpreted in various ways. What I have heard about the official ideology is that the Party is saying socialism is not the equality of poverty, it is the equality of wealth, so they are letting people get rich now and okay with people getting rich at different speeds, with the hope that eventually everybody will get rich and then they will be equal. And socialist. But it will not happen. Not everybody will get rich. Because HBD. Not in the racial sense but simply individual (and class) differences. What are they going to when they will figure out that some people will never get rich? What will they do when those people themselves realize that they are not going to get rich? What will they do when enough people will be rich enough that the ideology will suggest that then is a good time to be socialist, and then socialism will not work?

      • That's asking the wrong questions. The key is "will anyone be in a position to mobilize those people to either make enough trouble to get paid off or to win?". The answer to the latter pretty clearly "no".

    • I hope you live in China. Since if there's one freedom I'd negate the part of population judging foreign government systems and structures/cultures very different from their own place's better than their own, that's the freedom not to go to live "where they praise". The first time this came to my mind was decades ago, when everybody with a non-technical degree and an IQ above 115, in Europe, described Europe's "Russian half" as heaven on earth. Of course the Soviet-controlled East Europe would welcome them with open arms, but to move to heaven on earth would be the absolutely last thing they would ever do. It would be great if each of us moved to the places we praise most, with the people we praise most.

  • You give a very good explanation of the motivation of the rioters. You say nothing about their opponents, namely HongKong government and police. Why are they allowing it to happen? I have no knowledge about HongKong, but the situation suggests that the people in charge of HongKong do not want to crack down on the rioters. Probably for the same reasons the Russian czar did not want to crack down on rioters, i.e. the people in charge consider the rioters "holy". Are there any other possible explanations? What about the mainland Chinese goverment? Why are they allowing to happen? The propaganda efforts you discribe are directed to mainland China only. I understand that they are reluctant to send tanks into HongKong, but arent't there any more subtle means they can employ? For example, force the HongKong government to employ the police in a more effective manner?

  • I'd be interested to read how France destroyed its regional cultures, anything you could recommend?

    • There is a book called "Peasants into Frenchmen" if you google it it should be easy to find. I heard it is the standard work in English, but I don't know the author's ideology.

  • I have a question, if anyone here would be kind enough to answer. Why doesn't the Chinese government expand Hong Kong's territory? Feathers would be ruffled, of course (in Shenzhen, but in HK, too), but it would allow for further housing development under the system of government that the HK-ese prefer, lower prices for "gentrifiers", while introducing more mainlanders who would eventually erode the HK-ese identity, if that is to be desired. It would bind Hong Kong to China even more since, eventually, the newly expanded Hong Kong will be unable to split apart, just like the original HK did not make sense without the New Territories which were the part under lease till 1997.

    • ... How to put this. This sort of administrative creativity is not something the Chinese state is capable of. "Ruffling feathers" is a big understatement for the bureaucratic nightmare it would cause. Absolutely unthinkable.

      • Interesting reply. The impossibility of modifying administrative borders and jurisdictions seems to suggest that current units are semi-sovereign fiefs as if ruled by warlords. Maybe.

      • Thank you for your answer! It does seem a bit out there for them, but I always thought that, within an appropriately defined sphere (administrative, geographic), the various interest groups can make the case for something they want badly enough. For instance, Chongqing being separated from Sichuan province (and Chengdu) in the 1990s to become a municipality directly under the central state, like Shanghai, Tianjin and the others. And I was suprised to learn that it was not just the city, but also around 80,000 sq km of land went with it (I visited the rock carvings in Dazu twice), so it is basically its own province. That seems like a sort of creative thinking, thought it did not entail one province losing land to another existing one. Or am I seeing this wrong?

        • It resulted in Sichuan losing a big chunk of land, which was transferred to Chongqing, but all middle and low levels of administration were left unaffected; basically just a change of one boss. And it was done basically to manage the displacement of villages to be flooded by the 3 gorges dam, which was harder to do from Chengdu.

          Transferring land to Hong Kong would mean effectively losing land to a place which the CPC doesn't actually control that much. Hong Kong has many British and Indian judges for instance, and those have been blatantly supporting the protesters these months.

          And it just has horrible optics. Respecting the HK legal system for 50 years instead of recovering what is rightfully theirs was already a massive concession. Giving land away to the jurisdiction of British judges and police captains is just completely unthinkable. China should have just flooded Hong Kong with 5 million Chinese immigrants instead of just 1; and taken over the schools for good, instead of letting them become bases for native SJWism. But now it's too late.

          • Why do you think it is too late now for China to flood HongKong with a few million Chinese immigrants and take over the schools? Motivating Chinese to move to HongKong might be achieved with a monetary incentive like a tax break. Taking over the schools requires taking over the HongKong government, but the longer the protests continue, the more of an excuse the Chinese goverment has to do so. Like, "HongKong government could not even keep airport and roads open, failed to provide order in streets. Hence, incompetent and needed to be replaced".

  • I think Nativism is a neutral thing on it's own. It's up to the group and circumstances that they can make their identity competitive. One has to fight for a place under the Sun. It's not given. They can claim to be superior to the mainlanders, but they have to prove it. I am usually romantically minded about nation and the people, but other groups too have their own goals. The CPC and the elite of China is insisting in keeping the country together and they won't allow the domino of either Tiber, Hong Kong or Taiwan to fall. They have studied the dissolution of the Soviet Union enough to see that showing weaknesses here would be a disaster for them. Also I do believe that the PLA and Chinese Intelligence Services already have a dozen plans with how to deal with a possible uprising in Hong Kong. Overall the protests look like a flex from the USA against the PROC instead of a realistic separatist movement. I think with the current trends in economics, political stability and population the Chinese will answer in kind later down the road... I sincerely hope no Hong Kong people believe that any other country will risk taking on a Superpower to help them. That would be both massive arrogance and insane delusion.

  • Your criticism seems to ignore the government system of Patchwork, only focusing on the small jurisdiction size. Moldbug explicitly stated, repeatedly, that shareholders should idealy be prohibited from living in patches they own shares in. If Hong Kong was owned by a foreign investors (likely including a lot of mainland Chinese), they would feel no attachment to Hong Kong's identity, especially if it got in the way of making money. Moldbug even suggested removing and replacing the population as something neocameral states might have to do in extreme cases. A better point to make would be that neocameralism ignores people's desire for status and power even at the expense of wealth, essentially bribing shareholders to give up decision making power to the CEO. It works in nonsovereign corporations, but I think the incentive would break down if the corporation had the powers of a sovereign city state at its disposal. Even if a coherently run organization would be more profitable, shareholders could demand to have influence over the day to day operations of the realm. This is essentially what happened to elective monarchies such as the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The best future I can see for neocameralism is as a system of local government for a city inside a larger country or as an early-stage colonial system of government, like the EIC or some early American colonies.

    • Meddlesome boards of directors are hardly unheard of in the business world. They are (sometimes) constrained by market discipline, i.e. real or potential competition, borrowing costs, and perhaps tort law. I don't know what rights a company's bondholders have if they think it's being run into the ground, but most companies need to borrow money regularly and lenders will want to know what they're lending money to. This same constraint operated on European kings and princes, too - they had to borrow very large sums for their wars - albeit the timescale was longer than I think is normal for today's businesses, both for natural LOB reasons and because the financial system was much more primitive. Kings and princes who governed better and were more financially prudent had a large advantage. E.g. Britain borrowed £220M for the American Revolutionary war at only 3%, whereas France had spent less but borrowed at double or greater interest rates and had a larger yearly total interest payment on its war loans than Britain did on its.

  • Semi-related but I mostly just wanted to share this, I vaguely remember a discussion on how the Dutch like to investigate racial and ethnic shit but we are otherwise pretty deracinated. I found some pretty good research by Dutch researchers on white flight (in English) for whoever would like to read it. So the conclusion is basically as such: people prefer living among their own ethnic group, in a somewhat diverse neighbourhood, where they are dominant. It seems to make sense to me. Pro-migration people are generally quite sanctimonious but seem to be zapped by lightning whenever someone brings up white marginalization. Seems to conform to a 'some ethnic food is nice, some extra color is nice, makes me feel tolerant, as long as we are the majority and enforce our own norms' type of mentality.

  • Great post about Hong Kong. I don't see them being finished as you said. China will not be able to have the same laws so financial sector will still be strong for someone wanting to do business in China. People like to use Hong Kong as a transit hub because they perceive it as a international place. The U.S. allow for import and export of things that they otherwise does not allow in and out of Mainland China. A fellow named Janus from Quora wrote this piece about some possible post 2047 scenarios here Basically splitting Hong Kong into different zones to both capture these functions (finance and international travel hub) as well as a place with Western style voting in one of the regions to quarantine all the people who wanted to go that way. I think China can have its cake and eat it too. While the travel hub employs a lot of people, the financial center work could be offshore to other places. Just set up a back office in Dongguan. How many people did the Bahamas employ for having so many companies register there?

  • “These kids are just too hot headed but their heart is in the right place”. The sort of thing that your average Muslim says about Al Qaeda. Or that the average Christian says about their own various religious extremist groups.

  • If HKs have a superiority complex and view mainland china as "low status" (kind of how Baltic countries and ukraine view Russia as low status), I figured out a way to make them sing the Chinese anthem or move without genocide - economic collapse. The CPC can topple the HK economy and basically make them Low Status in the rest of china. When they are confronted with this fact, they will either move or begin to view China as a savior (which can then move in an save them from poverty)

  • Great post on Hong Kong. First time leaving a comment. I live about 40 minutes away from Kowloon so it is a local issue for me too. The riots are triggered by (1) the fact that most HKers are descended from people running away from famines and other disturbances in mainland between 1900 to 1980 and their families irrationally hate / look down on the mainland especially the PRC government; (2) the fact that Anglosphere colonial-imperial ideology has continued untouched since 1997 and even melded together with Falungong-related anti-China hate campaigns starting from the 1990s; (3) the fact that, before Xi Jinping arrived, the mainland elites used HK as a playground for their capitalist fantasies, enriching the local HK elites and impoverishing the local HK working class and (4) mistaken belief on Beijing's party that sending endless hordes of (often) rude mainlanders would make the locals feel more affection for the mainland. Beijing thought buying out the HK elites after 1997 meant the HK elites would put a lid on working class discontentment. As it turned out, as soon as working class discontentment at the housing prices and at (often) rude mainlanders reached a critical point, the HK elites stepped aside and let the rioters vent their age at Beijing the HK government or local real estate developers who are actually hording the land. The rioters are venting their rage at the mainland because of causes (1) and (2) above. Broadly speaking, the riots are driven by nativism (HK Cantonese chauvinism). HK is a combination of the very good and very bad. The very bad include that most people living in cage-sized housing, which makes them very grumpy and rude toward anybody not speaking Cantonese except Caucasians. The housing prices are so high that it makes no economic sense for HK working class to stay there rather be working class in the mainland. The only reason why they don't make the economically rational decision is because of blind hate for the mainland. Sure the food safety might be worse but at least they would live in reasonably sized apartments. Aside from the housing problem, rude working class and Falungong anti-China hate campaigns, in terms of economy, infrastructure, culture and urban lifestyle, HK is far better than Shanghai or any other Chinese city. The present riots are just the very bad of HK (actually a slight majority of the population) taking the city hostage by threatening its international financial center status if Beijing doesn't accede to their political demands. They have ratcheted up their anti-China hate so much that the only way to really end the conflict is to put a large portion of them into a re-education camp Xinjiang style. It is a risky wager for the slight majority of HKers to make their hometown the front-line of a violent geopolitical struggle. I think they underestimated Beijing's determination and the entire cohort of teens to 20-somethings in HK will end up in some kind of re-education camp for years or even decades. Beijing has been very restrained but just wait until after the Taiwan elections in January 2020.

  • What struck me when I went to HK was how unfriendly the people were. I went from Singapore, where the people were incredibly friendly and helpful to me - a tourist - to HK, where the people were cold and unhelpful. I couldn't even get directions to the subway station. Then after a week in HK I went to Shenzhen, where the people were friendly, unlike HK. My impression of HK was quite bad.

  • Too much nonsense about culture and feelings of superiority. You should apply dialectical materialism to analyze social processes. Feeling and culture are the soft superstructure based on hard material/economic relations i.e. the ownership of the means of production. Hong Kong has developed a very successful capitalist economy, which an outside power tries to appropriate. It is very superficial and unbehooving for Spandrel to see only feelings of superiority or inferiority where the fight is for the ownership of the means of production. Re-read Hegel, Marx and Engels.

    • Moreover, the protest in Hong Kong has the potential to evolve into a secession movement, like Spain's Catalunya and Euzkadi, and further away, into a National Liberational Front like the many (example: Algerian Liberation Front that detached it from France and created a new country). I am not saying that it will happen in South China, just to point out that feelings of superiority never lead to political movements. And regional/national languages are important. For Lithuanians, Lithuania is worth dying for. May be a безродный космополит finds it difficult to get it.

      • May be a безродный космополит finds it difficult to get it.
        That's rich, coming from a Jew. It's your people's good fortune that a few nuts such as Herzl and Jabotinsky have pushed the Zionist project to completion over the vociferous objections and obstructions of your own assimilationists, and even so the majority of American Jews is assimilationist and supports the Palestinians (human rights!) over Israelis.

  • 0 pingbacks