China Hong Kong SAR: News and Images

[TaiShang]

The US hasn't engaged in pure realpolitik since before Woodrow Wilson, so it's unclear what you mean by "it has become reactionary"--for all intents and purposes, it always has been reactionary in the modern age. Woodrow Wilson came up with a nice justification for the US to assert itself globally, but the "values system" that under-girds the American order has always been more symbolic than cause for action. Otherwise, how could we deal with the likes of Saudi Arabia? How could we have such important economic ties to the likes of China? Our value system would reject that if it had primacy.

That's why I would say it has become reactionary. The US would be able to better deal with a multitude of parties at the same time without letting reactionary values getting in between. Hence the relationship with KSA. But, today's foreign policy that is being plundered is the by product of past decision. There is this squandering of national power.

China, on the other hand, can do business with everybody regardless. It can work with Iran and the US at the same buy. Or Sudan and Saudi Arabia. It does not matter. The US has been too much involved in this arbitrary "values" too much recently. Maybe it is because this now has the only tangible that it may utilize to run a foreign policy.

For that matter, does China not assert itself in Asia through force, intimidation, and undercover activity?

No it does not. China is basically engaged in a checkbook diplomacy (maybe except Pakistan), that is, putting business first and allowing deep political relations to develop later.

Unlike in China, the parties and the system of government are not sacred, because the source of legitimacy is the people, not the ruling party.

Interesting. Because I see the US regime to be more rigid and devoid of change, hence it is sacred. It is sacred in a sense that it rides on a whole narrative of abstract values that is taken for granted, universal and exceptional. On the other, China is an ever evolving political organism. This is the core of the Chinese model, as a matter of fact, although it is rather sensitive toward being interfered in by irrelevant outside forces. In a sense it is neither capitalist nor communist; labeling and cult-building do not work in China (unlike in the US where a cult of regime is falsely built) since it is ever-evolving. It is very hard to theorize like some did with liberalism or realism.

Anyway, these are my observations/theorizations.

 

[William Hung]

I know this question is not directed at me. But still it is an interesting question, which refers to the core of the all issues: The question of world view or ideology.

You see, the West is more or less one and the same (a unified bloc) and Japan is firmly attached to that system of values. Good or bad, it is their decision. The West cannot be a threat to Japan so long as Japan remains a loyal attachment.

But you know, the West does not represent the "international" or the "universal." They just represent a certain portion of humanity and world's geography. The values they boast about may or may not be embraced by the rest.

And news for you, China is not the West. It is a system of values by itself; a separate and distinct civilization. As a unified ideological bloc, the West, still having the technological and military upper hand, attempts to destabilize China by using various open an clandestine methods. It is a matter of willingness and capability and the West seems to have the former although its capability, albeit strong, is weakening.

It is only natural that the West, seeing China as a rival, will want to harm it. China, as the strongest developing nation, will develop reflections to thwart it. West hates China because China is China; not a copycat imitator of the Western value system. Hence there is an underlying war of systems, ideologies, models.

China is a developing nation, albeit a strong one, that is going through monumental drastic changes day and night as people's life is being improved and they are exposed to new stuff.

This is a delicate moment for China as it requires that the pace of development would not be compromised in any way. This is not necessarily because of a fear of internal instability, but because China does not want distraction.

Every system has some check in order to preserve system integrity, and, especially in the stage of fast development and dramatic change, excessive external influence might be destabilizing. This is only momentary, though. Once China achieves a developed status, builds its own strong national culture and entertainment industry, control the world opinion through an ever-penetrating international media industry, fully develops and theorizes its own indigenous political ideology as an alternative model, then China will go out compete the other alternative systems in all good will.

Good points, but I think you've missed my previous posts just above yours. I'll make two points to question your reply.

1. Is it really just all about worldview/political ideology? In some countries I mentioned above, like Thailand, they had the same democracy-capitalist model, but still suffered various unrest and conflict recently.

2. Is possessing technology and military power the main factor why western countries can have influence on others? All of the conflicts that happened to the countries I mentioned, did not start out with superiority of technology or military power. Even in this recent unrest in HK, it wasn't triggered by military involvement. It seems to have all been started from ideas in human minds.

So my question to you now, why the west don't have to worry much about this as some other countries does? This is the puzzle.

Sure they have some protests and riots, and sure they have programs like NSA. But they are relatively more stable than other countries.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

As far as the cause itself, I can't believe how inept the protestors were. Even if the candidates for chief executive were selected by Beijing, it would still be an incremental step towards democracy. The CCP has shown time and again that it prefers gradual, cautious moves, and when it is resisted, it has no choice but to strike back with an iron fist if it doesn't want to invite yet more protest. The HK protestors should have worked within these constraints for gradual change; now, at best, they will get nothing, and at worst, jail and a rollback of the reforms already in place.

You echo my sentiments exactly.

Reformists within the system already have such a hard time trying to push through change, when people start behaving badly and rioting it just gives the central government no other choice but to move backwards into safety.

These kinds of things will just be a setback to reforms.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Not all South Chinese are born weakling, since Mao and his early CPC guerilla fighters were all South Chinese from Hunan.

Hunan is different. It was one of the original Warring Kingdoms, the State of Chu, along with Hubei and parts of Jiangxi, so it is part of the original Han bloodline of the central plains.

 

[bobsm]

I'm guessing this has something to do with it.

 

[Aepsilons]

I have no issue with US spending north of 100 million USD a day fighting the ISIS while we use the same money for infrastructure, education and healthcare.

China still needs development, remember that it is still a developing nation, and not in par with the post industrial states, yet. So it makes sense for China to emphasize regional infrastructure projects. Also, the United States does not have to worry about a population of 1.3 billion people.

 

[Kolaps]

How many time does western countries or Japan suffered a coup or civil war in recent history (30-40 years)?

At the same time, how many countries like the recent middle eastern countries like Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Thailand, various central American countries suffered protest, political unrest and conflict?

Foreign or local interest group like anticapitalist group, anti-free trade group, various religious group, various political group are relatively tolerated in western countries, but they still have been more stable than the countries mentioned?

Why some other countries mentioned above can be easily influenced?

Why some Chinese members here fear that political instability can occur in the future?

Their solution is to shut down all foreign interest group. But why Japan and western countries don't need this solution?

That is the puzzle.

Why NED exist in the first place?

Many countries are very stable because most countries don't want to cross other country sovereignty.

As well as, make a noise for US installed puppet government that can lead into further instability and no way out.

Why some Chinese members here fear that political instability can occur in the future?

Western countries cried like a baby during Credit Crunch and economy recession potential...

Anyway, they finally solved the problem by export it to third world countries. which is the effect even worse than Credit Crunch there. Some country economy lost 20% of their GDP, living standard fall, it's a recession practically.

This is just a very small set back compare with political instability, imagine the more damage and complication in political instability.

I think any sane people don't want political instability.

 

[TaiShang]

@Black Flag , thank for engaging in constructive dialogue. Let me try to respond to your very fundamental question, although other members such as @Raphael , @Chinese-Dragon , @xunzi , @Edison Chen , @tranquilium , @terranMarine and many others may have better and more to the point responses.

1. Is it really just all about worldview/political ideology? In some countries I mentioned above, like Thailand, they had the same democracy-capitalist model, but still suffered various unrest and conflict recently.

I guess, at the core, it is all about values or ideologies, that is, ways in which we make sense of the world as a whole.

My analysis is basically at nation-state level. At the national/local level, there must be other factors involved. Hence, Thailand might be such a case. That's a whole different issue, but, the underlying point is that different levels of analyses may have different variables involved.

2. Is possessing technology and military power the main factor why western countries can have influence on others? All of the conflicts that happened to the countries I mentioned, did not start out with superiority of technology or military power. Even in this recent unrest in HK, it wasn't triggered by military involvement. It seems to have all been started from ideas in human minds.

Again, local (national) conflicts, even though we consider them to be purely national with no negative external feedback, are different animals. We cannot analyze national and international politics as if they were similar entities.

HK issue, as it is today, is a local problem (mostly economic), but, it is somehow blown out of its local context and internationalized. That is why we may analyze HK issue at the level of international. As you see, China often relegated the issue as a domestic and economic problem, not an international one.

So my question to you now, why the west don't have to worry much about this as some other countries does? This is the puzzle.

It is all about economics and state control, in my view. Economics ensures a strong middle class that traditionally favors the status quo (as we see how the middle class became furious in HK protests) and control (often through the mainstream media that is friendly with the established/ruling elites. Besides, they are subject to little foreign engagement since they have strong internal security and intelligence apparatus and also they can still still deliver prosperity for the larger portion of their population.

Nevertheless, with enough manpower, money, dedication and time, even these stable Western countries might be dragged into some sort of turmoil since they have so many social ills that one can in time take advantage of.

Besides, the West has been telling the same narrative and has already built theories on its political and economic regime. They have the advantage of first comers. They built a cult out of their regime. They worship the fundamentals while criticize the details. They are smart. But we are not stupid, either.

Over time, China will also develop its own theory about national governance and a mainstream corporate media will take form and remain sympathetic with the regime and narrate the stories to the general population. There will be criticism, but, the fundamentals will always be cherished, immortalized, propagandized, and sanctified -- just as how the US regime's basic parameters are held in esteem.

Other countries, for one reason or another, are not as much developed as the West+Japan. Thus they lack neither money nor brain power to build a national regime theory and promote it through state-friendly international corporate media.

China has put itself on the right track and built a genuine governance model, albeit still developing. All it needs is time and favorable international conditions. We know it. We know the West knows it. And the West knows we know the West knows it. You see? The game is actually not that much clandestine. As I see it, what China needs next is some political philosophers to construct a Chinese political theory based on contemporary historical conditions and national culture.

 

[zeronet]

The southernized Chinese are generally submissive to the western hegemony, they prefer to talk about the democracy/freedom/human right over the sovereignty/unification/national interest. And they don't give a rat a$$ about North China.

The northernized Chinese only care about China's future prosperity, and we do care the stability in North China, because we know only a stable North China will bring a stable unified China. Only with that, the South China could benefit its economic development from this stability.

don't know what to say, seems that you divide your own people into two conflicting groups, for a supporter of china like you is this a little bit confusing to others?

 

[TaiShang]

As opposed to the repulsive Indian regime where they can't even provide basic toilets for their citizens?

The entire country of India is kept together through brute military force. There are dozens of separatist groups in India seeking to gain freedom from the monstrosity that is the Indian regime. Tamils, Sikhs, Assam, Sikkim, Kashmiris, etc

India is a backward country precisely due to the failure of the Indian political system. This is why China is succeeding and India is a total failure where young children starve to death and half the population is illiterate which results in the rape epidemic you have in India.

Indian regime is so utterly corrupt that people can't even properly estimate the amount of looting going on in India. Even the estimates are severely underestimated.

No food to eat, no toilets, full of diseases, illiterate population, no infrastructure, rape epidemic, overpopulation, etc.
That is the achievement of the utterly failed poetical system of India.
The Indian regime remains a complete monstrosity. A barbaric and corrupt regime that can't even give the most basic needs for its citizens.
What a truly vulgar and repulsive regime.
UGH!

Very well put, sir!

 

[bolo]

indians in hong kong demanding

View attachment 114056

The right to defecate in public places.

 

[William Hung]

@TaiShang, my original reply was censored and awaiting moderation, wasted my time. Here I try again....

I guess, at the core, it is all about values or ideologies, that is, ways in which we make sense of the world as a whole......

My analysis is basically at nation-state level. At the national/local level, there must be other factors involved.......

HK issue, as it is today, is a local problem (mostly economic), but, it is somehow blown out of its local context and internationalized. That is why we may analyze HK issue at the level of international. As you see, China often relegated the issue as a domestic and economic problem, not an international one.......

It is all about economics and state control, in my view........

I disagree with some of these. I don't think it has much to do with economics, state control, political ideology, etc. On the surface, it may appear so... but there is something else on the deeper level. If you only focus on issue like economy and politics, you won't solve the puzzle I've given.

You're studying political philosophy? heard of Girard's Mimetic theory? I don't agree with everything he said, but it's a good start imo:

Imitatio: A Very Brief Introduction

A Very Brief Introduction
View attachment 115392
René Girard
René Girard is recognized worldwide for his theory of human behavior and human culture. In 2005 he was inducted into the Académie française, and in 2008 he received the Modern Language Association's award for Lifetime Scholarly Achievement. He is Professor Emeritus at Stanford University.

But back more than 50 years ago, René Girard started teaching French literature because he needed a job. He hadn't even read many of the books he was assigned to teach. Then, as he studied the classic novels of Stendhal and Proust with a fresh mind, staying one step ahead of his students, he was struck by a series of similarities from novel to novel. Unbound by any narrow research agenda, Girard discovered a simple but powerful pattern that had eluded sophisticated critics before him: imitation is the fundamental mechanism of human behavior.

Stories thrive on conflict between characters. By reading the great writers against the grain of conventional wisdom, Girard realized that people don't fight over their differences. They fight because they are the same, and they want the same things. Not because they need the same things (food, ***, scarce material goods), but because they want what will earn others' envy. Humans, with a planning intelligence that sets them apart from all other animals, are free to choose. With freedom comes risk and uncertainty: humans don't know in advance what to choose, so they look to others for cues. People can desire anything, as long as other people seem to desire it, too: that is the meaning of Girard's concept of "mimetic desire." Since people tend toward the same objects of desire, jealousy and rivalry are inevitable sources of social tension -- and perfect themes for the great novelists.

After his successful writings on modern literature, curious to find out how well his "mimetic theory" of imitative behavior might explain the human past, Girard studied anthropology and myths from around the world. He was struck by another series of similarities: myth after myth told a story of collective violence. Only one man can be king, the most enviable individual, but everyone can share in the persecution of a victim. Societies unify themselves by focusing their imitative desires on the destruction of a scapegoat. Girard hypothesized that the violent persecution of scapegoats is at the origin of the ubiquitous human institution of ritual sacrifice, the foundation of archaic religions.

Girard then turned to the relationship between rituals of sacrifice and the many acts of violence recorded in the founding documents of the religions of the modern West (including the secular religion known as the Enlightenment): the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Gospels. Girard interpreted the Bible as a gradual revelation of the injustice of human violence. The culmination, Jesus's crucifixion, is unprecedented not because it pays a debt humans owe to God, but because it reveals the truth of all sacrifice: the victim of a mob is always innocent, and collective violence is unjust.

An outsider in every field, René Girard has changed scholars' thinking in literature, anthropology, and religion. But you don't have to be a scholar or an insider of mimetic theory to understand it. Imitation is constant, scapegoating is an ever-present temptation, and violence is wrong. These simple insights have unlocked the meaning of modern novels, ancient myths, religious traditions, and the behavior of each and every one of us in our daily lives.

Today a global community of scholars is building on Girard's work to better understand our world. Imitatio is a non-profit foundation devoted to aiding progress in this ongoing development and critique of René Girard's mimetic theory. Here at the Imitatio web site, you can read Girard's writings, peruse scholars' work, learn about upcoming events and watch video from past events. Sign up for our email newsletter to stay current with news, events, publications, and discussions in mimetic theory from São Paulo to Paris, Tokyo to San Francisco.

As I see it, what China needs next is some political philosophers to construct a Chinese political theory based on contemporary historical conditions and national culture.

You almost got it. But not just political philosophy and theory, they must try to understand humans and the human condition as well, I. e. the humanities and arts.

This is why I think the Soviet didn't last like the west did. The soviets put too much effort on politics, economics and technology while neglecting the study of humans. The West was way superior in this respect.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

don't know what to say, seems that you divide your own people into two conflicting groups, for a supporter of china like you is this a little bit confusing to others?

southernized = liberal
northernized = conservative

I didn't bash South Chinese, since I am a South Chinese by myself.

I did bash those liberal Chinese, and tell me why I have to appease those liberals who hate its own motherland?

Actually, many North Chinese are also liberal, and they are just as disgusting as those anti-China liberals from Taiwan and HK. Liu Xiaobo is just a prime example.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

The soviets put too much effort on politics, economics and technology while neglecting the study of humans. The West was way superior in this respect.

Exactly right.

Those who control nature, have the physical power to control humanity - after all, if you can tame the forces of weather, the atom, and outer space, controlling a mere person is nothing, right? But that's wrong - taming a human is different, because the human is the one who carries out such acts of controlling nature.

Controlling people's brains - controlling how they think, what their values are, how they interface with society - that is the crucial key to a stable society. For the ruling class, this is even better than having everyone be robots - you need to program robots. Media, if successful, is like robots programming themselves exactly the way you want.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Hunan is different. It was one of the original Warring Kingdoms, the State of Chu, along with Hubei and parts of Jiangxi, so it is part of the original Han bloodline of the central plains.

Hunan also has a lot of mixture with the southern aborigines, especially its southern part is heavily mixed with Cantonese.

Mao's mother also looks very southern, and she can easily pass as a Cantonese woman, only his father looks northern though.

Mao in his youth also looks very southern, similar to some Cantonese.