Another interview with Josh Philipp on YouTube

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."
Ariel Durant

YouTube channel China Unscripted has another interesting discussion with Josh Philipp on the subject of Marxist material dialectics. A good video, audio really, that puts weaponized cultural Marxism into perspective and understand it as a strategy for destroying a society and culture.

A bit long at 1 hour and 40 minutes but well worth the time.



Donald Cavaioli

The Hong Kong Democracy Movement: What is the end-game after the 5 demands are met?

I have been following these demonstrations since they started but really don't know Hongkongers or mainland Chinese, the language, culture and history, well enough to get a complete understanding of the situation and people involved. I have some personal familiarity with Hongkongers and mainland Chinese but cannot and do not claim to any sort of expert. But I do have enough information to form my own views that should be at least passably cogent and what follows are the opinions and observation of someone from the outside looking in.

As an aside:

It must be noted that Hongkongers were not given a referendum so they could have a say in their own fate at the end of the British lease and colonial rule was wrong. Had the majority wanted repatriation with the PRC, then the current pro-democracy demonstrations would be invalid. You guys signed on for this and it's too late for buyer's remorse. Had they wanted independence or continue with the U.K. in some capacity or another, then there may have been a chance of getting U.N. recognition under the rights of people to self-determination or negotiation of a better deal with strict provisions with the PRC. In the least, maybe one country, two systems would have been permanent with some kind of real international enforcement mechanism. Maybe I'm just dreaming here.

As it was, Hong Kong was transferred over to PRC ownership as if one were selling a house and Hongkongers were treated as if they were nothing more than the furniture sold with the house.

Now to the point of this post.

One might view my question of what is the end-game after the Democracy movement's 5 demands would be hypothetically met with some curiosity. Would not the 5 demands be the end-game?

I don't think so. As I see it with the current one country two systems paradigm set to expire on July 1, 2047, the 5 demands if met would constitute a sort of Faustian bargain where Hongkongers would enjoy a liberal democratic society for just over the next 28 years before Mephistopheles comes to collect Hong Kong's soul in the bargain.

I don't know where Hongkongers' minds are on this whether 28 years of freedom would be just fine before being absorbed into the People's Republic of China collective and that they only want the PRC to live up to it's end of the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984. Would they be perhaps rolling the dice, reasoning that if 24 hours is a long time in politics then 28 years would be a geological epoch during which the Chinese Communist Party would meet the same fate as all the other dinosaurs and they could keep their democracy. Or do they think it possible to either extend the one country two systems thing indefinitely or perhaps try for independence.

The first possibility to me would make no sense as it would be very naive. Communists, like organized crime families, when crossed, never forgive and never forget. After it became evident through one and two million Hongkongers taking to the streets in marches and the recent council election blow-out, the CCP will view all Hongkongers as guilty and will be sure to punish the city at their earliest convenience. Hopefully the leaders and the more radical protesters will be able to emigrate before 2047 otherwise the odds are good they will be dissappeared all legal and above board unlike the Causeway Bay bookstore guys.

The communists are the sort of people who will get an enemy even if he's 95 years old, on his deathbed and minutes from a natural death. Then the commie will put a pillow over his face just to make it personal. Don't underestimate vindictiveness of leftists or how seriously communists take any challenges to their power, real or perceived.

There might be some who would claim "socialism with Chinese characteristics" would be a different sort of commie with a different outcome. I disagree as the mechanics of power and control in an authoritarian/totalitarian system are more universal. Also the socialist/communist system attracts the sort of person Spandrell at the Bloody Shovel blog refers to as biolenninists. Maybe they differ in culture but in psychological defects and immoral motivations, they are brothers under the skin. The cultural differences in this case would simply be overtones. As another aside: The Spandrell and Bloody Shovel blog reference is ironic in this case as a post he wrote about Hong Kong, well...let's just say he doesn't like Hongkongers very much. No, he really hates Hongkongers and it seems personal. Besides, it would seem that "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is really simply "Socialism with Communist characteristics". End aside.

The second, wait 'em out possibility would be a Hail Mary pass to cheat Mephistopheles of his prize. A long shot at best but possible. This idea does have a potential and serious drawback.

In the mean time until 2047, civil unrest and demonstrations will continue as the situation becomes a stalemate or the PRC does something to definitively end it. One possibility of ending the pro-democracy movement is by relocating a significant percentage of the population of Hong Kong and spreading them throughout the mainland. For those dissidents who remain: A seat in the tiger chair and chat with the boys from the Ministry of State Security or Ministry of Public Security might be enough to convince some but for the stubborn and recalcitrant, there's always room for one more in one of the concentration camps re-education centers for naughty malcontents.

Those Hongkongers scattered throughout the empire will be replaced by more loyal mainlanders which will fundamentally change the culture of the city and also make Mandarin Chinese the primary language of the city. It's an old tried and true tactic used by the Soviets. If the reader has seen my previous posts on the civic nationalism/magic dirt fallacy/Hotel Queens, native population ethnic dilution or replacement works by atomizing the community into a series of small, competing groups. Who says Marxism isn't scientific? They just test their theories out on human beings instead of lab rats.

For the remaining malcontents who can't see the wisdom of being a slave of the State, among the loyalists will be informers working for pay or extra "good citizen" social credit points so people will either be found dead from "suicide" or mysteriously vanish into a Bermuda Triangle type thing that exists near Causeway Books.

As to independence, maybe it would be the best solution as things stand now with Hong Kong and China not seeing eye to eye but as of now that is really a long shot with an incredibly small chance of success. The CCP is not going to let go of its "all your Chinese people, anywhere on Earth, are belong to us!" over-the-top, rapaciousness and racial/ethnic chauvinist attitude. This is problematic because with a pro-democracy movement up against a totalitarian communist regime, said protesters are viewed by CCP authorities as what they're pleased to call a "color revolution". And there can be no half-measures as a revolutionary.


Donald Cavaioli

An Excellent YouTube Video on the Origins of Communism

Joshua Philipp, senior investigative reporter at The Epoch Times on the China Unscripted podcast #31 gives an interesting history of communism and its historical relationship with occultists. Just over 1 hour and 55 minutes long but well worth the time. 

Donald Cavaioli

The People's Republic of China and Hong Kong the Special Administrative region: One Country, Two Systems- A House Divided Against Itself

"A house divided against itself, cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South."

Abraham Lincoln, June 16, 1858

A similar situation exists between the People's Republic of China and the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong the inherent contradiction of which has sparked a series of demonstrations and protests over the last 14 weeks which have started to become violent. With the main protest group, Demosisto's rejection of Carrie Lam's withdrawal of the extradition bill on September 4, it may well head towards an independence movement. That the Hong Kong police, accused by demonstrators of overreaction and police brutality, have fired warning shots in the air but so far have not shot any demonstrators still makes the situation dicey. So the "Boston massacre"* phase which would have hardened positions on both sides, but providing a stronger popular rallying position for the protesters, has come close but not yet reached despite an incident of a demonstrator eye injury during police use of tear gas. It is still as of yet unlikely but if matters continue to progress along the current path the odds will greatly increase. However, even if this benchmark is passed, considering the asymmetrical situation of arms and resources between the PRC and Hong Kongers, "the shot heard 'round the world" phase will remain very unlikely. As an aside, if the unlikely were hypothetically to occur, my usually 80% accurate 5G crystal ball isn't getting a clear signal but what does show most likely failure with only a little likelihood of success at this time with this method. It would be a tragic mistake and should be avoided.

*From my previous post Interesting Times in Hong Kong where I drew some parallels between the earlier phases of the American revolution and the present events in Hong Kong.

What is clear from the previously linked BBC article about four sections down is that about 89% of Hong Kongers do not see themselves as Chinese (people of the PRC) which is the genesis of a separate national identity and the prime ingredient of nationalism. People generally do not like to be ruled over by those whom they view as foreigners even if those rulers are of the same race as the ruled. This is essentially the history of Europe and the United States.

But despite Joshua Wong's assurances that Hong Kong is still a part of China, his calls for universal suffrage insofar as being able to freely elect all candidates for seats in the Legislative Council and its Chief Executive, events will take their own course. It could try to continue with a separate autonomous region in perpetuity which would be a hard and difficult concession to get from Beijing or would open a window for separatists to vote for either offering a referendum on Hong Kong independence if not a peaceful declaration of independence.

There wouldn't appear to be any other alternative.
If there is a significant percentage of Hong Kongers who participated in, or tacitly supported a protest over one criminal extradition bill, think of how they're going to like being fully integrated into the PRC political and legal system in 2047, 28 years away. Joshua Wong and the demonstrators today will be in their late 40's to early 50's and still in the prime of life. It is not possible Wong or any of the others in Demosisto to be fools enough to believe that if they get universal suffrage now that it will still be in effect on July 2, 2048. The Chinese Communist Party are not the sort of people who tolerate citizens who dissent from or want to debate official government policy as would happen in a democratic Hong Kong. The communist system would have to collapse first as had happened to the Soviet Union for Hong Kong to have a permanent democratic form of government which for the foreseeable future is not likely.

As Lincoln said in the opening quote of this post, a house divided against itself cannot stand as it will either become all of one side or the other. History has shown this to be inevitable in the face of public discontent between the opposing sides. Hong Kong will either be fully integrated into the PRC and become like any other city in China or it will be independent. There can be no third way that would last for long.

Ex hic civi Americanum ut Demonsistus, ego vos salutant et forti animi tibi bene vollo.


Donald Cavaioli

Left from Right and Nationalism too

It's a curious thing when you think about it.
Most people do not know or are confused about what is the political left and the political right but it is really simple.

Most people view nationalism, fascism and nazism as belonging to the political right. This is incorrect. In order to have totalitarian systems like fascism and nazism on the right of the political spectrum, said spectrum must be bent into a horseshoe or circle to mate them up with totalitarian communism.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Looked at this way, if A. (nazism, fascism) = C. (totalitarian collectivist state)
                               and B. (communism) = C. (totalitarian collectivist state)
                             Then A. (nazism, fascism) = B. (communism)

Therefore all three systems belong on the left of the political spectrum where left is defined as centrally managed and controlled economic and social, collectivist states. Otherwise the political spectrum twisted into horseshoes, circles, pretzels and mobius strips can tell us nothing as they have no definable left or right nor a coherent definition thereof.

The purpose of this spectrum is to organize data into an easily readable form  and allow for new systems to be easily identified on the spectrum as any good graph or chart should do. Bad charts, graphs or spectrum lines are invariably the work of grifters and mountebanks working to deceive others.

This horseshoe, pretzel, multidimensional axis tesseract construct is usually the argument of leftists who at the political family function do not want to be seated at the same table with cousin Adolf and cousin Benito. Nobody likes losers, especially leftists who are obsessed with being "on the right side of history" but they are part of the left, or alt-left if you will, so suck it up, leftie.

An Aside: The Z-man, no leftist he, had a recent blog post podcast on this subject, buying into the fascism is on the right notion in a way which I found to be a bit obscurantist, in that he emphasized the economic aspect and totally ignored the social aspects of individual liberty and property rights. So by claiming the spectrum is not universally applicable, considered only economics, and can only be understood within some arbitrary frame of reference, he renders the entire concept irrelevant and it should logically be discarded in favor of "some guys who think one way" and "them other guys who think another way". Further conflating the bad rhetoric of "progressive liberals are the real Nazis" used by conservatives with the political spectrum itself and appeal to academic authority as support is a fallacy. Had he proposed that identity politics has now rendered the old left-right paradigm obsolete, then there is something to consider and debate.
Now I like the Z-man and read his blog daily and will continue to do so finding much to learn or better articulation of ideas I already had and usually agree with him but this time, I respectfully disagree.

So what is the political right?
Simply put, those who want smaller governments with more emphasis property and individual rights. This would make libertarian anarchists (not to be confused by leftist fake anarchists who want a totalitarian communist state) the extreme right and the diametric opposite communists.
Then the right is less based in an ideology to arguably none at all and is really more of an attitude or preference. What organizational ideology can describe "leave me alone"?

This is not to say that a right wing government cannot arguably be authoritarian as long as it is a one party system that practices laissez-faire social and economic policies and only controls political dissent. Such a government would be placed nearer the center right.

 However, Burnham's and Francis' works regarding the managerial state would predict that eventually the State apparatus will grow and move towards greater control over economics and social matters developing a more comprehensive governing ideology and thus morph into a left-wing state. Even minarchism faces this prospect over the long term unless the citizenry takes the effort to prevent it. The United States today faces this problem due to the long term apathy and complacency of its citizens.

So what is the political left?
The left can be said to be based on organizational ideologies as a necessary blueprint to create a centrally controlled and managed collectivist state. The collectivist state, in order to manage and control not only the economic system but the social system, must use the force of an authoritarian or totalitarian government apparatus to enforce the dogma of its governing ideology. Control can only be maintained by force to ensure complete compliance with the State.

Again, this is not to say all left-wing governments are necessarily totalitarian but some amount of force, be it government force of law or social pressure from the majority of citizens who desire this form of government with its attendant political and social controls. We must also recall that there is a center to the political spectrum with shading to the moderate left or moderate right is necessary.


Now we have an actual straight line left-right political spectrum that makes sense where the extreme opposite ends are in fact the opposite of each other: totalitarian collectivism opposite libertarian anarchy, with shadings in between. And so we can see that fascism and Nazism belong on the far left of the spectrum and just to the right of totalitarian government controlled communism at the extreme left.

That is unless National Socialism with the emphasis on Socialism wasn't your first clue and no, Mussolini and Hitler were not kidding when using it.

Now on to nationalism.
Nationalism is not an political ideology at all but a preference much like being a fan of a sports team. It does not belong on the left or the right as either can be a nationalist as much as a fan of, say, the NY Giants can be someone of the right or the left, Democrat or Republican or whatever.
Even Stalin pursued a policy of socialism in one country and blatantly appealed to Russian nationalism during the second world war or as the Soviets called it: "The Great Patriotic Struggle".

To call nationalism a right wing ideology and tie it to those two most serviceable villains, Hitler and Mussolini, is the result of the post World War II European left's attempt to smear nationalism and even today to make it a scare word in order to sell their globalist/internationalist snake oil.

Once you look at this logically, this way is simple, coherent and makes the most sense.

Donald Cavaioli