Thursday, November 10, 2016
Modernizing Too Fast
East Asian democracy is a joke -- the adoption of "democracy" by those countries seeking to modernize, when those peoples had not previous experience or education in democracy reveals what a stupid idea it was.
Hong Kong seems to have too many naive idealists who don't understand politics as the art of the possible but would rather make a name taking some stand unlikely to garner support internationally or have any sort of real consequence for protecting Hong Kong's unique freedoms. They may think they are ready to be suppressed and suffer the consequences from the Mainland, but why are they so willing to cause difficulty to their fellow Hong Kong people? Outright defiance is not possible, and they do not have the means to make Hong Kong independent, so why this sort of stupid talk?
A couple of months ago John Derbyshire asked why Chinese people seemed incapable of democracy, despite being "well-educated." Book smarts is not the same as political smarts, or the political virtues. Chinese people have no real tradition of republicanism -- Aristotle's observations of those to the east who live under empire and not suited for any other life is applicable not only to the Persians. Chinese people have lived thousands of years under despotism, soft or hard, and the character-shaping culture has been created accordingly.
Some Chinese may like their heroic bloodshed novels or movies, idealizing brotherhood with those who are not family members, but in a mass culture with no opportunity for alternative communities, institutions to develop, and where loyalty is directed primarily to the clan and others are recognized mostly through commercial ties and nothing more, they simply have no real practice with republicanism.
(It is intriguing to compare the development of the clan-focus in Scotland with that of China, as the causes are very different?)
Despite the movies, how many people really romanticize of the triads or conflate it with the jianghu of wuxia novels? While triads may have some rituals to bind their members to one another, in the end, they are criminal organizations that seek to make a living at the expense of society. What real loyalty do the heads of these gangs have to their members? How many would be willing to sacrifice their brothers to save their own skin?
Even in small local villages, how much equality is there between families? In the past there were leading families who benefited from having an education and passing the imperial tests. How much of this was really changed by the Communists?
Democracy then turns out to be nothing more than the manipulation of the masses by the few -- oligarchy under the guise of democracy.
Hong Kong seems to have too many naive idealists who don't understand politics as the art of the possible but would rather make a name taking some stand unlikely to garner support internationally or have any sort of real consequence for protecting Hong Kong's unique freedoms. They may think they are ready to be suppressed and suffer the consequences from the Mainland, but why are they so willing to cause difficulty to their fellow Hong Kong people? Outright defiance is not possible, and they do not have the means to make Hong Kong independent, so why this sort of stupid talk?
A couple of months ago John Derbyshire asked why Chinese people seemed incapable of democracy, despite being "well-educated." Book smarts is not the same as political smarts, or the political virtues. Chinese people have no real tradition of republicanism -- Aristotle's observations of those to the east who live under empire and not suited for any other life is applicable not only to the Persians. Chinese people have lived thousands of years under despotism, soft or hard, and the character-shaping culture has been created accordingly.
Some Chinese may like their heroic bloodshed novels or movies, idealizing brotherhood with those who are not family members, but in a mass culture with no opportunity for alternative communities, institutions to develop, and where loyalty is directed primarily to the clan and others are recognized mostly through commercial ties and nothing more, they simply have no real practice with republicanism.
(It is intriguing to compare the development of the clan-focus in Scotland with that of China, as the causes are very different?)
Despite the movies, how many people really romanticize of the triads or conflate it with the jianghu of wuxia novels? While triads may have some rituals to bind their members to one another, in the end, they are criminal organizations that seek to make a living at the expense of society. What real loyalty do the heads of these gangs have to their members? How many would be willing to sacrifice their brothers to save their own skin?
Even in small local villages, how much equality is there between families? In the past there were leading families who benefited from having an education and passing the imperial tests. How much of this was really changed by the Communists?
Democracy then turns out to be nothing more than the manipulation of the masses by the few -- oligarchy under the guise of democracy.
K-Prop
They mean well, and probably Koreans are more homogeneous than many other peoples, but is a single state necessary for them?
Wednesday, November 09, 2016
Tuesday, November 08, 2016
Solidarity
Tilting at windmills? Cal Catholic Daily has an article on the American Solidarity Party.
First Things: The Politics of Solidarity
FB
Group: Christian Democracy USA
Mere Orthodoxy article
Aleteia
A Different Conservatism
The American Solidarity Party makes the case for community and subsidiarity.
By Malloy Owen •
"The Solidarists also diverge sharply from Trump on a number of his signature issues. One is immigration: the ASP platform calls unabashedly for amnesty, takes a jab at border walls, and implies that global inequality makes immigration “a necessity” for many workers."
What is the party's stance on feminism? Is American Solidarity Party a true Christian Democrat Party? Or churchian Democrat Party? It seems to be trying to replace the Democratic party but I don't think it will go anywhere because it does not acknowledge the concerns that what's left of white America has with its culture, identity, and nation.
Solidarity Hall promotes a similar "third option" and seems to involve more Catholics.
Who else will stand for economic liberty? Or distributism or some other economic "third way"? People associated with Solidarity Hall seem to be communitarians who value the common good and solidarity, but without any knowledge of how communities come into being, and often without any concern for proper scale. Solidarity is mentioned as a principle of Roman Catholic Social Teaching and is not really distinct from legal justice or political friendship, but seems to be an amalgam of the two. But these Christian "solidarists" like to moralize on certain issues (immigration, social justice) and are probably leftists in that respect. They assume that community exists but they do not understand that it doesn't, nor do they understand how it originates. For this reason they will continue to be ignored while ethnonationalism continues to rise.
Related:
America Magazine on Solidarity Hall
FB and Twitter
First Things: The Politics of Solidarity
FB
Group: Christian Democracy USA
Mere Orthodoxy article
Aleteia
A Different Conservatism
The American Solidarity Party makes the case for community and subsidiarity.
By Malloy Owen •
"The Solidarists also diverge sharply from Trump on a number of his signature issues. One is immigration: the ASP platform calls unabashedly for amnesty, takes a jab at border walls, and implies that global inequality makes immigration “a necessity” for many workers."
What is the party's stance on feminism? Is American Solidarity Party a true Christian Democrat Party? Or churchian Democrat Party? It seems to be trying to replace the Democratic party but I don't think it will go anywhere because it does not acknowledge the concerns that what's left of white America has with its culture, identity, and nation.
Solidarity Hall promotes a similar "third option" and seems to involve more Catholics.
Who else will stand for economic liberty? Or distributism or some other economic "third way"? People associated with Solidarity Hall seem to be communitarians who value the common good and solidarity, but without any knowledge of how communities come into being, and often without any concern for proper scale. Solidarity is mentioned as a principle of Roman Catholic Social Teaching and is not really distinct from legal justice or political friendship, but seems to be an amalgam of the two. But these Christian "solidarists" like to moralize on certain issues (immigration, social justice) and are probably leftists in that respect. They assume that community exists but they do not understand that it doesn't, nor do they understand how it originates. For this reason they will continue to be ignored while ethnonationalism continues to rise.
Related:
America Magazine on Solidarity Hall
FB and Twitter
Monday, November 07, 2016
Still Waiting for a Trailer
EW: Silence trailer previewed during special Paramount presentation
At an event in New York, Paramount chairman Brad Grey showed a first look at Martin Scorsese's new film
At an event in New York, Paramount chairman Brad Grey showed a first look at Martin Scorsese's new film
Sunday, November 06, 2016
Thought the Saker's latest was a bit surprising -- he talks about the conflict between Christians and Jews: The Ancient Spiritual Roots of Russophobia. Sadly, his view on the relationship between Western and Eastern churches is a skewed Russocentric one.
An Institutional Church Overstepping Its Bounds
If it weren't for the development of the Western patriarchate and the corresponding notion of Christendom, would we have this sort of widespread erroneous application of the Gospel now within the patriarchate of Rome?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)