Chinese Trumpkins

SoBL has passed on this fascinating piece on Trump-fervor in Chinese elite opinion. It’s all good. Quasi-random snippet:

The past 30 years of China’s economic growth and social development began after a period of chaos [i.e., the Cultural Revolution], and there was no Enlightenment-like intellectual movement. Government officials, in order to mobilize reform, exaggerated the evils of the old benefit system as “everyone eating from one big pot,” which, with the assistance of some scholars, led to an almost complete social consensus that a market economy means completely free competition. With no restraint from ethics or rules, the “law of the jungle” that the weak are prey to the strong became nearly universal in society. Amid all the worship of the strong and disdain for the weak, an atmosphere of care and equal treatment of disadvantaged groups has not formed. Therefore “political correctness,” which is for the protection of vulnerable groups, basically does not exist in Chinese society, and the language of discrimination, objectification of women, and mockery of disabled people is everywhere. […] This way of thinking is further reinforced among some Chinese elites: they succeed because they are better able to adapt to and dominate this kind of environment. In this process, they are hurt by others, they hurt others, and gradually they develop a heart of stone and a feeling of superiority — that their success is due to their own efforts and natural abilities, and the losers in competition must be those who don’t work hard because they are lazy or have some other problems. Therefore, they believe in free competition and personal striving even more than ordinary people, and also feel more strongly that poor people deserve their low position, are more wary of the abuse of welfare by lazy people, and are more supportive of Trump’s attacks on political correctness.

The result is a shockingly civilized civil society (in which women, conspicuously, excel), but you wouldn’t get that from reading the article. Highly recommended, nevertheless.

November 22, 2016admin 30 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

30 Responses to this entry

  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Therefore “political correctness,” which is for the protection of vulnerable groups, basically does not exist in Chinese society, and the language of discrimination, objectification of women, and mockery of disabled people is everywhere.

    Sounds ideal, except that it still has no purpose except commerce without a corresponding civil goal.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Isn´t mocking people with nonintellectual disabilities rather pathetic?

    I don´t give two shits about anything unless a person is creative, or helpful. A parasitic bureaucrat, a noncreative industrial producer, a builder of empty buildings, etc. These are worth less than good honest folk who build lasting things.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Isn´t mocking people with nonintellectual disabilities rather pathetic?” — I’d be surprised if that actually happens much, except as a side effect of Chinese brutal honesty. (They regularly greet you with “Woah, you’re getting fat” type remarks.) I’d have surgically eliminated that phrase, as misleading, except for a general aversion to prettying things up for convenience.

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    The most irksome thing about political correctness is the puritanical and humorless way it codifies, polices and punishes even the most trivial transgression against what for most of us – aside from the odd spergy tosspot – is just natural human decency. Anyone who regularly mocks the disabled is just a prat, pure and simple – no need for any moralistic preaching on the matter. The social shunning of such a creep will occur as a natural matter of course. Yet who amongst us decent folk hasn’t either told or laughed at the occasional spastic joke?
    BTW, admin is one of the most decent, polite and civil people I’ve ever met.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    ▬>except for a general aversion to prettying things up for convenience.<

    We are the same.

    As for « moralistic preaching », that is one thing and different from moral preaching.

    Good morals are good science.

    I´ve repeated here often how morals win wars. Accidentally, I came upon that in an excellent documentary admin would like: « Zero Days ». Among the better I´ve seen.

    admin Reply:

    Seen Zero Days. It’s excellent.

    Posted on November 22nd, 2016 at 3:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Says:

    Zhao has to put a negative spin on it all, but where China lacks morality in capitalism is a direct result of its communist legacy, not capitalism. China hasn’t fully purged itself of its communist structure, most of the abuses listed are partially Chinese culture, but also partially legacy power imbalances from the communist era.

    Zhao sounds like a Western-colonized mind. Along with all the scientific knowledge coming from the West, the Cathedral has attached a trojan horse virus. Once you recognize this, the Chinese targeting of various “dissidents” starts making a lot more sense. China does have its own dissidents, but a lot of them are manufactured in the Boston area.

    [Reply]

    Jefferson Reply:

    I wonder what Spandrell would say about this. My impression is that China has furnished its own supply of leftists.

    [Reply]

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    Whoever has lived in an (ex) Eastern Bloc country intimately understands that it’s not capitalism, but socialism that breeds cutthroat dog-eat-dog law-of-the-jungle mentality. But in addition to that, such a system also breeds jealousy, and contempt for one’s betters, which is why there’s a saying in Eastern Europe which goes Neighbor’s cow too must die.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    “China lacks morality in capitalism is a direct result of its communist legacy, not capitalism”
    India is not much different, but no communist past.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Out of all the races on this earth, only one has had proper morality, and “White” does not precisely mark it, altho it is one of the defining features.

    The German, the Roman and the British empires are all more essentially related than most have the soul to see.

    The funny thing about the failed Nationalsocialist experiment is that they knew this but they were not of it, nor had the morality.

    This morality is telling the truth. And not demonizing your enemy.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    It’s a specific evolutionary strategy, borne of conditions that ordain decentralized sovereignty. Morality is logic of cooperation. Cooperation doesn’t happen when domination is possible.

    Erebus Reply:

    >”This morality is telling the truth. And not demonizing your enemy.”

    If that’s the morality itself, then the Romans had none of it — to this day, it’s nigh impossible to separate truth from fiction where the Gauls and Cheruskers, among others, are concerned. The Romans would glorify or demonize their enemies as it suited their political ends. They were among the great masters of propaganda — they learned at the feet of the Greeks, after all. They learned from the best.

    The Russians, however, possessed the morality of truth and clarity in abundance. Were indeed paragons of it. They honored and respected the French and Germans even as they fought them. Their acceptance of truth was exemplary, though it led to fatalism in some instances, and madness in others.

    Yet the Romans, Russians, and Germans had many things in common, and one in particular over all: They were all what Dugin would call tellurocratic societies. Land empires. As societies, broadly speaking, they shared heroic/militaristic values, as opposed to mercantile/liberal values.

    And is it not true that the morality of the British Empire, and the morality of Athens, always carried within it the seed of its own destruction? Liberalism over traditional values, commerce over soil. I realize that we’re Atlanteans ourselves here, but perhaps ours is a subtly wrong, therefore doomed, morality.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Romans were liberal too. They were liberal in religion (for non-Romans), until late.

    « Not demonizing your enemy » is something of my own glorification of them.

    I think there is no absolute Liberalism. It is always a mix.

    ~Every Liberal State has had police of sorts, no?

    Perhaps some of us are minarchist imperialists.

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    >India is not much different, but no communist past.

    India is so badly governed that it well might have been Communist. Independence was obviously a mistake.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 22nd, 2016 at 4:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • Seth Largo Says:

    I hope Spandrell stops in to comment. I seem to remember some of his older posts claiming that a form of political correctness is indeed ascendant among China’s culture-makers, if not among its political elite.

    [Reply]

    Jefferson Reply:

    I vaguely recall an old, forgotten Egyptian text saying something like, “in the name of kek, thrice called, the Spandrell responds.” Maybe he just needs to be named once more to bring his attention.

    [Reply]

    Seth Largo Reply:

    Spandrell.
    Spandrell.

    But then, now that my brain is functioning properly, I forgot that admin is also perfectly capable of taking the Chinese temperature on PC culture.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 22nd, 2016 at 6:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • cyborg_nomade Says:

    Darwinian capitalism turns out to be the best feminism… who’d have thought, right?

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    “… everything of value has been built in Hell.”

    [Reply]

    Seth Largo Reply:

    Is that a Nick Land original or an allusion to something Blake wrote? It sounds so damn Blakean. And then I could post it on my office door without having to explain myself.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    NL from my favorite essay of his. And the generalized version:

    “There is no machinery extant, or even rigorously imaginable, that can sustain a single iota of attained value outside the forges of Hell.”

    Posted on November 22nd, 2016 at 8:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alvin Says:

    Seems like a pretty skewed take on Trump.

    Whar about the concern for downtrodden workers cheated by corrupt elites in Trump’s rhetoric? Or does that cut too close to home for them?

    Also sounds like they take themselves too seriously. Fooled by randomness!

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 23rd, 2016 at 3:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    Chinese women excel because putting your money at your wife’s name is a convenient exit strategy.

    And of course women excelling is a bad idea in itself; ask Jim for details.

    Trump won because the American white middle class is angry. The Chinese middle class isn’t angry; it’s furious and thirsty for blood. If something were to happy you’d have a hundreds Zhang Xianzhong’s roaming the country.

    Of course the Chinese are excited about Trump.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 23rd, 2016 at 3:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael Rothblatt Says:

    Interesting take on China, neither a market socialism, nor a free market country, but “power-market” economy.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 23rd, 2016 at 6:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Meursault Says:

    The Chinese don’t behave in this manner because of their Communist past (and present?), they’ve always been this way. For a gloriously un-PC and no holds barred view of China written before the Communists, take a look at Ralph Townsend’s “Ways That Are Dark”. Townsend was an American diplomat to China in the 1930s and his views on China are grim to say the least – almost Lovecraftian in its horror. He paints a picture of selfish ultra-competitive Malthusian dystopia that is rich in detail. You can find free PDF copies of it online.

    Money quote from above article: “This way of thinking is further reinforced among some Chinese elites: they succeed because they are better able to adapt to and dominate this kind of environment. In this process, they are hurt by others, they hurt others, and gradually they develop a heart of stone and a feeling of superiority.”

    I wrote a whole book about this attitude within the Chinese elite if anyone is interested (subtle promo I know): https://www.amazon.com/Party-Members-Arthur-Meursault/dp/1910736368/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479951812&sr=8-1&keywords=party+members

    I cannot understand how admin can claim China to be “a shockingly civilized civil society” though. By all accounts it is in many ways the complete opposite of a civil society – a pyramid of complete disregard for anybody’s interests except one’s own. I was going to ask admin how long he has spent outside of Shanghai, but the incivility of China is on display in every corner, on every road and every bus or train within the city by the sea as well.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    That is absolutely not my experience.

    [Reply]

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    Qing dynasty wasn’t ideologically Communist, but unlike Han, Song, and Ming dynasties it was very, very anti-capitalist. In fact some Chinese call PRC “the Latter Qing”. That used to be the thing in Europe too, every mercantilist country was “selfish ultra-competitive Malthusian dystopia” (pre-revolutionary France had worse conditions than many countries of sub-Saharan Africa presently do, and mercantilist Sweden used to be one of the worst countries in the world to live in).

    [Reply]

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    It does not sound like you’ve been in China in the last twenty years.

    [Reply]

    Panopticon Reply:

    “Townsend was an American diplomat to China in the 1930s and his views on China are grim to say the least” – You should keep in mind that this time, along with the whole period between the late Qing from from the first decades of the PRC was one of the worst ever in China’s long history.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 24th, 2016 at 1:54 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment