Billionaire Is Reported Seized from Hong Kong Hotel and Taken into China

I am unfortunately not a student of history. Can you explain what you mean by this?

> "One person, one vote"

So how come Trump's President?

(It's because "one person" gets "one vote" for an elector. But some people get more electors than others, and electors vote for the President, not individual voters.)

Agreed on your cynical description of realpolitik on the ground. But it's not a good thing, and the cases ought to be investigated, and if it turns out that it was unlawful, HK and Britain (as contracting party in the treaty giving rise to the SAR) and the world ought to object.

China will subsume HK by 2047 at the latest - let's hope it will not be earlier. As you highlight, the signs so far do not augur well.

Isn't that the difference between sovereignty and self-governance? HK is self-governing in a lot of ways, but it's not a sovereign state, so it exists at the mercy of China. I don't know to what degree HK's independence is guaranteed by international treaties vs. agreements that are purely internal to China. If there's no international agreement with entities outside of China to honor HK's independence, surely the Chinese government could overrule the local government when it sees fit (like the US Federal government taking precedence over state governments when there are conflicting laws and interests).

The quick response to these concerns is that they very highly speculative. They are the sort of thing that - like medieval models of the solar system - seem to predict the the movement of the planets, except that you keep needing to explain away all the inconsistencies and that there are much simpler explanations available, which don't suffer from the exhaustion of the requirement to constantly tweak and reinterpret.

If Xi Jinping were to try to purge the Chinese Government (a highly paranoid organization, with military, intelligence and national security communities that far outlast his particular inter-party alignment) that would be incredible, shocking and enormous news.

> If Mr. Xi's goal were to stay on past the customary 10-year term, wouldn't he need to discredit the current institutions of government and portray himself as the antidote?

Maybe? Generally, the party is the face (you used the word veneer) of the government and its institutions. Weakening public opinion of the party only makes sense if Xi Jinping were pushing to replace the party system with a cult of personality. In the mind of the Chinese, Xi merely runs the party, and any damaged public opinion about the party reflects directly on public opinion about how Jinping is running it.

The kind of steps to become a cult of personality necessary to replace the party system just aren't being seen. You aren't seeing the government under Jinping trying to mass mobilize a change of public opinion to value his leadership over and above the party system.

Rather than discredit the current institutions of government he'd need to purge the institutions and norms which facilitate the cap on leadership and the interior modes for leadership to be replaced, as well as top brass in the People's Army that would enforce that - while pushing for the citizens of China to support such a transition. I have yet to read anything that makes a case that that's happening (much less a compelling one).

> Just out of curiosity, have we seen any such documents or communications (on any subject) that weren't intended for public consumption? That seems like important context as to whether absence of evidence can realistically be considered evidence of absence.

Yup. Take "Document Number 9" or the leaks regarding Ling Jihua or the leaks from the public diplomacy and strategic communication (propaganda) centers in China or the so called "50 Cent Party" - their version of the US's "Global Engagement Center".

Documents are leaked in China the same as they are leaked anywhere else. In any case, I'm just suggesting the type of really strong evidence you'd want to be able to reference to support a really strong claim. Unfortunately not enough leaks from any government are available to always have a "smoking gun" (though incredibly in the case of Brazil we got them, not that it mattered). I agree with you that absence of a leaked smoking gun is not evidence that it doesn't exist. My point was that there's nothing even close - so either the conspiracy is incredibly underground, has thought 15 moves ahead, and is going to manage to capture a government with a billion people even without taking the steps you'd expect to see - or it's a rumor similar to those about President Trump's, President Obama's, and President Putin's ambitions to overthrow their governments that were/are popular during their respective eras.

Color me really skeptical. I'm willing to believe it though - I would just need to see the right set of circumstances or the right set of leaked documents for it to make enough sense. Overall I'm much more interested in current affairs, geopolitics, and the potential ouster of Najib Razak in Malaysia and the workings of the next China party congress than these kinds of highly speculative and underevidenced theories.