You are here

Regime change & overpopulation in Hong Kong. Why is the population so keen to riot?

Poverty, unemployment, homelessness, and overcrowding stalk more and more Hong Kong citizens. The United States is pushing for regime change, but that won't change anything for the better. In this half-hour video about the Hong Kong riots, and more about the US attempts at regime-change there than you will hear elsewhere, Michelle Greenstein gives a rundown on the social problems that have made the Hong Kong poor ready to riot. Although Greenstein talks about wealth inequality and the need for better distribution, she fails to identify what it is about Hong Kong's system that has caused these massive social disparities and housing shortfalls. The Hong Kong inheritance system is probably a major contributor to Hong Kong's wealth disparity and homelessness, however. Hong Kong's system is similar to Australia's and that of most American states. Inherited from Britain, it allows parents to disinherit their children and to leave property to anyone they choose.[1] This permits the alienation of property from families and its aggregation within corporations, other families or individuals, in fewer and fewer hands. The people lose control of the place. It is in this way that property speculation has come to rule over democracy in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong population and property growth lobby has taken over by engineering Hong Kong's population growth, with immigration numbers about three times as high as natural replacement numbers since 2014. A pretext, as in Australia, is that immigrants are needed to combat 'population aging'. We can see that Hong Kong citizens have been trying to control things from their side by having lower and lower birth rates, but the ruling classes have simply overruled them by pushing high immigration, to push up housing prices, despite the homelessness this creates. The rules for immigration are similar to Australia's, especially in the encouragement of foreign students to apply for permanent status.[2] Foreign domestic workers make up 4% of Hong Kong's population! [3]

Hong Kong's population history

Hong Kong's population history is one of foreign takeover of a small fishing village, then population explosion.[4] When the British took over in 1841, the population was 7,541. In a century it grew to 1,600,000. After the Battle of Hong Kong, the population fell to 500,000 in 1945. Many Chinese migrated to Hong Kong to escape natural disasters and the Taiping Rebellion of the 1850s. 60,000 Chinese left in 1914 due to wartime fears. The population increased to 530,000 in 1916, then to 725,000 in 1925, to 1.6million in 1941, then to 2.2 million in 1950. By 2001 Hong Kong's population was 6.7 million. Demographers expect its population to reach 8.469 million by 2041, with 52100 births and 82,400 deaths predicted by The Census and Statistics Department.[4] After that it would plateau out, due to low birth rates, but the growth lobby will do everything it can to prevent that, of course.

The same thing is happening to Australia, which has similar inheritance laws and has been saddled with malignant growth by the property development lobby, which has taken over all the main political parties and governments, and pushes mass immigration.

Some may be surprised to know that the Republic of China does not allow the dispossession of children except in extraordinary cases. It has similar laws to France. These laws, which make parents financially loyal to their children also have a wealth-equalising principle. Whilst it is true that people can be come very rich in China and France (although less so), Australian or Hong Kong inheritance laws would make things much much worse.


Lawyers love this kind of law, for obvious reasons - it gives rise to so many disputes. See this comment from "Testamentary freedom and disinheritance in Hong Kong.">

"[...] unexpected exclusions in a loved one’s will can cause untold pain, and bitter dispute that can divide families for years to come.

Many countries choose to pre-empt such issues with strict laws covering succession and inheritance. One such example is France, where the estate of the deceased is automatically divided equally between their surviving spouse and children. [...]

Inheritance Law In Hong Kong
Here in Hong Kong, we have the right to testamentary freedom. Broadly speaking, this means we are all free to leave our estates to anyone we wish – be that a relative, friend, favourite charity… or even a total stranger!" (Source: "Testamentary freedom and disinheritance in Hong Kong.">

[2] See

[3] "Foreign domestic helpers make up 4% of Hong Kong’s population. The estimated 250,000 foreign domestic workers mostly come from the Philippines and Indonesia." Source:

[4]Hong Kong population history.


Australia First

In The Australian newspaper (Nov 14, 2019), appear three separate articles which convey what a diabolical failure multiculturalism happens to be. And it’s all thanks to the insanity that open-door immigration intakes from an array of non-European cradles have inflicted upon Australia. Those articles are:

"Love thy neighbor: how to make newbies feel at home," by KPMGs, Simon Kuestenmacher;

"Age old hatred re-emerges right out of left field," by Peter Kurti, from the Centre for Independent Studies and, most significantly with,

"A constitution that distinguishes us by race: this way madness lies," by Greg Sheridan, the Foreign editor of The Australian.

The first of these can be seen as being pretty much nothing more than a rambling waffle. However, Kuestenmacher does say something that can only be described as decidedly fanciful. He says:

"Who is to do all the groundwork of inviting all the neighbours individually to a social gathering? On the road to, creating a socially cohesive street, town or nation isn’t an easy one-off task."

Well, Simon, I detect from those words - and your KPMG colleague, Bernard Salt - have now come to starkly realize that, the open-door intakes of immigrants from non-European and non-Christian sources over the past 20 years (but particularly so within less than the last decade) is that they’ve so inundated a total of 150 suburbs in Sydney and Melbourne which culminated with them usurping the previous dominant ethno-cultural entities. The results of these massive deluges of immigrants from non-European / non Christian sources has been so large they’ve now established enclaves which are culturally insular. Hence, Australia’s two most populated metropoli now have persons of non-European heritages who’ve become slight majorities of both.

This scenario actually occurred back in 2017.

With regards to Melbourne, Europeans became a minority of that city around the end of March to early April 2019, whilst this happened in Sydney some months later around September-October.

Now, over 2 years from then, the non-European components of Melbourne will be about 48% and Sydney at 48.2%. With that said, it is necessary to convey certain nuances as to how it came to this. Obviously, open-door immigration brought it to fruition. But there is more to it than this patently observable empirical circumstance. For instance, each city has at least 900,000 people residing who are here on temporary visas. That is, of the 930,000 international students in Australia there are in the vicinity of 390,000 International Student's in both Sydney and Melbourne. This means that the percentage of International Students living in those cities is 7.3% and 7.7% respectively.

But what has also been inherent with bringing this situation about of Europeans becoming minorities in Sydney and Melbourne is white-flight. To substantiate this can be ascertained with the ABS figures which say that, near on one million people have left Sydney since 2010, to move to move to the regions. [See candobetter editor's comment on 'white flight' at end of this comment.]

With regards to the views of Peter Kurti in the second piece which deals with the supposed rise of “anti-Semitism”, the specific part of his discourse for your attention is this:

"But many Labor-held seats contain seriously conservative Muslim populations [who are] hostile to Israel and sympathetic to the Palestinian cause."

He says no more about that and leaves anti-Semitism generally confused with criticism of Israel. However, it is abundantly clear what he is alluding to is the glaring example of the incontrovertible and the irreconcilable state of affairs between Islam and Judaism. And, of course, with Islam and Christianity.

But it is with the third article by Greg Sheridan, which irrefutably exposes just how totally fractured and, indeed, how irretrievable Australia’s sociological infrastructures have become. Effectively, Sheridan’s analysis spells out to the reader as to just how hopeless Australia’s future is! He sums up how parlous this sociological cataclysm happens to be with identity politics undermining our social cohesion. He states:

"First, the demands of identity politics are endless and can never be satisfied. Second, the views that someone expresses are assessed not on their merits but on a basis of racial identity, or the absolute conformity to [the] orthodoxy [of] identity politics. Third, disagreement, no matter how measured and mild is regarded as a sign of malevolence and racism." [See candobetter editorial comment no.2 at end of this comment]

In point of fact, what Sheridan has stated in those words equates to what I say bleeding hearts are afflicted with - and which I call Liberalinitis. So what is Liberalinitis? Quite simply, it is a severe psychological disorder that only afflicts Caucasians. [See candobetter editor comment no.3 at end of this comment.] And it all stems directly from the intense sense of guilt they have with construing that all of the evils in the world today emanate directly from European colonialism. Eventually, the intense sense of guilt that initially afflicts them morphs into becoming intense degrees of self-hatred, which then manifests into becoming having extreme hatred for those who disagree with their perspectives.

For them, the only way that they can receive total redemption/absolution for the sins-of-their-forebears due to colonialism, is to have every ‘racial variety’ on the planet move into every society which is ostensibly Caucasian and eliminate them from existence. And it really is that simple!

As it happens, Sheridan suggests something in his discourse, which expressly validates what I’ve just outlined:

“Finally, given that the existence of contemporary society allegedly involves the ongoing racist oppression of minorities, which can only be remedied by comprehensive revolution in social and racial structures, then the need to continually apologize, and forever offer reparations on a racial basis, means that, nothing, no set of measures that any democratic society can reasonably offer, is ever enough. "

Tragically, because Europeans are now the minorities of our largest two cities, at approx 48% and, due to the fact that all governments in Australia are hell-bent upon continuing mass-immigration, it means that, within a decade's time, Europeans will be lucky to be 42% of either Sydney or Melbourne's populations.

However, what’s worse still, is that those under the ages of 35 in either city will account for 50% of the ethno-cultural demographics.

Well, when that transpires it means they will have inundated our parliaments and bureaucracies. And when that occurs I can state categorically that, they won’t be ceding us any of the concessions that we lavished them with!

Candobetter Editorial comments on above content:

1. Re 'white flight': The editor would like to point out that the flight from big cities could be ascribed to the cost of living in the big cities, given Australia has the highest housing prices in the world, caused by population demand for shelter.

2. With regard to allegations of racism arising from any objections to the problems of high immigration: Often when we get comments from Mary, we find we have to edit out references to ethnicity, colour, and religion. Indeed it is difficult to decide what might be construed as incitement to racism or hate. In the case of this comment, which we are leaving without major edits of those allusions, apart from these editorial comments, it is obvious that there are considerable objections to the impact of numbers and enclaves via immigration in Australia.

Large diasporas forming large enclaves that are identifyable by predominance of religion or ethnicity are obviously noticeable to people not belonging to those diasporas and already living in those areas, and they feel a loss of control over their social and physical environments. It therefore seems valid to publish objections like Mary's,
without their being inciteful of hatred or racism.

No 3 - re 'caucasian'. You can be 'caucasian' and non-white. Many Indians fit this category.
Many Indians also have a colonial history and culture that has similarities with Australia's.

In conclusion, at,
we would say that the problem with Australia's immigration levels is the numbers. The problem is of incumbent socially networked and empowered populations being suddenly overwhelmed by new incoming networks where they have no power. Mary tells us the numbers, and they are telling. These numbers are also being milked and controlled and manipulated by people who derive power and wealth from supplying their demands for housing and other infrastructure. It is those forces that are causing this problem.

Please let us know if you have found any of Mary's published comment offensive.

Candobetter Editor.