游了游泳

昨天去附近的一个健身房和游泳馆看了看,跟我谈的那个人就说能看出我的身体状态不太好,体型有点变形,尤其肩膀太往前,有点驼背,其实这个问题我早就知道,几年前也有健身教练跟我说过,可是一忙就顾不上这个,只会问题加重,因为我知道我的姿势经常是挺糟糕的。这个跟我做码农有关,但也跟我自己这方面自然就差有关。当然,那人由于想让我在他们那儿花钱,肯定也把问题夸张了。

我上次进游泳池是半年前,也没游太多。我游的也很一般,游的自由泳肯定有姿势技巧不良的地方,蛙泳腿的动作基本肯定也算错的,可是游是绝对没问题的,并游了两个小时,中间的停顿休息也相当少。

我记得五岁时上了游泳课,班里有不到十个人吧,包括一个当时十岁以上的邻居。记得有一个教练把我推进了两米多深的水里,我自己当时看到了深度高于两米,想以此为借口,但依然教练说了个没事儿,然后也确实没事儿。最后一天,有了那儿的所有游泳班级的“展示”或“表演”,我在的当然是最初级的班,然后我所展示的却是勉强并扶了几次墙游到底。我妈妈对我的这些表现当然是相当生气。

在美国上小学三年级,有一位女生过生日请了班里所有人去游泳,记得那次一进水怎么扒拉扒拉都会不得不沉下去,最终不得不戴上救生衣游,感到好尴尬啊。不过,之后那个夏天我却学到了游起来没问题的地步。

记得在美国长大时有个华裔孩子通过我们父母互相之间是朋友认识,他一直搞游泳比赛,小学初中时成绩好像不错。可是他爸长得较矮,低于一米七吧,他也偏矮,我妈觉得他游泳最终很难有啥希望。说的没错。高中时,有一位比我小两年级的华裔也在游泳队,他好像还比出些名堂来,进了什么junior nationals,我问了他我之前熟悉的那个人如何,他却说他算游的比较慢的,这毫无疑问跟他的个子。但那个人依然算比较athletic,之后也练出了不少肌肉。衡量一个人是否athletic其实更多看人的整体身材素质,个子偏矮只会影响某些身体不够大物理上不得不限制竞争力的运动,如游泳,如篮球,如田径的某些项目。这让我想起,普京也很矮,才一米六五,但他毫无疑问是个比较athletic的alpha男,我看过他带领一帮俄罗斯青年人滑雪的视频,也知道他即打过老虎,又驾驶过战斗机。当然,更关键的是他的领导地位与他的形象加姿态的混合。斯大林好像更矮,退腿还有点残疾,但他更给人一种alpha男的形象,更令西方白人畏惧。在俄语里,钢铁用英文字母念为stal,所以Stalin恰好被称为“钢铁男人”(человек из стали),与他的形象和作为特别符合。钢铁象征着工业化,而且是在他的领导下,苏联实现了即快速又高含量的工业化。

美国有些人特别爱说什么alpha男,beta男,并亚裔男在他们眼中大多是身材小,nerdy,顺从性的beta男,中国人倒没有什么太类似的,当然也可以说潜意识也有。这让我想到那个徐物理教授在他博客上还会偶尔炫耀他的体育成绩,很可能为了表示自己与典型的美国亚裔beta男恰恰相反。可是alpha还是beta不光是看身材和体育,也看性格和整体形象,也看种族。比如,在美国Jeremy Lin依然被犹太人金钱控制的NBA和媒体所歧视,这跟他是个美国华裔很有关系,因为在美国,在英语文化里,黄种人本质上不可能成为真正的alpha男。相反,姚明和易建联有中国背后的支持。在中国,由于是香蕉人加上台湾背景和公开的基督教信仰,Jeremy Lin也没有那么受欢迎。徐的能力,成就,和对自己的展示能让他在美国有较高的地位,显得相对比较alpha,但他依然受到取决于他的种族的局限。在中国,媒体可以很容易把他打成与美帝国主义合作的买办亡国奴,彻底毁掉他在中国人眼中的形象。所以一个男人alpha还是beta不光看客观能力和个人性格和姿态,很关键是背后的宏观媒体势力所塑造的标准。

所以一个人要当alpha男不一定需要体育好或身材大,更重要的人所在的环境如何看待他,他与环境的关系。简而言之,有能力很重要,但进入配合并支持自己的背景和能力的环境可以说更有决定性。当一个真正的alpha男必须自己非长自然就被人视为alpha,如果需要勉强,如果氛围默认要求你证明自己,那就不是真正的alpha男。而且一个真正的alpha男,若标准高一些,必须具有一种影响并推动主流氛围的角色。如果主导媒体主导文化的人与你本质对立,那你当真正的alpha男是绝对不可能的。一个需要求别人接受的人也绝对不可能当alpha男,最终被接受了本质上还是个beta男。换一个角度考虑,真正的alpha男的alpha作为和气魄牛到他的短板,他的失误被视为无关,甚至被赞扬为使他alpha个性更加神奇的特点。

什么是alpha的,什么是beta的经常是非常主观的。人无论多么理性都有自己的品味,自己的主观看法。可见影响人们的主观感觉的势力是多么具有决定性的。

Advertisements

Propaganda in film, or propaganda films

In English, the word propaganda is obviously rather pejorative. That need not any explanation. Some people might even disparage my blog as “Chinese communist propaganda.” If they do, so be it.

A native Chinese female who I talk with a fair bit now, sometimes about film, asked me if I’ve seen Anna and the King. My answer to that was that I had never even heard of it. I skimmed through the plot on Baidu Baike to get a gist of it.

She seems to know a fair bit about popular culture, and the gossip that goes along with it. Relatedly, she seems to have seen a fair bit of film, including the TV series Gossip Girl. I had watched maybe like the first 10 episodes of that. I was probably more motivated to do so for the attractive girls in it than for the plot, though surely the plot was certainly not bad. I sure got a good taste of “upper class white privilege” from that. I even joked to a math PhD student I was talking with a fair bit at that time, who said he had watched the whole thing, that I need to become filthy rich eventually so that my daughter can become like Blair Waldorf.

I had told her that I watched the historic Nazi anti-Semitic film Jud Süß largely out of curiosity. I think almost certainly, had I revealed that to my typical America raised peer or friend then, I would have been ostracized to some degree. Even many Chinese in America who did up through high school or undergrad in China would have at the very least viewed me funny or with some backlash.

The best I could find of it on YouTube is

with French subtitles. (To someone who really wants to watch it with English subs, then you better find some way to obtain it yourself.)

Out of curiosity, I had also watched, in my last year of college I believe, the North Korean film, The Flower Girl.

I actually told my mom about that, and the result was her raging at me, saying that if I mentioned this to the outside world, people would think I’m mentally insane, which I’m obviously not. At that time, maybe I actually took that a bit more seriously, but now, it’s like, “it’s just a movie, and the propaganda aspect of it is too obvious to miss, so what,” not to mention that hundreds of millions of people in China also watched it in the 70s, so I’m far from alone. I don’t remember how I found out about it.

Similarly, I watched around the same time 英雄儿女 (Heroic Sons and Daughters).

It was produced in 1964 and became a classic film in China. I certainly found the whole plot quite moving when I watched it. A song in it 英雄赞歌 (A Paean of a Hero)

became widely known and sung too and still is up to this day I believe.

I did not actually tell my mom about my watching that, but I told that native Chinese female about my watching that along with The Flower Girl and my mom’s reaction to my having watched the latter.

Her response was, having slightly misunderstood

what’s wrong with your mom, 英雄儿女, it was on cctv6 yesterday.

I also told her that I had watched Saving Private Ryan, which could also be regarded as propaganda of a different nature, and sigh, its director was the anti- China Jew Steven Spielberg.

Also I am reminded that I have an ABC friend without a Chinese name. I had asked him what his Chinese name was and he said he didn’t have one. But when he told me that his birthday was October 1st, I joked to him, “[姓]国庆”, which means “[his surname] national day.” He has some interesting views that I liked to laugh at.

Once when he visited me, I made some jokes using the Chinese name I had given him, and we watched this 1952 film 南征北战 the plot of which was on some battle in the civil war 4 years earlier.

We didn’t finish it since he had to leave.

I began listening to Soviet music my final year of college. A female Chinese international student from Harbin in casual chat with me told me about the song Katyusha (and also that How the Steel Was Tempered book that I had already heard about) and I found it so beautiful that I wanted to understand its lyrics in the original, authentic Russian. That was what got me learning Russian on my own, much by accident. I had a Russian friend who helped a bit and was quite supportive of it.

I was a bit anxious though since I was still very much trapped by the norms of America, especially its school system. I was afraid that people would find out and think that I was crazy or brainwashed. (Some Indian-American had said to me a summer earlier, “you seem brainwashed by the Chinese government!” notwithstanding that at that time, I was still in school and consuming and creating verbal content mostly if not almost exclusively in English and still thinking in more of an “American” mindset.) But it was more of a real start at spiritual liberation. Now, I could care so much less about what all those idiots in America think. I’m not the one who’s mentally crazy. It’s America and American culture that’s mentally sick, and becoming ever more so.

As I’ve indicated, the political reaction of many if not most in China would be quite the opposite. For instance, when I wrote about my experience growing up in America, some female jokingly commented in Chinese,

Comrade, you are a modern version of 18 Years in the Enemy Camp!

I was somewhat confused when I saw it. But after looking up online, I learned that it was referring to some TV series on some CPC agent who spent 18 years within the KMT, between 1927 and 1945.

I eventually decided to actually watch it, not just listen to the theme song, and it was entertaining enough for me to have finished almost all the 40 episodes. Contrary to the negative Hollywood portrayals of Asian men, the protagonist was a charismatic, competent, and heroic alpha male who easily attracted and seduced women, even a woman high up within the KMT who he managed to manipulate again and again to help achieve his objectives without her knowing who he really was. When she finally found out, she had to keep it a secret too not only out of love but also to avoid being implicated.

Though I read stuff on the Chinese internet starting from high school, it was really only a year ago that I began to comment, write, and meet people through that. Pertaining to this, some America raised guy at elite school asked me how I managed to meet all these people from China or in China. I don’t remember how I answered, but on this, I will remark that surely, what I’ve done is something that most ethnic Chinese who grew up in America would not even dare think of doing, due to immersion in American culture and social pressures and what not, let alone actually doing. But I guess that’s just my personality. Not being terribly conformist and doing certain things that most people would be afraid to. Can’t really help with that. Somewhat tangentially, I’ve written to a math PhD student from China too that my interest in pure math surely had something to do with my difficulty fitting in culturally in the American school system.

Finally, my sympathies to those stuck in America who feel similarly but feel at dis-ease about it. When I say this I have in mind not just ethnic Chinese who grew up in America but also the unusually woke white American who can more or less actually understand where I’m coming from, who thinks that the people running the country are basically delusional, witnessing directly there a big theatre of political idiocy. If that’s you, you are not alone.

我近几天在Disqus上的几个关于中国的评论(Some comments of mine over past few days on Disqus on China related matters)

我是个码农,写过些上过生产被上万或上百万用户直接用的代码,也学了些纯数学。可是在这些,虽然自己有一定实力,绝对不能算最发挥出自己的影响力。我觉得我的在美国长大但成功抵抗了美国文化对那儿长大的华裔的精神和文化阉割,与我的语言,写作和传媒能力相结合远远更有价值。它可能不会给我直接带来什么金钱,但更能让我影响历史和文化的进程,也更能帮着中国赢得中国应当有的国际话语权。

我这个人比较强调可持续性发展,对忽悠和夸张作为自然比较反感,而这方面美国做的实在太过激,早晚会砸自己的脚。美国人宣传中国大多都是假宣传,只有非常少数美国人敢于对此直接表态反驳,心里肯定大多也是为了美国好,因为能感觉到美国这样做是会早晚大自食其果的。

比如,我很欣赏的BobSykes评论了

This is utter nonsense. China’s political institutions are among the strongest in the world, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. That’s what communism is all about. And in a trade war their position is stronger than that of the US. China has the skilled workers and modern factories. Their problem, and it is a big one, is to find markets for their products to replace the US. That is a much better situation to be in than the US. In trade with China, or anyone, what we have is store shelves. In a trade war we have empty shelves and a population that cannot find basic needs.

At present, we are in a similar position v.v. China as the Indian Raj was v.v. England. England imported Indian and Egyptian cotton, and solid it back to the Indians and Egyptians as cloth, at a profit.

Our loss of our industrial base means that in a military sense we are to China today what Japan was to the US in 1940. How did that turn out.

Bolton and Pompeo are pursuing and extremely belligerent foreign and military policies with everyone, including our oldest allies. These policies will eventually cripple American and destroy its influence and power even if we can avoid a major war, which seems increasingly unlikely.

我对这个的回答却是

I’m sad for America. I’m perhaps more sad for the minority of woke white Americans like you and a few of my similarly woke white American friends in my generation who and whose children don’t really have an escape route. Like, I actually have more freedom of speech than my smart woke WASP American friend who is actually more or less stuck in America or at least in the Anglo world, much subject to a certain group for his career, etc.

The minority of white Americans like you and Jared Taylor and Ron Unz (he’s Jewish so slightly different) who dare to speak out are far from enough to counter the main trend. But at the very least, it’s a form of insurance in that if America really crashes and burns, they can make a case for themselves and receive better treatment or at least sympathy from the other side. I suspect there are many, especially young, white Americans who feel similarly but are at least half closeted out of career risk-aversion, can’t blame them really. I myself though am I guess less of a conformist and more of a risk-taker, unlike most Chinese who grew up in America.

I’ve spoken with one of my WASP friends, who’s very understanding and rational on China (like he openly told me that China’s banning Google and Facebook was a smart move), on how I feel sad for him that he won’t have a white homeland. This was of course only after I got to know him well enough that we could openly exchange such opinions. Most people are too afraid, especially in the suffocating American political climate. In China, in spite of censorship, people are generally much more direct about how the world works and less politically correct. Like, I’ve had some writings censored on a Chinese internet media platform for using certain blacklisted words several times, but nowhere close am I to actually getting banned, account-wise, and I’ve made some real friends on there. On the other hand, Quora has banned, or at least severely downranked, accounts of certain people who have opposed the politically correct liberal group-think idiocy that characterizes most of the site’s content.

这些我就先不翻译了。

然后看到一个美国傻逼写了个

On of the fundemental reasons China has prospered is that it treats its people less worse then Mao did. For instance, and God forbid, if today 10 million Chinese were murdered like Mao did, the economy would collapse . So, greed is good. You can not harvest wealth from dead field hands. Engineers and nimble businessman must be better treated.

So, China might well lose the field hand jobs of low manufacturing, and the cash flow. They will have to move up, with ever more skilled labor, requiring more liberty.
I hope for the best. China’s problems are political. They’ve shown understanding of political reform leading to better living.

我对这个的回应是

The foundation of China’s modernization happened under Mao in the 50s with aid and technology transfer from the Soviet Union. US which China fought a war with in early 50s had nothing to do with it. That is the reality that Americans are going to have to eventually accept…

翻译成中文就是

中国现代化的基础是在五十年代在毛的领导下由苏联的支援和技术转移所实现了。在五十年代初和中国打过仗的美国与其基本没啥关系。这是个美国人得早晚接受的现实。。。

对此,他回应了

Khrushchev cancelled it, brought back the technicians and stopped aid. Mao then i( 1960)nstituted The Great Leap Forward/ Cultural Revolution a disaster killing 40++ million. Chinese GDP/Person never reached a few hundred dollars until the early 70’s.

而我却反驳

A reasonable estimate for the sum of excess deaths plus fewer births between 1959-1962 was 15+15=30 million. The total population was about 600 million at that time. I don’t really think it’s reasonable to count the people who weren’t born due to the economic crisis as part of the death toll. I know that people exaggerate these death tolls just like how people often exaggerate salary and net worth. The Cultural Revolution targeted almost exclusively people in the political or intellectual elite, a small base population to begin with, not to mention they were merely politically attacked and demoted, rarely actually killed directly or indirectly.

GDP per capita is a very flawed metric. The planned economy at that time in China very likely underestimated it. There was basically no inflation. Withdrawal of Soviet aid did some damage but China still did fine, developed nuclear missiles, industrialized more places in the country, etc. This only gave the world more “proof of ability,” sufficient to integrate into US world order without subordination later on. Enough for China to be where China is today 40+ years after Mao’s death.

I don’t see much point arguing further on this matter. Because China was quite objectively mostly the winner in relations with the US since end of WWII, there is not all that much for Chinese to be regretful or resentful or insecure about. The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution were pretty big mistakes (whether the latter was might even be arguable) but they were certainly not fatal, far from it. The Anglo world’s using those to gaslight the Chinese on their past had some effect over the past generation but that stuff is becoming ever more irrelevant, and their exaggerations ever less convincing. If America denies this reality, then it is mostly America’s problem. There is relatively little to fear from America now.

I wrote in https://gmachine1729.com/20… that it is in war that relative status/position changes most precipitously. America made a historical blunder by becoming overconfident and reckless enough to give China the very-hard-to-come-by chance of making such a leap in international status/position in the early 50s. The long term historical verdict may well regard that as the critical point or determinant of America’s failure vis-a-vis China, we’ll see. After all, that was what largely set the stage for the developments in China later on, politically and economically, which to America’s dismay were actually quite successful in spite of much intentional and malicious obstruction on America’s part, a double slap on the face. It’s a giant dark mark on US history that the US narrative/media has desperately tried to cover up and forget. Though it might fool many people especially Americans and make America seem better, it’s not really conducive to guiding America towards a more effectual policy vis-a-vis the PRC.

其翻译成中文为

一个对1959年到1962年多余的死亡加上缺少的出生的合理估计是1500万+1500万=3000万。当时的总人口是6亿。我觉得由于经济危机而未出生那些人算到死亡数里是不太合理的。我知道人经常夸张这些死亡数,如人经常夸张薪水和身价。文化大革命也基本只是针对政治和知识精英,这个总体人数本身就少,不用说他们大多是被政治冲击而下台,很少直接或非直接的被导致死亡。

人均GDP是个很有问题的衡量经济的标准。当时在中国的计划经济很可能低估了它。当时基本没有经济膨胀。苏联援助退出的确对中国有所害,可是中国之后依然可以,搞出了核导弹,扩张了工业化,等等。这只更加向世界“证明了能力”,足以进入美国国际体系而非受制于它。足以中国毛逝世四十年后达到现在的程度。

我认为继续争论这个问题没太大意义。因为中国客观而言在和美国的关系上自二战结束以来大多是赢者,中国人没有多少所后悔或所怨气或所心理不安。大跃进和文化大革命都是大错误(后者是否真的是其实都可以争论)但它们绝对不是致命性的,与此差得远。英文界用这些打击中国人对于他们过去的心理对上一代的确有所影响,可是这些在变得越来越无关,并且其夸张越来越不可信。如果美国否认现实,那主要是美国的问题。相对而言,现在已经没有多少需要怕美国了。

我在https://gmachine1729.com/20…里写道地位最突然的变化是通过战争。美国的过度自信及无所顾忌的表现却在五十年代初给了中国非常难得的一下大提升自己国际地位的机会,造成了历史性的错误。长远的历史结论或许会将此为决定美国对华失败的要点。毕竟,它为中国之后的发展,在政治上,在经济上,开出了序幕,并且这些之后的发展尽管美国有意并恶意的阻碍却挺成功的,让美国大所惊愕。这是在美国历史上的一个黑痕迹,一直被美国媒体和描述所掩盖和忘记。虽然它能欺骗很多人,尤其是美国人,并让美国显得更好,这对将美国引导到更有效的对华政策却是不太有利的。

An individual case I was reminded of, that well illustrates the devaluation of talent (as well as lack of privilege for Asians in America)

I know of a guy (and know well someone who is familiar with him) with elite academic credentials at the high school level. They were elite and outstanding and rare enough to get him into top US school for undergrad as an international applicant. All three summers between his college years, he interned at [name of top big software company], and from what I heard, he worked his ass off there. But the offer he got for full time was basically the same as every other new grad, with the exception of some intern return offer bonus.

He was pissed and decided to try his chance at some startup. That startup was acquired by [name of well known but nowhere near as lucrative big company] before he was there for a year and he joined the acquiring large company. But not much more than a year there if not less, he, in order to increase his compensation, changed to the company he interned at three times, at the same level that a new grad would get there.

Basically, this is a big, rich software company and the industry at large taking advantage of a highly talented, eager, but socially clueless kid. The guy was used to being at the top of the academic meritocracy pecking order, and he expected the real world to be same, but was shocked and pissed to discover that he was not valued economically any more highly than all those mediocrities, despite his working harder and contributing more value to the company.

This kid was probably so busy and consumed with his studying and IQ and academic excellence that it never occurred to him to look a bit into a phenomenon that could be described as “rich, upper class white male privilege.” It probably never occurred to him that the end result of his excellence would likely be one of creating value for the benefit of that for a merely high but nothing to brag home about compensation.

I have in general less patience for some of the rather flawed social attitudes I see among Chinese in America. Some of them go there and think they’ll do so well, and when their result is mediocre or merely good, often below what their ability merits, they place some false hopes on their children. The statistical reality is that the kid of a Chinese STEM immigrant in America is more likely to do worse socioeconomically than his parents than to do better; the ones who were able to immigrate to US via the STEM route actually made it past a mostly meritocratic selection, and there kids more often than not regress a bit to the mean. As a yellow kid, they’re not likely to develop any real connections in America either, and on top of that, they lose the potential to develop meaningful or useful connections with other Chinese that their parents did.

Some may cite the few high up Chinese in America (mostly in STEM and even if they’re rich, almost always they don’t have much real power or social status either) as counterexample. Of course, they will exist. After all, there are 5 million Chinese in America, and a high density of extremely talented ones. It doesn’t change the reality that the proportion making it to the top is quite small relative to other groups.

In the meantime, those Chinese in America will continue to go on with their integrate into America, study hard, work hard, play fair mentality that is obviously very limited in what it can get them. They will complain and protest when the mayor suggests canceling the entrance exam at Stuyvesant upon discontent from other minorities at the hordes of Asians in those schools. It never occurs to most of them to ask, for instance, “why is this school called Stuyvesant?” Because some important Dutch guy by that name established a foothold there as early as the 17th century. It never occurs to most of them to ask the question of “why should America actually give them a fair shake?” America is a white country, and if one wants to get something in that country, chances are one has to bring something in return to those who already control it. Or you take over the place, by force. Winning politically is not fundamentally about getting the right answers, it’s about obtaining power, and as for how that’s done, it’s often NOT by playing fair. America was not founded on playing fair. It was founded on white supremacy and dispossession. Or if you judge by ability to win at group/racial conflict, to control resources, then it was a “fair” game. In any case, “fair” is about as subjective as good or evil.

People like Yukong Zhao indignant at the discrimination against their children in elite school admissions in America ought to be aware of and reflect more on examples similar to the one presented above. The reward for elite school admission for a Chinese-American male is likely merely the opportunity to be another high paid coolie for a US company, for some white or Indian or Jewish boss. Of course, many if not most elite school grads in China who stay in China also end up merely being a highly compensated workhorse, though the chance of going well beyond that would be higher, not to mention that in China one would regardless have social belonging as part of a nation instead of being perceived in a more negative light and rejected by default for reason of race.

Alas, you cannot stop hordes of Asians in America from pursuing their coolie dream.

Why Google and Facebook might be overrated

Back in undergrad, this professor I worked with once in casual conversation said something along the likes of “how to predict what kind of company will become the next Google.” As for Facebook, as a software engineer with much exposure to those places, some people have described it as a better version of Google, more equity for engineers with better perks and benefits.

Google and Facebook were considered by many as the top places to work for, especially for a new grad. Certainly better than Amazon, where you have to work harder for lower pay.

But from another perspective, it’s because Google and Facebook, as monopolistic advertising companies, can afford to pay their engineers more. Even when they do, they still make much more income than Amazon, and perhaps also Microsoft.

I recall on Zhihu, a user by the handle Zeldovich Yakov spoke of Google and Facebook as relatively shit companies. His bar was pretty high though. He would say,

Ford started a company with few tens of thousands of dollars. In a decade, it became a billion dollar company and created a whole new industry and supply chain. In contrast, all Google and Facebook did was steal the revenue of the former advertising companies. They did not create any real new economic demand or market. So, what else are they if not trash companies.

This is something that most people with the American mindset would never think, let alone an undergrad with minimal exposure to the world who would naturally overrate the superficial cool that a company like Google projects.

Heck, Nvidia I would regard as more in many ways more valuable than GoogFaces despite the market value being much lower. Its technology is, in contrast, actually extremely hard to replicate. For instance, China could easily replicate GoogFaces, but Nvidia, Intel, not so easy.

Zeldovich Yakov, who did graduate school in pure math in Russia and France, also wrote something along the likes of,

Google and Facebook are that valuable only because of the English language market. In Russia, there’s Yandex and vKontakte. Yandex was founded earlier than Google, and vKontakte has more convenient file transfer features.

Google and Facebook also are dependent on America’s geopolitical supremacy. China has proven that they can be shut out wherever America does not have geopolitical control, and we may see in the next few decades China pressuring some smaller countries to follow her example, which would deprive those two of more advertising revenue. One could also regard the success of those as having more to do with connections. Worth noting is how the founders of Google and Facebook were both Jewish, with the benefit of support from dominant Jewish media and finance interests in America that the founders of Yahoo and MySpace did not have. Of course, this is not really politically correct to say, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t something of a consequential nature.

Steve Hsu has also written on his blog something of the likes of

The connection between value creation and money and power has become quite weak of late.

This is very true. The ability to create (real) value often is very different from the ability to monetize it. Software without advertising has as much value functionality wise for the user if not more than the same software but with advertising incorporated. As an example, I had read that the creator of WeChat back in the late 90s in China spent a few years singlehandedly writing some Foxmail email client, which had several million downloads not long after it was released. But economically, according to what I read, he was almost broke. Fortunately for him, he later got the opportunity to become rich in a big company with the monetization platform. More generally, we often have some smart, competent people creating the technology, creating the products, and then the politically connected people (who often know very little about technology) coming in later on take more of the equity for themselves.

I’ve also written before that in China, the people who developed the core industrial foundation and military technology created much more value than the likes of Jack Ma. The former gave the country tremendous leverage on the international stage. Without that, people like Jack Ma would not be possible. But the people in the former did not get rich. They mostly merely got high salaries from the government. So if the government decides to take out Jack Ma (who is rumored to have had some ties with US media and NGOs that displeased some party people in China), there would not be much good reason to be sympathetic.

Like ex-Soviet Red Army officer Andrei Martyanov, many Chinese, with a similar socialist tradition, view the whole market economy with a critical lens, and the same spirit seems to be utterly absent in an America blinded by liberal market fundamentalism. Keep in mind that this is a country founded on the displacement of Native Americans that was made possible by not much more than military superiority.

So whenever I hear some idiot Anglo or Anglo lackey say “rule of law,” I find it kind of a joke. Rule of law requires ability to enforce the law, which is based on political power, which must be backed by military power. Plus, the law is often phrased very ambiguously, but that is implicitly deliberate.

US-China relations are becoming ever more tense. And in this fight, Google and Facebook in spite of their high market cap provide relatively little value, aside from their media power in spreading the American liberal dogma. But how can you win in the long term with a dogma built on a house of cards. Eventually, reality will come to bite you. In actual material competition or war, propaganda helps but more critical is actual material power, in the quality and quantity of what you can produce. In actual material competition or war, you have to actually demonstrate your real power; financial games, monetary indices, economic bubbles, marketing/hype, and the ability to fool idiots mean very little. It is in wartime that relative status changes most precipitously, when there is the most social mobility. Too many examples, but I’ll give some representative modern ones: the Anglo conquest of North America (set the stage for Anglo supremacy, elsewhere, Anglo world also mostly triumphed over French, Spanish, Dutch, Germans, and other smaller European powers), the Opium Wars (finally shattered China’s position, more gain for British Empire), the First Sino-Japanese War (a calamitous drop for China, a big boost for Japan), the Russo-Japanese War (another big boost for Japan, at Russia’s expense), WWI (Germany’s loss), WWII (America the biggest winner by far, USSR next, Germany and Japan lose forever their chance at actual empire, minor gain for China), Chinese Civil War and Korean War (a precipitous leap in status for China mostly at America’s big expense, USSR benefited too from indirect association), Sino-Indian War (virtually irrecoverable loss for India, more bonus points for China), Cold War (big gain for America after USSR’s disintegration and consequent economic collapse in Russia in the 90s at expense of Russia and other Soviet derivatives, gain of smaller, more temporary nature for Japan and Four Asian Tigers per association, China did okay by being large and more independent, though the strong Soviet association surely hurt her confidence in culture and political system).

Following WWII, in an era of mutually assured destruction, it is very difficult for confrontation and competition between the big powers to be militarily 100% direct, and even during the Cold War, the actual fire, dirty work was largely done in a proxy fashion. The competition is more economic and cultural, and Google and Facebook, along with Hollywood, surely are representatives there for America on the cultural end.

Some say we have now Cold War 2.0. Again, it’s US + UK + their allies of varying degree versus Russia + China + their allies of varying degree. This time, unlike in Cold War 1.0 when trade and contact between the two superpowers was very limited, there is more interaction between the two sides in our more interconnected, globalized society. During the 90s, China, though much disliked, was still considered too poor and backwards to be a threat, and the US was mostly busy trying to ethnically cleanse Russia. They did a ton of damage, but under Putin’s leadership following American puppet Yeltsin, the Russian culture and nation has proven to be extremely resilient under the foundation of a combination of the more traditional Russian culture and the technology and expertise, not to mention international cultural ties, established during the Soviet era, which America could not fully undermine and destroy, far from it. China, in contrary to the expectation of the US elite of eventual liberalization and integration into the US world order, after growing rapidly for a few decades is acting increasingly in defiance of America. Despite an invasion of American liberal culture and ideology of the past four decades, PRC’s communist conservative core remained intact and following Xi’s ascension to power even revitalized.

I’ve observed that there are crudely speaking two types of people, two types of organizations, or at least a spectrum of them. There is the one with the grow fast get rich quick at all costs strategy and there is the other that values higher quality sustainable growth. The former tends to die or fade quickly and forever with a sour taste when its good times end, while the latter tends to persist and show remarkable resilience under crisis. One can put Google and Facebook in the former category and Intel and Boeing in the latter category.

Similarly, as for nations and ethnicities, one can put the WASPs (and their Jewish colonizers) in the former category, and the Russians and Chinese in the latter category. As for the Chinese, in English, there is not really a concept of “Chinese Empire,” and in modern times, China was very much a large but weak victim of Western imperialism and colonialism, until the PRC, but the PRC side of modern China is, needless to say, grossly distorted in the Anglo narrative. But traditionally, China was its own civilization; from the Central Plain millennia ago, it gradually expanded to all of the area of China today, with gradual conquests and assimilation, of the area of Guangdong and Fujian in the far south of China, of the more inner part in present day Sichuan, and of present day Xinjiang where the currently, much noise is made about the Uighurs in the Anglo media. The truth is that most of those places were integrated into the Han Chinese culture before the birth of Christ, with settlers in Xinjiang before then as well. Later, the Mongols and Manchus (who are basically physically indistinguishable from the Han Chinese) conquered but they were also culturally assimilated. Over millennia, the Chinese established and consolidated deep roots over a vast area of land while maintaining cultural coherence, one that even Western imperialism with its modern guns and warships could not uproot.

Not being Russian myself, I know not enough about more traditional Russian history to judge, though I know of Alexander Nevsky. There was of course, in addition to with Western Europe, much interaction with the Central Asians, in which we can crudely include the Mongol and Tatar conquerors who eventually integrated into the Russian language and culture. I can much appreciate how Russia managed to go from in 30 or 40 years time the losing European imperial power to the world’s second superpower via the pioneering of the revolutionary political and economic system of the Soviet Union. Moreover, the catastrophic fall in the 90s could not bring down Russia permanently either, and at least over the past decade, Russia has been mostly ascending, ever more prominent in international affair, though still nowhere near where it was during the Soviet era. Much of the culture of the Soviet Union is still there, and over seventy years time, it has permeated the Chinese soul in a sinicized form. Whatever of American and Anglo culture in China is in comparison more superficial, nowhere near as durable, as it is in direct odds with the political value system in China.

And I would expect over the next few decades that mostly toxic influence to wane further and ever more precipitously. We may well see a catastrophic and actually permanent fall of America and the Anglo world at large. Nowadays, taking trends into account too, America and the Anglo world does not have the benefit of the ethnic and cultural homogeneity vital for bouncing back after crisis, unlike Russia or China. Anglo imperialism was of a revolutionary nature but its base off a small island in Europe with a comparatively small population was too little for it to genuinely permeate itself over a vast land. It takes centuries to fully displace or assimilate a population, and maybe more than that if the population is extremely ethnically different, since there are physical limits on the movement of people and breeding of new ones. It is even harder to maintain the cultural coherence especially when geographically separated over a long period of time. Take the Chinese in America as an example; they are ethnically cleansed in the second generation, with examples like myself very very rare.

Apparently, Google can be an inferior search engine

2019-05-14 下午9.59.292019-05-14 下午9.59.342019-05-14 下午9.59.432019-05-14 下午10.22.07

2019-05-14 下午9.59.53

Of Google, Bing, Yahoo, and DuckDuckGo, Google’s the only one not displaying my disqussearch.com on the first page on querying “disqus comment search” or “disqus search.”

On this, I commented

I thought that Google’s search results are supposed to “far exceed the rest”

Somebody else responded

I don’t think they do anymore. Search is a commodity and they have brand recognition, which is all they need.

But not in China, where they are banned, which means to use any of their services, I have to use a VPN. Just goes to show how more often than not, political power trumps everything.

 

Models, celebrities, attractive women

Yesterday I talked more with that Chinese Chinese girl about the topic that I would have a hard time talking about in America, the one on looks, sex culture, sexuality, film, that kind of thing. I had written on here that I find Anglo women rather low on the attractiveness scale here. German/Nordic women are higher and so are Slavic women, and I’ve told her and someone else about that as well. She thinks that the experience growing up in America for East Asians is quite sexually repressive, though she grew up in China, and also on the relative absence of Asian-Americans in media.

I did grow up in America as an EA male, and I’ll give a few remarks on that. It is generally rather awkward to talk about women and sex related topics as an EA male in the white dominated American environment. If you do, chances are people will look at you funny. The media and overall environment, after all, characterizes EA males as sexually null nerds. I was certainly quite nerdy (more in the negative way, like incredibly socially awkward) up through college. I did study math and CS after all, and I didn’t have much of a “social life,” not that I really cared too much about that. I really could care less about all the white people dating culture in America, it’s generally pretty trashy and not much point in getting directly involved in that, at least for me.

However, I have seen all those model advertisements (mostly of whites since it’s America) and I have had my thoughts on that, which I mostly kept to myself. I know about the film and fashion industry being widely seen as “racist” and “classist” and all about white privilege, and I don’t feel much need to comment on that more. If you want to know more about what I think there, you can go read https://gmachine1729.com/2019/05/07/why-native-chinese-girls-are-1000x-better/.

But it did occur to me to start a compilation of model/actress videos, categorized by ethnicity. If you want to see it, click the link below.

https://gmachine1729.com/lists/videos-advertisements-with-models-attractive-women/

There was also another native Chinese girl telling me about her disgust with the plot of some Disney movie which she described as centered on some white man’s love affair with a Native-American princess (after all the men were killed). She said she never actually watched it, and it might have been well-made, but the plot itself was sufficiently disgusting.

名字歧视

昨天有一位中国人问我在美国是否应该用英文名,而非美国人较难念的写以拼音的中文名,我说还是用英文名吧。姓呢,没法改,至少很难改,但是这让我想到,如果想在美国混,港台的非拼音中国姓比大陆的拼音中国姓还是有明显差异。毫无疑问,拼音发明是为了帮助大陆人提到识字率是为了便于认识,不是为了让西方人容易念,因为很明显,拼音是非常不符合英文的phonetic(表示语音)规律的。西方人只要不是那种特别无知,看名字就能看出来是大陆还是港台,然后有个港台非拼音中国姓在西方人眼里毫无疑问是一种相对加分,不光是更容易念,还是更“自由”的阵营。所以把个什么Cai改成Tsai对于在美国混是绝对有利的,那人跟我说却看到过大陆背景的人为了融入美国还真的这么做过。说起这一点,我想到了做到微软直接报告给CEO的Harry Heung-Yeung Shum(沈向阳),我妈妈还认为他是新加坡人,我说不是,是大陆人,但是因为好像在香港读了硕士,才能把自己伪装成香港人,若就给别人看个“Harry Shum”,有人都会以为他是白人,这和原来在同一个级别的而离职的Qi Lu恰恰不同。

说起这个,我自然想到我跟一位俄罗斯的俄罗斯人通过他的mail.ru邮箱有过交流,我倒是想找个我在美国的俄罗斯朋友,让他用个mail.ru的邮箱投个简历试试,看能得到什么样的反应。

说起这些高等非PRC华人,记得有一次和几个人谈美国的成功华人人士,如Kai-fu Lee,如Steve Hsu,都有特别明显非PRC的中国姓,两人也都和美国中央情报局有过联系。和我谈话的一位的反应是,“问题是,一旦Lee和Hsu这样的人需要为了自己的事业或者他们香蕉孩子在美国的未来而争取,他们是会毫无犹豫的伤害我们”。这个观察也毫无疑问是非常政治敏锐的,我当时都没太那么想。不光是这些非PRC华人,就是第一代大陆移民,尤其是在美国养出香蕉人的那种,很多也会这么做的。这些人对中国更多是一种政治负担。与以前相比,中国顶尖人才多得多了,现在不那么缺了,那些有美国利益冲突关系的专业水平再强,经常从政治角度考虑也是不划算的。这个后果或许残酷难以接受,但是也可以怪他们要不鼠目寸光,就是过于自私自利或未培养好自己的孩子,并必为此自食其果。种族和国家的分界线是不可能完全跨越的。

Crossposting to LiveJournal

Using https://wordpress.org/plugins/lj-xp/ I was able to do so not only for some individual entries (it auto cross posted categories too) but also for a bulk of my earliest entries (from back in 2017). However, the 2018 ones and 2019 ones didn’t get cross-posted. I got a timeout with Nginx 500. This was when I clicked on some Update options and cross post all older entries in the settings.

Great tool/plugin. Much appreciation to Stephanie Leary, and the other names involved in the project for their time and effort!