## 男白人女亚裔出的祸（WMAF fuckups）

WMAF children:

– Daniel Holtzclaw

– Elliott Rodger

– Daniel Henney

– Olivia Munn

– Nathan Adrian

– Eiji Wentz
Justin Nojan Sullivan (Eurasian who attempted to join ISIS)
Matthew DeGrood (Mass killer, 5 victims)
Eric Bloss (Arrested in 2015 for attempted murder of boss)
Connor Sullivan (Ran away from home, missing for 4 days, survived by eating fruit from trees, in 2015)
Amanda Todd (Famous suicide)
Isabella Guzman (Matricide via stabbing 151 times)
Kelly Baltazar (Rich girl turned degradation-pornstar)
Jimmi Inthep Hansson (Swedish animal killer of 9 cats; translation needed)
Daniel Holtzclaw (Cop turned mass rapist)
Belle Knox (Half Indian, Half White) pornstar / Duke student
Emma Sulkowicz (Columbia mattress girl whose claim was later found to be false)
David Renz (Stabbed mother to death in 2013, attempted to rape 10 year old daughter)
Elliot Turner, murder of his girlfriend, half Indonesian, half British
John Everette Perry, sexually assaulting young men, 2013
Alex Kenji Gaborek, Transient Suspect, Accomplices Arrested for Breaking Into Mother’s Elk Grove Residence
Bryan Springer. White Father, Thai Mother. Murder/Suicide involving his girlfriend. 2015. source
Aaron Ybarra, White-Hispanic father, Asian mother, school shooting in Seattle, 2014
Julian Edgren, Former Princeton student and prodigy sentenced to 5 years for selling drugs, White Father, Chinese Mother
Alysa Suguro Bathrick, “Cute mugshot girl”
66 year old white politican and his 25 year old WMAF hapa boyfriend arrested and faced charges for sex crimes with a minor, July, 2015
The 2016 List alone.
David Fry. Oregon Militia and ISIS sympathizer, January 13, 2016. White father / Japanese mother.
Thomas Wagoner, ASU student who committed suicide due to racial bullying, January 13, 2016
Jack Luck, Taiwanese television host, suicide. January 22, 2016. White father / Asian mother.
Aage Jorgansen, 16 year old boy who went missing after his father kicked him our of his car. January 28, 2016.
Dorothy Dutiel, murder suicide with girlfriend, February 12, 2016. White father / Asian mother
Joshua Zarembeski, armed robbery, February 26, 2016. White father / Asian mother
Alex Buckner, mass murder of entire family, February 26, 2016, White father / Asian mother
Colin James Sparks, theft of \$1000 worth of Lego sets, July 15th, 2016.
Justin Mazone, arrested for intoxication manslaughter, January, 2016
Pre-2013 List.
Glenn Murphy, Jr., 2007, Head of Young Republicans, arrested for sexual assault on a 22 year old sleeping man.
Wesley Covenah, child molester, Asian mother, white father
James Sosnicki, gay for pay “stripper”. He served 3 years for drug possession, burglary, and fraud. Now on parole.
Phillip Sands, ex-deputy Sheriff’s son convicted of murder, 2005.
Marcus Epstein, 2007, anti-immigrant activist arrested for assault on a black woman
Learco Chindamo, half Italian, half Phillipino, convicted in 1995 stabbing murder
Arthur Patterson, 1997 Itaewon murder
Tiege Harris Delaney Jr, half Asian, white father, child molestation; father also arrested for… child molestation.
Charlie Chase, 1998, “Sometimes, lots of times, I fantasize about cutting someone’s head off, cutting their heart out”, WMAF Hapa. Japanese Mother. In prison for murder, robbery, assault.
Jack Abbot, was an American criminal and author, to an Irish-American soldier and a Chinese prostitute, murder, robbery.
Heck Van Tran, Triple Murder
Roger Brady, double murder
Richard Yi Begnell, 2012, larceny
Harvie Dale Oglesby III, bank robbery, dubbed the “Hipster Bandit”, 2012
Tyler Lee Ford, groped three girls sleeping in a bedroom in the home: two 9-year-olds and a 10-year-old, 2013.
Jarred Dean Snyder, 2014 armed robbery
David Anthony Runyon, 2007, killer for hire
Nicole John, 2010 daughter of the Ambassador to Thailand and a Korean woman, death from falling off of Manhattan high-rise during party, while high.
Two hapas charged with almost cutting a 15 year olds arm off.
Empire State Building Shooter, 2012
Robert John Bardo, Korean mother, White father, 1989 murder
George Woldt, wanton abduction, torture, rape and murder of college student Jacine Gielinski in 1997. “His own mother is Korean and apparently Woldt never accepted his Asian ancestry and wished his mother dead for having had him.”
Martin Soto-Fong, Mexican father, Chinese mother, triple murder, 1994
Alfred K. Brown, White Father, Japanese Mother, 1982 Triple Murder
Jason McClendon, 1995, White Father, Half Asian Mother, Murder of Mother
Steven Parker. White Father, Vietnamese Mother. Double Homicide, Kidnapping, Robbery. 2005. sources
Gerald Powers. White Father, Taiwanese Mother. Murder and aggravated robbery. 1966. source
Michael Blair. White Father. Thai Mother. Sexual Assault and Rape of multiple children. Early 90’s. source
John Harvey Otwell, White father, Chinese mother, drifter and murder of girl, 1989. Mugshot.
George Wilkerson. White Father. Korean Mother. Murder. 2005. source

AMWF seems superior because WMAF is almost usually driven by insecurity on both sides. AF (wants to whiten the race up by breeding with a white man; white worship complex) WM (hates WW or has had bad experiences with them; has yellow fever complex; knows he’ll be worshipped by AF so he chooses them over WW or any other race/ethnicity)
I feel the same way about BMWF relationships. Most of the time, they’re driven by insecurity as well. BM (white worship complex; wants to gain status and/or whiten up the race by breeding with a WW) WW (wants to prove she isn’t racist; only dates BM for their big dick stereotype; wants to gain attention or upset WM and BF) I also tend to think WMBF relationships are superior to WFBM as well.

Advertisements

## Some thoughts and historical background on those stereotypes of Asian scientists not having that rock the boat creativity personality conducive to “zero to one” work

I wrote this to Steve Hsu after he discussed the matter in the title of this post to me.

I saw a wechat moment involving 吴文俊 Wu Wenjun who did seminal work in algebraic topology and later automated theorem proving who I mentioned.
The Chinese who first did seminal work in modern science tended to be in pure math the field that is aside from a brain at the far tail arguably lowest barrier to entry. In theoretical physics the arbiter is experimental validation so there is more politics/connections/cred involved whereas for pure math if the proof is correct then it’s absolute truth.
Before 1950 Chinese in pure math already produced SS Chern (differential geometry) Hua Luogeng (analytic number theory and some other fields too to be fair he may well have been smarter and also more discerning than Terry Tao) Weiliang Chow (algebraic geometry) Wu Wenjun (algebraic topology), Chern and Chow stayed in US after PRC was founded while Hua and Wu returned. Hua’s student Chen Jingrun proved best current result towards Goldbach conjecture (every sufficiently large even number is sum of two primes or sum of prime and semiprime). I read that he and his students in the 50s in China did some seminal work in several complex variables that was published as a monograph that was translated to Russian and then English. Also Zhang Yitang’s breakthrough started with his learning the work of Chen Jingrun as a teenager on his own before he went to college at age 23.
To be fair pure math got only more abstract and esoteric and divorced from the rest of science after WWII. Chinese mathematicians were still kind of minor the really mainstream stuff was happening in US France USSR Japan. To my take it was really only Chern who really revolutionized math and he was born in 1911.
As for physics aside from Yang and Lee in theory I know there was a guy 赵忠尧 who experimentally discovered but likely didn’t fully explain the positron in the early 30s (at Caltech I believe), I think he had to go back to China after getting his PhD and if not for that likely he would’ve done more there and maybe actually gotten full credit for that thing. Back then there was just much more low hanging fruit. Nowadays we’ve kind of reached a bottleneck in science.
In experimental physics I also know of 王淦昌 who led a team that discovered some particle while in USSR in late 50s but it was not quite Nobel prize level maybe close. And of course there were some ethnic Chinese in US like Steven Chu who did win Nobel in experimental physics.
Certainly it was very difficult to do such level work in China or in the four Asian tigers due to lack of powerful scientific community at the forefront in those places. I think Japan was different after WWII they already had first rate science of their own by then. So naturally the best Chinese in pure science were the ones who went to US and stayed before PRC or went the Taiwan/HK route afterward. Mainland China really only had access to USSR in 50s and also during that era the best people tended to be pressured into applied work.
Again the era of fundamental advances seems to be kind of over. There hasn’t been much serious breakthrough in science and technology since end of cold war. World Wide Web and AI doesn’t really count in my view. Nothing compared to semiconductors and satellites and computers and lasers which all happened during cold war. AI is just a natural product of advances in computing power and GPUs.
My Indian friend also said that Indians did better in pure physics than Chinese due to Brit education. CV Raman Bose Chandrasekhar their elite got into modern science arguably earlier than the Japanese too let alone the Chinese. Modern science is a Western thing East Asians just got into it quite late with Chinese much later than Japanese and Koreans even later really.
Access and tradition matters a lot too it’s not just about g or the right maverick personality. It’s just too bad that East Asians didn’t create modern science or anything close to it on their own despite obviously being quite gifted in it based on their achievements after they got into that stuff. But not long after it became kind of saturated.
You’re free to publish this on your blog credit me for it of course.

## Lenovo is no longer really a Chinese company

Most of this reality about Lenovo is all stuff I learned after I returned to China. I was reminded of Lenovo through this article by Andrei Vltchek

http://www.unz.com/avltchek/the-u-s-if-it-cannot-be-loved-it-will-rape/

where there was

No one is talking about it openly, but, let us face it: those U.S.-made planes are crashing; the performance of Apple phones and computers is falling far behind those made by Huawei and other Chinese companies. Lenovo took over IBM and is doing extremely well. NASA is absolutely incapable of building decent rockets that would be able to deliver people or even satellites to space, cheaply and safely.

Seeing that I commented,

Lenovo is actually widely despised now in China. Its founder Liu Chuanzhi essentially sold out a state owned company to US (Lenovo is now actually a US company headquartered in America) as part of Thinkpad purchase. Their PCs sell more expensively in China than in US (Liu Chuanzhi and Lenovo manipulated some contract where Chinese government buys Lenovo PCs in bulk). People in China now call Liu Chuanzhi a hanjian.

And his daughter Liu Qing became CEO of Didi Chuxing (like Uber) after becoming managing director at Goldman Sachs in Hong Kong. Didi laid off 15% of their staff early this year and there was a rape/murder case that triggered outrage last year. Its reputation in China is not very good. And Liu Chuanzhi’s niece is head of Uber China, and Liu Chuanzhi also owns some other big taxi related business. It’s some pretty sick nepotism.

I learned of this from this Chinese games programmer. He was basically like, Liu Chuanzhi, Liu Qing, the harder they work the more damage they do. And I read that Lenovo even tried to attack Huawei.

There is not much serious technology in Lenovo, its basically a PC assembly job, based off Windows and Intel. A guy high up there in the 90s wanted to develop CPU but Liu Chuanzhi forced him out.

Back in the 2000s Lenovo’s purchase of IBM ThinkPad was big deal. As part of it, Lenovo moved headquarters to North Carolina. And I remember I saw some US magazine with Bill Gates of China, which was on Yang Yuanqing, Lenovo’s CEO back when I was still a kid.

I was told that Liu Chuanzhi back in the days presented himself as a 民族英雄 (ethnic/national hero) and fooled a lot of people, but nowadays, the attitude towards him in China is mostly one of get the fuck out. People mock him and his company derisively as 美帝良心.

Liu Chuanzhi’s father I learned from online graduated university in Shanghai in 1944 and later was involved in People’s Bank of China and also patent law. Some speculate that he had kowtowed to the Japanese back then. Some of the stuff online portrayed the family as 红色家庭, with Liu Chuanzhi himself a CPC member.

Lenovo is not doing well now, their stock has gone down a ton. I think they made a smartphone that flopped and with people moving to mobile, their PC sales aren’t doing all that great either. They’re not really so much a technology company as much as they are a comprador company posing as a technology one.

And I had read in December that now deceased former Stanford theoretical physics professor Shoucheng Zhang summer of 2018 (or around that time) joined Lenovo’s board of directors, when I was not yet aware of the dark side of that company. I only got the impression of this high up guy trying to get more power, money, and titles for himself.

Certainly, my opinion of him is lowered somewhat by this. I don’t think Shoucheng Zhang’s family fit in terribly well in China after the PRC was founded. In some talk he gave to Chinese-American kids at Stanford, the video of which can be found on YouTube, he spoke of his having uncles who had college education in humanities during 民国 period, along with his parents’ being engineers. Certainly, their family was in or close to the intellectual elite, at the very least well educated. I had spoken to this Chinese physicist about how this kind of background would leave many Chinese full of envy, how it was so high up, and his response was one of “they were not actually at the very top, just very well off.” And what he said that made me laugh was

(How would Old Mao judge them? To Old Mao, even many Beijing University professors are shit.)

Then he was like how he doesn’t have terribly high opinion of Mao, but even so, Mao’s entire spirit was so much higher than that of the four powerful families of ROC (Song, Kong, Chiang, Chen).

I remember in that video Zhang spoke rather caustically of the Cultural Revolution and seemed to very much identify with America, with the idea of building a bridge between US and China, with the idea that the second generation Chinese actually have a real future in America, which now seems rather ridiculous. But you know, this is a Stanford theoretical physicist and venture capitalist, because of his position, what he says can be difficult to challenge. Now that he is dead, it’s much easier to rebut.

Fang Zhouzi lambasted Zhang’s being a devout Christian. Now, it’s not really fair to judge a person based on religious beliefs. Still, being realistic I’m aware that having certain religious beliefs and promoting them especially can in certain circles help or hurt you politically, and some guy who had spent time at Harvard had speculated that Zhang and his family did this partly to gain more acceptance in American society. It is likely that people in his family went to schools and universities started by American Christians in China, like that St. John’s School in Shanghai or Yenching University in Beijing, both of which after the PRC was formed had their names changed and/or resources merged into other schools. Likely, they still identified with much of that old system.

In any case, an ethnic Chinese being an evangelical Christian is just kind of weird. That will surely disqualify you for positions of political power in China. It was the party’s birthday a few days ago and as a matter of fact, party members are not allowed to have religious association. Again, Americans might complain freedom of religion, I think that’s bullshit, it’s more about a balance of power between religions and ideologies. If you have power and the gun, as the Chinese communists gained in 49, you can more or less discriminate against people not like you with impunity if you want to. The people actively in the Crusades certainly did not give a damn about freedom of religion. If you are a minority in terms of your religion or ideology either go somewhere where you will be part of the majority or live a more marginalized existence. Generally, if you don’t aspire for money or political power, nobody will care to discriminate against you much because there would be little for them to gain or lose from doing so. If you are based on your ethnicity or religion or ideology discriminated against or marginalized or even cleansed (as the Native Americans were), then maybe you deserve sympathy or maybe you are to blame for being too weak to defend yourself. To those protestors in Hong Kong and politically unwanted ethnic Chinese forced out of mainland China, one can easily say, “If you’re so great, why couldn’t you even maintain control over that piece of territory? Why were you so military weak and incompetent to actually be forced out of it?” This is rather harsh but it is still the reality.

There is no such thing as freedom of speech either, only control over media. Crudely speaking, CPC controls Chinese media, and Zionists control US media. If you are banned or silenced, that is because the channel you are on is controlled by people who want to and can silence you. For one’s speech, there are always consequences of varying degree. Often, it’s a double edged sword. This applies to my blog as well, as well as to, say, SC Zhang’s kids or Jeremy Lin promoting Christianity online.

With political questions, there is usually no objective right or wrong as there is in science. Instead, you become right by overpowering your opponent, via media, via economics, via military, etc.

## 柳传志，倪光南，联想，柳青，滴滴出行

$\left|\{I, J : I \cap J = \emptyset, I \cup J = \{1,2,\ldots,n\}, \sum_{i \in I} i = \sum_{j \in J} j\}\right|$.

$\prod_{i=1}^n (1+x^i)$

## More on negative Chinese stereotypes

I talk with a guy who knows British race and intelligence researcher Richard Lynn, who prophesized back in 2001 in a book on eugenics that China will, with a combination of high IQ, size (both in land mass and population), and authoritarian government, eventually rule the world. I asked him what he thinks about that. His response was:

Chinese deeply incompetent and bad personality for innovation. But maybe if Western keeps importing blacks and Muslims…
It’s a good question and important

For more context on Lynn, I’ll copy directly from his book.

The nations of East Asia are likely to develop their economic, scientific, technological, and military strength during the twenty-first century by virtue of the high intelligence levels of their populations and the absence of any serious dysgenic processes. These countries have not allowed the growth of an underclass with high dysgenic fertility, and they have not permitted dysgenic immigration. China will continue its rapid economic development and will emerge as a new superpower in the early middle decades of the twentyfirst century. Chinese economic, scientific, and military strength is likely to be increased by the further development of the eugenic programs introduced in the 1980s and 1990s and particularly by the introduction of the new eugenics of embryo selection and the cloning of elites. As the power of the United States declines, China and Europe will emerge as the two superpowers. A global conflict will develop between them in which Europe will become progressively weakened by dysgenic forces and China progressively strengthened by eugenic programs. This conflict will eventually be won by China, which will use its power to assume control of the world and to establish a world state. This event will become known as “the end of history.” Once China has established a world state, it can be expected to administer this on the same lines as former colonial empires by appointing Chinese governors and senior military and administrative support staff in charge of the provinces of its world empire or by allowing nationals of its subject peoples to administer the provinces under Chinese supervision. The establishment of a Chinese world state will inevitably not be welcomed by the peoples of the rest of the world, who will become colonized populations governed by an oligarchy based in Beijing. There will be no democracy, and a number of freedoms will be curtailed, including freedom to publish seditious material and to have unlimited numbers of children. There will, however, be certain compensating benefits. There will be no more wars between independent nation states with the attendant dangers of the use of nuclear weapons and biological warfare. It will be possible to deal with the problems of dysgenic fertility, global warming, deforestation, the population explosion in the developing world, the AIDS epidemic, and similar global problems that cannot be tackled effectively in a world of independent nation states. Among the world state’s first objectives will be the reversal of dysgenic processes and the introduction of eugenic programs throughout the world. Over the longer term the world state will set up research and development programs for the use of genetic engineering to improve the human genome and to produce a new human species able to solve hitherto unsolvable problems and to colonize new planets. This will be the ultimate achievement of Galton’s vision of using eugenics to replace natural selection with consciously designed human selection.

This scenario for the twenty-first century, in which China assumes world domination and establishes a world eugenic state, may well be considered an unattractive future. But this is not really the point. Rather, it should be regarded as the inevitable result of Francis Galton’s (1909) prediction made in the first decade of the twentieth century, that “the nation which first subjects itself to a rational eugenical discipline is bound to inherit the earth” (p. 34).

And also an excerpt with reference to the perceived lack of personality conducive to innovation on the part of Chinese:

Once China has established the world state, it will be concerned with raising the prosperity of its subject populations, just as other colonial powers have been. One of its first measures to promote this objective will be to introduce worldwide eugenic programs. These will include programs of both positive and negative eugenics. With regard to negative eugenics, one of its first objectives will be to reverse the dysgenic fertility that appeared in Europe, the United States, and the rest of the economically developed world in the middle and later decades of the nineteenth century and persisted into the twentieth century and that developed later in most of the remainder of the world. It can be expected that in its European and North American provinces, the Chinese will introduce the same eugenic measures that had been pioneered in China, consisting of both the classical eugenics of parental licensing and the new eugenics of the mandatory use of embryo selection for conception. The Chinese may well also introduce the cloning of the elites of the European peoples. The Chinese will be aware that while they and other Oriental peoples have a higher average intelligence, the European peoples have a greater capacity for creative achievement, probably arising from a higher level of psychopathic personality, enabling them more easily to challenge existing ways of thinking and to produce creative innovations. This will be part of human genetic diversity that the Chinese will be keen to preserve and foster. They will regard the European peoples rather in the same way as the Romans regarded the Greeks after they had incorporated them into the Roman empire. Although the Romans had conquered the Greeks by their military superiority, they respected the Greeks for having developed a higher level of civilization than they themselves had been able to achieve. The Chinese will view their European subject peoples in a similar manner.

I do increasingly believe, as I’ve already written numerous times on this blog, that lack of creative potential of Chinese is way overstated. In the 20th century, they achieved a fair bit in terms of creativity at the highest levels, especially in STEM, in spite of very disadvantaged environmental circumstances. The Chinese did not develop modern science; I think though this has more to do with their having started later, civilization-wise, than the rest of the world due to limited scope and geographic obstacles than with their innate ability/personality. Agriculture and writing were independently developed in China substantially later than it was in Mesopotamia. I see an analogy here. Chinese often like to use the fact that Japan did not develop its own writing system to show contempt for this comparatively little country that Chinese themselves suffered so much from in modern times. This is clearly not because Japanese are less naturally talented (their IQ is about the same); they were basically too small to do so before Chinese characters were transmitted to them. There are actually quite a few Chinese who achieved at the highest levels of STEM (and even more Japanese), they are lesser known though due to their foreignness. As for names, there are quite a few, and one can easily find them online. I’ll go as far as Chen-Ning Yang in theoretical physics and Shing-Shen Chern in pure math.

Again, Chinese culture still lacks presence in the outside world, and China itself is still a developing country, though of course significant parts of China are basically at developed levels GDP wise. So even if Chinese are extremely good and creative, they have a harder time getting recognized and realizing their potential. This also has much to do with a relative lack of truly leading edge science culture and tradition in China, which will take some time. Transmission of knowledge from cultures and lands so far apart is by no means trivial.

We all know that it’s often not enough to be actually good. You also have to win politically. China is increasingly doing that. Its political system far apart from the norm set by the West is becoming increasingly credible to the dismay of many Western elites as China rises in economically, technologically, and militarily. The more powerful China becomes, the more easily Chinese will be able to advocate for themselves on the international stage and get recognized for their achievements. This reminds me of how many say Soviet scientists had to do better work than Western scientists to win the same big prizes, most of all the Nobel, because the West had the political sway to bias the committees to its favor somewhat. There is also, I guess, that the West can be very biased in who it promotes in the media. Like, the Nobel Peace Prize is a basically a complete joke, but there are people politically influential enough to make a big deal out of it.

What I believe is grossly under-recognized is how much creativity and daring it has taken for the Chinese to create their own, unique political system and maintain sufficient faith in it up to this day. In many ways, in this respect, the 90s, right after the Soviet collapse, when there was all this Francis Fukuyama end of history nonsense, was a nadir for China. But we’re now past that, and time seems to be on the side of the Chinese. I guess they will still need more people like me to advocate for these alternative perspectives to the extent that they becomes the new normal, in the international setting.

## The Brahmins

The cognitive and personality profile, and overall achievement package, of Indians as a group is a rather interestingly unbalanced one. Sometimes they do spectacular things, like discovering the infinite series for trigonometric functions of sine, cosine, tangent, and arctangent as early as the 14th century, producing a good number of real geniuses like Ramanujan and Satyendra Nath Bose, and reaching Mars orbit on its first attempt, being the first Asian nation to do so, and doing so at a small fraction of the cost expended by NASA. An IMO gold medalist I talk to once said to me that there are probably more Indians than Chinese with IQ 160+ due to very high Brahmin IQ that has stabilized (meaning regression to a stable high Brahmin mean as opposed to the low Indian mean) over millennia of inbreeding within caste. I thought maybe. Certainly, I do sometimes get the impression that Indians, at least in science, are better than Chinese at breeding the type of genius with the right combination of technical ability and scientific discernment that manages to discover radically deep and groundbreaking science in a very independent and spectacular fashion. The Chinese have produced geniuses of the highest order (or close) in science the 20th century, like Chen Ning Yang in theoretical physics and Shing-Shen Chern in pure math, with Yang-Mills and Chern classes ubiquitous now in the literature of their respective fields, which are now very intertwined. However, they did so only after much training, exposure, and reinforcement based on the whole framework of modern science developed in the West over many centuries, and ancient China, on the other hand, did not produce in pure science anything near what Indians did, a sign of lack of genius and of poor taste, both in its rare individuals and at the collective societal level. On this, I like to think that Indians are Greeks and Chinese are Romans.

In sharp contrast to China, India in practical matters has been largely a complete fuckup, or at least vastly outmatched by China. It is well known that the ancient Chinese invented gunpowder and paper-making, whereas nothing of equal direct impact came out of ancient India. In modern times, China developed nuclear weapons way faster than India did, and even before that, defeated India in a war in 1962, which, even worse for India, was entirely her fault. Economically and infrastructurally, holistically speaking, India, exemplified by its frequent power outages and accident-prone train system, could be regarded as a few decades behind China, which is further confirmed by that India’s life expectancy and infant mortality rate is, today, where China had been at 20+ years ago. Given that the two had been around the same level in 1950, India’s development has unambiguously been a complete failure.

How to explain this? On this, I recall how my Chinese friend’s mom had said that it’s not because China’s elite is smarter than India’s elite, but because China’s grassroots is smarter than India’s grassroots. This is well-confirmed by international IQ studies which tend to put China’s average IQ at around 105 and India’s around 82, which is a 1.5 sigma difference. So even if India’s +3 sigma is as smart or smarter than China’s +3 sigma, there are too many dumb, dysfunctional people holding India back, from their needing to be fed while doing the routine work rather poorly. So, the smart, (usually) high caste Indians opt to go to America to escape India’s dysfunction, so ubiquitous that even the ultra-rich at home cannot immune itself. The best and brightest in that category tend to go through the IITs at home for undergrad, the most reliable ticket to a high paying tech job in the United States. That stratum of Indians has established by now quite a presence in top American tech companies and universities (just about every top STEM academic department in the US has several prominent Indian profs). For example, Microsoft and Google both have Indian CEOs, and plenty of Indian engineers and managers, with many of them in high ranking positions, especially at Google. In contrast, there are few Chinese in top leadership positions. When I learned that Google has several Indian SVPs but no Chinese, a guy from China responded with humorous ease followed by sarcastic insult,

This is, based on my experience, similar to how people react to the astronomical success of certain Indian academics, entrepreneurs, and business leaders in America. They will say,

Sure, an individual brilliant Indian does extremely well in America. But what does India as a nation get from that?

Even such brilliance of these elite Indians is somewhat questionable. On TopCoder, which plenty of Indians obsess over on Quora, now infested by low status Indians, India is ranked, as I am currently writing this, only 11th out of the 31 countries on there, with only two red (the highest category) coders, despite having more than twice the number of members as China, the second most populous nation in this algorithmic coding contest. They’ve actually done better in recent years. I remember back years ago when I participated, I, having been on the lower side of yellow (the second highest category) coder, would have ranked close to the top among the Indians. Of course, one must not discount the possibility that the best Indians have better things to do than practice for a contest where one solves artificial algorithmic problems, which is consistent with my having seen and worked with many Indians who are very competent at real software engineering, with quite a strong sense for systems design and real world production code, which are rather orthogonal to, and much more consequential than, what one sees in those contrived coding contests and interviews. Still, the dismally low performance of Indians on TopCoder still raises suspicions, because TopCoder, like the International Math Olympiad, which India is complete garbage at, is a 100% objective and fair contest, whereas success in the real world software engineering, determined by promotions and professional level, has a political and context component. It’s not just the Indians at home; even in America, where the smartest Indians tend to go, the Chinese kids beat the Indian kids by a wide margin on the elite math, computing, and physics olympiads, even when the Indian kids seem to have improved a fair bit over the recent years. From this, one can only conclude that Indians are naturally not that strong in the abilities which these contests load on, though of course they may be relatively much more talented in research and engineering, for which these contests are very imperfect predictors.

You, the reader, have probably noticed that up to now, we’ve focused mostly on brains and technical ability. Yes, they are essential, but personality characteristics (both individual and collective) and “soft skills” also matter, especially if one wants to rise to a leadership position. From my personal observation, Indians are, in general, very good at projecting confidence and assertiveness from the way the talk and present themselves, much better than Chinese are, at least in the American cultural context, even when you discount the language barrier Chinese face relative to Indians. I’m talking not only about how one says things in terms of word choice, but the vocal tone and body language behind it. Sure, you can disdain this as superficial, but it matters. Perception matters as much, and in some cases, more, than substance. There is also that Indians seem to have a stronger network and help each out more in the career world. Collective intelligence or ethnic nepotism, you be the judge.

I have stories to tell on this. First of all, I remember vividly how when I interned at the same place as an Indian schoolmate, he was the only one who scheduled, successfully in a few cases, coffee meetings with executives, as an intern (!!!!!), when it never would have occurred to me, or probably almost everyone else except him, to even try. One can sort of link this to collective intelligence, in that it is an indicator of discernment with regard to who matters (the executives) and who doesn’t (the engineer worker bees) within the political organization. And needless to say, you rise up in the organization by aligning yourself with the people who matter. Yes, my telling a full-time engineer this was met largely with a response in the likes of, “He knows who matters and who doesn’t. And even if he completely fucks up, he has nothing to lose, he’s only a 2nd year college intern. In any case, he gets good practice interacting with people who matter.” There is also that multiple people I know have complained about blatant Indian favoritism in interviews in the likes of what is described in this Quora answer. Yes, others have told me that when Indians interview other Indians, the bar is much lower. It’s not just in interviews. Another guy told me about how he once worked for a company that turned into ruins after Indian managers protected some Indian fuckups from getting fired. Personally, I have seen a case of Indians getting promoted way faster than those of other ethnic groups on a big team with an Indian director. So sometimes, I ask myself the verboten. Could it be that Indians really are far higher ranked in tech companies than their ability and contribution, because they are much more self-promoting and collectively nepotistic than those of other groups? Moreover, could it be that many people secretly think and resent this but are too afraid to say out of fear of being publicly vilified for “being racist” and having their careers ruined from alienating a national group increasingly powerful in corporate America? And that gradually, other groups, as they awake to the rigging of the game and get past, reluctantly, their moral objections, will quietly do the same, transforming tech companies and the American workplace at large into literal prison gangs contend, destroying whatever is left of the ideal of meritocracy and fair play in this country, ever more mired in identity politics?

Don’t get me wrong. There is much variance in personality and character and ability in those of any ethnic group, including for Indians, and much overlap between ethnic groups. Like, I know of this really brilliant Indian who donates most of his tech salary to very worthy causes, leaving little for himself, and he would be the last person I would expect, based on his characterized as autistic personality, to successfully climb the corporate ladder, though through sheer talent alone, he should do just fine in the appropriate position. Moreover, I have interacted with several Indians who had been very kind, tolerant, and helpful towards me. However, averages can differ by a standard deviation or more, with enormous social consequences.

I actually feel somewhat sympathetic for India and the Indians here. Somebody, on this, even said something along the lines of,

India is just such a shitty place that the Indians here have nothing to lose, so they play dirty political games and engage in the most spineless social climbing.

What can be done to resolve this? Immediately, I cannot think of anything other than drastically reducing the number of abjectly impoverished, low IQ Indians in India by simultaneously improving economic conditions and enforcing birth control on the poor and unable, so that less suffering and dysfunction is spread to the next generation. India could, instead of drinking the democracy Kool-Aid, learn from China, in a way compatible to its own culture and circumstances, just as China did from the West and the Soviet Union, to great success. Its elite needs to correct many of its deeply flawed social attitudes, and not only that, actually act accordingly with full force; otherwise, the excessive damage India does to itself, America, and the world at large with its internal dysfunction and exported corruption will always far outweigh what its elites contribute to science and technology. I can’t be optimistic on this though, barring some really radical change.

## Nostalgia

I was just looking at some baseball statistics, starting from Alfonso Soriano, prompted by my receiving mail from another of the same surname. I remember I was a keen baseball fan in grade school, and would watch almost every single game. I didn’t like studying at all, and I was even the kid who didn’t do his homework. In third grade, there was this animal project, where we had to write some report on some Australian animal, and I was the only kid who didn’t complete it by the deadline (in fact, I barely did anything). I got a low grade on it at the end for finishing like two weeks after, and I was super embarrassed about that. Surely, my parents weren’t very happy with me. Amazing how even to this day I still know the names of many of the best players from back in that day. Ichiro, Barry Bonds (steroids), Mark McGuire, Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez, David Ortiz, etc.

## Back to blogging

Some might have noticed that over the last some number of weeks, I privatized this blog, for reasons that one can guess. I’ve been busy, learning math. Some cool stuff about Riemann surfaces. Maybe not long after, I can understand Teichmüller theory, for which Riemann surfaces is somewhat of a precursor. Maybe not too long after that, I can even understand Calabi-Yau and Kähler–Einstein metrics. I’m more convinced now that I’m not bad at math at all, though I’m not yet back in school for real, and as for that, I don’t find most graduate students in math, who I’ve had more contact with mathematically lately, terribly inspiring. The level of interestingness of most people, even in supposedly intellectual places, is, frankly, rather disappointing.

## My awesome roommate

I recently met this cool guy because we live in the same place. Though he’s not that nerdy (by that, I mean super mathy), we still share many common interests. For instance, he expressed interest when I told him a bit about 艾思奇(Ai Siqi). Additionally, he told me about his appreciation for André Weil and Simone Weil, particularly her mysticism, which I found quite pleasing as I was reading about them not long ago. He also told me about this guy who is trying to understand Mochizuki’s “proof” of the abc conjecture despite being not long out of undergrad, who has plenty of other quirks and eccentric behaviors. Like, that guy joined some Marxist collective, and goes on drunken rants at 3 am, and is in general “aspie af,” something that he described me as too when messaging that guy himself. There is also, “he would literally kill himself if he had to do a tech job.” (laughter) That guy’s dad happens to be a (tenured) math professor from mainland China, more evidence that madness runs in families. Continue reading “My awesome roommate”