Election time

I just received ballot for primary elections. Now, time to do a bit of “research” into the background of the candidates as well as the election system in general. Truth is of course that primaries are given far less attention by the media (I sure hope I’m correct on this one) than the final election pitting Democrat vs Republican. Enough that I’ve also paid scant attention to it so far. I haven’t found American politics all that interesting, but that may change. In any case, I found myself looking briefly at the backgrounds of superdelegates of the Democratic and Republican National Committees.

There was also that I read a bit more about the background of Ron Unz, whose site I comment on now, who actually won 30+% of the votes in the California Republican gubernatorial primary back in 1994, as a 32 year old financial software entrepreneur. The winner of that got 60+% of the votes, so he wasn’t exactly close, but regardless, 30+% of the votes means you were actually taken seriously. Not bad for a smart as fuck Jewish weirdo who studied theoretical physics, who, according to this article, was still eating half his meals at Burger King despite being a multimillionaire at age 37. I don’t think he married or had kids. Maybe because he only saw his father, an EE professor, three times in his life, and was afraid that he would end up like that too, who knows. What can I say, his maverick, non-conformist streak certainly has relation to such a background, for reasons of both genes and environment. Honestly, I can’t believe a guy like him managed to be as successful as he was in the game of American politics, which, as far as I can tell, tends to select inverse to merit, past a certain, not terribly high filter at least.

There is much criticism over the election system in America, obviously, especially with regard to the electoral college, which one can think of as a layer of indirection in the voting process. Think of them as virtual votes, which correspond to electors apportioned based on state population (via number of House of Representatives plus two Senators). They actually correspond bijectively to the members of Congress of each state but are not those. They are nominated by the political parties per state, and they vote for the representative of their party in the presidential election, with the exception of cases of faithless electors. There were quite a few in the controversial 2016 election. The one who stood out most was a Native American who instead of voting for Hillary Clinton voted for some Native American activist. On that note, that other smart and weird as fuck Jewish Ron who studied theoretical physics is Ron Maimon, and he once spoke of America as a culturally rotten nation founded on white supremacy and dispossession. This is what I was reminded of when I learned of that faithless elector.

Of course, what’s been the most controversial about the 2016 election is alleged Russian interference. Just a few days ago, there was quite some media backlash there with regard to Trump’s denying it in his summit with Putin in Helsinki, to the extent that Trump was pressured to publicly take back his statement, framing it as an accident of word. I learned of this incident after I started seeing these Facebook posts on Putin/Russia, and I was like, huh, what just happened.

As for Russian interference, they say, among many other things, that Russians hacked into the Democratic National Committee computer network. I would believe that is real. I guess Russian government is doing that for revenge against Ukraine. Reading Andrei Martynov’s book reminded me of the Ukraine coup back in 2013-14 and consequent sanctions against Russia for annexing Crimea. It seems like Russia has pretty much lost hope in trying to make peace with the United States and is going direct confrontational now. I guess Russia might also want revenge for their banning from the Winter Olympics earlier this year for doping, which many there believe was pressured and manipulated by the US.

There were also Russian internet trolls, on Twitter and Facebook especially. I hate to say it, but that’s part of the game of manipulating public opinion. In the US there are these election campaigners who essentially play it professionally. The only way to fend this off would be to have these sites block Russian IP addresses, which I’m sure these sites would be very reluctant to do, as it would mean loss of business for them. Again, the conflict between private interest and “national interest.” Of course, this won’t stop Russians from using proxies in the US to do the same, just as the Great Firewall of China doesn’t stop people from bypassing it via VPNs. There are, I’m sure, companies in the US acting as covers for Russian intelligence activity. Those would be difficult to eliminate, unless America chooses to go full anti-Russian domestically, meaning that the smart Russians with a lot to contribute will come here less and less, and instead make Russia better at home. In any case, Russia has succeeded in undermining public faith in America’s democratic process. My question now is when will the American public wake up and realize that “democratic” is a meaningless political buzzword with a positive connotation artificially manufactured and promoted by the US mass media?

In any case, this shows that Russia is still really politically formidable, *in spite* of her big fall in the 90s. At the core, Russia is still the world’s number two. It’s not China, which I don’t think could have interfered in a US presidential election enough to get as much blame for it even if she really wanted to. Of course, this has to do with that Russians are physically and culturally much closer to the US than China, making it easier for them to blend in when necessary. There is also that Russia is still more technologically advanced than China. Even in computer security, Russia has Kaspersky. Nginx, a real rival of Apache, was created by a Russian in Russia. What does China have there? No web server from there that I know of. In anti-virus, I know of Qihoo 360, but I would not bet on them vs Kaspersky. On this, I’ve written the following:

China is still way behind

Buys its best military gear from Russia. S-400 surface-to-air missile system. Su-35 fighter jet along with Russian engines for its own planes because its own aren’t good enough. Its Comac C919 passenger plane is taking longer than it should, and it’s collaborating with Russia on a better one (CR929). Still not self-sufficient in CPUs/semiconductors. Russian military technology may well be the best in the world now: https://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/. China is still junior partner just like back in the 50s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg8Zd-IPHYg.

On the plus side, China has mostly completed its Beidou satellite navigation system (though Russia’s GLONASS still came first), and it’s being incorporated into Chinese defense industry and tech companies. Baidu Maps probably uses it now.

It’s not just technology of course. It’s also the political posture, though surely, that part is hard if you don’t have really strong indigenous military technology to back it up. In that respect, everybody else is still << United States and Russia. And maybe Martyanov is right that there, as far as quality is concerned, we are having Russia > United States. Though perception wise, I don’t expect that for a while.

On the Trump-Kim meeting in Singapore

I had the great pleasure of catching up in person with a friend doing math PhD in something algebraic geometry-ish at a top school. We had dinner at an Indian restaurant. He asked me what I thought of the upcoming meeting between Trump and Kim in Singapore. It’s something that I hadn’t been paying attention to really, though I was aware of it, and I didn’t really have any opinion.

As of today, the meeting is over. I saw an article about it from Washington Post. Apparently, Trump agreed to halt US-South Korea military exercises, exactly what the Chinese government proposed ahead of the summit, likely in the personal meeting between Xi and Kim well before that, wants to eventually pull out US troops from South Korea, and professes more of less the attitude that though China is violating sanctions on DPRK that it agreed to, there’s nothing that can really be done. It’s impressive that DPRK has manage to resist for so long. America with its might has done so much to try to bring it down with economic sanctions and exclusion from much of the international community, thereby rendering its reputation as a pariah state. The people running DPRK, like them or not, are survivors. They, as a puny little country, managed to develop nukes despite economic sanctions and the crisis resulting from the decline and ultimate collapse of their former puppet master or patron (or whatever you choose to call it), the USSR. Their having nukes (and also being next to China, which America dares not to mess with too much) allowed the Kim dynasty to not end up like Saddam or Gaddafi. They must have felt that with the USSR gone and China’s viewing them as an obstacle towards its international integration that they really needed the nukes to preserves themselves. Though people also say that their long range artillery, with Seoul, where like half of South Korea’s population and economy is, within reach, they have enough to deter a military attack against them. What did they really get from nukes? Some more bargaining chip, because they figure they can always get more by pretending to denuclearize. I can’t blame them really. Anyone will go to the extremes when it’s a matter of survival. If you try to starve a dog to death (but can’t, strictly speaking), he’ll just become a ferocious wild one in order to survive, and that’s exactly what DPRK has done.

This must be quite a blow to the neocons and American supremacists who are so keen on American world domination. Hate to tell them that by now, they’ve probably missed their chance. The way things are going right now, in a decade, South Korea could even become a PRC ally; they will once it’s in the interests of those in positions of power there to do so. What can America provide them? A guarantee that those people currently on top can stay on top. They do that foremost by providing defense against a possible DPRK invasion. I’m skeptical still that US will actually move forward with pulling troops out of South Korea; the ROK elite probably won’t like that, unless those with conciliatory attitudes towards their northern counterparts take over, which could happen. I know little about what the popular opinion is there. I do have Korean friends who tell me that there, if you actually sing a DPRK song in public, you will definitely be arrested, because there really is something to fear. There is quite a history of that there. It is well-established that during the Korean War, after the DPRK first invaded, Syngman Rhee ordered massacres of those perceived as disloyal to his regime. Even in the 80s, when the ROK was already doing much better than the DPRK, there was the Gwangju Uprising, which is like a South Korean Tiananmen Square. Of course, to justify its suppression, it was easy for the government to label the protesters as agent of the enemy regime. Contrary to impressions given by the American media, the South Korean position has been somewhat precarious too, and America has been willing to really invest there. There are even nuclear weapons deployed in South Korea, not just American soldiers stationed there. It’s an ally that is seen as vulnerable and too valuable to lose. Over the years, people have always been asking how long the DPRK can hold on. Now could it be that it is the ROK that will struggle to hold on, at least if remaining a staunch American ally is an absolute must? In some being ROK has being an American lapdog almost as a definitive characteristic, more so than on the other side, with the DPRK’s having had two larger powers bid for its loyalty during the Cold War, and with its more being on its own afterwards. The ROK leadership is seen as more spineless (or less able to hold on their own) than the DPRK leadership, having had America’s military presence directly at home with themselves in the subordinate position ever since the Korean War, whereas the Chinese People Volunteer Army, that basically saved the DPRK regime, left not long after the armistice was signed, though it still maintains a defense treaty that guarantees military protection. Much of that is because China, being so poor and backwards at that time, had scarce resources and enough to deal with at home, while America was, and still is, a very rich country plentiful in resources. Of course, there is also that the American elite seems so much delusional with regard to their own exceptionalism and fanatic about their domination of the world. Unfortunately for them, their efforts have been really backfiring in recent years, with the rest of world’s having caught up and increasingly reluctant to take their orders, which they are now much more capable of resisting. The British Empire possessed the same attitude, and one, from this, gets the feeling that this intent for world domination is much more in the Anglo-Saxon genes. Saxon has association with German, and yes, the Germans produced a Hitler, but it’s reasonable to say he was mostly a reactive force, with Germany’s having been shamed in the Versailles Treaty. The Brits were the pioneers of industrialization, and also the pioneers of colonialism and imperialism (if one discounts the earlier Spanish). The British Empire and its derivative America are arguably also the most fervent about spreading their religious and ideological faith. God, freedom, and democracy. They are also arguably the most delusional there.

The reality with the British Empire and with America is that they were pioneers in many ways, giving them the first mover advantage, but eventually had difficulties competing with the latecomers, who were in many ways more competent. Though economically and technologically, the Anglos may have fallen behind their competitors in certain aspects, the cultural presence established by their earlier victories last much longer. Like it or not, they have been relatively successful at getting the rest of the world to accept and embrace their so called cultural values, through a combination of merit, trickery, and intimidation. They are also arguably the most narcissistic, domineering, and historically scurrilous. They led in terms of their science and technology, with that the merit side. In terms of the lengths to which one deceives and coerces, they led much more. People observes how obscenely rich and powerful individuals, in their business, are cutthroat to the extremes. They will screw over another when it is in their interest to do, meaning of course that they can get away with it. They will engage hypocritically in philanthropy and whatnot to buy their reputations and establish a facade of charity. Analogously, the Anglo world has done this massively with its cultural imperialism of which blatant historical falsification and political deception in the media are the essential ingredient. Some other countries wanted to and tried, to some degree or another, to stop them, but lack the aggressive disposition and material power to do so. Economically and militarily, the Anglo world is of course guilty of displacement of the natives in America and Australia, and even to this day, the UK holds on to the Falkland Islands. Culturally they have been successful; this, along with America’s worldwide network of military bases, which America is increasingly lacking in its ability to economically sustain, are held as socially acceptable, the social norm. This might change though, but it will take a while.

America’s main competitors are China and Russia. Of the two, China is much more threatening. These are countries which have resisted the Anglo political and cultural system to this day, especially China, which is much harder to conquer, out of a combination of its size, competence, and alienness of culture, as a civilization that developed more or less independently from the rest of the world over millennia. The elites of the USSR basically sold out their country to America, whereas the Chinese communist elites managed to resist that. America and Britain had other competitors too, most of all Japan, but Japan was mostly tamed after WWII, and even with its economic and technological rise afterward, it could not escape the confines of the war legacy that it refuses to face. Germany is similar, but its attitude towards its war crimes is the antithesis of Japan’s. This is largely because the countries and peoples which suffered most from Nazism were the ones to destroy it. On the other hand, Japan was defeated by America and the Soviet Union, not by China, who was too weak at the time, though China did play a major role in sinking more of their resources, particularly human resources, which were the main bottleneck, quantitatively, for Japan, as a small nation that had tried very hard and only half-succeeded at playing the game of world imperialism that it entered in too late.

As much as I respect the accomplishments of the Anglo world, I much dislike the what I would call the domineering hypocritical sore loser mentality that this culture tends to channel and accept into their elites. When they are winning, they are arrogant and nasty. When they lose, they tend to do so in a very pathetic way. They are utterly lacking in self-critique and try to force blame on their adversaries. They have plenty of really talented, good people, but they are not very good at letting those people have a say on the important decisions. Since the title of this article is about the Trump-Kim summit, I’ll certainly say that America was quite a sore loser during the Korean War, which I won’t explain, because it is too obvious. This is objective reality; I’m not saying this because I am Chinese. Those anti-communist Chinese in Taiwan and Hong Kong who deny this are ridiculous, and the Anglo world world is just so keen on using such people as tools for sabotage against the real Chinese, except they keep on failing so miserably at it, making a fool of themselves. They are increasingly losing credibility.

Those in HBD will point out differences in temperament between East Asians and whites, which explain differences in social outcomes in individuals and the collective societies of which the individuals are constituents. There is the perception that East Asians are far less aggressive, which is a negative for maverick creativity, enough to offset the IQ advantage enjoyed by East Asians. There are of course some who claim that East Asians have lower variance in IQ explains the putative dearth of East Asian geniuses, though there is hardly any real evidence for this. This is exemplified by how the Chinese historically have been a relatively inward looking people. They made plenty of practical inventions, most notable of them papermaking and gunpowder that were transmitted to the West via the Silk Road, but were grossly lacking in fundamental theoretical contributions to science. Even now, China in foreign policy is relatively passive. There were plenty of crazy Chinese communist radicals, but that was a reactive mechanism of a society under crisis. I don’t see this changing much soon, though as China becomes more powerful and advanced, she will become more confident and care less about what the rest of the world, especially America, thinks. She may even go all out to change international norms to its liking, maybe in another generation. I myself am somewhat of a meek person by nature, but I can also be quite aggressive in certain ways. Like, I don’t uphold any fake ideal of freedom and human rights that Anglo culture so unabashedly and delusionally (perhaps with ulterior motives) promotes; discipline and “totalitarianism” (also call in a lack of American-style PC) certainly are very useful and necessary when defined appropriately in the right context. I am aggressive enough to not buy into much of the BS America sells, culturally and ideologically. If certain groups do a lot of damage, objectively, then it’s definitely a very good idea for them to be rendered irrelevant, by force if necessary. If certain objectively flawed ideas are promoted for the interests for some scumbags, then people absolutely SHOULD organize to resist them instead of standing idly. To me, a malicious person feigning charity is much worse than a very self-interested person who is open about what he wants.

I actually feel like China and Chinese in general could be, and probably should be, much more aggressive at getting their voice out and calling out the BS aspects of America. They shouldn’t be so accepting of it. They need a little more arrogance. And the more economically and technologically powerful and advanced China becomes, the more justification there would be for doing that. Before, China was so far behind that it could not claim much credibility, but that has changed vastly, especially over the past five years, with the trend being much on China’s side. If people don’t feel comfortable doing that, maybe they should work out more to increase their testosterone and confidence. Maybe they can find the genes for that and select for it to remedy the natural ethnic defect. Is this justified? Of course. Even many actually smart white Americans believe this would be better for the world. Quoting someone else, and not to be taken too literally,

A world run by Chinese or Japanese is one where they’d be rich and on top but mostly leave others alone, except to get money from them.

A world run by whites is one where half want to conquer and half want to help.

A world run by Jews is one where they’d systematically extinguish any hope of ending it.

Corresponding with me, Ron Unz concurred, without ever seeing this statement to my knowledge. His words are the following:

Naturally, the Verbal skew among Jews is a significant factor. But personally, I think a much bigger, relatively ignored factor would be what might be called the “Fervency/Fanaticism/Aggressiveness Quotient,” and it wouldn’t surprise me if the Jewish mean were something like 115 or even 120. Meanwhile, the East Asian mean might be down around 85 or 90, which has major social impacts.

Math festival

I had the pleasure of volunteering for a math festival for elementary school children. There were puzzles, mathematical games, various fun math worksheets (sometimes with figures of animals as variable names heh), building blocks, and the likes. It was organized by some Russians working in technical fields in the area, of which one family has produced some relatively distinguished mathematicians, which go back to, of course, the Soviet era. I was thoroughly impressed by their organization, energy, and enthusiasm, as well as their variety. I had briefly attended back when I was a high school student the math circle that they had started well before then even and kept up till now.

Again, this furthers my impression that Russians/Soviets have quite a culture of pure pursuit of excellence, that some highly educated ones in STEM have brought over to the US as well. When they were not satisfied with what kids were getting here, education wise, they started their own math circles. I was actually, at the crypto-arithmetic station I was mentoring, with this adult adult, who was mentoring the same station. I would, expectedly, when there were no kids there, talk with him (occasionally in my very limited Russian) about various things, such as software technology and also competitive programming in Russia. On the latter, this year’s ACM ICPC, held in Beijing, was won by Moscow State and Moscow Institute of Physics & Technology, with Peking University and University of Tokyo taking third and fourth, despite the home field advantage. This is consistent with Russians beating Chinese and Japanese on TopCoder and CodeForces as well, with the former American organized one in decline, much out of its outdated Java Applet (and almost certainly an over-bloated, unmaintainable legacy system) user interface and the latter Russian organized one on the rise. On this, that guy was like: in Russia, people really care about doing things well, in America, people do things for money, which only sometimes leads to good results. He said that back in the Soviet era, life was much better for kids, because activities such as sports and math were free, though of course, there were selection mechanisms in place on limited capacity, which really encouraged kids to become really good at what they chose to do. Moreover, he was like if America, with its abundant resources, actually utilized it very well for education, it would be like a paradise, except that’s far from the case. I told him that it seems like Russia’s economy and science research, despite difficulties, is resurging. On that, I had read on Zhihu that the younger generation of Russians has produced some real stars in math, most notably this guy named Alexander Efimov, who is the youngest invited speaker of the International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM) this year, or something like that, and they are staying at that Steklov Institute or similar places instead of coming to America. I also brought up my knowledge of the existence of Yandex and vKontakte, Russia’s Google and Facebook respectively, as well as its vibrant defense sector. While at the event, something came to my mind, which was given all the hype of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 elections, will there be backlash soon too for supposed Russian interference in American education, with events like these? Yes, I noticed how the event was full of Russians and parents and immigrant kids of other nationalities, and Americans were few. I like how the Soviet Union and Russia has quite a different ecosystem, both culturally and technologically, which is a positive for diversity. It seems like though Russia is essentially Western culturally, white and Christian, the West is so reluctant to accept her as a member of the Western community, and on the contrary, many of these idiot American politicians are always seeking to give her trouble. On this note, I remember how Gwydion Williams keeps emphasizing and reiterating how the West blundered in the 90s by ruining Russia with awful economic advice instead of more wisely integrating the fallen USSR into the Western system, which she would have been eager to be part on, so long as terms were reasonable. In any case, I find that the USSR left us some pretty damn good stuff culturally, scientifically, technologically, and artistically, and I am willing to acknowledge and appreciate that notwithstanding how many in our current culture might perceive me for it.

Bob Sykes on Disqus once said:

Russia’s economy is often derided as merely Spain East, but the range of things they do indicates that their economy is at least as large as Germany’s and might be as large as Japan’s. Our economists not only produce deeply flawed policies, they can’t even count.

I agree. I heartily believe that GDP is a deeply flawed measure of economic power. It is a very artificial, human construct. It does not take into account the quality or self-sufficiency of the economy, and is prone to artificial inflation. In Russia’s case, it is transparently clear to me that they are grossly underrated, both right now and potential wise, largely for political reasons. It is transparently clear to me that Russia has the advantage of possessing, for the most part, 1) the expertise and infrastructure to create military hardware that is at least close to American/Western levels 2) a highly scientifically literate and technologically skilled workforce and population 3) ethnic and cultural homogeneity (which America certainly lacks and could be ruined by, eventually) 4) a culture and education that emphasizes excellence and substance over superficial flash and showmanship. So despite what on the surface appears to be deep difficulties and a near permanent state of collapse, I am confident that Russia will make quite a comeback in a matter of time. Of course, altering and correcting perception, under American/Western controlled world public opinion and political norms, is another matter.

In order to not digress too much into politics, I’ll conclude with some photos I took from today’s event.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Luboš Motl, and some thoughts on monopolies

I had the pleasure of reading some blog posts of Luboš Motl on present day academia. I first learned of him when I was a clueless undergrad. He seemed like this insanely smart theoretical physicist. Of course back then I was dumb and in awe of everything, so what else could I think? I know that he pissed off so many people that he was forced from resign from his tenure track position at Harvard physics in string theory. His academic work I am of course nowhere close to qualified to comment on, but people have said it’s first rate, and I’ll take their word. I even thought the guy was crazy. My very smart friend, in some online interaction with him, was scoffed off with: “You don’t understand vectors!” That guy later characterized the hypothetical combination of Luboš and this other guy I know, a PhD student in string theory, who is quite academically elitist and also so in terms of expecting good values and a fair degree of cultural/historical knowledge, as “a match made in heaven.” I also recall a commenter on Steve Hsu’s blog remark that Luboš has Aspergers syndrome or something like that. Anyhow, this time when reading the blog of Luboš, I no longer felt a sense of awe but rather a strong sense of clarity and reasonability in his thinking. He can be quite abrasive in some other contexts maybe, such as in his campaign against the climate change advocates (oh, on that I recently learned Freeman Dyson is also on the same side as Luboš on this one), but I believe it arises purely out of positive intentions on his part for the future of humanity, which many view as on a course of decline.

So the blog posts of Luboš read by me most memorable were on Scott Aaronson and feminism, a proposal for more political brainwashing requirements at Harvard, and Terence Tao’s silly mathematization of why Trump is not fit to be president respectively. On the first, I never knew Scott had followed the current feminist bandwagon. On the second, I’ve become more repulsed by and concerned with what I would characterize as absurd political notions (not matching with objective facts) held by many of elite school credentials, a sign that our elite selection is failing. On the third, I can’t believe Tao, a mathematician, would try to artificially mathematize a political matter. I would think that a mathematician would know better that substance trumps presentation in science.

Another friend of mine with a math PhD told me to my surprise a few years ago that now, we see many great scientists marginalized. I used to have the naive view that hard science fields like math and theoretical physics were almost entirely meritocratic and of a culture tolerant and supportive of independent, rational thinking and dismissive of the disingenuous marketing the norm in the business world, but now I increasing am doubting that, not that I deny at all that those fields are far better than the softer, less g-loaded areas of STEM, let alone non-technical subjects. It’s kind of sad that even mathematicians in high places like Aaronson and Tao are promoting such behavior with their prominent positions. So that friend of mine might be right on his somewhat of a verdict that the scientific community is in a catastrophic state right now.

I would say this is much owing to the scarcity of positions. Tenure is such a rare commodity nowadays that one who obtains it so often uses it to advance their political agenda, and sadly on that, it seems the bad guys are winning. Direct, honest, objective guys like Steve Hsu are few and fewer. Of course, different groups fighting for their own interests, for advancement of their own, be it their ethnic group, their political party, or their field of study, is deeply embedded in human nature and a necessity for survival. We now see in academia what in hyperbole are religious wars between different fields, different schools of thought, often in a manner that defies the so-called freedom of expression and thought that the university is in its ideal supposed to be for.

What I have just written holds within the theme of civilizational decline. On the matter of preservation of Western (white) civilization, my white American friend raised Christian remarked:

IDK the new divide is not “white vs nonwhite” it’s more like “people who have civilization worth preserving vs everyone else”

On that I asked with a chuckle: “what about Jews?” And he was like:

They have a country they should go there where they can’t parasitize everyone else

On that I recalled that my friend, another math PhD student, regards Jews more as a social class than as an ethnicity. He does have a point since as far as I know, the distinctiveness of Jews as an ethnic group is blurry in that they were this group in the Middle East with a religious culture of their own their seldom mixed with others despite often living amongst them. There, the leaks were more outwards with Jews converting to Christianity and thereby leaving permanently.

However, upper classes, especially ones in intellectual ability, within an ethnic group are still largely identified with and respected by the majority as emblematic of the group at large in some sense, which would contradict the aforementioned interpretation. I see that ordinary whites still view upper class whites as their own, as do ordinary Chinese with respect to intellectually elite Chinese, yet no other group really identifies with Jews the same way as far as I can tell.

Let me reiterate again that I, with many Jews I much respect and also some I talk to who have been major influences on me, am not anti-Semitic. Not that anti-X can be viewed as a binary variable. Lobos also said that in contrast, sex can be because there are X and Y chromosomes, so wise men think alike. 😉

I have commented before that

“Anti-Semitism” has become this political buzzword now. It basically is equivalent to anti-Jewish. So what? Many people in the world are also anti-Chinese, or anti-American, or anti-German, or anti-(any ethnic group or country), so what, they have the right to be, so long as they do not infringe too much. Also, keep in mind that anti-X is not binary; it’s very complex. Just like you almost never like or dislike everything about a person, you also can like certain things about a particular culture or people or country, and not like certain things.

I heartily believe that every group can be openly examined for their behavior as a collective. There is nothing wrong with that, and racist stereotypes are there for a reason after all. Pertaining to a specific one, Anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists (or most like cynical realists) might think that Jews want to absorb every competent group into their order so that they can have smart people working for them instead competing against them, and of course they will share power mostly amongst themselves.

Obviously, if you want to gain leverage over someone absorb him into your system make him dependent on you. We see this in international relations all the times. For example, in military technology, US and USSR created their own independent ecosystems, and many smaller countries had to more or less choose one or the other. There is a similar phenomenon in the software industry, with a very small number of widely used languages and frameworks. We’ve seen that many businesses are stuck with Microsoft once they use it for a while, and then there is a chain effect across the entire market.

We also see that Jews are also on top of arguably the premier credentialist hierarchy that is the Ivy League, with their accounting for arguably half or more of its presidents and senior administrators, and now people sort of need it to advance their career in America and even some other places, from which comes inevitably owing to our nature the political game of allotment of these scarce credentialist resources. Lately, Asians have realized by now that they can’t let Jews control too much of its distribution, favoring groups it fears not at the expense of those who pose more of a threat to themselves. On this, I have written that US higher education was and still is somewhat of a tool for cultivating (pseudo)-elite Chinese within an ecosystem wherein Jews have disproportionate influence. Chinese are a unique group in that they are intelligent, large, and a civilization and culture that emerged and evolved almost entirely independently of outsiders. (On the other hand, it is the modern science that Chinese are increasingly excelling at that is, in contrast, purely a product of Western civilization.) For this reason, Chinese have been very difficult if not impossible to absorb into any other system. Historically, even though the Mongols and Manchus had conquered China militarily, culturally they were much more absorbed into China than the other way round.

I believe cultural diversity (globally, not within every single country) is beneficial if not necessary for the overall health of human civilization. Referring back to the putative degraded state of US academia, Alain Connes, a French Fields Medalist, thinks the collapse of the Soviet science system, was catastrophic for science, since the USSR was a crucial counterweight to America. It was during the Cold War that was the golden period for STEM in America too, with Apollo 11 a climax. Now, with everybody absorbed into the American system sociologically, people are far less inclined to work on new things and instead play it safe in existent research programs, especially with grants and tenure-track, whereas in USSR in the research institutes, which he believes produced the best science, everyone basically had tenure from the start. That was quite an new and interesting perspective when I first saw it, and now, knowing more, I can see why he thinks that. Also, I think with China and Chinese, the mentality used to be, from the beginning of the reform and opening up, primarily one of how to gain approval from and integrate into what is globally prestigious along the (US-led) status quo, with say a sizable contingent obsessed with Ivy League, but that is taking a turn in the recent years now that China is far richer and more advanced than before. Still, one can say there was still back then a minority but one large enough to produce effect of talented people in China who thought all that prestige worship was silly and persisted in what they were doing to the extent that they gradually built more critical mass that while formerly much ignored by outsiders is now attracting ever more attention.

I’ve noted that different political factions and ethnic groups competing for resources for themselves will always be a thing, and one can think of scientific disciplines and schools of thought as political factions in some sense, which are in some cases even largely segregated by ethnic groups, with different countries having their own distinctive schools in various scientific disciplines. Sometimes, being too influenced by what others are doing and how others are thinking detracts from independent inquiry. Science in the long-term historical perspective values those who create new fields which turn out to be important. I have certainly seen the perspective that problem solvers in existent fields are a dime a dozen and it’s the theory builders who blaze new trails who are the real geniuses, one that resonates with me. For instance, the Greeks were the founders of the pure mathematics, and it was the step they took that was the more difficult and revolutionary, with Chinese civilization’s not having done so.

Politically in analogy, I admire the USSR for their having blazed a radically new trail that though ultimately unsuccessful, drastically altered the course of the 20th century and gave much to humanity in science and technology and the arts. Since China very successful today is in some sense an inheritor of the Soviet legacy, it surely hasn’t died out and is even rejuvenating. In contrast, I read on the Chinese QA site Zhihu an answer stating the proposition that after Qin Shihuang unified China in 212 BC, he forcibly made everything uniform across the whole country, burning books and burying scholars not in order with the official line of thought, enough that China as a civilization made little headway in intellectual thought for the next two millennia. Intellectuals only followed what was already there and could not escape it to create any tradition radically different, until superior forces without eventually forced change within.

The conclusion we can draw from all this is that monopoly of a form that discourages radically new ideas and development of alternative systems is detrimental to the advancement of human civilization.

More politics from that China-hating Jew

The guy I keep referring to here, who does combinatorics, just pinged me on Facebook. The conversation goes as follows:

Him
“He’s now president for life. President for life. No, he’s great. And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot some day.” -Trump on Xi Jinping
china’s cultural values are reaching the US
the cultural values of a society that has statues of the greatest killer in history

Me
Lol I had seen that
Haha
You’re referring to Mao?
👍1

Him
and in america, we worry about robert lee statues
I refuse to give a fuck until they take down the mao statues in beijing
it’s comical

Me
It’s funny how America regards Mao as the greatest killer in history
Once in China, somebody was like: I don’t even think he ever fired a gun once in his life.
He was mostly an intellectual

Him
did hitler fire lots of guns
he was anti intellectual
he destroyed university education in china

Me
You’re referring to during the cultural revolution
when the gaokao was cancelled
I’m curious about that decision
Who made it
Most likely, these leftists in the ministry of education eventually pressured the decision
Gang of Four types
On Baidu there are rumors that the poems he wrote weren’t actually written by him
And were written for him by Hu Qiaomu instead
Same with many of his writings
Reference Archive: Mao Zedong
Mao Zedong archive
marxists.org
Honestly I would bet that he, like Lenin, was simply prolific, writing wise.
What are the odds that Lenin didn’t actually write the books/essays attributed to him.
Honestly I think it’s most likely both of them were superhumanly smart, at least at verbal and politics.
With encyclopedic knowledge on relevant history and politics.
Lol with my blog, I’m becoming similar.