On the global homo Anglo world order, its origin and its implications

I have a very smart and unusually politically perceptive WASP American friend, who placed at or at least near the top at elite math contests. He once said to me the following:

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.

I feel that before he said this, I was still somewhat half asleep on this matter. I was subconsciously aware but perhaps not consciously so. And over time, my understanding of this, the last sentence in particular, grows only more profound. In some sense, what is described there is much already happening.

Like it or not, America is still by far the most powerful or at least the most politically influential country in the world. And since that Jews have already solid control at the highest echelons of the most influential organizations in America, like Goldman-Sachs, like Google, like Harvard, all of which are relentlessly absorbing and influencing people, elites especially, globally to a point of no, or at least, difficult return, one can argue that that above hypothetical scenario is already very much alive.

In the 20th century, America has aimed to bring in and brought in elites from other countries into its system and order much more so than any other big nation. The Soviet Union did to some extent as the pioneer of the socialist system, which it sought to internationalize, but it’s hardly debatable that even during the relative height of the Soviet Union, the level of “Sovietization” of the world was much less so than the Americanization of the world, let alone after its collapse. China is now powerful and increasingly so but its latecomer status and more so its alien culture more or less render impossible direct global political and cultural influence the way that America, and more generally, the Anglo world has done. It is expected that China will become by a wide margin the world’s largest economy, with at the same time indisputably world class science and technology and military, including core innovative ability and capacity, by the end of this century at the latest. But it is hard to imagine a real Sinicization of the world. China is the ancestral homeland of Chinese, unlike America, a new immigrant nation founded on dispossession and white supremacy; mass immigration to China will simply never be allowed. At the same time, Chinese language and culture is too different from that of the rest of the world to spread to the rest of the world, for the same reason that the English language did not spread to China even though the West during the turn of the 19th century, so much more modern and powerful, easily brought China to her knees, with implicit reference to the aftermath of the Boxer Rebellion. It is difficult to foresee anything other than a strong degree of isolation for the Chinese in mainland China, with this extending to East Asians in general, though far more so for the Chinese in mainland China due to the diametrically opposite political ideology in addition to race, language, and culture.

It is reasonable for anyone cynical at the slightest to believe that there were and still powerful political forces in Anglo world seeking to irreversibly absorb China into the Anglo system in an unequivocally subordinate position. This has been achieved with Korea as well as with Japan as part of the post-war arrangement. It was their hope that similar could be done with China. The strategy was and still is to cultivate a significant segment of the Chinese elites and population at large that would act in a way that would inextricably bind China to America in such a way that would extinguish any hope that China seriously challenges America on the world stage. This would secure America’s position as the world’s number one, and as a derivative, secure Jewish world domination.

There appears the pattern that the Jewish elites encourage immigration into America. Again, from the cynic’s perspective, it is a mechanism for transmission of American culture and influence throughout the rest of world that would corrode the ability of competing nations and ideologies to challenge the dominant American one. The Jews have already won America. Even if the immigrants and/or their descendants realize that they will always be subordinate in America to the Jews at the top, they won’t really be able to challenge it under the American system. In America, they cannot form their own armies, and Jews will not pass on real political power to them. Stasis will set in in a virtual caste system in liberal democratic America.

According to a Chinese professor, what Jewish elites fear most are political strongmen, with reference to the recent indefinite extension of Xi Jinping’s tenure. In a democratic society, when the president or chairman or whoever changes every few or several years, Jews won’t give a damn about you at all, because your political foundation is very weak. They fear more political strongmen in the likes of Hitler, in the likes of Putin, who would have the ability to disrupt many Jewish plans.

Democracy really is a form of political mediocrity, permitting nothing too extreme. It is at worst very ineffectual or disastrous in the case of 90s Russia and at best unable to achieve anything spectacular. In a dictatorship with a strong ideological basis, the worst is Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan (both of which were of objectively very formidable competence) or maybe Pol Pot (of a very different nature) and the best were USSR before decline and PRC China which achieved miracles and were both extremely successful. Of course, there are plenty of relatively mediocre and bland minor “dictatorships” out of there who most people could not care about. The point is that dictatorship of a certain form is the most conducive to strong ideology, conviction, organization, and efficiency, and thus radical political change in a naturally top down human society. This requires time and thus the importance of long tenure of at least 10 years of a political strongman with a clear direction. It is like how someone who stays and focuses on the same field or job for 10 years generally achieves much more than an unfocused job hopper.

As already mentioned, concomitant with liberal democracy in the Anglo world is support or at least tolerance for racial and cultural diversity in the sense of having people of diverse racial and cultural backgrounds sharing the same land, and as a consequence of which, some degree of miscegenation. Ironically, its inevitable cultural de-heterogenization per spread of the Anglo language and culture to other races actually much reduces global genetic and cultural variance. In doing so, it does poison the Anglo culture itself to some extent but even more so, it is a form of global cultural and political monopoly by a system that the Jews have already won. What is going on here is already in effect systematic extinguishing of the hope of ending a world largely run by Jews. It is the bringing about of an ever more irreversible mediocrity fundamentally motivated by the desire for a closed, entrenched elite to consolidate power that can be likened to cultural and political sterilization of the other to eliminate her potency.

In summary, along this line of argument, the Zionists are already engaged in a process of what is fundamentally a perversion or destruction of civilization to ensure that their rule persists indefinitely. To them, forces still independent from the Anglo liberal democratic system they control, mostly China and Russia, need to sterilized and decapacitated at all costs, with the ends justifying the means. That means whatever “dictators” associated with the two ought to be slandered beyond proportion. That means that even though the Soviet Union much saved the world from a Holocaust perpetrating Nazism, its decisive contribution for the WWII allied victory ought to be erased from the history books, with credit transferred to the American, now proxy for Israel, side.

Andrey Martyanov on Unz Review has written the following.

There is Russian Left and Chinese Left and they look completely different next to Western Left. But we may move even further–so called Western Left is not really Left, it is a brand assigned to it by people who practice faux-scholarship. Reality and a driving force of the Western Left is not so much Marxism, to which this W.Left appeals when it suites it, but still good ol’ liberalism. Western Left is a pinnacle of liberalism, it is its final form which atomized society utterly and in doing so undermined its foundation. The United States was a perfect nation to do so, it is the same as it is a perfect nation, as an example, for organizing Holocaust industry and selling it as a guilt medicine and use it as a coercion tool, the practice also imposed on war-torn Europe by its alleged “liberators”. It is also a perfect country to subvert its foreign and defense policies because the United States doesn’t know what REAL war is. Even rabid Russophobe Richard Pipes openly admitted it. In the end, United States never formed as a true nation. In many respects popular American 20th “history” of Russia is so consistently associated with “Jewishness” (apart from obvious ignorance of those who write it) because it is projection of own complex of inferiority. Russia changed Jews, Jews changed the United States and this inequality will exist and this is one which bothers greatly many of those WASPies in the US who have to face the fact that Russia didn’t sell out to Jews, while the United States today is effectively run by them in key sectors of national activity. This Russia-USSR-Bolsheviks-Jews-GULAG mantra is needed as a therapy for very many Americans in order to block out how they, and others, sold out their country to these very same Jews. Especially against the background of once great country literally turning into the third world multicultural cloaca with grim or no prospects at all. Sad, especially when one looks at purely American phenomenon of a vast strata of Christian Zionists loyal to Israel–an exhibit A of America’s failure to form as a cohesive nation.

Here, what he is essentially saying that Anglos are culturally such a weak people that Jews managed to take over the media, culture, and politics of America from the WASPs despite being outnumbered at least 10 to 1. On the other hand, Russia changed Jews and kept them fundamentally in line with Russian interests despite that the Jewish population percentage in Russia was so much higher. The Chinese are arguably viewed by the Zionists are much more of a threat due to the alienness of Chinese culture in addition to their competence. It would simply be impossible for the Jewish parasite to blend in among the Chinese and thus, she can be there a parasite not. Essentially, the Jewish strategy was to prey on the weak and vulnerable Anglo culture and once they successfully took over that host society abundant in power and resources, they are leveraging it to infect other powerful societies much culturally stronger with the hope of sinking them too into the oblivion of the global homo Anglo world order.

Again, there is no way that Jewish domination of America can be removed from within. Even if the truth is realized, those against it but already submerged into the American system can do nothing in effect to change it, as Jewish seizure of the highest echelons of power in what has already been transformed into a multicultural democracy has rendered organization and instigation of an internal revolution impossible. So if it is to change, it must come from without. If it is to change, this host society must be such that its internal order and prolificness is exhausted enough that it disintegrates and collapses from within. Along then will die the parasite that can live not without its host.

 

Reflections on the airplane in China

I’m on the airplane in China right now with nothing to do so I write this. The person next to me is watching an American movie with Chinese subtitles. Having been in China for almost a month, seeing that screen feels foreign to me, there are mostly some white people and a few black ones too. On that I shall say that my mental state has much changed being surrounded by people like myself for no more than 30 days. In America my only access to the culture and environment of what is to be my natural habitat was indirectly and very imperfectly through Chinese in America as well as the Chinese Internet. But that is nothing like actually being in China surrounded by Chinese people and their way of life in cities built in their own style. After just this little bit of time, much has changed as for my mental defaults, perhaps most prominently that now a pretty woman is instinctively East Asian as opposed to white. The power of advertising, the power of propaganda. I had been exposed to propaganda all my life in America nonstop and now I’m China I experience one in the reverse direction, with crudely speaking a cancellation effect underway.

Almost instinctively I no longer care or fear anything near as much what whites think. This is actually natural for almost everyone in China. They have no direct contact with white people or with people of any other race really. White people are pretty much invisible in their lives excepting an occasional model advertisement in public and appearance on some world news on TV. This is in stark contrast to in America where communication is so stilted in comparison because there are a zillion races which the multicultural environment naturally conditions one to fear pissing off either intentionally or by accident. One reason why I’m not optimistic about America. Sure America can attract smart people from all over the world. But there is also that given how people of one race already have enough difficulty getting along, how much of a problem it becomes when there are many races of vastly different cultures and inherently competing interests sharing the same space. Maybe that is much a reason why now China’s airports render the ones in America shabby in comparison. Even in a second tier city the magnificence of the airport instantly made an impression on me. Of course America is still more advanced and of higher innovative substance in core science and technology but even there the advantage is dwindling.

I increasingly view my experience growing up in America as an ethnic Chinese as an abnormal one essentially forced upon me. It’s human biological nature for races to self segregate, this is instinctive and it’s really modernity that has made possible people like me. Biologically and culturally, whites and East Asian are far far apart. It’s nothing like the difference between Han Chinese and the Mongols or that between the English and French. And so it’s also natural that the Chinese in America are perpetual foreigners who die out in a few generations with high outmarriage and low birth rates. It’s like a pollutant entering water that eventually becomes absorbed in, no longer visible to the naked eye. Of course there has been a continuous stream of it entering to replenish but mostly uniformly there is quite a low half-life.

I am the rare type of pollutant who opts to leave that system for self preservation. Yet owing to my having entered and stayed in formative years I continue to with my fluent and still prolific English writing infect readers and minds within. I am in some sense a product of American liberalism. It was the invasion of toxic American liberal ideas into my native land in the 80s and 90s along with some slots opened for entrance into the land of its gospel that attracted people like my mother and many other Chinese of that generation. Most of their offspring were absorbed and tamed under the new system, yet I resisted and am now in some sense retreating and launching some sort of counterattack. What was it of this gospel that so repelled and disgusted me? That is quite complex and not to be elaborated on here. In any case, it is evidence of lack of universality of that gospel in its power to attract, its power to deceive.

The West as represented by America is now nihilistic. It seeks perpetual expansion but in the long run that brings in outsiders to its culture and eventually to its own lands. It moves and mixes races and peoples to the point where the mixing becomes the norm that goes on eventually to the point of no return. It seeks much, inadvertent and complicit, to destroy itself and everyone else along with it. The West has unleashed a force it cannot control unto itself that may well end with its own tragic destruction. With reference to the words of Duke of Qin, civilization is fragile and its continuation requires constant shepherding. Especially in the modern world so small and interconnected dangerous in a way never before for racial and cultural survival.

On Russia and Russians

I was told yesterday by that uber pro-American anti-communist American Jew that American liberals actually hate Russia more than they hate China. I was surprised. He said that this is seldom realized, and that

if you compared xi to putin people would consider that offensive even
people have a double standard against white countries when it comes to human rights

So, the logic is because Russia is white, they should be held to higher standards for human rights and democracy, and the extent to which Russia is “freer” (than China, which blocks Google and Facebook and is still a one-party totalitarian state) is not enough to offset the differentiated standard.

I don’t get it, why are Western liberals so intent on hating Russia, why why why? Because Russia is such a threat to their world domination? (The USSR is gone and there’s basically zero hope of Russia recovering to that level, but that’s apparently not enough.) I had also heard that in the UK it’s the Russians, not the Muslims, who are most resented, for being tall, blonde, and alpha and taking the tech jobs. It’s another one of those they’re hated for being too good. Russians being good attracts more resentment than admiration, they must have failed politically somewhere.

From my experience working, observing, reading, and interacting, it does seem like Russians are technically extremely powerful. Of course, the ones here in America are a select group. At a place where I worked, there was this big Russian guy who was quite an ubermensch programmer doing much of the technical heavy-lifting. He was also a higher up in the company, though not terribly high up, and it took him some time in officially low ranking positions (where I’m sure he contributed a ton) to get there. There is good reason to believe the pattern of Russians being ranked (much) lower in American tech companies relative to their ability and contribution, given how political promotion and performance reviews are, and the extent to which salary is determined by one’s “circumstances.” There seem to be very few Russians high up in corporate America, despite their ability. On this, I can’t help but think: could it be that the American elite only wants them to do the hard technical work (where they contribute much more than they get) and find them too threatening to allow into positions of power? It seems though that as a group, they’re more or less accepting of this treatment, content with a very intellectually stimulating job. My Russian friends tells me that very few go back due to lack of opportunity, notwithstanding that Russia has Yandex (which was, curiously, founded before Google) and vKontakte, and its own military ecosystem.

I know that there is the widely stereotype that Russians are smart and really creative, while Chinese are smart but lack spark. There is some truth to that as far as I can tell. On TopCoder and CodeForces and at the ACM ICPC, all of which I’ve participated in, with mixed success, the Chinese still cannot beat the Russians, even when they seem to try really hard. Petr was superhuman, and ACRush, while also an ubermensch, was still a notch below Petr. Though ACRush, with his Chinese connections, has started his own self-driving car company, while Petr is still working for Google. CodeForces, created by Russians, is now much better maintained and consequently more popular across the world to competitive programmers.

I’ve observed that Russians are not as obsessed about prestigious schools here in the US as Chinese are. Plenty of really smart ones only attend state schools, to save money, and also maybe because the elite schools discriminate against them too, because their being Russian and worse connected in American society would be a disadvantage for them in the career world.

From what I’ve seen, Russians are very well-rounded too, actually smart and capable in all respects. Even in athletics, they’re feared and targeted (with reference to the Olympic ban). This might mean that they’re not very good at putting on a stupid smile and going along with all the stupid bullshit that goes on in this society. If they’re this good, maybe they instead of being taken advantage of by American capitalists who only want to extract as much as they can out of them for as little as they can get away with should build their own technology and institutions in Russia, where they actually end up having ownership. They did that in the USSR days (but bad luck and stupid political decisions blew it all away), maybe they should continue to do so.

To conclude, I’ll say that I’ve heard that “Russians/Eastern Europeans get macho and that leads to individualism/isolation in the workplace.” Maybe because they’re pissed that they (the ones in America are some of the best and brightest) have to answer to idiots who they have a hard time pretending to respect.

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.

河殇

我在工作上网背景中听了《河殇》,88年央视拍的大争议,后被禁的六集电视纪录片。具体内容我就不多提了,可以自己上网上查,反正绝对是带有强烈的民族自卑感。我们先想一想这是什么时候。这是88年,临近六四的时候,是改革开放已进行一段时期开始面临问题的时候。

我有幸这些年通过阅读和与某些经过了解时代的人聊天对文革和改革开放有了更具体,更深入,更准确的理解。这些当然都是比较争议的话题,而对此片面表达甚多。不用说,对文革和改革开放西方学者和公共一般了解的莫名其妙,是明显带有政治偏见的。所以大多英文的关于此的资料应当置之不理。改革开放以邓小平为首的那派人是文革时所谓的走资派,是曾经被打下去而所谓的造反派代之的,文革后小平把华国锋不久政治碾压下去,而把如胡耀邦赵紫阳那样的人提拔上去了。所以不用说,改革开放的人是难以对文革这场具有悲剧性的政治风暴客观评价的。文革时期,在五一六通知发布之后,邓小平刘少奇或许感到此对己有危派了工作队阻止学校里的运动,这一点我相当肯定是毫无争议的,而可以说此导致了毛主席的不满及后他们的政治下滑,刘少奇被彻底否定并不久而逝,文革后得以平反,《河殇》我记得还特意怀念了他。

改革开放使得中国老百姓更加放眼世界尤其是美国为主的西方。纪录片提到了当时中国普通老百姓的平困,恰恰不同于西方及日本老百姓的繁荣富裕,此是不可争议的事实。不过,为此得结论此片是做的实在他快,太不理性。《河殇》主要引用地理决定论为解释,以中国的保守向内陆地地理与西方的活跃向外的海洋地理做对比,将后者之海洋视为促进此创造近代科技,跨越大海,横遍全球的必然结果,而将此代表后者固有的优越,前者固有的劣势。的确,这种说法有一定道理,而且我个人也经常以地理决定论思考分析历史的进程。为最代表性例子,在使得不少生物灭种的大冰期,在更寒冷的北方的人得到了更高智商及创造生存能力的进化筛选,使得人类发达到可创造农业和文字的智力巅峰,这是广泛被接受的理论。同时,在一本美国学者撰写的用地理及差异进化理解人类历史的,古希腊的在地中海之与美索不达米亚和埃及文明接近的独特地理位置也是被定论为该地为伟大西方文明发源地的主要原因之一。可是,虽然这种地理说法具有一定合理性,以此自卑是毫无意义的,而且把它与文革和毛泽东时代的”自我封闭“和资本主义民主制度之优越相连是非常之肤浅和荒谬的。

仔细看看中国在1980年的时候还算很贫穷,但可以说基本是一个现代的国家。在某些地方,中国其实已经相当先进了,这可以引两弹一星为代表。在建国的时候,近代科技还未在中国本土化可是到了70年,所有重要的科技方向基本上都有专家了,这一点的长远价值是比任何生活物质条件远远更高的。回顾而看,苏联和中国发生无产阶级革命是很有道理的。简单而言,他们都是极其落后的国家,尤其是中国。相反,西方列强尤其是英法早已占了不少世界的有资源和劳动剥削价值的殖民地,而工业革命在英国的起源也是使得大英帝国领先而起的主要原因之一。了解历史的人都知道在帝国殖民主义游戏,后进者德国日本在他们在军事上足够强大时,大多地盘已经被英法而占有了,所以他们不得不对此对手发动战争。俄国在西方列强算弱的,落后的,而1905年被西方列强不当回事儿的小东洋惨败而一落千丈。在这种国家才是开辟完全新的社会主义体制的天地,在资本主义先进列强的威胁下,斯大林不得不采取极端无情的利于快速工业化的计划经济,此毛主席领导的中国共产党后来也是学会并且成功执行了。中国在80年依然远远落后于美国和日本是不可避免的,不是可以归咎于社会主义体制的,反而是社会主义拯救了中国,让一个多年停顿于科技原始而百年受列强欺凌的华夏文明快速赢得了近代军力和科技力量,为此做出大大牺牲是不可避免的,不能占领剥削别人,就必定要勒紧自己的裤腰带。中国能在对外形势,在美国的封锁下,对自己极其恶劣不利的情况下成功快速的现代化是一个无可争议的历史奇迹,不是中国在此关闭了自己的国门,而是美国为首的西方在自己战争输给在他们眼中无比落后国家而不服导致美国引用经济制裁的方式企图推翻中国新的政权,将蒋介石老政权复辟,而在中共所领导的成功,其未得逞。

总而言之,可以说八十年代末是共和国最危险而有幸渡过的时候。苏联一垮台有接了一大串联,美国为此兴奋不已,终于赢了冷战,自由民主终于战胜了专制邪恶。但是此串联没有包括中国,中国尽然在自弱之时躲开了,而且出于西方所预料经过继二十多年之积累已经成为了下一个苏联,而且这个新苏联比往时的苏联远远更可怕。八十年代在中国出现的政治愚昧而危险自由主义浪潮即显示了当时中国人所有的弱小而产生的自卑崇洋媚外,又表明了毛主席文革时整掉的“走资派”后所展示出的肤浅与毫无远见并且其对共和国和中华民族所带来的严重但有幸而将其损害得以缓解的政治危机,现在看却给了所谓的十年浩劫一定的政治依据及合理性。

《河殇》的总撰稿人苏晓康六四后流亡美国,看来成为了相当公开彻底的中国政治异议分子,有在像自由亚洲电台这样的媒体进行采访,也和柴玲一样成为了虔诚的基督教徒。在看他的写作,的确容易发觉到他高水平的文笔(不考虑内容及其所含之立场),可是他也像那种典型的口若悬河缺乏严谨思维的高语言智商低数学智商的人。可是也许不然,像方励之那样的人,大理论物理学家,文数精通,也坚持过类似的不太奠定与事实的政治思想,表明还有对此占有相当大差的异于智商两大因素的非智商因素。通过这一点,我们也能更加意识到当时为什么强调又红又专,是有不少专业能力强但政治幼稚或别有用心的人可创造遭遇性的结果。大致而言,一个人的政治和道德价值观有环境影响的部分,也有先天的部分。我认为中国鼓励那些坚持而凭借一些在我眼中莫名其妙的政治原则闹事的分子到美国去是一个很明智的选择,他们可以在美国成立他们的集体,爱说什么说什么,爱宣传什么宣传什么,跟一些美国的某些政治组织勾结,沆瀣一气,也是他们的自由选择,只不过趋势看来会使得他们越来越无关。

还想强调的确,宣传和环境还是有相当大的作用的。我看到好多在美国长大的华人孩子形成一些不叫不太正确不符合事实的政治观点,因为他们太受美国媒体环境的影响了,若他们的克隆在中国长大就不会那样,当然的确也看到过一些彻底无救的而在繁殖的人。鉴于这一点,我认为我们具有更正确观点的人应当做出更多的努力为真实赢得话语权,而中国在这些年已经为此建立了越来越庞大的而还在快速增长的物质和精神支柱。

最后,我想说在《河殇》里,中华文明被形容为不敢于探索而知足常乐的民族,由于地理原因。不过那是在古代的未连接的世界,与今天飞机互联网的小世界截然不同。西方创造的近代世界却给了中国海洋,而在这号称中国没有海洋的纪录片在首播不到三十年之后,中国已经迈了大步,蓬勃的将自己的军队插入深之又深的海洋,这是三十年前难以想象的。孔夫子有曰:吾岂匏瓜也哉,焉能系而不食。中国已大大克服,而在继续克服《河殇》所描述的民族弊端,甚至有可能彻底改之而发展到另一个极端。或许,中国正在转化成昔日的日本,欲将西方军事从亚太地区彻底逐出。

On questioning authority

A couple years ago, my friend who won high honors at the Intel Science Talent Search told me that he was talking this guy who created some app that allows you to schedule a Uber ride for later, who was also at/near the top of the same science competition, who is extraordinarily versatile and prolific. I watched a little of a video of a TED talk he gave, wherein he explained what one can learn from ancient Hebraic texts. Overall, I wasn’t terribly terribly impressed by it, though it was quite eloquently delivered. Mostly because with those types of things, one is too free to interpret and thus, the lessons/messages given were overly generic so as to make them almost meaningless, one of which was how the Bible teaches the importance of questioning authority, with reference to the refusal to bow to the golden image of King Nebuchadnezzar by Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego as an exemplary.

Here, Joshua like many from the same cultural root portrays questioning authority as a pillar of the Jewish moral and intellectual spirit. I would say that this has already gotten to the point of cliche. There is also, again, that people have different ideas of what it means to question authority.

First of all, what is an authority? An authority can manifest itself in many forms. It can be a political authority. It can be a government, especially a “dictatorship,” as much as I hate the usage of that word. It can be a boss at work. It can be a distinguished professor. It can be an adult when you’re a child. It can be an official or not moral, religious, or political code/ideology, or commonly accepted versions of history and its verdicts, by which I mean judgments of history as opposed to hard facts more or less incontrovertible, such as what exactly happened on X day with documentation abound. It can be the tradition we are all taught to abide by growing up with little question of their rationale and relevance, especially as times pass and change.

A corollary of my last paragraph is that to talk about questioning authority alone is almost utterly meaningless. You absolutely need some context, and Joshua did provide some. In the specific example of his I regurgitated, it is standing up against a dictator, and I’ll elaborate my thoughts on that.

Growing up in America, in my social studies classes and in the media, the mantra of dictatorship vs democracy with the latter morally superior and in many cases with its defense by virtually any means justified was heard again and again that it has itself become an authority taboo to challenge by our political norms. First of all, I want to clarify that here by democracy I am referring to a political system where elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body. There is another form of more general democracy where the government does what is, or is at least perceived as, in the best interest of the entire nation or populace. What American political culture fails to discuss sufficiently is the vital matter of to what extent the former democracy implies the latter one, with the latter’s being, hopefully, the end goal.

In contrast, dictatorships are portrayed as one lone, usually brutal dictator having absolute power, being able to order virtually anything, and thus, leading often to genocidal regimes with mass murderers such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. This image may be tempting to many but it is in reality rather ridiculous. Yes, a dictator has enormous power and stays at the top often for decades, in contrast to the four year term system in America, which is very frowned upon in our culture, but surely, a dictator is not politically omnipotent. He has plenty of people underneath that he needs to satisfy, and though he may have a cult of personality within the propaganda, people are basically free to ignore him and go about their own business. He is also a human too, just like you, with very human interests, though sure, he may be a psychopath of some sort. There is also a vital point that almost always for a dictator to come to power, he must have a high degree of support from a large number of people, and thus, dictators in practice have little incentive to work against people’s interests, with getting people to like him being largely in his interest. Ironically, dictatorships can be very good at motivating people to achieve great things and providing certain continuity and long-term perspective difficult within a system where the people can easily choose to elect a new leader. In fact, if I have someone pressuring or forcing me when I don’t want to to do what is good for me (like waking up early on a weekend) and good for the society at large (like not being a parasite), I consider that to be a very positive thing. On this note, talking with someone in China recently, that guy was like: China now has 10 year terms for leaders, and maybe it should be gotten rid of, because it’s too little time for a leader to do anything serious, as he would have to pass the torch before he can be finished. Maybe Xi Jinping should try to extend his presidency past his 10 year term. Even in America, during WWII, Roosevelt was president for 16 years.

I personally love reading and watching controversial and sensitive material that most people dare not to. I’ve read plenty of material in Chinese banned in the mainland (but of course, still easily obtainable there if one really wants), most memorable of which was the very well-written, of high literary quality, autobiography by 巫宁坤 (Wu Ningkun). I’ve watched an anti-Semitic Nazi movie and also a North Korean movie out of sheer curiosity of certain places so smeared by our media. I also think that Soviet music is some of the most beautiful music out there. I have also, not surprisingly, watched some PRC (propaganda) movies from the 50s and 60s, which I felt were very well-made. The scariest and most grotesque movie I watched was one on the WWII Japanese human experimentation camp, Unit 731. A few weeks ago, I also had the pleasure of watching Saving Private Ryan, which I also much enjoyed, though surely it’s, as a Hollywood movie, more or less well-accepted here on our soil, unlike some of the previous ones, for which many would think I’m crazy, which I’m obviously not, for watching. I would say that this is out of a combination of my political intellectual curiosity and a distaste for certain oppressive, intolerant mainstream views and norms in America. Shaped by these explorations, I am of the belief that people should be more tolerant of differences and more politically and culturally open-minded. Be emotionally insensitive and let others be who they are. Also, be reasonable, precise, and stick to the facts. This is a concrete and substantive characterization of how throughout my life, I have challenged and questioned authority in the political intellectual domain.

Joshua is obviously promoting his own Jewish culture in that TED talk. On this, I’ve come to note that Jews in America are for the most part entirely unashamed, if not eager, to display and extol their culture. This is in contrast to Chinese who grow up here, many of whom try to distance themselves from their roots. Well, I guess there are self-hating Jews (like Bobby Fischer, who I feel I can understand much more now, with where he’s coming from) as well, but overall, they seem far less conspicuous. I believe the latter is out of a combination of their lack of self-confidence, the gross bastardization of Chinese culture in America, and the difficulty of learning the Chinese language in an American environment even when parents speak it at home, especially the written aspect.

There is the cliche saying that Chinese people in general, due to certain elements deep-rooted in Chinese culture, are very deferential to authority, which stifles creativity and innovation. I’ve surely thought about this and my views have evolved over time the more I’ve learned and seen. It is obviously too simplistic a notion presented by those of meager and often incorrect understanding. I do believe that Confucianism had and still has a strong element of the phenomenon described, but so did Christianity, just of a very different character.

Personally, I have to say that the more I learn, the more impressed I am with the fearless and pure spirit Chinese people have displayed in questioning and challenging authority, especially in the 20th century. I have written here before that I believe China has the richest revolutionary history of the 20th century of any nation or culture, with that of course much owing to the circumstances. China in the 20th century, being in deep trouble, had a dire need for revolutionaries, martyrs, and heroes. With this, the Chinese led by the communists essentially created a new Chinese culture on top of the traditional Chinese culture that had Confucianism as the guiding ideology. There is now a rich tradition and culture of Chinese communism, especially in military and social science, that has become holy in some sense, as is Jerusalem, which became so also out of certain formational historical events, that is very revolutionary in its essential spirit. However, the Chinese being materialists view all this as a force of nature rather than a force of God, a key contrast to holiness in the Abrahamic religions.

Another essential difference is that while Jews have more or less based themselves upon the Western system, having taken great advantage for themselves of the Western imperialism that came out of the discovery of modern science in the West, which they are also in service to politically, with reliance on it, the Chinese have more or less created an independent system from the West without kowtowing to pressures to conform, which has proven to be a correct decision, one that took much political courage and belief in oneself. The foundation for modern China was built largely in the 50s and 60s with little direct exchange with the West, if one excludes the Soviet Union from that, and in certain cases direct confrontation, with the freeze in relations owing to that in the Korean War, the Chinese challenged the Western authority successfully in a military setting in a way unimaginably shocking. It is only now very much in hindsight that while that inability to trade with the West for a few decades very much delayed China’s economic growth in certain respects, it brought about the creation of a very distinctive political culture and system deeply embedded that remains distanced from the mainstream in spite of reform and opening up, of a nature that may well be an advantage for China in the long term if not already. In this respect, Chinese culture has produced a feat and tradition of questioning authority that will forever live in our historical memory.

Another that I have noticed is the upright dedication to truth exhibited at large by Chinese scholars in the often corrupt and political social sciences that become authoritative, relative to those in the West. It is a reflection of good judgment of the Chinese people on who to promote in that arena. It does have much to do that China has in modern times been humbled by and learned so much from the West, the source of the most unprecedentedly radical and explosive growth in human history, but I also dare say that it is an indicator of very high moral character of Chinese civilization. In Chinese intellectual and media circles, bullshitting and falsifying history for political motives seems much more frowned upon. I believe that in this respect, history will eventually look at what the West led by America, that is heavily influenced by Jews in the social sciences, has done with utter disgrace, with various facades unlikely to continue indefinitely.

Speaking of truth, in terms of scientific truth, Chinese civilization has, however, contributed very little in comparison, though surely, Chinese produced a good number of revolutionary scientific breakthroughs in the 20th century, especially later in it. I find it somewhat odd how it is seldom said directly in the West that modern science is a product almost entirely of Western civilization with Greek roots and later Islamic preservation and expansion. Because scientific achievement requires so much in the way of the quality that is the subject matter of this article, surely the Confucianism based Chinese civilization has experienced a dearth of it of a nature that was only learned from the West later on. Now, Chinese are indeed quite relieved and also proud that in STEM, they have been increasingly successful and are now on the verge of reaching a world leading position, with much more to contribute to the world.

I’ll conclude with the following message. If Jews value questioning authority so much, they should let their authorities in media in America be freely and openly challenged. They should let their majority representation among Ivy League presidents and senior administrators be questioned too. In anything that is not terribly meritocratic and more connections and reputation based, their gross overrepresentation often well over 30%, so long as is objectively there, ought to be seriously questioned.