More on negative Chinese stereotypes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on American/Anglo exceptionalism in a Nazi-Soviet context

I came across an interesting piece on Unz Review on German soldiers of World War II. Basically, what it is saying is that the Nazi soldiers, contrary to many depictions in the Anglo media, were far more competent than American or British soldiers. Of course, it’s the winners who write history, so we don’t get to hear this very often, even if true. I would certainly believe this to be the case. Like it or not, the effectiveness of a group is determined not only by the skill of the individuals in it but also by the willingness of its people to optimize selflessly for the group interest. I would expect that the Nazi soldiers, owing to their training and culture, were not only more technically proficient, but also much more willing to genuinely fight, without concern for personal loss or gain. It is these types of organizations that tend to be the most capable and effective collectively, like it or not, and they are exceedingly rare. For example, in corporate America, in the private sector, people are mostly out to advance themselves, or to extract money from the system in a way that minimizes pain or effort; managers and executives care more about their own position than the overall health of the company. Those who go to the extreme, in terms of actual competence and substance, and especially in terms of action, tend to be those with fervent passion, often ideologically motivated, or those whose survival is at serious risk.

In Andrei Martyanov’s book, he goes on about how the major difference between Soviet and American attitude towards war is that a whole generation of Soviets experienced a brutal war themselves where it was a matter or life and death, whereas America has not had a war at home since the Civil War from 1861-1865. This is elaborated on in Chapter Four, THE AMERICAN ELITES’ INABILITY TO GRASP THE REALITIES OF WAR. Owing to the privilege of being shielded by water, especially in the case of America, the Anglo world has been able to treat war as a means for power projection outside one’s borders as opposed to as a necessity for survival. Thus, the Anglos are more inclined to win easy wars against vastly weaker opponents which do not require much sacrifice of human life. There is also that, in the words of Sergey Krieger on Unz Review,

The problem is that Anglo Saxons tend to use others to fight their wars but as currently nobody can and Anglos are not known for their war fighting prowess outside of Hollywood movies, they are having problem. As Andrei wrote in his book one can go only so far persuading others in his prowess by beating babies in sandbox. Time comes to show it against big man and here Anglos are lacking. USA had a lot of luck due to location to get into dominant position but every luck eventually runs out.

Martyanov, Krieger, and similar Russians tend to believe that the military tradition and spirit in the Anglo world is lacking owing to their never having engaged a serious enemy in order to protect their homeland. External threats in the likes of Iraq and North Korea are mostly manufactured by the US media to lobby support for more wars of invasion and destruction overseas for profit and imperial domination; common sense should tell just about anyone that nobody seriously threatens the US or British homeland.

American exceptionalism, as far as I see it, is quite a delusional beast. It’s very much premised on a dogmatic conviction that God has granted her the right to do as she pleases throughout the world, and that it’s her duty to God to fully exercise it in the name of “freedom and democracy” for the rest of the world. I have often wondered myself how much it is that American elites really are delusional with regard to the inherent superiority of their political system for others versus that they are shamelessly promoting this with the conscious intent of screwing over their competitors. I used to think the latter, but now I do wonder if the American/Anglo psyche really is malformed enough for them to really believe they are doing good for the world. In any case, regardless of what exactly goes on inside their heads, they are destructive and damaging to the extreme. Yet, at the same time, contrary to what their actions internationally signify, there has emerged now at home this superficial and absurd (and disingenuous?) culture of inclusion and diversity along race and gender lines. The politically mainstream in America now, for the most part, denies race as a biological construct. The way I see it, it’s not a matter of being right wing or left wing, it’s a matter of realism vs denial. Like it or not, DNA is real, people are biologically wired to be nepotistic and ethnocentrist, and we should accept it, live with it, and manage it accordingly instead of pretending otherwise. I’m very much under the principle that those who engage in unscrupulous self-interest under the pretense of charity are far more malicious than those who openly acknowledge that they want more for themselves.

I’ll further illustrate the difference with a few quotes which would be met with horror and rebuke in today’s American political climate even though at core mostly innocuous.

One from the Nazi genius mathematician Oswald Teichmüller, who led boycotts against Jewish professors as an undergraduate at Göttingen.

I am not concerned with making difficulties for you as a Jew, but only with protecting – above all – German students of the second semester from being taught differential and integral calculus by a teacher of a race quite foreign to them. I, like everyone else, do not doubt your ability to instruct suitable students of whatever origin in the purely abstract aspects of mathematics. But I know that many academic courses, especially the differential and integral calculus, have at the same time educative value, inducting the pupil not only to a conceptual world but also to a different frame of mind. But since the latter depends very substantially on the racial composition of the individual, it follows that a German student should not be allowed to be trained by a Jewish teacher.

He is saying that these mathematical concepts, literally and technically speaking, are the same everywhere. Yes, and that’s the beauty of STEM, its universality. Even so, STEM also has its cultural interpretations and political ramifications, and due to both differences in cultural exposure, as well as an instinctive slant to one’s ethnic group as a part of our natural biological wiring, this “different frame of mind” does indeed “depend very substantially on the racial composition of the individual.” Ask yourself why people tend to look to those of the same race and sex as role models, even in science.

There is also a quote of Hitler on so-called “honorary Aryans” which struck somewhat of a chord with me. How much better for Chinese-Americans if America could educate and encourage more in the same fashion, as opposed to the toxic multiculturalism we’re getting right now.

Pride in one’s own race – and that does not imply contempt for other races – is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them.

Chinese raised in America have a lot of self-hate and identity issues. They could learn a bit from Hitler seriously, at least what he’s saying here. You can grow up Americanized but your DNA will never change. To reject your roots is but futile and pathetic. And seriously, forget all the popular (and often inaccurate) American propaganda and taboo about Hitler; just view him and what he did objectively based on the hard facts. And yes, the facts unambiguously say that American and Britain played a marginal role in defeating Hitler and the Nazis relative to what the Soviet Union did, and they were in fact ideologically much closer to Hitler and Nazi Germany than to Stalin and the Soviet Union. There were plenty of prominent pro-Nazi Americans and British, like media mogul William Randolph Hearst, until Hitler turned against Britain. Again, it’s another instance of the Anglo media and elite in blatant denial when reality is inconvenient for them.

Racism/ethnic nepotism is biologically rooted. Everyone has an element of that subconscious within his frame of mind. To be cognizant of this requires in some sense a higher consciousness, which different people develop to varying degrees. Without it, you’re like an animal acting on primal instincts without conscious awareness of it. This is commonly seen in the American ruling class, grossly lacking in metacognitive and cognitive empathetic capacity. Blinded by their own exceptionalism as well as unquestioning belief in the universal superiority of their political system, they seem unable to rationally predict how others are likely to react when their interests are threatened or infringed upon. I suppose this has been on one hand a strong motivator for colonization, conquest, and cultural hegemony, but on the other hand, when this lack of understanding of the other party leads to deeply miscalculated decisions of consequence, the losses are often enormous. Whatever is going on in the minds of the American/Anglo elite could only be fundamentally rooted in some form of intrinsic ethnic exceptionalism that manifests externally as aggressively and unremittingly expansionist, both militarily and culturally. I vaguely remember how somebody on Unz Review wrote that colonization and conquest is deeply embedded in Anglo DNA, and I would almost wholeheartedly agree. Nobody has gone anywhere near as far as the Anglos have on that one. The Anglo ability is undoubtedly quite high, but not quite commensurate with their unrealistic ambitions on the global stage, and in fact, often lower than what competitors develop over time, and when this happens, the elites present nothing but a sore loser attitude. The Anglo elites are contemptuous at heart of just about everyone; they express little desire to acknowledge and preserve jewels of civilization from outside and mostly seek cultural imperialism. In terms of displacement of populations (here we have United States, Canada, Australia), nobody has gone anywhere near as far as the Anglos. Of course, the populations they displaced in those cases were very weak and defenseless, of negligible value. However, even towards formidable adversaries, Russia and China in particular, the Anglos exhibit much hostility and yearn to destroy through cultural and political means, with utter contempt for and often outright denial of credit of legitimate achievement of the other party. Unfortunately for them, they are increasingly shooting themselves in the foot on this one. There are of course Anglo intellectuals who oppose this, but they seem to lack the sway to put actual change into effect. And it doesn’t seem like anybody else really wants to destroy the Anglos; they mostly want to be left alone. However, it might just be that the US elites have gone far enough, especially towards Russia through Ukraine, that Russians now have changed their mind and decided that the current US ruling class must be permanently taken down for their own, and the world’s, sanity. With China, the US already tried to take over North Korea (China’s Ukraine) and failed miserably, with a shocking military defeat that they try to forget and evade to this day. There are some actually sane Anglos, like Bob Sykes, who are afraid that the US neocons will attempt this again and get utterly smashed, this time with serious negative consequences, now that China is so much stronger.

As for rogue exceptionalism, the only group/culture that can really be compared to the Anglos, as far as action and media is concerned, is the Jews. Israel’s policy has been more or less one of rule at all costs, keep enemies weak at all costs, so long as you can get away with it. Use as much of America’s resources and international power as you can to achieve this. Lie whenever and however if it’s for the Jewish interest. Because Jews are the chosen people, period. Again, there are Jews like Ron Unz and Stephen Lendman who vehemently oppose this, but they are too marginal to do anything about it. And American elites support Israeli and Jewish interests, not only because there are too many Jews in positions of power in America but because Israel is seen as most expedient for Anglo domination of the Middle East.

People like me began with more of a let it be attitude, until it went too far and ticked us off too much, damaging our careers to some degree, that we decided that we cannot tolerate it anymore. I’ve gotten to the point where I want to openly say that loyalty to the America for a non-white or Russian is misguided; you’ll always be a second class citizen in this country, and just about any relatively high position you are awarded will be contingent on service to a rotten American elite. Sadly, given what’s happened, it will be difficult for me to alter this opinion. It’s perfectly okay for Chinese to utterly detach from America. China was never colonized and Anglicized the way India was. The former American puppet regime of China has now but a marginal existence in exile in Taiwan. Modern China was built with virtually infinitely more Soviet/Russian influence than American influence, an off-message fact that US media will avoid at all costs. America and the Anglos in general have had their chance of winning the hearts of both Russians and Chinese, but too bad for them, they’ve basically blown it away. Now it’s gotten to the point where not only do they not give a damn about what happens in America, so long as it doesn’t negatively affect them, they will even actively do what they can to make America fail.

Sergey Krieger noted that Anglos tend to use others to fight their wars. There are not enough Anglos in the world after all, so enough loyal, dependable lackeys from other groups need to be trained and enlisted. India is the best example of such. Even though India gained independence formally, the psychological dependence and subordination to the Anglo world never really evaporated. The difficulty with such a strategy is that those you feed to do your dirty work can eventually turn against you too, if you piss them off too much. American ruling class better watch out.

Finally, I shall say that there are plenty of Americans who do not fit this exceptionalist stereotype, though certainly, as a whole, Americans tend to be very susceptible to it. There is much variance across the population in just about every country or group, though certainly means can differ by a lot. I also want to keep in mind that there are plenty of Americans and Anglos tremendously talented and hardworking who I deeply respect, many of whom earnestly want to make America better; it just happens that those types are increasingly less likely to reap the big rewards. Either the American elites change and win a better reputation for themselves over time, or they go further to preserve their own power and wealth and burn the country further to the ground in the process. It’s no longer like before when America had too much power for anyone else to really do anything about it. Unfortunately, I’m not optimistic, especially with the production of more snake oil in the likes of Elizabeth Holmes lately from the bowels of Washington. As with everything, this all adds up over time. Past a tipping point, people really will believe that American disintegration would be necessary if human society and civilization is to advance its next major step.


通过一位丹麦人,我有幸认识到了王明瑞,一位中国研究生。但与典型的循规蹈矩死读书的研究生恰恰相反。比如,他翻译了理查德·林恩,专门研究智商及其种族和性别差异的心理学教授,撰写的Eugenics: A Reassessment (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence)(翻译成中文为《优生学:重评(人类进化,行为和智力)》),但目前还无法将此出版。同时,他还是中文维基百科具有十一年编辑经验的人。前几天,我给他看了我的《祝党的生日快乐》一文,他却回,“最后一个链接所指的中文维基百科页是我添加的”。我总是好奇是什么样的中国人为中文维基百科和百度百科这些中文百科做相当大贡献,猜测肯定大多是一些具有某种性格的学生,只能说很高兴终于认识到了此中一员。我想他肯定还有其它的我未知的才华和成就,毕竟我对它这个人还了解的相当少,刚网上认识吗。中国像他这样的人看来还是有不少,但是我觉得还是远远不够,与美国相比,这当然跟中国的应试教育体制有一定的关系,当然在中国考上大学或进入真正工作之后也不太在乎这些的,还是要看你能做出什么真正的成果来,之后学习没有考试,要靠自己主动,而靠非考试的方式展示自己的知识和技能。前几天发邮件我还写道:

I created a few days a Baidu account using my US mobile phone number, with the thought of possibly contributing a bit to Baidu Encyclopedia, which to my disappointment doesn’t even have LaTeX support, though I have learned much from its non-mathematical content over the years. China still has a long way to go, but I believe they will get there in a matter of time.





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.