和那为三观很中国的第三代美国华裔的一些聊天内容和其所引发的感想

这周末我做了火车去了另一个城市,见了一个人,也住了一宿。晚上在宾馆里又跟我最近通过我的博客认识的人在微信上沟通了,我们讨论了不少话题,在这里记载一下。

关于种族和政治上的人以类聚,物以群分

那个人非常关注基因,我也跟他说人的世界观和宗教及政治信仰也是有一定遗传因素,关于这个的英文文章我是读过。就是中国人,也有了国共分裂及双方分别根据在大陆和港台美。现在,美国的自由主义伪左派将种族视为一个social construct(社会构建)而非生理的,其荒谬我就不在这里解释了。这让我想起2013年底2014年初的时候,乌克兰在发生政变,一位五岁随父母从乌克兰移民美国的男生对此非常不满,并说了个

Liberalism is a genetic disorder.

翻译成中文就是

自由主义是个遗传精神疾病。

我觉得自由主义本质上就是自欺欺人,然后也觉得总而言之,东亚人自欺欺人的程度小一些吧,所以中国的主流意识形态自然成了反自由主义的。东亚与世界其他地方几乎完全地理隔离,则走了非常不一样的进化道路。印度人与白人相近得多,阿拉伯人也是,他们都是高加索人。相反呢,中亚和东欧有蒙古人种的成分。比方说,维族人和汉人长相区别并没那么大,因为他们,据我所阅读,是蒙古人种和印欧人的混血,而且可能蒙古人种成分大一些。维族的起源是有争议的,我记得读到研究这方面的中国人好像是说在汉朝时期,新疆的人是来自伊朗的印欧人,可是之后,来自蒙古和西伯利亚的一些蒙古人种部落却与他们有了不少混合,所以才说维族人其实是来自于蒙古的人。对这些,我没有资格评论,但是维族人我不是没有接触过,觉得他们长得不像典型的中东人,更像东亚人,但当然还是和纯粹的东亚人有些差距,

我还跟那个说蒙古人其实都难看出来,甚至看不出来,有一位女演员我都没看出是蒙古人,网上查了她才知道。蒙古人的确也把他们的父系基因传遍了一大片土地,覆盖中亚,中东,和东欧。我也跟他说了美州的土著印第安人也是一万多年前的冰时期通过当时冻僵的白令海峡来自西伯利亚的人,所以他们也与东亚人远远更像,与白人相比。

盎格鲁锡安主义亡黄种人之心不死

Reddit上的那个ChinaSuperpower写过当种族差异太大,融入是不可能的,由于人的部落本性。在那种情况下,要不就是征服者,要不就是男人被灭绝,女人以相对低等的地位嫁进异类民族。所以我也认为盎格鲁锡安主义者有对东亚人和东欧人进行种族清洗的政策。他们在90年代在东欧所做的就导致了东欧人失去百分之十的人口。在中国支持亲西方的傀儡也是一种种族清洗的手段,种族清洗不需要直接杀人,长期的奴役或殖民本质上就是一种清洗的形势。就看看好多那些香港华人如何为例,那地方自然吸引了那些更接受甚至愿望服从盎格鲁的华人。

对于香港这个例子,那个人的回答是

他们愿望西化所带来的地位,那些人等到时间到了,会试图换到中国那边。

我对这个的回答是

我觉得你对他们的纯粹为自私自利而这么做的程度或许高估了。我觉得他们好多就是崇洋媚外自我民族自恨得病态者。那些纯粹自私自利的香港商人知道在正式回归被决定后将自己放到中共那边。

对这个,那个人说

那可能就是他们从意识形态上反对中国。我讨厌好多那些人,他们非要把自己表现为英国人,虽然他们不是英国人,由于教育体制将他们引导到了那个方向。我跟他们有所认识,有的还可以,但有的就是人品极差,对人很刻薄。

我之后很他说了孔庆东骂香港人是狗的事件,也说了我去年从Unz Review得知鸦片战争也是(好像根据于印度的)犹太沙宣家族为了他们的经济利益而挑起的,这为犹太人的反华又加了个点。

犹太人对中国的别有用心及心里不安

他问我

你有没有跟犹太人工作过,或者更他们有深入的交流?

我回答

在工作中还真的没有,但是我的确被一些明显鄙视我的犹太老板面试过,他们对我就是个这个人好不好当苦力被剥削的态度。有一个是在一家名牌公司,就是因为最后面试我的大老板是个以特别凶狠的态度对待的以色列人,所以我没有接受那份工作。

我跟你说过,那个学数学的美国犹太人,我和他在网上交流了不少。然后,我还与一位犹太数学博士,特别有才华,并且品德也不错,不像一般犹太人。可是呢,即使那些人,他们如果需要选择还是会毫无犹豫的贴到犹太主流那边。Unz和Bobby Fischer那样的是特别少数的,几乎被边缘化了。像Unz,他可能有两千万身价和一些媒体影响加上Fischer为国际象棋冠军,可以这跟那些真正有钱有权支持锡安主义的主流犹太人相比是啥都不算。如Adelson, Sergei Brin, Steven Spielberg。我在我网站上都积累了一个反华犹太人的名单。还有Elie Wiesel,他儿子是高盛的高管。华人在美国面对犹太人的姿态是极其软弱的,我比他们强硬得多。

对这个他评论

你绝对更是一个自由思想者。

我说

是的,我没有那么被伪造的权威及其煤气灯操纵所盲目。比如,我写过如何在百分之百客观公平的精英竞赛,如普特南,中国学生近年在秒杀犹太人。科研和实际成就上犹太人依然有较大的优势由于他们优越的资源和积累,不过这个也在减小,中国已经追赶了不少。还有,就是在数学和理论物理日本人二战后的地位同等或至少接近。所以,相信他们的“天才”大多有他们的优越资源和媒体吹捧而夸大是合理的。他们的人均财富和社会资源实在太高。他们很少做工人阶层的工作,或者更服从或机械性的脑力活不光因为他们的高智商,还因为他们优越的社会和经济背景。

在英文媒体有不少他们语言智商更高的解释,那正在读数学博士的犹太人有一次跟我以语言智商解释纽约时报专栏者一半为犹太人的现象,这很荒谬,当然,当那个你的写作和语言能力和天赋不能差,可是这方面强的人也并没那么少,只是有这种天赋的人只有很少才有能够给他们那种机会的家庭背景。因为犹太人垄断者美国的媒体,所以自然会把这些机会过多给自己人。

我感觉在中国,在90年代,00年代,好多人对犹太人有敬畏感,觉得他们得了那么多诺贝尔奖,那么有钱,可是现在很多由于中国强大得多了,中国人也对犹太人越来越有疑问了。但是,依然在国际化的学术界,有很多中国人依然拍犹太人的马屁,因为犹太人能提供对他们学术生涯非常有利的国际机会,就是在中国,好多教职要求海外经验,所以学术界里的中国人当然很少敢批评犹太人的作为,不过由于中美关系更加紧张的趋势,这也会慢慢改变的。

我还跟他说了一个例子,就如何那反华反共的犹太人曾对我说过

给我说一个非常创新的专制国家。

当时,我就跟他说了

纳粹德国,前苏联,帝国日本。

尽管他们的专制,他们的先进和创新程度太明显。比如,美国的航天是基于纳粹德国的,战后,美国把纳粹德国最牛的导弹专家大多都挖走了。纳粹时期,德国德裔的顶尖的科学家和工程师大多都支持了纳粹政权,虽然那些顶尖的犹太人去了美国,对美国的原子弹等研制有了决定性作用,帮助了美国赢得战争,也这不改变那些德国的德裔顶尖人才很创新又非常支持纳粹的事实。

以此为例,我说

犹太人就是会为了他们的自己的名族利益最无耻的胡说八道或咄咄逼人,一旦为了犹太人的利益,他们会彻底失去任何理性严谨尊重现实的思维,而且他们这么做竟然能震住或蒙住不少人。

我在美国看到的无脊梁野心主义的人

那个人说他自己也希望发财,也看到在纽约发大财的人好多可残忍了。

这让我想起我接触过的一位硅谷风投初创公司的华裔女CEO,六岁去的美国,应该是83年出生的吧,大学毕业后好像在对冲基金发了些财,身价应该有个一千万吧。我去过好几次她在她家里开的聚会,去的都是些白人和完全美国化的华裔,完全以美国的方式交流。她说话给我一种没有人情的感觉,也显得如那种无脊梁的野心主义者,上了什么福布斯30 under 30(就是30个人,不到30岁)。我看到她说了,写了些一般人会觉得很恶心的话,比如她父母得癌症时(我记得她母亲死了,父亲有没有我就不知道了),自己会如何坐飞机看他们,加了个什么“还好我有钱,机票钱对我啥都不算”,还写道旧金山街上无家可归的人,在某采访中还提到她大陆家庭背景相对负面的事情。她也是中文基本不会,尽管她跟我说大学还上了中文课。我当时还是个幼稚的孩子,不知硅谷初创公司真面貌,还稍微考虑了到她那儿工作,跟她通了一次电话对这个人只形成了更加负面的感觉。

我跟那个人说了这个例子,并评论

我其实也挺aggressive(强硬)和ruthless(残忍),可是我不是那种无脊梁野心主义的人。

对这个,那人就说

有的人就是没有灵魂。

Advertisements

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. Continue reading “Reflections on the airplane in China”

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.

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.