Russian vs Jewish social skill

I just saw Steve Hsu’s latest blog post, on the revelations of penalization of Asian-Americans on subjective personality evaluation by Harvard admissions. Looking through the comments, the most memorable one was this:

In world war two, Jewish death was 6 millions; Soviet death was 26 millions.

But Jewish death seems to be major impression in people’s mind today. Russian? Who cares.

Simple, Jewish social skill and Russian social skill are at different levels. Social skill is most important factor in subjective/emotional control.

If you don’t believe me, here’s the link.

Of course, it’s not just that. There’s also that the Anglo world was and is so much stronger culturally. To the extent that this is quantifiable, based on media representation statistics, I would say at least an order of magnitude. And ever since the USSR fell, the Anglo media has basically been able to gloss over the critical if not decisive role of the Soviet side in WWII with impunity.

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, where 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.

Taiwan on WordPress

I recently saw how now China is demanding that airlines across the world stop listing Taiwan and Hong Kong as separate countries. And it is succeeding somewhat, with several, the most prominent of which is arguably Delta, having already succumbed. When I just looked at the countries of visitors of my site, I was pleased to see some hits from Taiwan. Could the Chinese government start demanding the same from WordPress? Well, WordPress would have no reason to care, because it is already banned in China anyway, so it has nothing to lose, and also nothing to gain unless the Chinese government offers in exchange to un-ban it, which seems exceedingly unlikely. And because of that, I am hosting this on another domain, while still using WordPress as the content generation and storage tool. To be honest, I also refer to Taiwan as separate from China, because it really is different. It’s been under its own system since 1950 when the KMT fled there, and has obviously developed its own political culture. There is also that it was colonized by Japan and was really only settled by Han Chinese from the 17th century on, not to mention that it was also briefly colonized by the Dutch and Spanish, until Koxinga. So I guess the place is not so integrally Chinese. The aborigines there were displaced, with the Han population in Taiwan’s being higher than it is in mainland China, and nobody really cares about that, even less so than people care about what happened to the Native Americans.

Apparently, China is more aggressive now on Taiwan, well obviously because it can. Some people seem exceedingly anxious that the fall of this last bastion of the free world seems imminent. They seem way more emotional about it than I am; I personally am pretty apathetic about Taiwan. Though maybe that’s because Taiwan will fall (or be liberated) sooner or later. Maybe if there really was a serious chance of Taiwanese independence, I would be a little worried, who knows.

I’ve noticed how so many Taiwanese have been massively successful in the US, especially in technology and academia. Jensen Huang of Nvidia, the stock of which has almost 10x’ed the past couple years. Jerry Yang of Yahoo. Steve Chen of YouTube. Horng-Tzer Yau as math professor at Harvard. And a few days ago, I learned to my great surprise that one of the main developers of AlphaGo is Taiwanese too, and his name is Aja Huang. Pretty impressive. A guy I know well, whose grandparents fled as KMT officers to Taiwan, was, on this, like: “well, those evil capitalists who fled to Taiwan sure weren’t a random cut of the population.” 😉 Obviously so, and believe me that it had occurred to me that the IQ distribution in Taiwan and Hong Kong is fat right-tailed for that very reason before he noted this. Many of the wealthy and highly educated fled there, either because they were in the KMT, or to preserve some of their wealth, or out of fear of prospects under the communists. Though surely, most of the cognitive elite stayed, with arguably most of them strongly against the KMT, and the newly established PRC was in fact quite successful at luring back those elite Chinese studying or working in the West at that time. I think it was great that those uber talented Chinese in Taiwan and Hong Kong were able to study in the West during that period, mostly in United States, where many of them reached astonishing levels of success, which means Chinese civilization maintained some really beneficial contact and exchange with the advanced Western countries despite the conflict. Relative to their counterparts in the mainland, they were certainly advantaged in this regard, at least individually, though surely, the elite Chinese who studied in the USSR also gained tremendously, for themselves yes, but much more for the expertise that they brought back to China, with all of them returning eventually by default, in contrast to those Taiwanese, who stayed in America as professors or engineers or technology entrepreneurs. Taiwan economically also seems to be doing quite well, with its semiconductor industry sufficiently prominent. Unfortunately for certain people, China is poised to gobble up all that, with Taiwan’s economy already dependent on the mainland.

Politically, obviously the regime that fled there, by virtue of their having to flee there, was full of sore, incompetent losers. Turns out Chiang Kai-shek et al. cared more about preserving himself than about preserving his mother country. Apparently, there was also a secret agreement between Chiang and Stalin right after the war where Stalin would promise not to support the communists in exchange for Chiang’s letting Mongolia become independent which would bring any Chinese nationalist utter humiliation. That Moscow did not support the Chinese communists in their war against Chiang, with the exception of sort of letting the Chinese communists capture the city of Harbin that the Red Army had occupied after they left, only makes the Chinese communists more formidable. In the following video, in a UN meeting, the Republic of China representative arguing in favor of his regime in exile says something along the lines of, in English: “it was not the purpose of the statement of Cairo and Potsdam to give Formosa to a puppet regime in China, so that that regime might as make it to its imperial master at Moscow, to use the resources of Formosa to destroy the freedom of the world and to break the peace of the world.” Expectedly, the PRC representative responded with rage, referring to the then 475 million Chinese, as an indication of just how genuinely democratic the Chinese communists actually were ;). Well, what he says has some truth to it, aside from the puppet regime part, by the aforementioned. We all know that those conferences at the end of WWII were mostly about how the US and USSR, the emergent superpowers, would share power after the war, with each wanting to get a bigger piece of the pie for himself. Since Chiang was pro-US, the US gave him a pretty damn good deal, especially relative to what he had actually contributed to the defeat of Japan in the war. I don’t think occurred to those Americans responsible for that the possibility that all of mainland China would fall to communism just 4 years later. Astonishingly, it did, even when America armed the KMT, whereas the USSR, by agreement with Chiang, had not armed his enemy. So all that for America backfired disastrously, and in fact, America was in reality indirectly arming its own enemy, the possibility of which probably also hardly occurred to those morons. On the other hand, America did an excellent job keeping its allies, the most important of which were in Western Europe and East Asia, especially relative to the USSR, which was critical for America’s winning the Cold War. In the region that China’s trying to take over now, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore all developed very well economically with America’s aid, for which America essentially bought their anti-communism in exchange. The thing is that now all that had been well-nurtured and seemingly secured is increasingly on the verge of being transferred away to a force that America has failed to tame. So backlash is perfectly expected, as there is much to lose. I don’t have anything to comment on this really other than what is roughly the objective situation. After all, I don’t like to be too politically opinionated. Though surely, I have quite a casual interest in politics, from a more scientific viewpoint. It’ll be fascinating to see what happens in the next X years.

 

My whole experience with the American school system

I accidentally stuffed my face last night and found myself too uncomfortable from that to do anything productive, to my great disappointment. So I verged onto non-technical topics again, and in particular, I reflected somewhat on my personal experience growing up as a Chinese immigrant kid in America, and I write this with a hope that it might be inspiring to others with a similar background.

I came in first grade not knowing a word of English, but at least I knew the alphabet. As for learning English, it didn’t help that my first grade ESL teacher was a woman parents from Taiwan who was likely born in the US, who spoke Mandarin. I remember she would tell me that my Chinese was more proper than hers, as she really only learned it in college. Well, as you can guess, because I could speak Chinese to her if needed, I didn’t even know English all that well even after a year. I remember there were kids in that class from a variety of places, from Russia to Japan to Colombia. I wasn’t very well behaved, and near the end of the year, when we were watching some Disney movie, she actually put tape on my mouth.

I had forgotten like all my written Chinese by end of third grade, including how to write my Chinese name. But that summer there, I was able to relearn some of that.

My parents didn’t really give me much pressure academically. I would expect that they were very busy themselves. So throughout grade school, much of my life consisted of playing and watching basketball and baseball, and also stuff like Pokémon, and also piano practice, which I initially disliked but grew to like as became somewhat good at it, by a low standard. My teachers could tell that I was smart, especially at math, but I was quite hyperactive and poorly behaved.

No offense, but where I was, most of the kids and parents I encountered were pretty fucking dumb and ignorant. They seemed content with a chill, mediocre life, the bliss of ignorance. The other kids could sort of tell I was smart, but I was also pretty fucking socially weird. In third, fourth, and sixth grade, the teachers invited me to this “games club,” which I later found was designated for kids identified by the teacher to be deficient in social skills.

I wasn’t in any gifted program. I was actually not even able to test into one, because my verbal IQ was apparently way too low. So I felt like I was inferior compared to kids in gifted programs, but by now, I’ve basically far surpassed basically all of them.

My junior high which was 7th to 9th grade absolutely sucked. The teachers were really fucking stupid. The math was bull shit with graphing calculators, and the history class was full of stupid political indoctrination. I got low grades in 9th grade English and history, one because I was super immature and impulsive, and another because that teacher, who was an idiot far-right (American style) scumbag, absolutely hated me. It certainly affected my self-esteem very negatively. I was problematic in a way yes, but I dare say much was because I had far more latent IQ/talent than the other students that nobody had nurtured in me.

High school was better but still pretty shitty. I was in this IB program much of which was an utter waste of time and was really at quite a joke of a level academically. I had already realized that, doing math contests and such. However, even there, because my foundation was so shitty, I did not progress anywhere as efficiently as I could have. On the other hand, most of those kids in the full IB program thought they were doing so well, because they were in it, and getting good grades, not considering that most got As. The truth is of course that most of those kids, the way they were, had no future in anything serious. Another positive thing to happen for me then was that I started reading various stuff online I found interesting, including in Chinese, on my own. The more I learned, the more I realized how much of a joke the American school system is. It is ridden with the worst type of political indoctrination and scant on actual intellectual substance.

Now, most other advanced countries have an education system where students test into high schools based on their ability. There is much more academic preparation provided at the early stages, and more popularization of serious academic contests like the AMCs. There is also a system of vocational education for those who are less academically inclined, which is great, because practical skills should not be underrated. In contrast, American schools are too concerned with the self-esteem of students to tell them that they are basically garbage, academically, and they are falling short in terms of providing alternatives to prepare them for the real world. The result of course is that their self-esteem will become eventually utterly wrecked in college and the real world where people care more about your actual ability and work and don’t really give a damn about how hard you tried. Of course, now college in America has become a joke too, and so overpriced. On that, Charles Murray is completely right that most students in college right now in America would be better served learning some practical vocational skills as opposed to studying bullshit liberal arts.

I was quite socially clueless in high school, and I was not even that aware of the discrimination against Asians in college admissions. My parents were anything but savvy about the college admissions process in America. Expectedly, high school was full of morons padding their resumes with substance-less stuff just for that. I absolutely hated that, and I cared more about actually learning some serious stuff. That includes math, physics, algorithms, Chinese, history (that was not the brainwash taught in class). Okay, I was a joke at basically all of them but far better than almost all my classmates. There were I think three kids in my year who were accepted to Yale but to me they were the stereotypical superficial well-rounded conformist well-socialized types, and one was an athlete. Another was a very superficial whitewashed Asian who even had a non-Asian surname that I later learned was changed officially when he was a kid. Now I know what he was really up to.

College was much better. It was a flagship state school, and I didn’t mix well with most of the kids there, who I again felt were mostly drones and tools, but there were certainly some really sharp ones, and a few who I had genuine chemistry with. I did of course waste some time on general ed courses. On the more positive end, I could in that environment learn more serious math and science, and also engineering. Because I majored in math and computer science though, I would say that there was very little natural science or real engineering. Moreover, I could meet people from all over the place, including graduate students who had attended elite schools for undergrad, and also talk with international students from China there. The latter partially motivated to improve my Chinese further, to the point that reading it online felt basically as natural as reading English. From that, I also learned more about Chinese culture and the Chinese education system. I felt I was finally seriously shedding away the tremendous damage the American education system had imparted on me, the more socially acceptable it became to detach from that crowd. Though it was much better than high school, I was still not terribly content with the curriculum or the people around me. I felt I was learning too little actual math and especially science, as virtually zero of the latter was required for computer science majors. The computer science majors thought they were really good because they were in this supposedly very competitive program, bound to get six figure jobs in industry, and they were fine at programming, but really, their level of IQ, on average, was quite low. They absolutely sucked at math and had no concept of how to prove anything. There were of course exceptions who mostly kept to themselves. Like this kid who wrote his own compiler for a subset of Java in Haskell early sophomore year, which he taught himself. At programming, I was pretty garbage, lacking the engineering sense at that time, but I was not bad at algorithms, given my math ability. Overall, I am rather disappointed with my college experience. Because my starting point was so low, and because many of the students were dull but studious and conforming enough (to get better grades than I did), I became easily content and cocky at times, and also frustrated. I can blame both my lack of ability and maturity and also lack of fit of the whole educational experience to a guy like me. I sort of kept some distance from most of the other students. Again, many were tools, who I had little desire to be around. Of course, they will excel in the typical tech job, but that’s another matter. In fact, they may well have life much more easy than I do.

Summer after junior year was a major turning point for me. Through a superconnector of high achieving students many if not most at elite places like MIT and Harvard, I met and began chatting online with a few people at Caltech, MIT, and the likes. I expected them to be brilliant or at least solid academically but reality was disappointing, though almost certainly, they were below average ones at those places. However, there was one guy from a top Canadian school and another from a more mediocre state school who were both freakishly smart and competent. I looked up to both of them greatly. I was inspired by a few of them to enter competitive programming, with one of them’s being an IOI medalist, and with some practice on TopCoder, I managed to lead a team the following year to place in the top 10 in ACM regionals.

Something else that happened was that I sort of discovered Marxist literature online, partially inspired by my genius Russian friend, who was also quite a misfit, very defiant of the whole American cultural and political value system. Ironically, he’s actually doing his PhD now at a place famous for American blue-bloods, and he does not express a high opinion in general of the undergrads there, many who are not actually talented but are from well-off families who know how to game the whole system. Given my heritage, Marxist literature necessarily means learning more about the whole culture and tradition created by the Chinese communists, which I found quite fascinating and inspiring. Of course, I also learned some Russian stuff. As I did, I felt ever more indignant with respect to all the historical and political lies promulgated and normalized in American society by the media, lauded as a free one, but in reality, controlled largely by what one can crudely characterize as destroyers of civilization. In the process, I fell in love with Soviet music, which is of much higher artistic quality and substance than the trash kids listen to nowadays. It even idealistically inspired me to fight for a better world. Of course, now I know how hard that is, but I am not giving up just yet.

In college, there was of course pressure to conform, to act in a socially acceptable way, to not be too strange. That means not being openly elitist and critical the way I am right now. That also means not acting in a way that is too un-American. I’m a guy who came here in first grade, not an international student from China. In some sense, it’s not right for me to not be like all those ABCs. It kind of sucks to grow up as an Asian immigrant kid in America. It sucks even more if you’re actually nerdy/smart and culturally/politically sane, like I am. You feel like there is something wrong with you, but of course, now I am confident that that is not true, and that it is in fact American society/culture that is becoming ever more fucked up. Michael O Church can attest to this.

Now, after college. I got to meet some way more interesting, smart people, learn way more interesting things. I could fully distance myself from the uninspiring people I went to school with. This includes people from all over the world, across all age groups, with much deeper and more varied expertise. That includes IMO and IOI medalists, top finishers on the Putnam contest, people in top or good grad schools, some of whom are really impressive, and some of whom are nowhere near the level that they may look on paper superficially. My cultural, historical, political, and linguistic knowledge went up quite another level. Of course, I also saw more first hand from working how the world actually works, which really only parents will tell you. On this, Michael O Church loves to say how it’s the moderately privileged kids whose parents are in mostly meritocratic places like medicine and academia who can be sheltered enough to be naive. In contrast, underprivileged kids need to be street smart just to survive, while genuinely privileged kids know how rigged the system is and how to game it. I felt so much more free because I finally found more like-minded people with whom I could talk openly without fear of how I might be perceived. I was able to in the process re-mould myself into the organic me as opposed to the me under the yoke of a specific educational system.

Finally, I shall speak specifically on growing up Asian in the American education system. Overall, it’s a pretty shitty cultural experience. They’re not really American, no matter how hard they try, yet they lose the ability to be a genuine Asian. Fortunately, I shielded myself from that largely on my own initiative. It wasn’t always easy, but in the long run, that was quite a wise choice, and I encourage more people with same background as me to do the same. Learn from the good aspects of America, not from the toxic ones. Do this with any culture, any system. Also, exposure to genuine Chinese culture can shield you from the pseudo one presented by the American media that has done so much to confuse the thinking and damage the self-esteem of people like me, but not like me.

Reflecting on my experience, I really wished that I could have gotten a much better education. American education really is pretty shitty, especially for actually smart people, if you’re not very well situated in terms of schools and parents. Of course, later on, it gets much better.

I’ll conclude by going on a tangent. That is, my *anti-Semitism* that kicked off recently. What started it? And I also ask myself: am I simply taking out bitterness with my own educational and cultural experience, and also my own failures, on another group, instead of taking responsibility for them myself? Yes and no. Anyhow, I consider it not anti-Semitic, more like realistic, and in fact, I have interacted substantially with and highly regard many from that group. It is without doubt a remarkably high achieving group, often spectacularly so. This math PhD also well-versed in physics I talk to was also saying to me recently how Jewish accomplishment in mathematics and physics is absolutely overwhelming, which is indisputable. Of course, there’s also a darker side. I think I might have been inspired by this really smart guy who is a white Gentile (later atheist) American who doesn’t actually think I’m insane, or at least I hope not. Because once he was like:

You know what you should do? Become one of those food workers where rich Jews eat. Nobody cares about those people.

I actually told this to someone else, who was like: “that’s because they run things. If you ran things, you’d be the same.” When I told that guy about that, he was like:

counterpoint: other people have run things
some corruption is expected
Even the worst of the colonialist era was tempered
a lot of people were actually trying to do good
civilize the savages, that whole thing
that’s not saying there weren’t atrocities
because there were

And I was like, wow

So you’re saying the Jews now are worse
Than whites during the whole age of white/European imperialism/colonialism.
How much do whites regret letting Jews seize the positions of power

Him:

yes
norms have become nicer
so they can’t pull the old school shit
and more importantly
you’re not going to see the megadeaths from plague

Me:

So your argument is roughly that the calibration has to be much different now relative to the colonialist era, and Jews, by the current calibration, are pretty shitty.
About as shitty as the Belgians were in the Congo eh?

Him:

the belgians self-corrected
I mean, after killing a whole bunch of people
somebody said it was pretty fucked up
and the whole thing kinda fell apart
if we didn’t live in a post-colonial culture
they’d genuinely believe
that goyim are as cattle
and that they should do whatever it takes to ensure their rule persists
also the jews don’t want to exterminate
they need goyim to rule over
a world run by whites is one where half want to conquer and half want to help
a world run by chinese or japanese is one where they’d be rich and on top but mostly leave other people alone
other than getting money from them
a world run by jews is one where they’d systematically extinguish any hope of ending it
ITT anyone smart who’s not a jew would be a threat

Me (critically):

But plenty of smart Asians/whites have had Jewish advisors who strongly supported them
Recognized and cultivated their talent

Him:

this is a world with Jews who can openly be in power
not slink about in the shadows

Me:

That’s kind of theoretically impossible because Jews are too few
See because of that, they can only engage in deception
They’re evolved for that

Him:

look at Israel
they might be “evolved for deception” as you say
but that’s not stopping them from carrying out an effective, slow-motion genocide
which alone is scary
because sure, you can have one Hitler
you can have one Stalin
but you have multiple generations of Jews who are determined to exterminate the palestinians
you can’t have that kind of value alignment with white ppl

Me:

Do it slowly so that people don’t react to it as much, until it’s too late.
It’s like starving a person to death instead of blowing his brains out.
That’s what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians, it’s obvious

Him:

you should be scared because it suggest they’d do it to you too

Me:

Yeah they just don’t have the power to
I mean isn’t cultural assimilation also a form of more benign genocide of a culture
Didn’t whites also slow kill the Native Americans?
And got away with it 100%.
There’s also the saying that abused people are more likely to become abusers.
Doesn’t that sort of apply to the Jews too?

Him:

given the choice between future people who share my genes but an alien culture and future people who share my culture but alien genes I’m 100% for the former 0% for the latter
kicked out of 109 countries?

Me:

They regard that as abuse.
Anti-Semitism.
They may even feel nobody likes us because we’re too good.

Him:

I’m sure they tell themselves something like that

“boo hoo everyone’s evil and oppressive except for us”

What can I say? A smart white who sounds way more *anti-Semitic* than I am. Should I recalibrate according to him? Are Asians simply not aggressive enough? Is that why they are picked on so much by the media in America and not allowed in upper management in corporate America? I think he may be a bit overboard, but I might be wrong on that one. Or maybe he is exaggerating. Who knows. Anyhow, I find it somewhat flattering that he says he’d rather live in a world ruled by Asians than one ruled by Jews, because: less evil. So, considering his opinion, in combination with how shitty the American education system is, outlined above, maybe the group that I am part of really should try to take a more active role in world affairs and set a new standard and example. Lately, that has already been happening, very noticeably, and only time will tell how it pans out. Maybe I can be part of it too, who knows?

A revisit of the drama behind the Poincaré

I recall back in 2008, when I first cared enough to learn about mathematicians, I read a fair bit of the media articles on the proof of the Poincaré conjecture. At that time, I was clueless about math, and these mathematicians seemed to me like these otherworldly geniuses. I do remember thinking once to myself that maybe it would be kind of cool to part of that world. Except at that time, I was way too dumb, and maybe I still am. However, now I actually have some idea of what math research is about, unlike back then, when my conception of math and mathematicians was more of a naive popular one.

Naturally, from that I learned about Shing-Tung Yau. I probably read that Manifold Destiny article by Sylvia Nasar and David Gruber that Yau was furious with, in response to which he hired a lawyer and had a PR site created for him to counter the libel (as perceived by him). That was pretty entertaining to read about.

The more I learned about math, about mathematicians, about how the world works, about the Chinese math establishment, and about Chinese language (which I’m pretty fluent with by now), the more accurately and deeply I could understand and thus appreciate all this. In particular, now that I know a little about Riemann surfaces, I feel closer to that rarefied world. I also read a fair bit in Chinese about that feud between Yau and Tian, which was also quite entertaining. If some of that stuff is actually true, then academia, even in its supposedly purest, hardest, and more meritocratic subject, is kind of fucked up.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of talking with a Harvard math undergrad who is also an IMO gold medalist. And we both mentioned Yau. 😉

What can I say about all the politics and fight for credit over whole Poincaré conjecture? Surely, it was kind of nasty. It’s fair to say that Yau was pissed (or at least disappointed) that his school (of Chinese mathematicians) lost to this lone Russian Jew. Maybe in some years time, I’ll be able to judge for myself, but for now, it seems like Perelman’s proof was correct from the start and that what Cao and Zhu, along with the other two teams of two did were merely verification and exposition of Perelman’s result. Of course, attributing a proof entirely to an individual is somewhat misleading, because anyone who knows how math works knows that any proof of a big theorem employs sophisticated machinery and theory developed by predecessors. I’ve studied enough math now to recognize to some degree the actual substance, that is, what is genuinely original, versus what is merely derivative. In the case of Perelman, they say he was using the Ricci flow developed by Hamilton. I’ve encountered many times that in learning, it is much harder to learn about a topic I have little exposure to vastly different from anything I’ve seen before than to learn what is structurally similar (albeit different in its presentation and perhaps also level of generality) to something I had thought about deeply myself already, or at least seen.

Aside from the Poincaré, the focus of that New Yorker article, the authors of it also made it seem as if Lian, Liu, and Yau stole Givental’s proof of mirror symmetry as well about a decade earlier. After all, Givental published first. I suspected that might have been the case. The narrative even made it seem somewhat like Givental was this super genius whose arguments were somewhat beyond the comprehension of Lian, Liu, and Yau, who struggled to replicate his work. Maybe because I still see, or at least saw, Jews as deeper and more original than Chinese are. Again, I still know too little, but it does seem like Jews have contributed much more to math at the high end even in recent years, say, the past three decades.

Well, I found a writing on that doctoryau website by Bong Lian and Kefeng Liu documenting the flaws and deficiencies in Givental’s paper. It looked pretty thorough and detailed, with many objections. The most memorable one was

p18: Proposition 7.1. There was just one sentence in the proof. “It can be obtained by a straightforward calculation quite analogous to that in ‘[2]’.” Here ‘[2]’ was a 228-page long paper of Dubrovin.

And I checked that that was indeed true in Givental’s paper. This certainly discredited Givental much in my eyes. It’s like: how the fuck do you prove a proposition by saying it’s a straightforward calculation analogous to one in… a 228-page paper!!!!!!!!

Not just that. There is also

p27: Proposition 9.6. In the middle of its proof, a sentence read “It is a half of the geometrical argument mentioned above.” It’s not clear what this was referring to (above where? which half?)

and

p30: Proposition 9.9. This was about certain uniqueness property of the recursion relations. The proof was half a sentence “Now it is easy to check” But, again since we couldn’t check, it’s hard to tell if it was easy or not

So basically at least three times Givental proves with “it’s trivial,” once based on analogy with a 228-page paper.

There are far from all. There are many more instances of Givental’s arguing what Lian-Liu-Yau could not follow, according to that document, the list in which is also, according to its authors, who advise strongly the reader to “examine Givental’s paper make an informed judgment for himself”, “not meant to be exhaustive.” So they’ve listed 11 gaps in that paper, one of which is glaringly obvious of a rather ridiculous nature even to one who knows not the slightest about mathematics! And they suggest there is more that, to my guess, may be much more minor that they omitted in that document so as to avoid dilution.

I’ve noticed it’s often the Chinese scientists who have a bad reputation for plagiarism, made more believable by the dearth of first-rate science out of Chinese scientists in China, though that seems to be changing lately. On the latter, many Chinese are quite embarrassed about their not having won a homegrown Nobel Prize (until Tu Youyou in 2015 for what seemed to be more of a trial-and-error, as opposed to creative, discovery) or Fields Medal. On the other hand, I’ve also heard some suspicions that it’s the Jews who are nepotistic with regard to tenure decisions and prize lobbying in science, and what Givental did in that paper surely does not reflect well. I used to think that math and theoretical physics, unlike the easier and more collaborative fields in STEM (with many working in a lab or on an engineering project), revere almost exclusively individual genius and brilliance, but it turns out that to succeed nowadays typically involves recommendations from some super famous person, at Connes attests to here (on page 32), not surprising once one considers the sheer scarcity of positions. Now I can better understand why Grothendieck was so turned off by the mathematical community, where according to him, the ethics have “declined to the point that outright theft among colleagues (especially at the expenses of those who are in no position to defend themselves) has nearly become a general rule.” More reason why I still hesitate to go all out on a career in mathematics. It can get pretty nasty for a career with low pay and probability of job security, and I could with my talents make much more impact elsewhere. One could even say that unequivocally, one who can drastically increase the number of quality math research positions (not ridden with too many hours of consuming duties not related to the research) would do more to progress mathematics than any individual genius.

I’ll conclude with some thoughts of mine on this Olympiad math that I’ve lost interest in that many mathematicians express low opinion of, though it clearly has value as a method of talent encouragement and selection at the early stage, with many Fields Medalists having been IMO medalists, usually gold. I recall Yau had criticized the system of Olympiad math in China, where making its version of MOSP gives one a free ticket to Beida and Qinghua, as a consequence of which many parents force or at least pressure their kids into Olympiad math prep courses as early as elementary school. Even there, several of the IMO gold medalists have become distinguished mathematicians. I have in mind Zhiwei Yun, Xinyi Yuan, and Xuhua He, all speakers at this year’s ICM. So the predictive power of IMO holds for the Chinese just as well as for the non-Chinese. I personally believe that Olympiad math is beneficial for technical training, though surely, the actual mathematical content in it is not that inspiring or even ugly to one who knows some real math, though for many gifted high schoolers, it’s probably the most exciting stuff they’ve seen. I do think though that one seriously interested in mathematics would have nothing to lose from ignoring that stuff if one goes about the actual math the right way.

It’s kind of funny. A few days ago when I brought up on a chat group full of MOSP/IMO alumni that now, almost half of the top 100 on the Putnam (HM and higher) are Chinese, one math PhD quite critical of math contests was like: “ST Yau would weep.” Well, I don’t think ST Yau actually regards Olympiad math as a bad thing (half tongue-in-cheek, I even remarked on that chat that doing math contests (as a high schooler) is much better than doing drugs). Many of the Olympiad/Putnam high scorers do quite well, and in some cases spectacularly so, in math research. One point I shall make about them is that they are, unlike research, a 100% fair contest. Moreover, the Putnam, which I placed a modest top 500 on, solving three problems, has problems which do not require specialized technical training as do the inequalities and synthetic geometry problems in Olympiad math that have elegant solutions. On that, I have wondered based on their current dominance of those contests: could it be that at the far tail, the Chinese (who did not actually create the scientific tradition themselves) are actually smarter than the others, including the Jews? Could it be that the Chinese are actually somewhat disadvantaged job placement and recognition wise in math academia out of a relative lack of connections and also cultural bias? What I saw in that sound and unobjectionable rebuttal of Givental’s paper, in contrast to what was presented in the media, only makes this hypothesis more plausible. I am not denying that Givental did not make a critical contribution to the proof of mirror symmetry. That he did, along with some other predecessors, seems to be well acknowledged in the series of papers by Lian-Liu-Yau later that actually gave the first rigorous, complete proof of mirror symmetry. Idea wise, I read that Lian-Liu-Yau did something significant with so called Euler data, and though not qualified to judge myself, I have every reason to believe that to be the case for now.

Luboš Motl, and some thoughts on monopolies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have commented before that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weierstrass products

Long time ago when I was a clueless kid about the finish 10th grade of high school, I first learned about Euler’s determination of \zeta(2) = \frac{\pi^2}{6}. The technique he used was of course factorization of \sin z / z via its infinitely many roots to

\displaystyle\prod_{n=1}^{\infty} \left(1 - \frac{z}{n\pi}\right)\left(1 + \frac{z}{n\pi}\right) = \displaystyle\prod_{n=1}^{\infty} \left(1 - \frac{z^2}{n^2\pi^2}\right).

Equating the coefficient of z^2 in this product, -\displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^2\pi^2}, with the coefficient of z^2 in the well-known Maclaurin series of \sin z / z, -1/6, gives that \zeta(2) = \frac{\pi^2}{6}.

This felt to me, who knew almost no math, so spectacular at that time. It was also one of great historical significance. The problem was first posed by Pietro Mengoli in 1644, and had baffled the most genius of mathematicians of that day until 1734, when Euler finally stunned the mathematical community with his simple yet ingenious solution. This was done when Euler was in St. Petersburg. On that, I shall note that from this, we can easily see how Russia had a rich mathematical and scientific tradition that began quite early on, which must have deeply influenced the preeminence in science of Tsarist Russia and later the Soviet Union despite their being in practical terms quite backward compared to the advanced countries of Western Europe, like UK and France, which of course was instrumental towards the rapid catching up in industry and technology of the Soviet Union later on.

I had learned of this result more or less concurrently with learning on my own (independent of the silly American public school system) what constituted a rigorous proof. I remember back then I was still not accustomed to the cold, precise, and austere rigor expected in mathematics and had much difficulty restraining myself in that regard, often content with intuitive solutions. From this, one can guess that I was not quite aware of how Euler’s solution was in fact not a rigorous one by modern standards, despite its having been noted from the book from which I read this. However, now I am aware that what Euler constructed was in fact a Weierstrass product, and in this article, I will explain how one can construct those in a way that guarantees uniform convergence on compact sets.

Given a finite number of points on the complex plane, one can easily construct an analytic function with zeros or poles there for any combination of (finite) multiplicities. For a countably infinite number of points, one can as well the same way but how can one know that it, being of a series nature, doesn’t blow up? There is quite some technical machinery to ensure this.

We begin with the restricted case of simple poles and arbitrary residues. This is a special case of what is now known as Mittag-Leffler’s theorem.

Theorem 1.1 (Mittag-Leffler) Let z_1,z_2,\ldots \to \infty be a sequence of distinct complex numbers satisfying 0 < |z_1| \leq |z_2| \leq \ldots. Let m_1, m_2,\ldots be any sequence of non-zero complex numbers. Then there exists a (not unique) sequence p_1, p_2, \ldots of non-negative integers, depending only on the sequences (z_n) and (m_n), such that the series f (z)

f(z) = \displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \left(\frac{z}{z_n}\right)^{p_n} \frac{m_n}{z - z_n} \ \ \ \ (1.1)

is totally convergent, and hence absolutely and uniformly convergent, in any compact set K \subset \mathbb{C} \ {z_1,z_2,\ldots}. Thus the function f(z) is meromorphic, with simple poles z_1, z_2, \ldots having respective residues m_1, m_2, \ldots.

Proof: Total convergence, in case forgotten, refers to the Weierstrass M-test. That said, it suffices to establish

\left|\left(\frac{z}{z_n}\right)^{p_n}\frac{m_n}{z-z_n}\right| < M_n,

where \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} M_n < \infty. For total convergence on any compact set, we again use the classic technique of monotonically increasing disks to \infty centered at the origin with radii r_n \leq |z_n|. This way for |z| \leq r_n, we have

\left|\left(\frac{z}{z_n}\right)^{p_n}\frac{m_n}{z-z_n}\right| < \left(\frac{r_n}{|z_n|}\right)^{p_n}\frac{m_n}{|z_n|-r_n} < M_n.

With r_n < |z_n| we can for any M_n choose large enough p_n to satisfy this. This makes clear that the \left(\frac{z}{z_n}\right)^{p_n} is our mechanism for constraining the magnitude of the values attained, which we can do to an arbitrary degree.

The rest of the proof is more or less trivial. For any K, pick some r_N the disk of which contains it. For n < N, we can bound with \displaystyle\max_{z \in K}\left|\left(\frac{z}{z_n}\right)^{p_n}\frac{m_n}{z-z_n}\right|, which must be bounded by continuity on compact set (now you can see why we must omit the poles from our domain).     ▢

Lemma 1.1 Let the functions u_n(z) (n = 1, 2,\ldots) be regular in a compact set K \subset C, and let the series \displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} u_n(z) be totally convergent in K . Then the infinite product \displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \exp (u_n(z)) = \exp\left(\displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} u_n(z)\right) is uniformly convergent in K.

Proof: Technical exercise left to the reader.     ▢

Now we present a lemma that allows us to take the result of Mittag-Leffler (Theorem 1.1) to meromorphic functions with zeros and poles at arbitrary points, each with its prescribed multiplicity.

Lemma 1.2 Let f (z) be a meromorphic function. Let z_1,z_2,\ldots = 0 be the poles of f (z), all simple with respective residues m_1, m_2,\ldots \in \mathbb{Z}. Then the function

\phi(z) = \exp \int_0^z f (t) dt \ \ \ \ (1.2)

is meromorphic. The zeros (resp. poles) of \phi(z) are the points z_n such that m_n > 0 (resp. m_n < 0), and the multiplicity of z_n as a zero (resp. pole) of \phi(z) is m_n (resp. -m_n).

Proof: Taking the exponential of that integral has the function of turning it into a one-valued function. Take two paths \gamma and \gamma' from 0 to z with intersects not any of the poles. By the residue theorem,

\int_{\gamma} f(z)dz = \int_{\gamma'} f(z)dz + 2\pi i R,

where R is the sum of residues of f(t) between \gamma and \gamma'. Because the m_is are integers, R must be an integer from which follows that our exponential is a one-valued function. It is also, with the exponential being analytic, also analytic. Moreover, out of boundedness, it is non-zero on \mathbb{C} \setminus \{z_1, z_2, \ldots\}. We can remove the pole at z_1 with f_1(z) = f(z) - \frac{m_1}{z - z_1}. This f_1 remains analytic and is without zeros at \mathbb{C} \setminus \{z_2, \ldots\}. From this, we derive

\begin{aligned} \phi(z) &= \int_{\gamma} f(z)dz \\ &= \int_{\gamma} f_1(z) + \frac{m_1}{z-z_1}dz \\ &= (z-z_1)^{m_1}\exp \int_0^z f_1(t) dt. \end{aligned}

We can continue this process for the remainder of the z_is.      ▢

Theorem 1.2 (Weierstrass) Let F(z) be meromorphic, and regular and \neq 0 at z = 0. Let z_1,z_2, \ldots be the zeros and poles of F(z) with respective multiplicities |m_1|, |m_2|, \ldots, where m_n > 0 if z_n is a zero and m_n < 0 if z_n is a pole of F(z). Then there exist integers p_1, p_2,\ldots \geq 0 and an entire function G(z) such that

F(z) = e^{G(z)}\displaystyle\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(1 - \frac{z}{z_n}\right)^{m_n}\exp\left(m_n\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{p_n}\frac{1}{k}\left(\frac{z}{z_k}^k\right)\right), \ \ \ \ (1.3)

where the product converges uniformly in any compact set K \subset \mathbb{C} \ \{z_1,z_2,\ldots\}.

Proof: Let f(z) be the function in (1.1) with p_is such that the series is totally convergent, and let \phi(z) be the function in (1.2). By Theorem 1.1 and Lemma 1.2, \phi(z) is meromorphic, with zeros z_n of multiplicities m_n if m_n > 0, and with poles z_n of multiplicities |m_n| if m_n < 0. Thus F(z) and \phi(z) have the same zeros and poles with the same multiplicities, whence F(z)/\phi(z) is entire and \neq 0. Therefore \log (F(z)/\phi(z)) = G(z) is an entire function, and

F(z) = e^{G(z)} \phi(z). \ \ \ \ (1.4)

Uniform convergence along path of integration from 0 to z (not containing the poles) enables term-by-term integration. Thus, from (1.2), we have

\begin{aligned} \phi(z) &= \exp \displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \left(\frac{z}{z_n}\right)^{p_n} \frac{m_n}{t - z_n}dt \\ &= \displaystyle\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\exp \int_0^z \left(\frac{m_n}{t - z_n} + \frac{m_n}{z_n}\frac{(t/z_n)^{p_n} -1}{t/z_n - 1}\right)dt \\ &= \displaystyle\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\exp \int_0^z \left(\frac{m_n}{t - z_n} + \frac{m_n}{z_n}\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{p_n}\left(\frac{t}{z_n}\right)^{k-1}\right)dt \\ &= \displaystyle\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\exp \left(\log\left(1 - \frac{z}{z_n}\right)^{m_n} + m_n\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{p_n}\frac{1}{k}\left(\frac{t}{z_n}\right)^k\right) \\ &= \displaystyle\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(1 - \frac{z}{z_n}\right)^{m_n} \exp \left(m_n\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{p_n}\frac{1}{k}\left(\frac{t}{z_n}\right)^k\right).\end{aligned}

With this, (1.3) follows from (1.4). Moreover, in a compact set K, we can always bound the length of the path of integration, whence, by Theorem 1.1, the series

\displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\int_0^z \left(\frac{t}{z_n}\right)^{p_n}\frac{m_n}{t - z_n}dt

is totally convergent in K. Finally, invoke Lemma 1.1 to conclude that the exponential of that is total convergent in K as well, from which follows that (1.3) is too, as desired.     ▢

If at 0, our function has a zero or pole, we can easily multiply by z^{-m} with m the multiplicity there to regularize it. This yields

F(z) = z^me^{G(z)}\displaystyle\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(1 - \frac{z}{z_n}\right)^{m_n}\exp\left(m_n\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{p_n}\frac{1}{k}\left(\frac{z}{z_n}^k\right)\right)

for Weierstrass factorization formula in this case.

Overall, we see that we transform Mittag-Leffler (Theorem 1.1) into Weierstrass factorization (Theorem 1.2) through integration and exponentiation. In complex, comes up quite often integration of an inverse or -1 order term to derive a logarithm, which once exponentiated gives us a linear polynomial to the power of the residue, useful for generating zeros and poles. Once this is observed, that one can go from the former to the latter with some technical manipulations is strongly hinted at, and one can observe without much difficulty that the statements of Lemma 1.1 and Lemma 1.2 are needed for this.

References

  • Carlo Viola, An Introduction to Special Functions, Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016, pp. 15-24.

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。

美国名校为洗脑提拔(伪)精英华裔的政治工具

刚才,一位在斯坦福大学念过数学和物理(但之后转到计算机行业)的一位美国出生长大的华裔同龄(男性)却指责我为反犹,说其使他恶心。对此,我反驳:我对犹裔的巨大文艺科学贡献及才华是非常钦佩的,此我在我博客上经常提到,难道这是反犹的表现吗?他却无理的回以“你知道什么在你网站上”。

这个人是一个典型的对中国文化毫无认同或认识的ABC,他以前却跟我说过他不太读中文,并且他也说过一些对表示他对中国有相当严重之无知及误解。对这样的人无多可计较。我也想:这个人多么没有基本政治觉悟,他把一位华人批为反犹对它有利吗?可惜这样的相当聪明的(从智商角度而言)在美国的上了美国名校的华裔实在太多。说到这儿,我也提到过美国名校有一定鼓励亚裔申请生排斥自己文化的倾向,极其恶心,甚至是中国将来必要全面攻击的文化侵略!想起解放前,帝国主义在中国建立了一些培养狗崽子的基督大学,以圣约翰大学为显著之例。若读者觉得我这话带以中共政治宣传口气,请抱歉,莫以直译视之,的确那些大学也培养了不少优秀人才甚至历史人物,比如拼音创造者周有光,也对在中国传播西方先进知识产生了不可忽略的作用。同时,的确也有负面的。民国时期的好多国民党领导高官,如宋美龄,如孔祥熙,如宋子文,都是美国常春藤毕业,就看看他们把当时的中国搞成什么样啊,最后大败了,败到台湾去了。他们那些人都是比较盲目崇拜权威的人,缺乏任何独立思考或勇气,与共产党好多没有名校文凭的领袖截然不同,他们只不过是(伪)西化的华人,而且好多现在的美国名校华人,尤其是学文科的,与他们类似。在这一点,我想引用我很尊重的一位英国学者所描述的,其(原文链接)翻译到中文为

欧洲一直处于对自己造反的状态,并且继续如此。那些表面西化的华人以模仿及崇拜当时之西方价值观之体现将自己为正宗西华的华人的尝试只不过是彻底枉然的。只有抗拒当时西方价值观之体现,至少那些阻碍中国或者显得无关的才能成为真正的西化华人。所以至今为止,毛确是中国最好的西方人,尽管他对西方生活凡事之极其有限的接触。

在未来的文章,我会给以详解如何当时参观中共在保安和之后的延安的根据地的西方人发觉到在那里有在中国惟有的会在同样情况与西方人类似面对及表现的中国人。其他中国人可能能讲流利的英语,穿西装,并且有时展示出他们对西方文化非凡的知识,只不过这些皆为模仿而在精髓里是有异而无效的。回国的在西方所训练的工程师和地质学家对动手实际的工作依然保持距离,因为任何类似于体力劳动的工作会使得他们在中国知识分子眼中失去地位。他们是自孔子以来而无易的传统的囚徒。只有少数敢于冲破此古老之戒规,大多为共产党员和一些分散的在软弱中间派的左翼分子。而且是那些在共产党里的现代化华人选择将毛提拔为这个新认识的首要老师。

在美国从小学一年级到上完大学的我,据我广泛的观察,看到太多有在我们现在截然不同之时代之背景下具有类似倾向的进入美国精英教育体制的华人,大多当然都是在美国长大的,比如上所述之人,我也会定为一位此类之代表。而且美国的教育与环境,在文化和政治方面,是对此鼓励的。美国的文科真的没有什么太值得学的,他带有很多的不符合事实并且掩盖真相的政治文化扯淡,可以具体了解一些,可是一定要对它保持一定的,如对任何文化思想,批判性思维,尤其在历史已经明明验证它的危害可以是巨大的。我认识不少美国名校学生和校友,经常看到他们有一些非常不符合事实而片面的认识,大多由于他们某些客观历史知识的极度匮乏和他们太受制于某些文化权威势力的影响。美国名校的理工科大多是世界一流的,名师聚集,其它真没有什么好,而且经常对好的地方还有产生不良感染。即使理工科,美国的突出也只是在少数特别前沿的方向,他的本科及基础教育其实是有很多问题的,训练出来的人经常无法跟外国来的人竞争。

总之而言,中国人非常尊重西方文明,尤其是近代科学那一面,但是中国人也要坚定不移的维护独立而起的,并且对西方崛起起了决定性影响的(以造纸术和火药的向西传播为绝对无可争议之例)东方文明,这是人类宝贵的精神财富和真实的,全球试的文化多样(而非美国在内所提倡的虚伪的diversity)。西方精英多年对中国妄想毁坏的明显企图使得中国对西方无可心软,如果西方不愿意真实客观的对待中国,那中国也没有任何原因对西方太好。

西方现在面临一个困局,那就是好多华人精英,尤其在理工科都在美国,有些是名校教授,但是由于文化差异难以将这些人对美国的贡献视同己出,并且对他们有怀疑,不过把这些人留在美国还是总之有利的,因为不然,他们会在中国为他们崛起的祖国做伟大的贡献。同时,以将对中国竞争之希望寄托在第二代第三代身上为观,这些最佳华夏种子的孩子会在美国接触基本完全美国式的文化和教育,好多不会对中国文化有多少认同,以上述之人为例。改革开放时期中国就有明智远见之人为此担忧,现在已证明他们大部分是正确的,而中国一直无法解决人才流失的问题。在这一点,真的能看出毛主席的伟大,他能够吸引在海外顶尖华人人才放弃优越条件回到一穷二白的祖国,以中华复兴为己任,鞠躬尽瘁,死而不已。我也想到朝鲜战争对中华民族的心理振兴一点不差于六日战争对犹太人所产生的启发,其实可以说比它远远更强,远远更有长远历史意义。

毛主席时代中国物质条件及其之差,也有了不少内部政治遭遇和悲剧,可是无论如何,人民,包括精英,意志坚强如钢,死不屈服,而中国人在改革开放后却失去了不少这种不忘本而战无不胜的精神。不过,在习近平领导的这些年,华人越来越是在恢复原有的在危机情况所具备的民族骨气,说明毛主席厚聩了子孙,使得他的伟大精神和文化遗产永垂不朽,不可灭绝,将压迫者提心吊胆!甚至可以说中国人以毛泽东思想为指导方针继承了列宁所开创斯大林所巩固的伟大事业,苏联在修正主义所导致的衰退及灭亡证实毛主席当时的远见,他的历史地位随着时间的检验只会变得越来越高!

毛泽东领导的艰难斗争日子为中国赢得近代史上军事和外交的首次平等,赢得了中国改革开放进入融入国际体系的有利条件,让中国在强大对手巨大压力下保持了一定的独立自主的精神,让华夏文化持续其固有而非失去其精髓。鉴于西方社会在今天所面临的诸多问题,其已让不少人对在某些方面无比伟大的西方文明失去一定信心,这是为全人类做出了伟大的贡献,我相信历史会愈来愈为此而加强其验证。

中国最艰难的阶段已过,历史的惰性已几乎全面向着中国,中国要奋发图强,冲锋陷阵,气贯长虹,自信勇敢的创造人类新的巅峰,少在意外人的评价。原来中国多年极其落后,崇洋媚外已在中国人心里形成了一定习惯,可是要记住,中国人自从毛主席领导永远是革命家,革命家是自我觉醒,对不良过时习惯斗争的人,是为真理而奋斗的人,是脱离于低级趣味的人。

西方近年不少作为不得人心,体制面临不少难解之障,说明人类更需要中华文明占有首要的世界地位,此对西方也是长远有利的,就像西方崛起虽然对中国进行过无情侵略,但是他给全世界带来了近代的科学技术,把人类带到不仅前所未有而革命性彻底无法想象的繁荣,中国的崛起一直是通过对自己最合适的中西融合。

中国现在虽然经济强大了,科技军事也接近世界一流,但是文化影响力还相对之小,在海外得以广泛误解及排斥,此度到异国他乡长大的炎黄子孙对他们祖宗的文化不得接受,在这一点,所有明智的中国人需要为改变此不良现状作出更大的努力,敢于去宣扬中华文化,为此,中国现已通过前辈的刻苦奋斗积累了充分的支柱。

我个人非常看不起什么样的人?是那些缺乏自我认同为己之小利无耻舔屁股当牛做马的人。而据我所观察,好多在美国长大的华裔却是这样的人,而其缘故好多是美国社会对他们所产生的文化洗脑,他们无法逃避甚至坚守此樊篱,使得他们以事实上莫名其妙之观念视为寻常,要明知,美国洗脑是利用某些利益集团所创造之非政治正确而潜移默化左右人的,而同时对某些文化服从给以奖赏而腐朽人的心灵。

中国人要敢于大胆宣传更客观正确的事实和价值观,纠正批判错误的观念和荒谬的心态,在这一点,中国绝对能做的比西方国家好,我个人也写到过,中国人更尊重历史事实,更尊重实际依据,不善于西方习惯而置之等闲之无耻之流氓扯淡宣传行为。作为特例,美国大学文化及体质,此包括其录取制度,尤其是本科生的,已经出了不少大的问题,有好多不良非准确文化之宣传,此包括对亚裔之排斥,诬蔑,及嘲笑,所以赵宇空这样的勇士才要对它们进行斗争(当然,美国顶尖大学研究绝对是最牛的,教授是完全不同类人)。这些问题当然也延续到了美国的中学小学,导致现在美国学生吸收了不少错误的观念,在美国的华裔孩子也有受此之感染,而如上所述,即使在某些精英界,服从的人得以鼓励,不接受或排斥的人,如我,有得以过非人化,虽然我比他们远远更清醒,读到的知道的远远更多,也远远更多元化,而且考虑的也远远更客观。为什么在美国华裔不太爱学文科,因为美国的文科说白了好多都是垃圾,文化界也很垃圾,埋没于荒唐愚昧脱离现实之白左反共自由主义之政治正确文化。即使好多学理工科的人也都受到了这些影响,像我提到的那个人。 看到好多中国孩子,包括那个人,在美国受到这些的影响,真的让我感到很遗憾。这样的人我会偶尔建议他们读读中文,增加一下他们的知识,认识到美国所宣传的极其片面,读不懂可以用谷歌翻译,但是他们是听不进去这些的。

我想未来中国一旦强大,也会反过来施加类似的压力,此难以避免,而其已始,好像在澳大利亚已经这么做了,但是中国会朝着正确的方向走。坚持不认定客观真理的人是不应当得到好的对待,这是任何进步人必所坚持的原则。

最后想提到,我对那些敢于不惜公众反感的研究宣传智商的西方学者尊重钦佩不已。在此过程中,他们却都得到东亚人智商稍微高于白人的屡屡经过验证的结论。有一位还赞扬日本所创造的高效率,高创新,并且团结和谐的社会,以日本人高智商为其根本根源,并且说东亚人能够创造客观更好的社会秩序,此当然意味东方有好多值得学习的地方。还有一位早在01年发表的一本书就预料到中国将来会以其所有的高智商,大面积,多人口,和明智专制制度之综合将早晚成为世界超级大国并且控制世界,建立世界政府,我想那不就实现了类似于马克思一个半世纪多所预想的共产主义社会了吗。这听上去太遥不可及,而他01年中国国力不太强的时候就感这么说,自此十六年已过,事实发生只能说让他的猜测更加接近,仔细想,他这么说还真的有可能。这些人在西方主流被广泛拒绝,视为疯子,毫无政治影响力,而他们的被证实的远见不也可以算证实着西方文明的衰落吗?这些,不用说,都给以中国采取世界首位不断增加合理性。

总而言之,中国人要向西方好的地方学习,学习西方以古希腊人为先驱的刨根到底追求科学真理的精神,学习西方知识精英的勇于挑战权威的精神开创新视野的精神,使之进步,同时觉不能盲目,要保留继续发展自己文化好的地方,使之发扬光大!对于西方的腐朽政治文化,要敢于进行义无反顾的冲击,创造人类新纪元,创造革命性的人类文明巅峰!

Understanding Human History

I had the pleasure to read parts of Understanding Human History: An Analysis Including the Effects of Geography and Differential Evolution by Michael H. Hart. He has astrophysics PhD from Princeton, which implies that he is a serious intellectual, though it doesn’t seem like he was quite so brilliant that he could do good research in theoretical physics, though an unofficial source says he worked at NASA and was a physics professor at Trinity University who picked up a law degree along the way. I would estimate that intellectually, he is Steve Hsu level, perhaps a little below, though surely in the high verbal popularization aspect, he is more prolific, as evidenced by that book, among many others, such as one on the 100 most influential historical figures. He is active in white separatist causes (heh) and appears to have had ties with the infamous and now deceased Rushton.

Lately, with pardon for possible hindsight bias from reading, I have been more inclined to look at the world from a long term historical perspective. I have always had some inclination to believe that to judge an intellectual fully in terms of impact take decades and often generations, especially political ones. As a derivative to this, I feel I am, relative to most, less susceptible than most to fads and trends and care less about short term recognition and credentialism. The ideal is to let history be the judge, which it will be eventually and inevitably.

In this post, I’ll give a summary of what I would regard as some of the most prominent points in that book. Keep in mind though that I won’t strictly refer to the book and will instead draw from various sources online, with the book as more of an inspiration. To start, I recall reading as a kid that the Euphrates and Tigris rivers in Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq, Syria, Turkey) are cradles of civilization. On that, Hart was somewhat elaborate on the development of agriculture that took place there at least as early 11,000 BC. This was not soon after the last glacial period which many speculate vastly enhanced the intelligence of peoples in the more northern latitudes, particularly in Northeast Asian and in Europe, through brutal elimination of those unable to survive under the harsh demands brought forth to them in the cold winters. The earliest well-accepted evidence of writing appears to be again in Mesopotamia around 3100 BC. Around the same time, independent writing systems also arose in Egypt, but with that, historians and archaeologists cannot be sure whether it was truly independent, as the geographic proximity between Egypt and Mesopotamia was not large.

An independent civilization arose in China too, which was geographically isolated from the larger part of world. On its east (and to a less extent, south) is the Pacific Ocean, on its West are some of the world’s highest mountain ranges, and on its north are relatively barren lands. Respectively, agriculture and writing emerged in China not long after in Mesopotamia. The body of inscriptions on oracle bones from the late Shang dynasty gives the earliest evidence for what consensus would regard as genuine writing, which was around 1200 BC. There has been, though, an excavation dating back to as early as 6600 BC, of some form of proto-writing of the Peiligang culture. One ought to keep in mind that here we are talking about confirmed upper bounds in time, which will hopefully become tighter and tighter with time as more archaeological discoveries emerge and emerge. While we cannot definitely rule out that Mesopotamia influenced the development of writing in China, it is extremely unlikely that such was the case, due to the great geographic barriers.

I have had the pleasure of skimming through parts of the most classic of Chinese classics, including the I Ching, which are difficult to understand as one would expect. Those are the Chinese biblical equivalents. Unfortunately for history, the first emperor of China who unified all of China in 221 BC, preserving such unity by enforcing uniform weights and measures, ordered an infamous burning of books and scholars, which means that many priceless artifacts of Chinese civilization were forever lost, but of course, many books were able to escape his decree.

The Chinese did not develop an alphabet, as we all know. This was obviously disadvantageous in many ways, but it also enabled China to remain as one culturally, as languages with alphabets can more easily evolve. In China, there are mutually unintelligible dialects (such as Mandarin and Cantonese, which are still very similar in their oral form), but they all employ the same writing system unalterable. One can observe that the legacy of this persists deeply today with China unified and Europe very fragmented culturally and politically with the EU somewhat of a farce as a political organization according to many.

Hart shies away not from emphasizing the deep and revolutionary contributions to human civilization of the ancient Greeks totally merited. By far the most prominent and eternal of these was the development of the rigorous scientific method in its deductive form. The magnum opus of this is Euclid’s Elements, which was a compilation of propositions rigorously proven by his predecessor Greek mathematicians such as Thales and Pythagoras, who were pioneers of this great intellectual tradition that Western civilization and to a lesser extent Islamic civilization later on created and successfully preserved. Additionally, most certainly influenced by the Pythagorean mathematical tradition, the Greeks achieved substantially in geodesy and astronomy, with Erathosthenes calculating with an error of 2% to 15% the circumference of the earth using the differing angles the shadows from the sun made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations. From this, one can infer that by then, the Greeks already had well-established the sphericity of the earth. We even have evidence from The Sand Reckoner of Archimedes that Aristarchus of Samos (c. 270 BC) had proposed a heliocentric model in a work Archimedes had access to but has now been unfortunately lost. The English translation of that is as follows:

You are now aware [‘you’ being King Gelon] that the “universe” is the name given by most astronomers to the sphere the centre of which is the centre of the earth, while its radius is equal to the straight line between the centre of the sun and the centre of the earth. This is the common account (τά γραφόμενα) as you have heard from astronomers. But Aristarchus has brought out a book consisting of certain hypotheses, wherein it appears, as a consequence of the assumptions made, that the universe is many times greater than the “universe” just mentioned. His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the sun remain unmoved, that the earth revolves about the sun on the circumference of a circle, the sun lying in the middle of the orbit, and that the sphere of the fixed stars, situated about the same centre as the sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the earth to revolve bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the centre of the sphere bears to its surface.

The Greek were too rich and too farsighted in their scientific thinking and achievements, and I shall give no more concrete examples here for the sake of time.

This is in stark contrast to the Chinese civilization that Hart claims is the only one that can overall rival Western European civilization. Whatever scientific schools of thought, such as that of Mo Tzu, that existed were not well-preserved and eventually lost prominence to Confucianism, which did not emphasize rigorous scientific thinking, instead with an overemphasis on social relations of a more conformist nature that came with it an imperial examination system focused on literary topics for selecting people to govern the country. The ancient Chinese did not display much curiosity in the logical and natural world. Hart notes how even in 1600 AD, the Chinese knew far less than the Greeks in mathematics, and there is still as far as I am aware not of any evidence of widespread recognition of the round earth among Chinese scholars.

There is reason for a geographic explanation to this. Hart brings up the advantageous geographic position of Greece for its development of civilization. It was, on the Mediterranean, a maritime culture. It was, being further east than Italy, and thus in much closer cultural contact with the Mesopotamians, the cradle of civilization on the larger, non-Chinese part of the world. Additionally, it was close with Egypt. On the other hand, Chinese civilization was basically all to itself, contributing very crudely to somewhat of a less adventurous spirit, less curiosity about the outside world, and by extension, less curiosity about the natural world. Of course, what appears to be the lack of emphasis on theoretical matters of the ancient Chinese also has deep and far from well understood, owing to lack of complete picture due to loss of artifacts, roots. The location of the Greeks is not alone though. Hart also believes that the Greeks, being in a colder climate, had a higher IQ (or biological intelligence), which was what enabled them to surpass both the Mesopotamians and the Egyptians.

The Chinese brought to the world two major inventions that radically altered the course of history, which were uniquely and definitely Chinese. They were paper making and gunpowder. The papermaking process was invented by court eunuch Cai Lun in 105 AD. It was the first inexpensive medium for writing, as opposed to papyrus and bamboo, that enabled for China a great leap forward culturally. In 751 AD, some Chinese paper makers were captured by Arabs after Tang troops were defeated in the Battle of Talas River, and from that, the techniques of papermaking then spread to the West gradually, reading Europe in the 12th century. This is so impactful and impressive, because Western civilization was not able to uncover this critical process for over a millennia when they finally learned of it from outsiders. For this very reason, Hart put Cai Lun as number 7, right ahead of Gutenberg, inventor of the printing press in the 15th century in German. To justify that, he claims that Gutenberg would not have invented the printing press if not for paper, and that this invention being purely one of Chinese civilization that was transmitted to the West over a millennia later in addition to its history altering impact was not one that was inevitable in the sense of being a product of the historical epoch in which it came about. The Chinese also invented printing, with woodblock printing in the 8th century Tang dynasty and movable type (one for each character) by Bi Sheng in the 11th century. However, because of the thousands of Chinese characters as opposed to the tens of letters of the alphabet, movable type did not have anywhere as near of an impact. There is little if any evidence that Gutenberg was influenced in his invention by the one from China.

The importance and again pure Chineseness in invention of gunpowder is also without question. It revolutionized combat and was what enabled Europeans, with their improved guns, to later conquer the New World. Gunpowder was invented by Chinese alchemists in the 9th century likely by accident in their search for an elixir of life. The first military applications of gunpowder were developed around 1000 CE, and in the following centuries various gunpowder weapons such as bombs, fire lances, and the gun appeared in China. Gunpowder was likely transmitted to the Western world gradually via the Mongol invasions, which extended as far as Hungary.

The final of the so called Four Great Inventions of China not yet mentioned is the compass, which facilitated the voyages to Africa of Zheng He in the early 15th century. For that though, while very possible, there seems far from any conclusive that it spread to the Islamic World and Europe as opposed to be having been reinvented there.

Transitioning from China to the medium between China and the West, the Islamic world, we must delve into the Islamic Golden Age, traditionally dated from the 8th century to the 13th century, during which many important scientific discoveries were made. Though my knowledge of Islamic cultures is scant, I do know of Alhazen, Omar Khayyam, and Al-Khwārizmī. In particular, his seven-volume treatise on optics Kitab al-Manazir, while perhaps questionable on his theories of light, was notable for its emphasis on empirical evidence that combined inductive reasoning, which was relatively neglected by the Greeks, with the rigorous deductive reasoning that the Greeks championed to the extremes. We do know with certainty that this magnum opus was translated to Latin, greatly influencing later European scientists and thinkers as important as Leonardo Da VinciGalileo GalileiChristiaan HuygensRené Descartes, and Johannes Kepler. Moreover, Al-Khwārizmī’s work on arithmetic was responsible for introducing the Arabic numerals, based on the Hindu–Arabic numeral system developed in Indian mathematics, to the Western world. There is evidence of solid knowledge of trigonometry, with for instance the law of sines pervasive in the scientific literature from Islamic scholars of that time. With reference to Hindu, I shall note that Indian mathematics and astronomy were quite impressive, certainly more so than Chinese mathematics, which though calculating pi to 7 digits as early as the 5th century, which held a 900+ year record, among many other applied and computational achievements, was severely lacking in its theoretical foundations, was, with AryabhataBrahmaguptaBhāskara I, among others who did work close or on par with those of Islamic scholars mathematically but much earlier, between the 5th and 7th centuries. Because many foreign words are contained within their texts, we can be relatively sure that there was Greek and Mesopotamian influence. Relating to that, Hart does not see Indian or Islamic mathematics as terribly original and more as derivative of Greek works, with significance more in the nature of preservation, though with Western European civilization having been the dominant, and often entirely so, for so long, one ought to be careful of Eurocentric bias. The achievements of Indians and Arabs to math and science ought to be more thoroughly investigated and fairly acknowledgment, in particular how they may have influenced later developments in the West. On that note, I shall say that I was super impressed that in the 14th century, the school of Madhava of Sangamagrama managed to discover infinite series for trigonometric functions of sine, cosine, tangent and arctangent. As a special case of arctangent, we have that

{\frac {\pi }{4}}=1-{\frac {1}{3}}+{\frac {1}{5}}-{\frac {1}{7}}+\cdots +{\frac {(-1)^{n}}{2n+1}}+\cdots,

which was later rediscovered by Leibniz. This of course hints or indicates that Madhava already knew at that time some form of proto-calculus, with as a concrete example Rolle’s theorem, which his predecessor from the 12th century Bhāskara_II had already stated. It’s possible that knowledge of these results were transmitted to Europe, but online sources stay that no evidence for that has been found. This probably influenced Hart’s verdict that Indian/Hindu civilization, while superior to China’s in theoretical science, was far less influential, with of course, India’s having received some knowledge of the Greeks, whereas the Chinese developed independently, with Euclid’s Elements only translated to Chinese in the early 17th century, where it, unfortunately for China, did not have the impact it should have had.

We all know that the West created the modern world, with the Renaissance, the scientific revolution, and the industrial revolution, and discovering, conquering, and colonizing more and more of it with their superior ships and guns, white Europeans virtually ruled the entire world by the late 19th century, ushering in unprecedented growth revolutionary in its quality and exponential in its quantity. It has continued to the point of air travel and internet communications that has drastically reduced the distance between cultures and peoples, with racial intermixing and immigration ever more common and accepted, though of course, the majority still live and mix with their own, in their ancestral homeland.

So, despite being non-white, I shall out of my respect for reason and reality publicize my well-justified view that white supremacy is, or at least was, too manifest not to be believed in. Not too long ago, white European civilization has essentially been in a completely different league from the rest, miles ahead in its content enough to give an appearance of white man’s being a higher species than the rest, with the rest of the world more or less compelled to learn the ways of the West. Of course, being ahead in terms of accumulation of culture, knowledge, and technology does not imply biological superiority, of which IQ is the best proxy. On that, it is well established within the scientific community on the matter that East Asians have a slightly higher IQ than white Europeans, with the advantage largely being in math and visuo-spatial. This is solidly evidenced by the success of Japan and later China, and to a lesser extent South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. The Japanese of the late 19th century were uncertain with regard to whether they could do modern science and compete with Westerners, but not long after, they came to the realization that they were not bad, with their decisive defeat of the Russians in 1905 referenced in Hart’s book. By WWII, Japan was basically an advanced country and had also produced some truly groundbreaking work in pure science at home with Takagi and Yukawa as their pioneers for mathematics and physics respectively. The Chinese students who studied in the West in some mass after China’s defeat in the Boxer Rebellion in 1900 also did quite well, though China internally was only able to modernize rapidly after the establishment of the PRC ended the instability and destruction of war at home that had plagued China for over a century, which it did very rapidly and successfully. By the 1940s, there were already quite a handful of Chinese doing revolutionary or at least first-rate work in science, particularly in mathematics, exemplified by Hua Luogeng and Shing-Shen Chern. By 1970, in spite of starting from near ground zero a few decades ago, China already had thermonuclear weapons and a satellite in orbit, notwithstanding little trade with the West following the Korean War and a later break with the Soviet Union. Now, not even 50 years after that, many people in the West are quite scared of what appears to be China’s supplanting the US as the world’s number one and thereby bringing legitimacy to a civilization with cultural values and political systems very different that evolved independently of the rest of civilization, and this is in fact what the infamous race realist scholars like Rushton and Lynn have predicted would happen largely on the basis of the higher IQ of East Asians that they to some extent popularized. Of course, this is far from absolute, with for example that the Jews (who are basically white, Western) have measured an IQ higher than East Asians of a greater magnitude than the difference between East Asians and (non-Jewish) whites. Hart, being Jewish himself, shies away not either from citing the plethora of world-changing Jewish contributions to science and culture in Europe, the United States, and Russia/Soviet Union from the 19th century on. We can see that the two superpowers, the US and the USSR both depended tremendously on the Jews for solving their hardest technical problems. For instance, the nuclear weapons programs of both countries, especially in theory, were filled with Jews, with Hans Bethe, Edward Teller, Yakov Zel’dovich, and Vitaly Ginzburg as examples. It is even fair to say that to some extent the 20th century was the Jewish century.

For the 21st century, Hart also predicts that the breakthroughs will be achieved mostly by white Europeans (that includes Jews) and East Asians, and we already see that happening. I do not recall his stating that the East Asian civilization represented mostly by China and Japan have been on rapid rise lately, and I shall surely point that out, out of what I regard as both its reality and significance (as opposed to any ethnic chauvinism on my part). It is the formerly weak but now strong and still rapidly strengthening other side of human civilization that is less fairly acknowledged, though with its rise, that will gradually change, just as the rise and later sheer dominance of the West enabled it to easily impose its standards and culture on others regardless. With mathematics again as the representative for the pinnacle of human civilization, we can see how very recently Yitang Zhang stunned the world by proving infinite bounded gaps between primes and Shinichi Mochizuki is receiving ever more press for the inter-universal Teichmüller theory that claims to solve the abc-conjecture, one of the most important problems in number theory, the queen of mathematics (according to Gauss), that could possibly becoming one of the most important new mathematical theories of the 21st century. On that, my friend once remarked: “Mochizuki could be the 21st century Grothendieck!” It is quite remarkable and also surprising that the culture and civilization for which theoretical science had been a glaring weakness historically is now verging on its apex, though the surprising part is less so when one takes IQ into account, with now the cultural factors more controlled for owing to the near universal access to information provided by the Internet. Additionally, China is excelling at and amazing, with some effect of disease, the world at what it has traditionally been strong at, namely large-scale engineering projects, but this time, of a nature guided by the modern science of the West. As examples, we see the world’s fastest trains in a nation-wide network, the world’s largest genome sequencing factory, and a great wall of sand dredged on the South China Sea. They are modern Chinese parallels of the Great Canal, the Great Wall, and the mega ships of Admiral Zheng He an order of magnitude larger than those of Columbus. Comes unity comes strength, or so the saying goes. It is one that persists in Chinese civilization today that is enabling more in China what the West cannot do, in practice.

There are scholars and advocates who lament that Western civilization, threatened by dysgenic immigration among other things, is in decline, and that its culture and civilization, which includes a certain purity of its people, ought to be preserved, which includes Hart himself. Given the overwhelming contribution of the West to human civilization, with Greek and Latin roots, has contributed to human civilization, one cannot not identify somewhat with this point of view. On this note, Rushton has even hypothesized that the Black Death precipitated the Great Divergence by suddenly and drastically enhancing the gene pool through killing off a quarter and as much as a half in some places of the European population via more or less a freak accident, one that has been regressing ever since to its natural level. It is somewhat unfortunate in some sense that the horrific legacy of Nazism, which was such that many Western peoples began to outwardly oppose ideas of racial superiority, has developed up to today towards a form of irrational racial egalitarianism and SJW culture that denies any honest, scientifically objective discourse on race differences, which are patently there, which we have the ability now to examine vastly more closely, powerfully, and scientifically than in Hitler’s time that is so politically obstructed for the aforementioned reason. Having referred to dysgenics, I shall also note that the technology and globalization we have today we are rather evolutionarily maladjusted to. Foremost of all, with reference to modern medicine, evolution does not let the weak live or spread its seed, and moreover, evolution is not terribly suited for vastly multi-ethnic societies either. The world now exhibits so much more mercy than before, often at the expense of the advancement of civilization. Yes, we know and have much more than our ancestors, but are we biologically superior to them? Perhaps we are at the far far tail, which increasingly breeds assortatively, but overall, I would say almost certainly not.

As for the 21st century, how it will pan out, only time will tell. However, if I were to bet, I would say that its winner and its legacy, viewed from the long term historical perspective, say a millennia from now, will be whoever musters the courage to control our own evolution to take us beyond the confines of Homo sapiens, so extraordinary and yet so limited in its might, and also at times also so foolish in its wisdom.

To conclude, my message to my generation and the future of humanity, inspired partly by Bertrand Russell:

Be rational! Be tolerant, but not of mindless PC! Dare to create new heights! Dare to improve the human race!