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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

我对于种族关系的看法

最近在美国,正在进行的对常春藤大学歧视亚裔的种族配额制度的案子在2018年6月中旬透露了哈弗录取人员给亚裔申请生更低的所谓的“个性评分”,以此为拒绝他们之由。可预料,这引起了一场稍同情亚裔的媒体大波,而7月出头没过多久,川普政府撤销了奥巴马时期推行的大学录取种族平衡政策并颁布了新政策指南的重要举措。同时,亚裔又在纽约市强烈抵抗市长de Blasio提出的将撤销特殊高中考试录取的案,为了种族多元化而改至holistic的录取方式,难以接受在现有制度,那些特殊高中的名额大约百分之七十都占于亚裔学生。加上,芝加哥大学,一所SAT分数分布很高的接近顶尖大学,已经把SAT考试改为可选而非必要的申请件。看来随着亚裔体抗议常春藤的歧视加热而稍有进展的同时,美国的某些其它教育机构又开始给以新的袭击。看来美国社会就是对亚裔不要好啊。为此,我当然也有自己的想法。

对于一位为所谓亚裔孩子平等教育权的活动者所提出的,我是这么说的:

没错,但是我现在不断觉得华裔在美国所争取的社会地位的提升很可能大多会是枉然的,因为美国当权派不愿意太多华人进入美国上层。是,在美国的华人必要敢于为自己的利益抗争,但要现实,不要把太多时间和精力浪费于几乎不可能成功而对自己毫无长远价值的事情上。现在美国优秀的华人太多,已经难以容纳,要移民最好找找别的地方,或者留在中国为增强我们自己主导的体系而奋斗,把它转成有国际竞争力的一流体系。在美国,华人只是会帮着造福望永远把华人以世界二等人对待的美国当权派。

总之而言,这些人我觉得在忽略一个更根本的问题,就是为什么华裔在美国得不到平等。为什么呢,美国还是白人统治的白人大多数国家就不用说了,就是在世界,作为种族,白人的社会地位还是远远更高的,由于白人在前好几百年所积累的,此难以摆脱。没错,东亚人很聪明,又勤奋,智商高一点,这一点在心理统计学界里是几乎绝对认可的,毫无异议的,但是问题是权利和资源掌握在白人手里,这一点白人的精英和统治者是不会轻易放弃的,反而东亚人好,还更有原因被歧视。白人不太在乎黑裔或墨西哥裔,他们不构成任何威胁,而且给予这些被压迫民族一点名额和资源不仅能缓解一些殖民奴役所造成的所有的白人內疚感,还便以表出一点虚伪的慈善,不用说,把资源从主要对手转移至弱者是非常典型常用的增强巩固自己地位的手段。

同一个人,非男性,还发布关于亚裔男性爱受到的歧视的信息,对此,我只能说:

可惜的是,说不定亚裔男性的性(这包括身材,面容,外表)吸引力就是差一些,或者他们由于属于更弱的种族被视为缺乏社会地位。没什么好办法,只能进步自己和做你所能做的进步你所属于的不可脱离的种族。抱怨只会让你显得更加屌丝(loser)。

我在美国长大,但显然与ABC很不一样,还是一直坚持了对自己文化的认同,因为大多ABC所做的真的挺愚蠢的。我一直认识到正宗中国人的势力比在美国被边缘化的ABC的势力要大得多,对种族关系和歧视还是比较现实主义的,可惜像我这样的人实在太少。现在的中国人过于想如何多融入美国白人所主导的社会和体系而非如何把自己主导的体系变得更有国际竞争力,无论如何,华裔在美国只能采取二流的附属的地位,中国人的主力应该放在中国。

中国人不要忘记日本的经历。他们从明治天皇的领导起现代化做得非常成功,不断像世界证明了东方人在现代科技和军事还是有竞争力的,但是最终还是得不到平等的对待,不得不对西方列强发动战争,在此过程中将其它东方人和亚洲人为奴隶和牺牲品,最终由于自己太小而过于扩张还是失败了,最终不得不永远放弃原有的军事大国梦想。虽然日本输了,但是还是打赢了好几场具有先进军事技术水平的战争,也得到了一定的认可,而战后,他们的飞速经济重建和崛起又让西方人刮目相看,把美国的好多科技产品打的落花流水。我还是非常佩服日本人为民族而不服输的精神,他们很多方面比中国人的确素质高,像日本的精英从来没有过永久留在外国乘凉的现象,大多都最终回去为他们的祖国贡献,同时,也很少出日奸,在这一点现在的中国人可以感到羞耻。相比之下,中国人的奴性和民族自卑感要严重得多,若没有毛泽东和抗美援朝的胜利只会远远更差,当然比印度人要强得多了。说起印度人,你看中国人62年把印度打的那么惨,魂飞魄散,现在还要在美国公司受印度人欺负,多么丢人啊。在这一点我的确对当代的中国人感到很失望。说的极端一点,中国人去买美国的那套扯淡,不如勾结俄罗斯人想法把美国打垮。你想想当年斯大林和毛带领的那样的团队是没人敢惹的,斯大林的间谍那么可怕连美国都要搞类似于文革的麦卡锡主义反共浪潮来镇压,把钱学森那样的顶级华人人才也吸引回国了,中国人现在已经失去了这种精神,这是很遗憾的。

现在的中国人经常盲目的崇洋媚外没有什么骨气,经常接近于教条的将与美国体系多近为衡量人的标准,非常的缺乏民族自尊心。台湾人和香港人对大陆人有优越感,因为他们经济更富裕,更西化,没有意识到他们自进入美国的怀抱下都是殖民经济,以附属地位和产品换取了他们的经济和生活水平,而在此过程中,增强了他们的阿Q心态,变得像印度人那样了。的确是,他们和印度人一样少数精英享受了美国的教育和体系,自己发展的很好,但是他们绝对不能算得上真正代表中国人,当然中国人也都为他们的精彩成果感到自豪。一个国家的人才大多在国外只能说明这个国家的国际政治影响力比较微弱。说到这一点,由于领导,毛泽东时代的中国很多方面国际政治影响力比现在远远更富裕的中国都要强,为这一点,现在中国人也应当感到羞耻。

中国人也应该有一定的优越感。虽然自己没有搞出近代科学和工业,落后挨打了,但这不一定说明中国人本质上就是劣势的,可能在身材上某些方面劣势一些,但是这也是次要的。相反,中国那么落后糟糕但为何,类似于日本人,只不过起步晚的多,追赶却那么快呀?不是因为更高的智商和更加刻苦耐劳吗?而这一点,不也通过在美国的优秀刻苦但受歧视的华裔学生加以证实吗?而且中国人还做到了日本人未能的,就是与西方白人打平一仗而建立自己独立的体系和制度吗?中国人在外国还被白人欺负,没办法,这个问题必须靠自己以中国为主的势力来解决,对手还是瞧不起你,不会轻易认输的,只会更加给你施加压力。最终还要看中国人自己的能力了,不是那些为美国机构服务的中国人,而是为中国自己服务的中国人。任务是艰难的。我作为中国人敢直截了当这么说因为我知道无论如何,我不可脱开中国人的面貌,就像俄罗斯人无论和西方多么亲,依然无法脱开共匪的面貌,还是被彻底毁坏了,中国人即是共匪,又是黄种人,就更没有希望了。可惜太少人认识到这一点。反而,汉奸还是特别多,像我说的,中国的整体素质还比日本人要差,我想如果中国不敢为此严厉处置,在内加在外,中国人的希望是不大的,连港台的人心都拉不过来,谈何与白人平等啊。有些人如果品德实在太差而无救,也不要放弃劳改,绝育,甚至灭九族的手段,不用一切向美国学习,美国现在反人类的SJWneocon势力日益增强,无可遏制(消灭就更不用说了),将来它们都可能把美国整个国家搞坏,损失已经很大了,中国人不要一样傻就行了。

祝党的生日快乐!

97年了,我无话多言,直连到此文。此终结为:

上世纪20年代的青年思索救亡图存,30年代的学生投笔从戎,60年代的学子以身许国献身戈壁,当代年轻人面向社会追寻人生意义……一代代青年人的从心而行,何尝不是一种精神传承?让信仰之火熊熊不息,让红色基因融入血脉,让红色精神激发力量,我们就能更坚定、更执着、更无畏地前行,为国家为人民创造一个更好的明天。

哈哈,说是这么说,只不过据我所观察现在的人大多已经失去往时这种宝贵精神了,人也远远不如老革命那一辈了。总是感觉现在的人比起以前过于保守,缺乏胆量。作为一位在美国长大的被动无声的minority(少数民族)的一员,在一种腐朽无味的文化环境中,何以得到精神力量?当然,有个人的学习和事业,但我想说的不是这个。所想说的是文化认同。在这一点,不是多沉浸于ABC的伪文化中,而是多认识我们的革命前辈,从之得以启发。可惜与我同感的人实在太少。

今年初,我有幸得知并读中共创始人李大钊的《狱中自述》,感受到了他为党壮烈牺牲所留下的信念。共产党当时在受蒋介石发动的白色恐怖下的残酷冲击,此余力最终逃避生存而从建真是奇迹,从而中华民族得以新的诞生。此文之外,还看了讲这位民族英雄的一部纪录片,里面有不少他写的诗,开头还有他二十年代在莫斯科向当时多位共产主义战士演讲的镜头。

提到莫斯科,我还想说我业余自学俄文,直到今天基本能读会说一点,也很大处于更深入理解党的历史背景的愿望,当然,苏联的那一套也有不少非常值得学习的。

从建党建国的历程可以看到组织和动力的重要性。不用说,当时的人的确与现在非常不一样的,现在的社会太放纵,诱惑太多,过于注重金钱,人愈来愈自私,缺乏社会责任感和理想。我觉得市场经济是有一定用处的,但是同时,他鼓励很多对社会不良的表现,过于注重短期谋利,导致有长远意义的工作难以实施。在我前文所提,金钱的诱惑干扰实在太大,使得现在中国愿意静下心长期投入核心科技研制的精英越来越少,前辈知识分子坚持信念以身许国的精神已大大消失。

当然,你可以说我太理想主义了,可是我觉得接近于马克思想象的那种共产主义社会还是有可能的,尤其在现在机械化信息化高产能社会,此与以前的未工业化社会相比截然不同。以前稀缺是因为生产技术不够发达,而现在的稀缺大多是人为的,出于少数大资本家掌握太多物质资源,为了他们自己的利益囤积居奇,中国的房地产泡沫就是个好的例子。美国的大学学费过高也是又一个例子。在美国,公立教育是很烂的,学校提供的极少,完全需要家人自己投入。同样,美国没有医疗保证,好多人都没有医疗保险,有不少人得病而破产。总之而言,中国由于他的红色基因和毛主席时代的遗产比美国好得多,在价值观上。在美国资本家完全不会在乎你,也不在乎社会的健康,就为了你的钱,鼓励或垄断迫使大量销售,而且媒体由于被私人掌握好多都是故意误导人的。可惜中国人,尤其是领导人,不够自信缺乏志气,经常还要向美国这些学习,若不是毛泽东时代所留下的遗产,可能中国也会面临俄罗斯同样的遭遇。

在冷战时期社会主义苏联和中国的存在慢慢给世界形成了新的社会规范。两国在有经济条件的情况下都提供免费教育和医疗,加上有分配房子,按马克思的“各尽所能,各取所需”的原则。同时,社会主义国家所提供的育儿也提升了妇女的地位。相反,美国现在天天闹虚伪的,反常识的女权主义,而不解决此最根本的问题。强大的对手这样做导致美国资本家把在美国内地的剥削和系统种族歧视减轻了一些,好避免美国人民造反推翻他们的风险和赢得世界非白种人对美国的支持以对付社会主义阵营。当然,我们都知道中苏之间不久决裂了,毛时代晚期起,中国却开始偏向美国,所谓的逻辑是打着红旗反红旗威胁比公开资本主义更大,当然也是为自己利益的一种妥协。改革开放后,美国所施加的软压力和诱惑实在太大,导致了89年运动不当处理所引发的六四事件,此突然更大弱化了早已决裂的社会主义阵营。在这一点,我的确发觉到六四所制造的国际政治影响对苏联及东方集团的崩溃有了相当大的催化作用。我想,若社会主义在此复辟,何况共产主义实现,胡耀邦赵紫阳这俩王八蛋,如赫鲁晓夫一样,肯定会被划为历史的罪人。

当然,不少人用苏联的最终失败和中国的转型来证实社会主义制度的劣势。当时,从科学严谨角度而言,这一点都算不上什么证实,只不过是一种容易忽悠人的政治宣传而已。在冷战时期,因为美国特别怕红色中国,才给了日本和四小龙大量的经济援助和政治支持,在彻底封锁红色中国的同时,欲之崩溃。这样当然更加貌似资本主义民主制度优越于社会主义民主集中制,可说服大多数人。当然,也有少数一般智商比较高的人,如我的美国数学奥赛金牌朋友(纯粹美国人)也说好多是因为苏联二战后还是很落后于美国,中国与美国的主要盟国英法日加起来就更不用说了。我也想,可能当时如果苏联没有变修,采取适当的改革,并且维持与中国的结盟合作,结果会是反过来的,那就是社会主义赢得冷战,在美国进行更多向着社会主义的和平演变。当然,冷战不光是意识形态的冲突,也是大国之间的冲突,要是苏联和中国要赢,肯定也要像美国传播一种服从似的社会主义,此也是中苏分裂的根源,那就是中国到了一定的程度不想继续做服从的社会主义二哥。

虽然大国之争,民族之争处于人的本性,不可避免,只可良化,我还是相信社会规范是可以并且值得进步的,一点因为此在历史过程中大致是进步的,二点因为世界现在还有很多极其糟糕不仁的制度和社会规范,甚至可以说苏联垮台之后,美国统治阶级无压力,为所欲为,使之退步。比方说,我想有可能,甚至,如果我乐观,很可能,一百年后,现在美国这样的没有免费教育和医疗的社会是难以想象的,至少在发达国家。也可以想象一百年后,通过发达的基因检测及胚胎筛选的实施,社会不会允许智商低于80的人和有昂贵遗传疾病的人出生。无论如何,我相信中国共产党97年前的诞生会经得起历史的检验。这是什么意思?比如,中华人民共和国的不断成功和世界地位的上升已经给中国的体制增强了威望,当然,现在世界舆论还大由美国为首的西方国家掌握,它们还可以说这是因为中国改革开放起转向了资本主义制度,只不过不民主,而若民主只会更好。这中说法我觉得很扯淡,没有根据,认为中国人要敢于在强大的压力下坚持真理,自信主动地带领人类的社会进步,科学的决定并且尝试制度,包括更社会主义的制度,少在意美国如何看待。要想超越别人,带领新的潮流,走向更先进的社会,必须敢于挑战当前的权威,在学习它的同时解开他的缺点漏洞,发展自己的独特之处,大胆而科学的探索尝试新的方法,让时间所检的更佳结果和优越不得不得到世界的认可。

其实,鉴于此文在纪念党的生日,我觉得中共所领导的做的好多都是惊人的,具有无比勇气的。统一了百年军阀混战的中国是一。建国没捞着喘什么气又跟世界老大直接打了一仗,而且还赢了,至少平了。此代价是世界老大采取几乎所有措施让你崩溃,但是二十年后,中国从几乎零的基础下研制出了两弹一星,世界老大也不得不认输了。之后,跟世界老大建交了,他非要让你改变你的制度,到处污蔑你好对你施加压力,但中共依然坚持抵抗着,直到今天发展到世界老大真的怕你代替他咯。所以从任何客观的角度这都是很神的党,奇迹性的政治组织,美国当权派及其走狗对它的诬蔑只能客观表示一种自己深厚的畏惧和对自己失败的回避,是一种拒绝面对客观事实的表现,用另一句话说,是一种sore loser的表现。当然,中国在共产党的领导下还要好多做的不足的地方,如此前文所述,还有很漫长的路要走。我个人觉得中共改革开放那帮领导相对比较差,比较没有骨气,此可以以六四和中国的人才流失证实,当然我也认识到中国要融入美国为首的国际体系就是要失去一定的独立自主为代价。(注:读者别把我搞错,我绝对不是一个极左,四人帮当然也有很多糟糕的地方,基本上是一些弱智流氓,但至少他们是立场坚定,不会去走卖国的自由主义。)

作为终结,我想引用一下我很尊重的一位英国学者所分析的,那就是:

Not that I am any sort of unreconstructed Maoist: I also approve of Deng Xiaoping, including his willingness to be harsh when necessary.  Both Mao and Deng played a big part in producing today’s China, but in a future article I will argue that it was Deng who came closest to wrecking it. Contrary to what most analysts will tell you, Mao always had a fall-back position that he could return to if one of his radical experiments went wrong.

翻译成中文是:

不是我是任何教条的毛派:我也认可邓小平,尤其是他在需要的时候肯采取严厉措施。毛和邓都对建立今天的中国起了决定性的作用,但是在未来的文章,我会论证为何是邓最接近毁之。与大多评论家会说的相反,毛总是,以备他的某个大试验出问题的可能,有了适当的退却安排。

其实随着我对相关背景的不断了解,我也得出了类似的结论(当然,我这么说无法证明这不是看到上文所产生的后见之明偏误。盼望这位可被视为奇异的学者尽快发表对他此”异常”观点的论证!

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 were the ones to destroy it. On the other hand, Japan was defeated by America and the Soviet Union, not by China, who was too weak at the time, though China did play a major role in sinking more of their resources, particularly human resources, which were the main bottleneck, quantitatively, for Japan, as a small nation that had tried very hard and only half-succeeded at playing the game of world imperialism that it entered in too late.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.