Fundraiser for translation to Russian of Grover Furr’s book on Katyn Massacre

Dear friends:

Here, for your own information, is the web page, with which the Tver’
people wish to raise enough money to pay for the translation of my Katyn
book into Russian.

Here’s the book. It was published in July, 2018:

The Mystery of the Katyn Massacre. The Evidence, The Solution

In this book I investigate the Katyn massacres in the manner of a
detective who approaches the case with complete objectivity, wishing
only to solve the crime and identify the guilty party.

I would have been content to conclude that the Soviets had shot the
Poles. Instead, I found that ALL the valid evidence points to German guilt!

This conclusion is taboo, of course. When it comes to attacking the
Soviet Union during the period of Joseph Stalin’s leadership, no calumny
is too outrageous.

Vladimir Bobrov, my wonderful Moscow-based colleague and a dedicated
historian, has informed me that he has obtained an oral  promise from a
major Moscow publisher to publish this book, IF they are presented with
the translation.

Please forward this email of mine to any and all Russian friends or
colleagues you may have. Perhaps they would like to contribute? If not,
they may be interested to learn of this project.

Yours for the truth!

Grover Furr

2019-06-06 上午10.38.262019-06-06 上午10.39.13

The link is and there is a Union Jack at the bottom to change language to English. I tried with both American and Chinese credit cards (they were all Visa) but they could not get accept on that Russian e-payment/finance platform. They also supported like Yandex Money and a bunch of other Russian “fin-tech” products, none of which I have and none of which I actually care enough to register for. Looks like Russia might be ahead of America now in mobile/e-payments as well.

I really wanted to donate but haven’t been able to. But readers of this are surely welcome to, with instructions below.

Dear friends:

Some of you have asked me how you can make a contribution to the fund
for translating my Katyn book into Russian.

There are two ways you can do this:

*First way: Using a credit card, on the web page:*

1. Go to this web page:

2. Click on the link at the very bottom of this page that says: “Switch
to English version.” There is a small Union Jack (flag of the U.K.)
beside these words.

3. Only the first box, labelled “No reward” and “100 ₽” (the sign for
Russian rubles) is translated. The others remain in Russian. But you can
click on any of them too.

1000 ₽ (Rubles) is about US$15. If you want to contribute, say, 2000
Rubles, you will have to use the 1000 Rubles box twice.

4. Complete your credit card information on the next page.

Voilà – you’re done!

I did it, as a test, and got confirmation from both the crowdfunding
software ( and from Mr. Maxim Kormushkin, who is organizing
the fund.

*Second way: If you do NOT want to use a credit card.*

Send a check to me at the address below. Mark your check “Crowdfund” (so
I’ll know you are not buying one of my books).

I will wait until I get a number of checks, and then make a collective

If you contribute more than 2000 Rubles (= about US$30), I will mail you
a copy of my book. In English! IF you ask me for it!

Here is the address to mail me a check:

Grover Furr
English Department
Montclair State University
1 Normal Avenue
Montclair NJ 07043

Russian is the most important language that this book should be
available in. So thank you for all your support!


Grover Furr

By the way, I don’t really actually care about the Katyn Massacre and I know very little about this controversial matter. I just know that it was murder of some Polish officers (in 1939 I believe) in Katyn. Stalin’s NKVD led by Beria I believe was blamed for that. I believe the Soviets denied it under Gorbachev. Furr’s thesis is that it was actually done by the Nazis, which really is quite plausible.

Why do I like Grover Furr? Well, he seems like a serious honest scholar. He knows Russian well. Not sure Robert Conquest does, and Furr said that most of the references in Robert Conquest’s Black Book of Communism were bogus. Apparently, the book had gotten so much acclaim, and nobody actually really pointed out that the references were kind of fake after actually looking them up. Basically, pure Cold War propaganda. I’d totally believe it. There is some Victims of Communism Memorial in DC where they say there were 100 million victims of communism. It’s China 65 million, USSR 20 million, then Cuba, North Korea, Romania, Vietnam, etc for the remaining 15 million. Like that, is basically bullshit.

Grover Furr also visited at least twice the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing to give talks on matters pertaining to his work Khrushchev Lied so more reason for me to take him seriously. He even said something like, “Stalin didn’t commit a single crime.” He’s obviously exaggerating there. He blamed the Great Purge on then NKVD head Yezhov, claiming Yezhov was a secret Nazi agent. This stuff it’s really basically impossible to know for sure by now. The people directly involved are all dead, and even they only know for sure a portion of what happened. Something I am well aware of is that Stalin is just one person. He has people under him doing stuff. Like, his cult of personality was manufactured by his underlings managing a bunch of people doing actual the work. It’s difficult to actually be able to fully reign in on those people. Surely, they are afraid, but they have some power too, and many of them might have been secretly opposed to much of Stalin, as Khrushchev almost certainly was.

Russians who read this are welcome to contact me. Maybe one of you can donate on my behalf, I’ll pay you back in US dollars or RMB, or maybe by ordering something for you that you want.


我近几天在Disqus上的几个关于中国的评论(Some comments of mine over past few days on Disqus on China related matters)




This is utter nonsense. China’s political institutions are among the strongest in the world, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. That’s what communism is all about. And in a trade war their position is stronger than that of the US. China has the skilled workers and modern factories. Their problem, and it is a big one, is to find markets for their products to replace the US. That is a much better situation to be in than the US. In trade with China, or anyone, what we have is store shelves. In a trade war we have empty shelves and a population that cannot find basic needs.

At present, we are in a similar position v.v. China as the Indian Raj was v.v. England. England imported Indian and Egyptian cotton, and solid it back to the Indians and Egyptians as cloth, at a profit.

Our loss of our industrial base means that in a military sense we are to China today what Japan was to the US in 1940. How did that turn out.

Bolton and Pompeo are pursuing and extremely belligerent foreign and military policies with everyone, including our oldest allies. These policies will eventually cripple American and destroy its influence and power even if we can avoid a major war, which seems increasingly unlikely.


I’m sad for America. I’m perhaps more sad for the minority of woke white Americans like you and a few of my similarly woke white American friends in my generation who and whose children don’t really have an escape route. Like, I actually have more freedom of speech than my smart woke WASP American friend who is actually more or less stuck in America or at least in the Anglo world, much subject to a certain group for his career, etc.

The minority of white Americans like you and Jared Taylor and Ron Unz (he’s Jewish so slightly different) who dare to speak out are far from enough to counter the main trend. But at the very least, it’s a form of insurance in that if America really crashes and burns, they can make a case for themselves and receive better treatment or at least sympathy from the other side. I suspect there are many, especially young, white Americans who feel similarly but are at least half closeted out of career risk-aversion, can’t blame them really. I myself though am I guess less of a conformist and more of a risk-taker, unlike most Chinese who grew up in America.

I’ve spoken with one of my WASP friends, who’s very understanding and rational on China (like he openly told me that China’s banning Google and Facebook was a smart move), on how I feel sad for him that he won’t have a white homeland. This was of course only after I got to know him well enough that we could openly exchange such opinions. Most people are too afraid, especially in the suffocating American political climate. In China, in spite of censorship, people are generally much more direct about how the world works and less politically correct. Like, I’ve had some writings censored on a Chinese internet media platform for using certain blacklisted words several times, but nowhere close am I to actually getting banned, account-wise, and I’ve made some real friends on there. On the other hand, Quora has banned, or at least severely downranked, accounts of certain people who have opposed the politically correct liberal group-think idiocy that characterizes most of the site’s content.



On of the fundemental reasons China has prospered is that it treats its people less worse then Mao did. For instance, and God forbid, if today 10 million Chinese were murdered like Mao did, the economy would collapse . So, greed is good. You can not harvest wealth from dead field hands. Engineers and nimble businessman must be better treated.

So, China might well lose the field hand jobs of low manufacturing, and the cash flow. They will have to move up, with ever more skilled labor, requiring more liberty.
I hope for the best. China’s problems are political. They’ve shown understanding of political reform leading to better living.


The foundation of China’s modernization happened under Mao in the 50s with aid and technology transfer from the Soviet Union. US which China fought a war with in early 50s had nothing to do with it. That is the reality that Americans are going to have to eventually accept…




Khrushchev cancelled it, brought back the technicians and stopped aid. Mao then i( 1960)nstituted The Great Leap Forward/ Cultural Revolution a disaster killing 40++ million. Chinese GDP/Person never reached a few hundred dollars until the early 70’s.


A reasonable estimate for the sum of excess deaths plus fewer births between 1959-1962 was 15+15=30 million. The total population was about 600 million at that time. I don’t really think it’s reasonable to count the people who weren’t born due to the economic crisis as part of the death toll. I know that people exaggerate these death tolls just like how people often exaggerate salary and net worth. The Cultural Revolution targeted almost exclusively people in the political or intellectual elite, a small base population to begin with, not to mention they were merely politically attacked and demoted, rarely actually killed directly or indirectly.

GDP per capita is a very flawed metric. The planned economy at that time in China very likely underestimated it. There was basically no inflation. Withdrawal of Soviet aid did some damage but China still did fine, developed nuclear missiles, industrialized more places in the country, etc. This only gave the world more “proof of ability,” sufficient to integrate into US world order without subordination later on. Enough for China to be where China is today 40+ years after Mao’s death.

I don’t see much point arguing further on this matter. Because China was quite objectively mostly the winner in relations with the US since end of WWII, there is not all that much for Chinese to be regretful or resentful or insecure about. The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution were pretty big mistakes (whether the latter was might even be arguable) but they were certainly not fatal, far from it. The Anglo world’s using those to gaslight the Chinese on their past had some effect over the past generation but that stuff is becoming ever more irrelevant, and their exaggerations ever less convincing. If America denies this reality, then it is mostly America’s problem. There is relatively little to fear from America now.

I wrote in… that it is in war that relative status/position changes most precipitously. America made a historical blunder by becoming overconfident and reckless enough to give China the very-hard-to-come-by chance of making such a leap in international status/position in the early 50s. The long term historical verdict may well regard that as the critical point or determinant of America’s failure vis-a-vis China, we’ll see. After all, that was what largely set the stage for the developments in China later on, politically and economically, which to America’s dismay were actually quite successful in spite of much intentional and malicious obstruction on America’s part, a double slap on the face. It’s a giant dark mark on US history that the US narrative/media has desperately tried to cover up and forget. Though it might fool many people especially Americans and make America seem better, it’s not really conducive to guiding America towards a more effectual policy vis-a-vis the PRC.






Why Google and Facebook might be overrated

Back in undergrad, this professor I worked with once in casual conversation said something along the likes of “how to predict what kind of company will become the next Google.” As for Facebook, as a software engineer with much exposure to those places, some people have described it as a better version of Google, more equity for engineers with better perks and benefits.

Google and Facebook were considered by many as the top places to work for, especially for a new grad. Certainly better than Amazon, where you have to work harder for lower pay.

But from another perspective, it’s because Google and Facebook, as monopolistic advertising companies, can afford to pay their engineers more. Even when they do, they still make much more income than Amazon, and perhaps also Microsoft.

I recall on Zhihu, a user by the handle Zeldovich Yakov spoke of Google and Facebook as relatively shit companies. His bar was pretty high though. He would say,

Ford started a company with few tens of thousands of dollars. In a decade, it became a billion dollar company and created a whole new industry and supply chain. In contrast, all Google and Facebook did was steal the revenue of the former advertising companies. They did not create any real new economic demand or market. So, what else are they if not trash companies.

This is something that most people with the American mindset would never think, let alone an undergrad with minimal exposure to the world who would naturally overrate the superficial cool that a company like Google projects.

Heck, Nvidia I would regard as more in many ways more valuable than GoogFaces despite the market value being much lower. Its technology is, in contrast, actually extremely hard to replicate. For instance, China could easily replicate GoogFaces, but Nvidia, Intel, not so easy.

Zeldovich Yakov, who did graduate school in pure math in Russia and France, also wrote something along the likes of,

Google and Facebook are that valuable only because of the English language market. In Russia, there’s Yandex and vKontakte. Yandex was founded earlier than Google, and vKontakte has more convenient file transfer features.

Google and Facebook also are dependent on America’s geopolitical supremacy. China has proven that they can be shut out wherever America does not have geopolitical control, and we may see in the next few decades China pressuring some smaller countries to follow her example, which would deprive those two of more advertising revenue. One could also regard the success of those as having more to do with connections. Worth noting is how the founders of Google and Facebook were both Jewish, with the benefit of support from dominant Jewish media and finance interests in America that the founders of Yahoo and MySpace did not have. Of course, this is not really politically correct to say, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t something of a consequential nature.

Steve Hsu has also written on his blog something of the likes of

The connection between value creation and money and power has become quite weak of late.

This is very true. The ability to create (real) value often is very different from the ability to monetize it. Software without advertising has as much value functionality wise for the user if not more than the same software but with advertising incorporated. As an example, I had read that the creator of WeChat back in the late 90s in China spent a few years singlehandedly writing some Foxmail email client, which had several million downloads not long after it was released. But economically, according to what I read, he was almost broke. Fortunately for him, he later got the opportunity to become rich in a big company with the monetization platform. More generally, we often have some smart, competent people creating the technology, creating the products, and then the politically connected people (who often know very little about technology) coming in later on take more of the equity for themselves.

I’ve also written before that in China, the people who developed the core industrial foundation and military technology created much more value than the likes of Jack Ma. The former gave the country tremendous leverage on the international stage. Without that, people like Jack Ma would not be possible. But the people in the former did not get rich. They mostly merely got high salaries from the government. So if the government decides to take out Jack Ma (who is rumored to have had some ties with US media and NGOs that displeased some party people in China), there would not be much good reason to be sympathetic.

Like ex-Soviet Red Army officer Andrei Martyanov, many Chinese, with a similar socialist tradition, view the whole market economy with a critical lens, and the same spirit seems to be utterly absent in an America blinded by liberal market fundamentalism. Keep in mind that this is a country founded on the displacement of Native Americans that was made possible by not much more than military superiority.

So whenever I hear some idiot Anglo or Anglo lackey say “rule of law,” I find it kind of a joke. Rule of law requires ability to enforce the law, which is based on political power, which must be backed by military power. Plus, the law is often phrased very ambiguously, but that is implicitly deliberate.

US-China relations are becoming ever more tense. And in this fight, Google and Facebook in spite of their high market cap provide relatively little value, aside from their media power in spreading the American liberal dogma. But how can you win in the long term with a dogma built on a house of cards. Eventually, reality will come to bite you. In actual material competition or war, propaganda helps but more critical is actual material power, in the quality and quantity of what you can produce. In actual material competition or war, you have to actually demonstrate your real power; financial games, monetary indices, economic bubbles, marketing/hype, and the ability to fool idiots mean very little. It is in wartime that relative status changes most precipitously, when there is the most social mobility. Too many examples, but I’ll give some representative modern ones: the Anglo conquest of North America (set the stage for Anglo supremacy, elsewhere, Anglo world also mostly triumphed over French, Spanish, Dutch, Germans, and other smaller European powers), the Opium Wars (finally shattered China’s position, more gain for British Empire), the First Sino-Japanese War (a calamitous drop for China, a big boost for Japan), the Russo-Japanese War (another big boost for Japan, at Russia’s expense), WWI (Germany’s loss), WWII (America the biggest winner by far, USSR next, Germany and Japan lose forever their chance at actual empire, minor gain for China), Chinese Civil War and Korean War (a precipitous leap in status for China mostly at America’s big expense, USSR benefited too from indirect association), Sino-Indian War (virtually irrecoverable loss for India, more bonus points for China), Cold War (big gain for America after USSR’s disintegration and consequent economic collapse in Russia in the 90s at expense of Russia and other Soviet derivatives, gain of smaller, more temporary nature for Japan and Four Asian Tigers per association, China did okay by being large and more independent, though the strong Soviet association surely hurt her confidence in culture and political system).

Following WWII, in an era of mutually assured destruction, it is very difficult for confrontation and competition between the big powers to be militarily 100% direct, and even during the Cold War, the actual fire, dirty work was largely done in a proxy fashion. The competition is more economic and cultural, and Google and Facebook, along with Hollywood, surely are representatives there for America on the cultural end.

Some say we have now Cold War 2.0. Again, it’s US + UK + their allies of varying degree versus Russia + China + their allies of varying degree. This time, unlike in Cold War 1.0 when trade and contact between the two superpowers was very limited, there is more interaction between the two sides in our more interconnected, globalized society. During the 90s, China, though much disliked, was still considered too poor and backwards to be a threat, and the US was mostly busy trying to ethnically cleanse Russia. They did a ton of damage, but under Putin’s leadership following American puppet Yeltsin, the Russian culture and nation has proven to be extremely resilient under the foundation of a combination of the more traditional Russian culture and the technology and expertise, not to mention international cultural ties, established during the Soviet era, which America could not fully undermine and destroy, far from it. China, in contrary to the expectation of the US elite of eventual liberalization and integration into the US world order, after growing rapidly for a few decades is acting increasingly in defiance of America. Despite an invasion of American liberal culture and ideology of the past four decades, PRC’s communist conservative core remained intact and following Xi’s ascension to power even revitalized.

I’ve observed that there are crudely speaking two types of people, two types of organizations, or at least a spectrum of them. There is the one with the grow fast get rich quick at all costs strategy and there is the other that values higher quality sustainable growth. The former tends to die or fade quickly and forever with a sour taste when its good times end, while the latter tends to persist and show remarkable resilience under crisis. One can put Google and Facebook in the former category and Intel and Boeing in the latter category.

Similarly, as for nations and ethnicities, one can put the WASPs (and their Jewish colonizers) in the former category, and the Russians and Chinese in the latter category. As for the Chinese, in English, there is not really a concept of “Chinese Empire,” and in modern times, China was very much a large but weak victim of Western imperialism and colonialism, until the PRC, but the PRC side of modern China is, needless to say, grossly distorted in the Anglo narrative. But traditionally, China was its own civilization; from the Central Plain millennia ago, it gradually expanded to all of the area of China today, with gradual conquests and assimilation, of the area of Guangdong and Fujian in the far south of China, of the more inner part in present day Sichuan, and of present day Xinjiang where the currently, much noise is made about the Uighurs in the Anglo media. The truth is that most of those places were integrated into the Han Chinese culture before the birth of Christ, with settlers in Xinjiang before then as well. Later, the Mongols and Manchus (who are basically physically indistinguishable from the Han Chinese) conquered but they were also culturally assimilated. Over millennia, the Chinese established and consolidated deep roots over a vast area of land while maintaining cultural coherence, one that even Western imperialism with its modern guns and warships could not uproot.

Not being Russian myself, I know not enough about more traditional Russian history to judge, though I know of Alexander Nevsky. There was of course, in addition to with Western Europe, much interaction with the Central Asians, in which we can crudely include the Mongol and Tatar conquerors who eventually integrated into the Russian language and culture. I can much appreciate how Russia managed to go from in 30 or 40 years time the losing European imperial power to the world’s second superpower via the pioneering of the revolutionary political and economic system of the Soviet Union. Moreover, the catastrophic fall in the 90s could not bring down Russia permanently either, and at least over the past decade, Russia has been mostly ascending, ever more prominent in international affair, though still nowhere near where it was during the Soviet era. Much of the culture of the Soviet Union is still there, and over seventy years time, it has permeated the Chinese soul in a sinicized form. Whatever of American and Anglo culture in China is in comparison more superficial, nowhere near as durable, as it is in direct odds with the political value system in China.

And I would expect over the next few decades that mostly toxic influence to wane further and ever more precipitously. We may well see a catastrophic and actually permanent fall of America and the Anglo world at large. Nowadays, taking trends into account too, America and the Anglo world does not have the benefit of the ethnic and cultural homogeneity vital for bouncing back after crisis, unlike Russia or China. Anglo imperialism was of a revolutionary nature but its base off a small island in Europe with a comparatively small population was too little for it to genuinely permeate itself over a vast land. It takes centuries to fully displace or assimilate a population, and maybe more than that if the population is extremely ethnically different, since there are physical limits on the movement of people and breeding of new ones. It is even harder to maintain the cultural coherence especially when geographically separated over a long period of time. Take the Chinese in America as an example; they are ethnically cleansed in the second generation, with examples like myself very very rare.

Screenshot from my new Huawei phone

Text below, to make it indexable by search engines.

The Chinese government has been certainly quite smart to block Google, Facebook, and YouTube. Quora and Reddit as of August of 2018 entered that category too. Yes, I suggested that Russia doesn’t have its own YouTube (as far as I know) much because Putin et al are not hardline enough to simply shut out those US internet media sites.

Continue reading “Screenshot from my new Huawei phone”

Role models for Chinese who grow up in America

Now that I am older with some time out of that shitty American education system, I can better appreciate how racist and emotionally destructive it is at its core for Chinese. Of course, I sort of knew all along that the “Asian” portrayals and stereotypes within the US school system and media bears little resemblance to the real one based in China. I mostly did what I could to ignore that and learn the real Chinese culture instead. For that, much thanks to Baidu and CCTV.

Continue reading “Role models for Chinese who grow up in America”



I was born in Taiwan in a WSR family and grew up in the West. Growing up, I finally realized that whites intend to do genocide on East Asians and KMT are collaborators in that agenda. Including my own parents — they are traitors and collaborators too.

After finishing my last degree, due to total disgust with the West and my traitor family, I reverse emigrated and worked in mainland China. It’s been 10 years now. The agenda to do genocide against East Asians (starting with Chinese) is very much alive. KMT is a part of the agenda. DPP is part of the agenda. The only people fighting against the agenda are the leftist CPP! Not even the pro-reform rightist faction of CPP. They are a part of the problem.

For us, the leader against Western imperialism is Chairman Mao!

Today, we have Chairman Xi, who is doing a pretty good job too. The struggle is real and it is literally a life-or-death struggle for the East Asian race versus the Anglo race. To defend ourselves, we are willing to nuke anybody who gets in our way!



读完学位以后,出于对西方和我叛变家庭的彻底厌恶,我返移民了,并且在中国大陆工作了。十年已过。 对东亚人(从中国人开始)进行种族灭绝的意图依然活活存在。国民党属于它。民进党也属于它。与此斗争的唯有中国共产党左翼!连中国共产党的改革右派都不算,他们是问题的一部分。



Continue reading “为什么我认为盎格鲁锡安集团有对东亚人和东欧人进行种族清洗的别有用心”

苏联的伟大,中共文明继承 (величие советского союза, китайская коммунистическая культура наследует) перевод китайской поэмы



Continue reading “苏联的伟大,中共文明继承 (величие советского союза, китайская коммунистическая культура наследует) перевод китайской поэмы”

Gangnam Style

I have a smattering of thoughts I want to express here, and cannot think of a more suitable title. I guess the general theme is the cultural divide from the Cold War. I use Gangnam Style as the title since it is a representative, and also it’s occurred to me that it’s better for attracting attention/marketing. It is or at least was the most viewed video on YouTube after all.

Why am I suddenly reminded of Gangnam Style? Well, yesterday somebody spoke of that Crazy Rich Asians movie that just came out, that’s in a couple weeks time gotten $86.6 million box office already, almost thrice the $30 million budget. After searching online, I learned it’s based off a novel of the same name by a Singaporean-American of Chinese descent from, predictably, quite a prominent family in Singapore. I had already learned of it, as it has been everywhere online for a few weeks, though I didn’t pay much attention to it. I was quickly reminded of an anecdote involving Gangnam Style, which is also Asian. As for the name, Gangnam is this important, wealthy district in Seoul, or something like that. It is Korean for 江南 (jiangnan), which means south of the river, I believe.

What is the anecdote? My smart as fuck Russian friend in math raised in America who identifies strongly with the Soviet era has a younger brother nowhere near as smart as him who plays video games all day. On the car, he would keep singing Gangnam Style. My friend got so annoyed with that he said,

From now on, sing that again, and I’m going to sing back No Motherland Without You, Comrade Kim Jong-il.

I have listened to Gangnam Style by the way, and my reaction was like, “how the fuck did this trashy culture-less music video in Korean become number one on YouTube? What the fuck is going on with the taste of the current generation?” I guess it’s also impressive, that South Korea can produce a video music this viral, in their own language. Korean drama is also a big thing. Samsung and Hyundai too. Koreans (in the South) are both technically and culturally innovative.

Reminds me of my unusual ABC (actually born in America) friend who’s sympathetic to the North. He said some things about them which surprised me. Now, most Chinese in my parents’ generation I’ve encountered were from relatively humble backgrounds, often first in their family to attend college. He’s an exception though. He told me that his father’s family used to own a four story building in Tianjin that he’s visited. During the war, it became Japanese barracks. After the Japanese left, they got it back, but four years later, they ended up sharing it with a bunch of poor people. He told me his grandpa was about to go study in Britain, but the Japanese invasion disrupted that plan. His mother’s dad were also highly educated in STEM, and occupied a relatively high up position there. Ironically though, he really surprised me by saying a bunch of stuff in Chinese in the likes of what you hear from people during the Mao era or nostalgic for it, like how back then people didn’t need to buy a home, because the state provided one. I concluded that he, who has spent his entire life in America, must have learned all that from his parents.

As for North Korea, I told him about how some Korean was telling me about how there’s this map of lighting of world, in which South Korea is super bright while the North is almost completely dark, which exception of a glimmer from Pyongyang, which just goes to show the sheer economic disparity in level of development. His response was,

Or maybe because while the South Koreans are being worked to death, the North Koreans are sleeping.

Inside Facebook office, there’s an analogous display.


In this one, China is also entirely in totalitarian darkness. 😉

On DPRK, that guy was also like,

In a situation of war, the South Korean soldiers are not going to fight to the death to preserve the interests of their capitalist masters.

I spoke of how American and South Korean media talks about how the North’s army is extremely weak and ill-equipped now. Like their pilots don’t even have enough fuel to do sufficient training. On that he was like,

That’s not how the American and South Korean armies staging military exercises think.

I was like “lol okay.”

A few days ago, I finally learned of Erich Honecker and his wife Margot Honecker, who were the General Secretary and Minister of Education of East Germany respectively. They both pretty much got screwed after reunification. Erich escaped a criminal trial out of poor health to reunite with his wife in South America, who had sought asylum in Chile through the Chilean Embassy in Moscow. Margot died in 2016 and defended the GDR till her death. I had known before of the predecessor of Honecker, Walter Ulbricht, but not that he also had training Moscow from the 20s on as part of the German Communist Party. Not a surprise though, after the war, the Soviets pretty much planted those types in positions of power in East Germany. The system they established certainly had some political influence, they trained communists from all over the world, setting up schools just for that. The Comintern was certainly quite an effective political organization. Many of the old Chinese revolutionaries had that background too. I also learned of Egon Krenz, a top East German politician who actually travelled to China in 89 to thank Deng Xiaoping on behalf of the regime for using force to suppress the student protests, who subsequently published some books sympathetic to the GDR.

I’ve read before that there is quite a bit of East German nostalgia, with the so-called Ossis still being culturally different, of course, I’m not qualified to judge. In any case, it’s probably safe to assume that the stuff we hear in English about East German and the Stasi should be taken with a grain of salt. Victor’s justice after all, those part of the Stasi (an equivalent of Department of Homeland Security really), along with just about everyone high up in the East German regime, were politically disgraced after reunification.

More generally, I can sense how the political outlooks and ways of doing things still vary widely, and the legacy much persists today. The political rhetoric employed is markedly different, needless to say. Also, how those former socialist countries do those military parades, which would be naturally viewed in American mindset as distasteful and totalitarian, the style of dictatorship. Many from former those states also think that, especially ones who emigrated to the “free world,” also eventually grow to think that. They’ll say stuff like “waste of money.” An uncool way to “show how good we are.” I once said С днем победы to a Russian friend raised in America and he was like,

It’s stupid to celebrate the deaths of so many people.

My response was

So you’re saying that it’s basically, “we beat the Nazis, we saved Europe, we saved the world, we’re the best!”

And he was like, “pretty much.”

In the American political narrative, that stuff is almost always portrayed as people taking part in that not because they want to but because they have no choice under a totalitarian regime. An easy way to be dismissive of course. Expectedly, I find this perspective rather problematic. I’ve heard enough times the likes of “I like China, just not the Chinese government,” and “Remember that the Chinese people and the Chinese government are not the same thing.” The reality is that a government of a country is made up of a subset of its people, with the percentage depending on degree of government affiliation, not to mention that a government is necessarily influenced by its people, so it’s entirely unrealistic to speak of a government and its people as entirely separate.

I’ve also seen some liberal Russians here poke fun at Iosif Kobzon. They’ll say,

Oh, everybody hates Kobzon.


He’s ridiculous. Super pro-government. And he’s not even Russian you know, he’s actually Jewish. He’s ridiculous.

When the government routinely organizes those concerts where they sing those songs about the Red Army and crowds clap along, those guys find it either ridiculous or revolting. The thing is that the system gradually normalized that kind of activity to the point where people in that environment don’t find it strange and even enjoy it.

I do wonder how much of one’s preference on this spectrum is heritable versus shaped through experience. Necessarily, experiences shape one’s tastes and views but it is genes which largely determine how people respond to experiences more or less imposed on them as well as which ones they actively see out.


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。





















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。)


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.