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

对于知乎上的如何看待一美国华裔发帖称父母若为孩子着想就别轻易移民美国之问,我写了一下之回

他说的很对,我跟他背景同样,六岁去了美国,也是凭自己的政治觉悟和语言天赋,以中文互联网为主要工具,把中文达到了与中国人没啥差别的水平。我比ArmorUSA还小一些,看来失去了当真正先驱的机会了,可依然独立得到了同样的判断,看看我的博客gmachine1729.com就能看到了,已经写了一年多,而ArmorUSA昨天才得知。我将来也要回来,已经开始联系中国公司了,为此欢迎从此回答读者得到联系和援助。我是做计算机的,但是回国我并不一定非要做它,或许更愿意从事一些文化政治宣传方面的工作,利用我的特殊才华加背景向更正确的方向启发中国人,这么做可以比作一位软件开发员有远远更大的影响力。而且我相信星星之火可以燎原!

有一位的评论

要想回国搞文化政治宣传,光是学好汉语了解中国传统文化跟得上当代流行文化是不够的。还需要懂中国共产党,包括它的较深入的历史,组织和运作方式,执政理念,世界观历史观等等。光有对自身族群–华人的自豪感是不够的,还要有对中共的衷心认可。

很多爱中国的华人因为对中共的理解和认同不够,回归中国后也走不远。希望你能重视。

不要通过西方的材料来理解中共,要看中共自己写的东西。建议先读中国的中学政治和历史教科书,毕竟这是中国青少年的共同受教育背景。而且不仅要读现在的,还要读与你同年龄的人上学时的版本。

中国共产党是高于中华人民共和国的,其抱负也绝不限于民族主义。中国普通民众对ABC的接纳程度未必比得上中共。中共未来的统战世界大有可为,ABC有可能发挥特殊的作用,你或许真有用武之地。

使我有点惊奇,引起了目前稍微悲观迷茫的我对于我未来之潜力的加以不少新启发的思索。这个人,一位据说在美国留过学但已回国工作的人,竟然鼓励我跟随中国共产党,利用我的ABC但未香蕉化而可忠于祖国,忠于人民,忠于党的背景为未来中共统战世界起特殊作用,我倒从来没像他想的那么远,那么大。

看了他的一下回答,好多与地缘政治有关,有一个给我留下了例外深刻的印象,直到启发我对此进行翻译,而这次非到英文,而是到俄文。他这回答以红色革命主义诗的形势,这种英文读起来总是怪怪的,英文可以说是,用中共的话,最反动的语言。而中文之外最有红色传统和浓厚文化积累的语言毫无疑问是俄文,而正好俄文我自学到了能在网上大概看懂的地步。

这个人我本来以为是个老党员,但也觉得难以思议,这是知乎。主要是感觉现在中国年轻人公开宣扬共产主义的也是少见的了,或许不然。翻译如下:

苏联的伟大千年难遇。
Величие советского союза редкий в тысячелетиях
如超新星爆发,短促壮丽,孕育新生。
как взрыв сверхновой, мимолетное великолепие, изобилует потомством
可比西方历史上的马其顿帝国。
сравним с македонской империей в западной истории
可比东方历史上的秦帝国。
сравним с Империей Цинь в восточной истории
共产革命,击毙纳粹,计划经济,中国工业化原始积累,这是四大苏联伟业。
коммунистическая революция, расстрел нацистов, плановая экономика, первоначальное накопление китайской индустриализации, эти четыре великие советские подвиги
就如马其顿带来的希腊化和东西方交流,或如秦朝带来的大一统观念,将深远地影响人类千年。
как Эллинизация и взаимодействие между Востоком и Западом из Македонии о как концепция великого единства династии Цинь, будет вечно влиять на человечество на протяжении тысячелетий
苏联亡了。
Советский Союз мертв
自以为是的冷战胜利者狂欢二十年而已。
самоуверенный победитель холодной войны радуется двадцать лет не больше
现在苏联播下的星火已经燎原。
теперь искра Советского Союза распространилась на степной пожар
资本主义的癌症,地球的蛊王—中共文明正在冉冉升起。
рак капитализма, император земли – китайская коммунистическая культура постепенно поднимается
正如马其顿后的罗马,正如大秦后的大汉。
как Рим после Македонии, как Великий Хань после Великого Цинь

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!

On questioning authority

A couple years ago, my friend who won high honors at the Intel Science Talent Search told me that he was talking this guy who created some app that allows you to schedule a Uber ride for later, who was also at/near the top of the same science competition, who is extraordinarily versatile and prolific. I watched a little of a video of a TED talk he gave, wherein he explained what one can learn from ancient Hebraic texts. Overall, I wasn’t terribly terribly impressed by it, though it was quite eloquently delivered. Mostly because with those types of things, one is too free to interpret and thus, the lessons/messages given were overly generic so as to make them almost meaningless, one of which was how the Bible teaches the importance of questioning authority, with reference to the refusal to bow to the golden image of King Nebuchadnezzar by Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego as an exemplary.

Here, Joshua like many from the same cultural root portrays questioning authority as a pillar of the Jewish moral and intellectual spirit. I would say that this has already gotten to the point of cliche. There is also, again, that people have different ideas of what it means to question authority.

First of all, what is an authority? An authority can manifest itself in many forms. It can be a political authority. It can be a government, especially a “dictatorship,” as much as I hate the usage of that word. It can be a boss at work. It can be a distinguished professor. It can be an adult when you’re a child. It can be an official or not moral, religious, or political code/ideology, or commonly accepted versions of history and its verdicts, by which I mean judgments of history as opposed to hard facts more or less incontrovertible, such as what exactly happened on X day with documentation abound. It can be the tradition we are all taught to abide by growing up with little question of their rationale and relevance, especially as times pass and change.

A corollary of my last paragraph is that to talk about questioning authority alone is almost utterly meaningless. You absolutely need some context, and Joshua did provide some. In the specific example of his I regurgitated, it is standing up against a dictator, and I’ll elaborate my thoughts on that.

Growing up in America, in my social studies classes and in the media, the mantra of dictatorship vs democracy with the latter morally superior and in many cases with its defense by virtually any means justified was heard again and again that it has itself become an authority taboo to challenge by our political norms. First of all, I want to clarify that here by democracy I am referring to a political system where elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body. There is another form of more general democracy where the government does what is, or is at least perceived as, in the best interest of the entire nation or populace. What American political culture fails to discuss sufficiently is the vital matter of to what extent the former democracy implies the latter one, with the latter’s being, hopefully, the end goal.

In contrast, dictatorships are portrayed as one lone, usually brutal dictator having absolute power, being able to order virtually anything, and thus, leading often to genocidal regimes with mass murderers such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. This image may be tempting to many but it is in reality rather ridiculous. Yes, a dictator has enormous power and stays at the top often for decades, in contrast to the four year term system in America, which is very frowned upon in our culture, but surely, a dictator is not politically omnipotent. He has plenty of people underneath that he needs to satisfy, and though he may have a cult of personality within the propaganda, people are basically free to ignore him and go about their own business. He is also a human too, just like you, with very human interests, though sure, he may be a psychopath of some sort. There is also a vital point that almost always for a dictator to come to power, he must have a high degree of support from a large number of people, and thus, dictators in practice have little incentive to work against people’s interests, with getting people to like him being largely in his interest. Ironically, dictatorships can be very good at motivating people to achieve great things and providing certain continuity and long-term perspective difficult within a system where the people can easily choose to elect a new leader. In fact, if I have someone pressuring or forcing me when I don’t want to to do what is good for me (like waking up early on a weekend) and good for the society at large (like not being a parasite), I consider that to be a very positive thing. On this note, talking with someone in China recently, that guy was like: China now has 10 year terms for leaders, and maybe it should be gotten rid of, because it’s too little time for a leader to do anything serious, as he would have to pass the torch before he can be finished. Maybe Xi Jinping should try to extend his presidency past his 10 year term. Even in America, during WWII, Roosevelt was president for 16 years.

I personally love reading and watching controversial and sensitive material that most people dare not to. I’ve read plenty of material in Chinese banned in the mainland (but of course, still easily obtainable there if one really wants), most memorable of which was the very well-written, of high literary quality, autobiography by 巫宁坤 (Wu Ningkun). I’ve watched an anti-Semitic Nazi movie and also a North Korean movie out of sheer curiosity of certain places so smeared by our media. I also think that Soviet music is some of the most beautiful music out there. I have also, not surprisingly, watched some PRC (propaganda) movies from the 50s and 60s, which I felt were very well-made. The scariest and most grotesque movie I watched was one on the WWII Japanese human experimentation camp, Unit 731. A few weeks ago, I also had the pleasure of watching Saving Private Ryan, which I also much enjoyed, though surely it’s, as a Hollywood movie, more or less well-accepted here on our soil, unlike some of the previous ones, for which many would think I’m crazy, which I’m obviously not, for watching. I would say that this is out of a combination of my political intellectual curiosity and a distaste for certain oppressive, intolerant mainstream views and norms in America. Shaped by these explorations, I am of the belief that people should be more tolerant of differences and more politically and culturally open-minded. Be emotionally insensitive and let others be who they are. Also, be reasonable, precise, and stick to the facts. This is a concrete and substantive characterization of how throughout my life, I have challenged and questioned authority in the political intellectual domain.

Joshua is obviously promoting his own Jewish culture in that TED talk. On this, I’ve come to note that Jews in America are for the most part entirely unashamed, if not eager, to display and extol their culture. This is in contrast to Chinese who grow up here, many of whom try to distance themselves from their roots. Well, I guess there are self-hating Jews (like Bobby Fischer, who I feel I can understand much more now, with where he’s coming from) as well, but overall, they seem far less conspicuous. I believe the latter is out of a combination of their lack of self-confidence, the gross bastardization of Chinese culture in America, and the difficulty of learning the Chinese language in an American environment even when parents speak it at home, especially the written aspect.

There is the cliche saying that Chinese people in general, due to certain elements deep-rooted in Chinese culture, are very deferential to authority, which stifles creativity and innovation. I’ve surely thought about this and my views have evolved over time the more I’ve learned and seen. It is obviously too simplistic a notion presented by those of meager and often incorrect understanding. I do believe that Confucianism had and still has a strong element of the phenomenon described, but so did Christianity, just of a very different character.

Personally, I have to say that the more I learn, the more impressed I am with the fearless and pure spirit Chinese people have displayed in questioning and challenging authority, especially in the 20th century. I have written here before that I believe China has the richest revolutionary history of the 20th century of any nation or culture, with that of course much owing to the circumstances. China in the 20th century, being in deep trouble, had a dire need for revolutionaries, martyrs, and heroes. With this, the Chinese led by the communists essentially created a new Chinese culture on top of the traditional Chinese culture that had Confucianism as the guiding ideology. There is now a rich tradition and culture of Chinese communism, especially in military and social science, that has become holy in some sense, as is Jerusalem, which became so also out of certain formational historical events, that is very revolutionary in its essential spirit. However, the Chinese being materialists view all this as a force of nature rather than a force of God, a key contrast to holiness in the Abrahamic religions.

Another essential difference is that while Jews have more or less based themselves upon the Western system, having taken great advantage for themselves of the Western imperialism that came out of the discovery of modern science in the West, which they are also in service to politically, with reliance on it, the Chinese have more or less created an independent system from the West without kowtowing to pressures to conform, which has proven to be a correct decision, one that took much political courage and belief in oneself. The foundation for modern China was built largely in the 50s and 60s with little direct exchange with the West, if one excludes the Soviet Union from that, and in certain cases direct confrontation, with the freeze in relations owing to that in the Korean War, the Chinese challenged the Western authority successfully in a military setting in a way unimaginably shocking. It is only now very much in hindsight that while that inability to trade with the West for a few decades very much delayed China’s economic growth in certain respects, it brought about the creation of a very distinctive political culture and system deeply embedded that remains distanced from the mainstream in spite of reform and opening up, of a nature that may well be an advantage for China in the long term if not already. In this respect, Chinese culture has produced a feat and tradition of questioning authority that will forever live in our historical memory.

Another that I have noticed is the upright dedication to truth exhibited at large by Chinese scholars in the often corrupt and political social sciences that become authoritative, relative to those in the West. It is a reflection of good judgment of the Chinese people on who to promote in that arena. It does have much to do that China has in modern times been humbled by and learned so much from the West, the source of the most unprecedentedly radical and explosive growth in human history, but I also dare say that it is an indicator of very high moral character of Chinese civilization. In Chinese intellectual and media circles, bullshitting and falsifying history for political motives seems much more frowned upon. I believe that in this respect, history will eventually look at what the West led by America, that is heavily influenced by Jews in the social sciences, has done with utter disgrace, with various facades unlikely to continue indefinitely.

Speaking of truth, in terms of scientific truth, Chinese civilization has, however, contributed very little in comparison, though surely, Chinese produced a good number of revolutionary scientific breakthroughs in the 20th century, especially later in it. I find it somewhat odd how it is seldom said directly in the West that modern science is a product almost entirely of Western civilization with Greek roots and later Islamic preservation and expansion. Because scientific achievement requires so much in the way of the quality that is the subject matter of this article, surely the Confucianism based Chinese civilization has experienced a dearth of it of a nature that was only learned from the West later on. Now, Chinese are indeed quite relieved and also proud that in STEM, they have been increasingly successful and are now on the verge of reaching a world leading position, with much more to contribute to the world.

I’ll conclude with the following message. If Jews value questioning authority so much, they should let their authorities in media in America be freely and openly challenged. They should let their majority representation among Ivy League presidents and senior administrators be questioned too. In anything that is not terribly meritocratic and more connections and reputation based, their gross overrepresentation often well over 30%, so long as is objectively there, ought to be seriously questioned.

 

 

My awesome roommate

I recently met this cool guy because we live in the same place. Though he’s not that nerdy (by that, I mean super mathy), we still share many common interests. For instance, he expressed interest when I told him a bit about 艾思奇(Ai Siqi). Additionally, he told me about his appreciation for André Weil and Simone Weil, particularly her mysticism, which I found quite pleasing as I was reading about them not long ago. He also told me about this guy who is trying to understand Mochizuki’s “proof” of the abc conjecture despite being not long out of undergrad, who has plenty of other quirks and eccentric behaviors. Like, that guy joined some Marxist collective, and goes on drunken rants at 3 am, and is in general “aspie af,” something that he described me as too when messaging that guy himself. There is also: “he would literally kill himself if he had to do a tech job.” (laughter) That guy’s dad happens to be a (tenured) math professor from mainland China, more evidence that madness runs in families.

The guy that is the topic of this post himself did up to high school, as far as I know, in Hong Kong, so we have some more in common than usual culturally I guess. He was just telling me about how he had read 矛盾论, which I haven’t even read, at least not in detail, myself. He was saying, on the putative connection between scientific talent and Marxism, perhaps how dialectical materialism is inherently a very scientific way of thinking. I myself know basically nothing about dialectical materialism and even think it’s kind of high verbal low math bullshit, but I can tell that the materialist side of it is very scientific in its very nature, and similarly, dialectics is a very analogies/relationships way of thinking, which is something that high IQ people are by definition good at. Surely, there is much more I can learn from this guy, especially about Chinese language and culture and politics.

On this, I am reminded of another amateur (but professional, or better, level for sure) Marxist scholar, who is genuinely encyclopedic in his historical and cultural knowledge, in particularly a perceptive quote of him that made a deep impression on me:

Europe has always been in rebellion against itself, and continues to be so.  There was nothing but futility in the attempt by superficially Westernised Chinese to be authentically Westernised Chinese by being imitative and reverential of the current embodiment of those values.  You could only be an authentically Westernised Chinese by being a rebel against the current embodiments of Western values, at least in as far as they hampered China or seemed to be irrelevant.  And that’s why Mao was China’s best Westerniser to date, despite his very limited experience of the mundanities of Western life.

As I’ll detail in a future article, visitors to the Chinese Communist bases at Bao’an and later Yen’an noticed that these were the only Chinese in China who behaved more or less as Westerners would have behaved in a similar situation.  Other Chinese might speak good English, wear Western suits and sometimes show considerable knowledge of Western culture: but it was all imitation and the inner core was different and ineffective.  Western-trained engineers and geologists who returned to China kept their distance from hands-on practical work, because anything resembling manual labour would have lost them status in the eyes of Chinese intellectuals.  They were imprisoned by a tradition stretching back to Confucius and beyond.  Only a few broke these ancient taboos, mostly the Communists and some scattered left-wingers in the weak middle ground.  And it was the modernised Chinese in the Communist Party who chose to raise up Mao as the prime teacher of this new understanding.

I remember when my obsessively talented Russian friend once said to me that sometimes he feels like he’s another Pavel Korchagin, I thought he was ridiculous. Well, I’ll be equally ridiculous and say that I feel like I very much exhibit what Gwydion described in Mao that is “authentically Westernized Chinese,” which is very much the antithesis of what I see in most ABCs, despite being half an ABC myself.

If only more people could be like me…

艾思奇与中庸之道

昨天,我对艾思奇这个人有所探索,稍读了读他的哲学著作,其中有《中庸之道的分析》和《意志自由问题》。先想想艾思奇这个人我是如何得知的。好像是通过读谷超豪的中文维基百科页,其提到谷超豪中学时就组织读马列主义的学生读书会,而艾思奇就是他们所读的作者之一。我可能是稍微搜了搜关于艾思奇的资料,可未对其有任意甚查。谷超豪这种天才级别科学家曾有过对马列主义发生兴趣我想绝对不是偶然的,因为据我所知,马列主义是吸引过太多科学家,数学家,此对马列主义为更先进的社会科学有所隐式。Ron Maimon甚至对我说过科学与马克思主义文化上是本质上不可脱离的,甚至是唇齿相依的。我可以想到一位出了三位大数学教授的兄弟之家庭,父亲竟然是美国共产党在30年至45年的主席,厄尔·白劳德,还可以想到Steve SmaleNeal Koblitz,而这些都是美国人,中国人就更不用说了。

如果将鲁迅为中国革命最代表性文人,那同样可以将艾思奇为中国革命最代表性哲人,他的思想深深影响了一代革命家并且进入了实践,将革命引导以正确的方向。尽管目前自己对思奇同志了解还不多,但至少可以对我已阅过的他所写的《中庸之道的分析》某些内容表达一些我的看法。先说我最中庸之道只有很粗略的了解,对源之之孔子之作也未读过,即使读过它也早已从记忆而消失。我在我博客上早一篇谈到我对儒家没有太正面的看法,觉的他过于保守,扼杀了中华民族的创造力,使得在近代科学已在西方文明萌芽以及突飞猛进时,中国还埋没在落后无知的封建社会,无法脱离跨越儒家对中国社会诸多的恶性制约,直到中国被西方欺负蹂躏到山穷水尽的地步,形势才有所转变。以希腊哲学为基础的西方哲学具有非常之深的理论科学基础所在,而以孔孟之道为基础的东方哲学毫无科学眼光或精神,竞谈一些作人治国这种在我们做高智商的学科的人眼里没有什么实质的话题,可以说它从某种角度而言类似于美国商业文化的那套扯淡,只不过以完全不同的形势和观点。中国人这么聪明选了孔孟之道为社会的指导方针可以说是一种遗憾,幸好对此对过时的地方近代的中国是有所摆脱,已打碎了它大多的绊脚石。我最后想说我觉不是对儒家全盘否定,他有他好的一面,这我就不在这儿谈了。

在此文章,艾思奇主张中庸之道是绝对不利于革命的,是反动的。这一点我觉得毫无解释,中庸温和是无法创造任何奇迹,无法使得中国脱离当时的悲惨处境,也无法让中国在极其落后在内对外形势非常不利的情况下得以最紧要的现代化,其实做出任何不得了的颠覆性的事情都需要特别极端的作为,有这种基因潜力的华人其实不少,但是传统中国文化无法充分的激发它,甚至对它有束缚,某些观念是对跨越式的作为强烈反对的。艾思奇在其文章将甘地的消极抵抗主义化为一种中庸之道式的无效之表,这一点绝对没错。我的极有才华的就读超弦论博士的印度朋友曾经跟我说过他希望印度是有了中国式的暴力革命,而非以非暴力,相对和平的方式使得英国人懒得坚持而离开而解殖谋取(名义上的)独立,原因是这种获取独立的方式未能消除印度诸多好多与殖民直接相连的根深蒂固的痼疾,所以之后虽然印度外表独立可是实质非其也,殖民心态依然保持为坚。西方列强之所有能够跨越大海,掠夺奴役殖民,明显由于他们所发展出的枪炮,这跟毛主席所说的”枪杆里出政权“是一致的,从而不承认强军为胜者都是在犯严重的道德主义谬误。

崇洋媚外也可以被视为一种中庸之道的行为。西方国家和白种人具有的综合性的先进以及先驱地位使得他们的一切被看我默认的权威,这包括他们的政治制度,甚至他们的宗教信仰,而挑战疑问权威本质上就是一种反中庸之道的作为。中庸之道之者不敢做的太离经叛道,或表太不符合广泛被接受而非政治正确之言,难以从自己所在的环境以及教育所潜移默化对此施加的”正确观点“之樊篱得以思想心灵解放。中庸之道之患者难以超越时代超越权威。西方媒体经常说中国缺乏创造性,而中国所开创并坚持的独特的不受过多西方主流影响的经济及政治制度在它一直保持成功蓬勃发展甚至超越的情况下客观上就是伟大的颠覆性的创新,这一点表示在中国共产党领导下的中国已经相当成功的混合了中国传统文化和其所发展积累的新文化,抛弃了中庸之道将不利产生弊病及故障的许多,这是不得了的成就!

还想到近几年,在美国开始生成组织强烈反抗美国名校对亚裔学生的歧视,及不透明的,偏向富贵子弟的而忽略贫困孩子的组织,其显著之一就是赵宇空所领导的美国亚裔教育联盟。此之外,赵宇空不仅是非常成功的大公司经理及领导,还是一位作家,撰写了《华人成功的秘诀》这本书,在此讲说儒家文化传统的优点以及其对华人所带来的好处,有立志,勤学,节俭,顾家,择友为列。没有想到鉴于中庸之道为儒家文化要点之一,在我前段所表示的观点的背景下,却得到矛盾了!(当然,这绝对不是数理逻辑严谨标准的矛盾,体现到哲学是多么主观,多么复杂,多么多元化。)

总而言之,读艾思奇的《中庸之道的分析》给了我丰富的反思从而引发了我又一篇具有(我希望)正确引导思想的文章。盼望有机会多读艾思奇的著作,从而激起更多有深意价值的新思想,新启发!

主义

昨天在网上碰到了一个有趣的视频,标题为“My Life, My China – I am a Communist Party member 被打上标签的人”。此内容我就不在这里谈了,读者可以自己看此十分钟以下的视频。里面人所表达的想法和个人经历给我留下了深刻的感受,也在我心目中启发了一定的反思。

我有想过基本问题,那就是人的动力主要出于什么?人是为什么而活?反过来,悲观者也可以说,人是如何最佳承受,至少在唯物主义角度不为己而选的入世以及其所产生的生理意识,以及大自然社会所迫使他的挑战和困难。在这种情况下自然有某某主义的产生为推动人在世界上的奋斗和挣扎,结成人类的组织。主义是多元化的,从宗教主义,到民族主义,到资本主义,到共产主义,永远列不完。

人的精神状态是多动可变的,人可有心灵奔放的兴奋和喜悦,也可有无比痛苦的悲伤和忧郁,人可有坚定不移的动力和勇气,也可有盲目纠结的迟钝和畏惧。相对的高潮和低谷会降临在所有人,所有团体,所有国家,由不同经历发生所促成,也长会直接或隐式的导致在前无可预料的新进展,新眼光。

基本所有人都面临过动力的问题。我本人也有过对曾经至少稍微痴迷过的活动或学科发起厌倦,甚至感到无可忍受,要不是这样就是一种枯燥无味之感,令人精神麻木。在这一点,我认为紧要的是要学会脱离无聊弱智低级趣味的人和环境,因为这只会对一个优良的人和品德进行腐蚀性的感染,使其失去他的卓越精神和纯粹心灵。

不用说,金钱是某些必要物质条件的来源,可是我认为仅以金钱吸引推动人是会有遭遇性的。着这一点看看美国大公司的好多高官就足够了,那些人纯粹是爬社会梯子的官僚,真心在乎的不是领导公司,创造财富,而是介公司的名义是势力为他们自己谋取权利金钱和社会威望。说白了,现在清醒的人民都恨死他们了,因为他们甚至是在使得美国国家和社会土崩瓦解,这些年来,人互相之间的诚信只是降得越来越低,因为大家更加看到公司人越到高层越是结党营私图一己之利,其远远胜于公司的长期利益和前途,现在公司和员工之间的忠诚早已成了笑话了,这是一件很不幸的事情。

看到越多,读到越多,我越来越感到最能激发人的动力和创造力以及极端行为是主义。是主义最能让一个团队,一个民族团结起来万众一心无私奉献将个人得失置之度外的追求同一个目标,它可以激发人创造人间奇迹,也可以促动无情的侵略和战争和野蛮的奸淫和屠杀,让人死都不怕。我在一篇文章中曾经看到

毛泽东时代的另一大特色,是全体中国人民具有很强的凝聚力,这是中国成为现代化强国必不可少的条件。人们看看那些近代发展最快的国家如日本、德国和苏联。德国和日本由于统治集团大肆宣传本民族优越论,客观上造成德意志、大和民族具有很强的凝聚力。苏联是用共产主义理想凝聚人心,也使其各民族具有高昂的战斗力。

而我认为这种观点是完全正确的,认为这显然处于人的本性。在今天美国的多民族自由主义政治正确文化和教育,这种观点是会得以强烈排斥的,甚至此坚信者会被非人化,但这我并不太在意,因为在我眼中,这些都是出于在此教育文化环境对人内心塑造的过于情绪化而非理性出发的反应和某些荒谬的默认观点。

我一直对西方民主制度,尤其是美国所提倡的,产生怀疑,现在是更加相信这条路是冲着悲剧走的。美国所提倡的“民主”是虚伪,他过于强调大多数人在非常有限的经济条件下的“自由选择”,而非注重整个社会提升其素质和水平,过于缺乏纪律的强调,将权利掌握在水平太低的人手里,而且由于给私人太多权利缺乏强大的组织好以有快速有效的执行能力,山头林立,矛盾无解,视野短浅,停滞不前。

不少知识分子有提到人类文明现所处在的下降趋势,其要点之一为人类智商和基因的退化,随着现代医疗和相对容易的生活环境使得太多具有严重身体或智力障碍的往时无法继生的人不仅长成,而且还大量将自己的种子传承到下一代。我个人也认为人的能力实在是太有限了,而且现在的人水平实在太差,虽然人类积累了远远更深的往时无可想象的知识和科技,但是人固有的能力很可能是比以前差了,尤其在非精英层次。我个人经常看到水平一般或差的人会内心想:哎呀,大多人真是那么无趣无味,难道找到一个我愿意或能跟着深度相处的人真的那么难吗?同时,虽然我自己还算不错,但是也有很多对自己不满的地方,承认自己不是任何超人。我欲智力无穷,高飞云满天,但是我不能啊。这自然就把我引导接下的一条思路,那就是如何提高人的水平,可以用训练的方式,可是材料太差是炼不成钢的,即使练成了也是低质量的钢。那就得找到好的材料,把所有的,各方面的,从智力到身材到品德到战斗勇气,好的基因给挖掘出来,只有这样才能促进人类跨越进步。就像我们今天好多视为寻常的科技会令前人震惊,我们也可以将今天的天才化为未来的等闲。

回到此文之标题,是什么主义将人类将世界带到下一个层次,带到崭新的阶段?我猜测肯定会是敢于挑战操纵提升智人基因的主义,只有它能够将限制困扰我们的缺陷和微弱消除掉,开创人类历史新篇章!
 

四海翻腾云水怒,五洲震荡风雷激

昨天,我的俄罗斯(或取苏联代之)товарищ,那位本科认识,才华超众,现已明格罗滕迪克(Grothendieck)的工作的,脸书上发给我一张图片:ChinaWonTime

后在得知此来自Time Magazine的刚发布的一篇文章,想这是Time Magazine啊,美国很有威望的畅销杂志。在那儿,闻到中国竟然已在非洲东北岸的吉布提(Djibouti)建立了头一个海外的军事基地。但对我印象最深的文章最后段,为:

The China striding into that spotlight is not guaranteed to win the future. In this fragmenting world, no one government will have the international influence required to continue to set the political and economic rules that govern the global system. But if you had to bet on one country that is best positioned today to extend its influence with partners and rivals alike, you wouldn’t be wise to back the U.S. The smart money would probably be on China.

这是美国,对,美国(!!!)的主流媒体,竟然会这么说,令我吃惊,因为不用说,我么都习惯了美国媒体带有政治偏见的那一套的同时说中国怎么怎么不行,问题障碍如此之严重。看来真的,中国成为世界绝对一把手,在2017年末的这一天,不仅非遥远无可想象,而是所料当中了。同时,在历史一直低估怀疑中华人民共和国的情况下,还真能想象到续几十年,遥遥领先,使外界望尘莫及。我也有想过中国人过去在物质条件极其劣势,外来的歧视极其恶略的情形之下,都有了不少成就,有些让外眼彻底震惊,有了充分的财力支撑能够多么可怕。中国人天分很高,又有数量,又是在内分歧相对少的一个民族,一个文化,领导人又不是傻子,可建立多么效率超高,思想丰富,创新异彩的社会和国家啊!中国用胚胎筛选和基因工程把人类进化到新的,高于人的物种都是有可能的,在这一点,中国文化的态度比较进步,与被过时的某些关于纳粹主义的观念的遗产以及愚昧的基督教基要主义所障碍的西方相比,加上具有庞大的基因组学设施,华大基因(BGI)为首,和这种大科学系统工程所需要的充分的经费和组织力量。

这些使得我回想到我近几年学到的一首给我留下深刻的印象的一首诗的一句,为此博客文章的主题。“四海翻腾云水怒,五洲震荡风雷激”,这是多么激情豪迈,万能无阻的诗句形象啊!而这不就是当日的中国与世界吗?此诗《满江红·和郭沫若同志》创于1963年一月,那时中印战争刚结束,中国已在国际形势对其非常不利的情况下走出三年困难时期,毛主席号召中国和全世界革命进步人民“扫除一切害人虫”,奋勇前进,创造人类新纪元。可是这只取得了最多一半的成功。相反,今天,继承走向人类逃出剥削精神麻木的伟大事业的中国,与往年贫穷落后隔离不同,通过几十年的发展和积累,随着不断地开放,已经具有浓厚的经济资源和先进的科技经验,纵横全球,力量无穷。还想起,诗的上段,”蚂蚁缘槐夸大国,蚍蜉撼树谈何易“,不是用以讽刺性的藐视当时被干脆收拾的自作聪明,不自量力的印度和他的支持者吗?同样,在今天的世界,此妙语所指的对象就是以小人无比,阴谋诡计的方式,企图阻止中国崛起的,文化低贱,贪得无厌,妄想霸权世界的美国保守派及其走狗。这些人的声音和实力和他们所有的威信在不断减小,总会有一天,人类的进步将把他们带到边缘,化成历史的破产。

无话多言。中国赢了。历史新篇章即将来临。太平世界,寰球同此凉热!

共产主义何能实现(how to realize communism)

我突然想起在DNA Dreams (中文粗翻译为《DNA梦想》),徐道辉(Stephen Hsu),大概为:if we could shift the mean IQ of a society in one direction, we could bring forth one that would be very qualitatively different in a way that would be unrealistic in the society prior to the shift.

This reminds of communism, communism as in from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. I’ll first say that even capitalist societies are already very much like that. People generally go into professions that they’re talented in. If one has multiple things one can do, one has to make a pick in favor of one, as one has only 24 hours in a day. There are economic incentives now for this, say for one to pick say computer science over physics, which has no jobs and pays below what a schoolteacher or police officer is paid. Another example would be choosing NFL/NBA (where the big bucks are) over track and field.

I have always perceived money as very artificial. I don’t think my life would change that much if I become super rich. How you feel is more determined by what you know and how your brain is wired, and what you actually do, than how much money you have. I also have doubts on the use of money to motivate people to do better work, especially on the creative end. It works and it doesn’t. In fact, I would say in that in an ideal society people, or at least the ones with the ability and spirit, should be able to do creative work without having to worry too much about money, which is far from the case nowadays. Our society is being so money obsessed (or compelled) due to the so called Satanic Trinity (education, health care, housing). People are scared of falling behind on that game that the system forces people to play.

In my silly K-12 social studies class, we were told that communism doesn’t work because people don’t have an incentive. X could be doing all this work and Y could be doing nothing and at the end they’d get the same. This is such a gross oversimplification of a very complex matter, looking at human nature in a binary way essentially. People edit Wikipedia for free. People volunteer for the homeless and disadvantaged, for free. People go into science for almost nothing. In companies, you’ll find that the stars contribute like 10 times or more, or in some cases, infinity times more by solving a problem nobody else can than the median. Those people are generally higher ranked too on the ladder, but their salary is not matched by difference in magnitude of their contribution. The people who do make 10x more, or even 100x, are largely people planted in positions of parasitism by having the right social connections, playing the politics right, etc. That’s just how broken the current system is, and we all have to live with it, or not.

Again, in those social studies classes, we debated why America is the most innovative and the most successful country in the world. People will say freedom. Freedom to do your own thing, to start your own company, to be a non-conformist. While there is an element of that, it’s rather overblown in my opinion. There are other, more influential factors omitted here: such as the exploitation of labor (remember that America is a nation founded on dispossession and slavery), vast natural resources per capita (and also a geographic position that immunes America from war, barring civil war), and import of foreign talent. With such advantages, it’s almost impossible for America not to be number one. Especially, after WWII, when so many of the best and brightest from Europe came to America. Many of the top Manhattan Project scientists were foreigners, many of them Jewish. Many of the top scientists and engineers (like von Braun) of the space program were captured Nazis. In the 90s, America got a huge chunk of the best and brightest of the former USSR and its satellite states. From the 80s on, many of the smartest young people from mainland China came to the US as well. Those people could hypothetically be making China or the USSR/Russia better instead of making America better.

I remember Nassim Taleb has a high opinion of the America system’s tolerance and encouragement of ad hoc tinkering and experimentation. He cites these Europeans who criticize Americans for being uncultured or lacking knowledge or whatever, and it’s like: you guys writing this silly criticism in Microsoft Word, while looking up stuff on Google, on your iPhone, and all of that was created in America! He does have a very good point. Why do Europeans not create and use their own? Is it because their system is too egalitarian and discourages entrepreneurship? I’m not the most qualified to answer this, but I’ll say that Europe is more or less subordinate to America. There’s NATO and the EU and all that. Also, those technologies listed are very marketing, business driven products. For instance, Microsoft won in the reasonable judgment of many mostly due to its business and legal tactics. Also, Taleb has done some cherrypicking. Linux, an arguably better from a technical point of view operating system, was created by a Finnish genius in his early 20s. American cars lost to Japanese cars and they’re nowhere near able to compete with German cars, because they were objectively worse. I know almost nothing about cars, but I know Japanese cars are more fuel efficient and last longer. America as far as I see it is a society very into marketing and superficial things. It does not revere and respect people who do hard science and technology, real things, enough.

I’ll also say that America is very much a nation of taking advantage of and breeding the ignorant, for the benefit of people with capital. If people were smarter, it would be harder for banks to get people to not pay their credit cards or take on shitty deals. It would be harder for universities for fool people into paying so much for such a shitty education that gets most people nowhere. America also de-emphasizes discipline and self-control. Hey, even Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge. Also, isn’t discipline and self-control counter to creativity, to the freedom that makes America so successful? This might seem the case intuitively to a naive one, but creative people will tell you that’s so not the case. With everything, there’s a right, systematic way of doing things that is required to be creative. I’m somewhat of an iconoclast I suppose, but I have a high opinion of discipline and self-control. In any case, these words are so vague, mean so little, that it’s rather pointless to use them. You need to be more specific.

I have asked a friend of mine in his 30s, who’s seen much more of the world than I have, if we’ll ever reach the point where education and health care are more or less free, where people don’t have to worry about money much. He, very optimistically in my view, said probably in 30 years or so. I sure hope so, because the current system is very obsolete with respect to the level of technology and production we have available. Self driving cars, AI, will only put more people out of job, and we need to find a place for them.

I recall that in the 50s and 60s, it was widely believed, especially in the socialist camp, that there would be a world revolution and that we would eventually attain communism. This had arguably reached its height in the mid 50s. In the early 50s, America was in a rather passive position ideologically, especially when it was not successful in the Korean War. McCarthyism did not happen for no reason. As a law of nature, any entity whose survival at risk will go to extremes. The denunciation of Stalin by Khrushchev in fact weakened the prestige of the Soviet Union tremendously. Many pro-left people in the West lost hope from that. There was a great ideological rift between the USSR and China following that. The Chinese believed that the Soviets were being revisionists and that their party leadership was being gradually infected by ones who secretly wanted to restore capitalism, or whatever you call it. It was widely believed, according to the writings of Chinese party leaders, that the transition from capitalism to socialism to communism was to be this great social transformation that would span decades or even centuries, with importance, scale, and qualitative difference equal to that of the transformation from feudalism to capitalism in Europe, and that the process would need much consolidation over a long period of time. To them, without that, there could easily be a relapse, and there was, as evidenced by the disastrous (you can look up the increased death rates in Russia that was coupled with prolonged economic depression) disintegration of the USSR and to a lesser extent by the Chinese economic reform. On the opposite view, such was viewed by liberals in the West as the “end of history,” as termed by Fukuyama.

This end of history theory is becoming increasingly discredited more with China’s success and rise. In the 90s, however, it was quite mainstream. In this talk, Kong Qingdong characterized himself as having become political out of what he perceived as the need for him to do so, referring to how in the 90s, the atmosphere in China was so dangerously liberal and pro-West, which is not surprising as the failure of the USSR made everyone suspicious of the whole system and ideology that it had promulgated. If not that, he said he, as a very well-behaved kid, would have become purely a scholar, an academic in a more or less apolitical way. He spoke of how in the 90s, writings in China which criticized America or imperialism had difficulty being published, and in addition to that, he mentioned the laying off of millions of workers from the privatization of many state owned enterprises that enriched many with party connections. The 90s was in some sense a low point, akin to China from the 1927 through the 30s or the Bolsheviks following the failed 1905 Russian Revolution.

It seems though now that China may well surpass America, with its only being a matter of time, a proposition that would have been beyond the pale in the 90s. Back then, people had serious doubts on China’s ability to innovate with its system, coupled with aspects of traditional Chinese culture viewed as not conducive to non-derivative R&D. People cited how the successful countries were all democracies, and the Chinese dissident Fang Lizhi, who produced some first rate work in astrophysics, had openly said that in order for China to become developed, it would need to adopt the parliamentary democratic system. The financial crisis in 2008-9 ruined America’s credibility enormously, especially given that China in many ways appeared virtually unscathed by it. Since then, China has made enormous progress technologically as well. Representative examples are its high speed trains as well as the development of its passenger aircraft. China has also developed an indigenous CPU, Loongson, which is already proliferating across government and military organizations in China. It is their goal to create a whole software ecosystem around their hardware, as has been done for Intel’s. Of course, there is all this military technology too, the details of which are highly classified. A guy from China once said to me that the system there, with its network of state owned enterprises, can complete projects with little delay. Some might say that none of that is very creative, as it is all large scale engineering. As for that, there is basic science, and while China is quite a ways away there, they seem to be improving rapidly. In that respect, Chinese have done exceedingly well in America. Now with more money, many of the best scientists abroad can be lured back and a higher percentage of the best of the younger generation will stay in China to conduct their research. The career prospects in America for scientists are quite dismal, and China I would say has a chance of competing there. As a consequence, a much higher percentage of people in China will be able to enjoy the luxury of doing basic science research. Rather beside the point, but I’d like to note that Fields Medallist Alain Connes has written that the European system is better for breeding truly original thinkers in math who open up new fields, with its having less pressure for grants and for results produced on a shorter time frame than the American tenure system. He expressed his belief that the Soviet mathematicians would have done better had they stayed in the old Soviet system, where the job was just to talk about science. We can see how Perelman solved the Poincare back in Steklov Institute in Russia after America offered him no tenured position and how Yitang Zhang was failed by the American system, where you need to play it safe to secure your next position.

There is even a camp of scholars who believe with confidence that the future will be China’s, that of the IQ proponents, representative figures of which include Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn. Richard Lynn has written here that China will win after discovering the genes for IQ. It is definitely not impossible, and Steve Hsu has already worked with BGI on that. This goes back to Steve Hsu’s remark on that hypothetical society that can function in a way that the current one cannot because its constituents, its ones in positions of power especially, are too unintelligent. On this, I see a parallel between two highly politically sensitive words in America, which are communism and IQ. I’ll say, judging from their writings, that many of the leaders and scholars of and associated with the Chinese Communist Party in the 20s were highly intelligent, as were Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, all of whom were philosophers very profound and one could say, attaching a somewhat subjective judgment, visionary in their thinking. Mao wrote some of the most beautiful and high quality Chinese poetry, from a literary point of view. It seems that the Chinese with extraordinary literary or verbal gifts are more Maoist leaning, with on the other hand, Deng Xiaoping’s, dubbed by many on the left in China as the father of its corruption, for having promoted short-sighted people like Zhao Ziyang and Hu Yaobang who contributed to negative outcomes of the Tiananmen Square protests, being noted for having a dumb mouth and a dumb pen. Examples include Kong Qingdong, Li Ao, and Lang Xianping. I see the possibility of what many would perceive as too far-fetched: China’s becoming more communist as it closes in on the mystery of human intelligence.

When I was a kid, I thought over-simplistically, not having the intellectual capacity to reason rationally and rigorously. I could not imagine all those people who did crazy things, from geniuses to suicide bombers. I believed that what was easy/difficult for me would be the same for others and that people who struggled were not working hard enough. As I grew cognitively, I became increasingly aware that free will was bunk, that people are not in control of the way they are in a strict sense of the word. The way they are wired biologically correlates with what they become in a statistically predictable way. Science and the American Dream are in opposition to each other. We have in theory the resources for the most part to provide people with what is appropriate for them. This does not happen though in many places due to special interest groups, the hoarding of wealth, and deficiencies in resources affordably accessible to the public at large, based on needs of individuals. America, as unequal as it is, has an irrationally egalitarian education system that comes with stuff like No Child Left Behind. In America, the school one attends is based finely on where one lives, a proxy for parental socioeconomic status, or one of those fancy shmancy prep schools for kids whose parents can afford it, whereas in many other countries, like Germany, it is determined by what is most suitable for the kid given his performance and ability. In America, many employers now require a bachelors for jobs with nothing to do with academic learning, and colleges see this as a way to inflate their tuition, further oppressing the majority of people. There is also the medical system, which I will not go into. America will only further discredit itself by doing this; its facade cannot go on forever.

Let’s see what happens in the 21st century. Humanity may well undergo arguably its most revolutionary transformation ever yet, the ability to predict and control the types of people being born and from doing so realize a resemblance of the ideal society envisioned by Marx.

Languages

I find myself increasingly into languages and the humanities, more exclusively verbally loaded things. This is in contrast with my high school self, who was quite weak with that. I recall struggling greatly with English class. I dreaded reading novels and writing those BS literary analyses of them because there were so many places where I’d be completely at sea, and plus, I wasn’t very good with writing or communication in any way. Also, I lacked common sense and general knowledge, indispensable for literature. From that I could only conclude that I’m very naturally bad at literature and at verbal things.

I also remember being having really low self-esteem in third grade because I couldn’t read Harry Potter, which many of the other kids seemed to have with ease and with great enjoyment. I only started learning English at almost 6.5 years of age, so I guess I do have some excuse for sucking at these things. Also, there was also this slang I didn’t know even in middle school, which the other kids taunted me for. I was also overly literal minded and couldn’t get jokes or idioms. Maybe because I was borderline autistic? Who knows.

Anyhow, with some more years of age all this has mostly disappeared. I still wouldn’t consider myself super high V, like +4 sigma at this. If I were, I wouldn’t have to look up so many Russian words despite having studied it (entirely independently, with some long hiatuses) since fall of 2013! That I did by accident on my desire to understand the lyrics of Катюша (Katyusha), which is such a beautiful song. From this, I was brought into the beauty of Soviet music, which I listen to regularly to this day. Those composers were such high aesthetic discernment! I can’t think of any national music that is better than Soviet music!

Because I’m not a genius, unlike Pushkin or Lenin, I feel like I actually have to do deliberate practice; I can’t just learn by osmosis, even with internet dictionaries and Google translate. Sure, one can say I never had formal training, but I don’t think formal training makes much difference. The genuinely gifted tend to be able to learn things on their own without feeling like they’re trying. And needless to say, no matter what instruction you are given, it’s still up to you to form the mental processes required for mastery.

The best way to do deliberate practice is to perform some translations, at my current level. I’ll do one here, on this writing of Lenin on anti-Semitism. From doing this, I can hopefully remember all the words that I don’t know permanently. To be less uncreative, I’ll do it in a very analytical way, you’ll see what I mean.

*************************************************************************************

Антисемитизмом называется распространение вражды к евреям. Anti-Semitism is on called enlarged spread of enmity towards Jews. Когда проклятая царская монархия доживала свое последнее время, она старалась натравить темных рабочих и крестьян на евреев. What time сursed Tsarist monarchy to lived its through track time, she tried on incite dark workers and peasants on Jews. Царская полиция в союзе с помещиками и капиталистами устраивала еврейские погромы. Tsarist police in union with through place and capitalists with concrete purpose build Jewish through thunder. Ненависть измученных нуждой рабочих и крестьян помещики и капиталисты старались направить на евреев. Not on see from wear out by need workers and peasants landlords and capitalists tried on drive on Jews. И в других странах приходится видеть нередко, что капиталисты разжигают вражду к евреям, чтобы засорить глаза рабочего, чтобы отвлечь их взоры от настоящего врага трудящихся – от капитала. And in other countries motion inwards go see without sparsity, that capitalists enlarged burn enmity towards Jews, what conditionally cover waste eyes of workers, what conditionally away attract them in dawn away on standing enemy of working people – from capital. Вражда к евреям держится прочно только там, где кабала помещиков и капиталистов создала беспросветную темноту рабочих и крестьян. Enmity towards Jews holds firmly only there, where bondage of landlords and capitalists with built without having light darkness of workers and peasants. Только совсем темные, совсем забитые люди могут верить лжи и клевете, распространяемой против евреев. Only with all dark, with all with beaten people can believe lies and libel, enlarged spread against Jews. Это – остатки старого крепостного времени, когда попы заставляли сжигать еретиков на кострах, когда существовало рабство крестьян, когда народ был задавлен и безгласен. These – of stay of old serf time, what time priests with to make burn heretics on stake, what time existed slavery of peasants, what time on humanity were on weighed and without voice. Эта старая крепостническая темнота проходит. Народ становится зрячим. This old feudal darkness through go. People become able to see.

*************************************************************************************

I stopped after the first paragraph. There are few more. I won’t continue on like this because it’s a bit too tedious and not the best use of my time. This exercise did help much educationally for me.

What Lenin described is basically a common tactic used by colonialists (and current day corporate executives), namely directing their enemy against a harmless, easy to target group, to distract them, in this specific case with Jews as the scapegoat. Compared to divide and conquer, where British colonialists incite X Indian to kill Y Indian, after which British colonialists kill X Indian, this is actually rather mild. I wonder what pieces Lenin wrote on the divide and conquer tactic.

In light of divide and conquer, the communists lost the Cold War after many great triumphs because they fought too much against themselves. The Sino-Soviet split weakened the socialist camp tremendously. By the 80s, the USSR was more behind, and America through soft, ideological means successfully brought about its implosion. The same almost happened with China with the 89 protests, but China did not do what the USSR stupidly did.

There’s also what Michael O Church loves to say, that in Silicon Valley, the executive scumbags love to fuel tensions between the working class and intellectual class. To those throwing rocks at Google shuttles, it’s like dude, you’re attacking the wrong people! This also brings to mind the classic tactic of enticing one’s enemy group with wealth and benefits to bring them to your side. The American elite did that during the Cold War to its working classes and they won with that, and after the pressure on them (from an external power) was over, they believed they could get away with depriving medical care and creating a higher education bubble and did just that. My friend loves to say that we won’t have a revolution because it’s much easier now for rich people to give poor people a little more to get them to shut up. People aren’t starving anymore.

I’ve read writing about how psychopathy, or the willingness and ability to take advantage of others, propels people to the top. Psychopathy I’m sure also runs in families. Now the question is how much longer will the world be ruled by psychopaths who suck people’s blood. I can’t imagine that changing in the next century. Humans are too awful and defective. However, maybe once we discover the genes for psychopathy, we can do something about that. 😉