On the Trump-Kim meeting in Singapore

I had the great pleasure of catching up in person with a friend doing math PhD in something algebraic geometry-ish at a top school. We had dinner at an Indian restaurant. He asked me what I thought of the upcoming meeting between Trump and Kim in Singapore. It’s something that I hadn’t been paying attention to really, though I was aware of it, and I didn’t really have any opinion.

As of today, the meeting is over. I saw an article about it from Washington Post. Apparently, Trump agreed to halt US-South Korea military exercises, exactly what the Chinese government proposed ahead of the summit, likely in the personal meeting between Xi and Kim well before that, wants to eventually pull out US troops from South Korea, and professes more of less the attitude that though China is violating sanctions on DPRK that it agreed to, there’s nothing that can really be done. It’s impressive that DPRK has manage to resist for so long. America with its might has done so much to try to bring it down with economic sanctions and exclusion from much of the international community, thereby rendering its reputation as a pariah state. The people running DPRK, like them or not, are survivors. They, as a puny little country, managed to develop nukes despite economic sanctions and the crisis resulting from the decline and ultimate collapse of their former puppet master or patron (or whatever you choose to call it), the USSR. Their having nukes (and also being next to China, which America dares not to mess with too much) allowed the Kim dynasty to not end up like Saddam or Gaddafi. They must have felt that with the USSR gone and China’s viewing them as an obstacle towards its international integration that they really needed the nukes to preserves themselves. Though people also say that their long range artillery, with Seoul, where like half of South Korea’s population and economy is, within reach, they have enough to deter a military attack against them. What did they really get from nukes? Some more bargaining chip, because they figure they can always get more by pretending to denuclearize. I can’t blame them really. Anyone will go to the extremes when it’s a matter of survival. If you try to starve a dog to death (but can’t, strictly speaking), he’ll just become a ferocious wild one in order to survive, and that’s exactly what DPRK has done.

This must be quite a blow to the neocons and American supremacists who are so keen on American world domination. Hate to tell them that by now, they’ve probably missed their chance. The way things are going right now, in a decade, South Korea could even become a PRC ally; they will once it’s in the interests of those in positions of power there to do so. What can America provide them? A guarantee that those people currently on top can stay on top. They do that foremost by providing defense against a possible DPRK invasion. I’m skeptical still that US will actually move forward with pulling troops out of South Korea; the ROK elite probably won’t like that, unless those with conciliatory attitudes towards their northern counterparts take over, which could happen. I know little about what the popular opinion is there. I do have Korean friends who tell me that there, if you actually sing a DPRK song in public, you will definitely be arrested, because there really is something to fear. There is quite a history of that there. It is well-established that during the Korean War, after the DPRK first invaded, Syngman Rhee ordered massacres of those perceived as disloyal to his regime. Even in the 80s, when the ROK was already doing much better than the DPRK, there was the Gwangju Uprising, which is like a South Korean Tiananmen Square. Of course, to justify its suppression, it was easy for the government to label the protesters as agent of the enemy regime. Contrary to impressions given by the American media, the South Korean position has been somewhat precarious too, and America has been willing to really invest there. There are even nuclear weapons deployed in South Korea, not just American soldiers stationed there. It’s an ally that is seen as vulnerable and too valuable to lose. Over the years, people have always been asking how long the DPRK can hold on. Now could it be that it is the ROK that will struggle to hold on, at least if remaining a staunch American ally is an absolute must? In some being ROK has being an American lapdog almost as a definitive characteristic, more so than on the other side, with the DPRK’s having had two larger powers bid for its loyalty during the Cold War, and with its more being on its own afterwards. The ROK leadership is seen as more spineless (or less able to hold on their own) than the DPRK leadership, having had America’s military presence directly at home with themselves in the subordinate position ever since the Korean War, whereas the Chinese People Volunteer Army, that basically saved the DPRK regime, left not long after the armistice was signed, though it still maintains a defense treaty that guarantees military protection. Much of that is because China, being so poor and backwards at that time, had scarce resources and enough to deal with at home, while America was, and still is, a very rich country plentiful in resources. Of course, there is also that the American elite seems so much delusional with regard to their own exceptionalism and fanatic about their domination of the world. Unfortunately for them, their efforts have been really backfiring in recent years, with the rest of world’s having caught up and increasingly reluctant to take their orders, which they are now much more capable of resisting. The British Empire possessed the same attitude, and one, from this, gets the feeling that this intent for world domination is much more in the Anglo-Saxon genes. Saxon has association with German, and yes, the Germans produced a Hitler, but it’s reasonable to say he was mostly a reactive force, with Germany’s having been shamed in the Versailles Treaty. The Brits were the pioneers of industrialization, and also the pioneers of colonialism and imperialism (if one discounts the earlier Spanish). The British Empire and its derivative America are arguably also the most fervent about spreading their religious and ideological faith. God, freedom, and democracy. They are also arguably the most delusional there.

The reality with the British Empire and with America is that they were pioneers in many ways, giving them the first mover advantage, but eventually had difficulties competing with the latecomers, who were in many ways more competent. Though economically and technologically, the Anglos may have fallen behind their competitors in certain aspects, the cultural presence established by their earlier victories last much longer. Like it or not, they have been relatively successful at getting the rest of the world to accept and embrace their so called cultural values, through a combination of merit, trickery, and intimidation. They are also arguably the most narcissistic, domineering, and historically scurrilous. They led in terms of their science and technology, with that the merit side. In terms of the lengths to which one deceives and coerces, they led much more. People observes how obscenely rich and powerful individuals, in their business, are cutthroat to the extremes. They will screw over another when it is in their interest to do, meaning of course that they can get away with it. They will engage hypocritically in philanthropy and whatnot to buy their reputations and establish a facade of charity. Analogously, the Anglo world has done this massively with its cultural imperialism of which blatant historical falsification and political deception in the media are the essential ingredient. Some other countries wanted to and tried, to some degree or another, to stop them, but lack the aggressive disposition and material power to do so. Economically and militarily, the Anglo world is of course guilty of displacement of the natives in America and Australia, and even to this day, the UK holds on to the Falkland Islands. Culturally they have been successful; this, along with America’s worldwide network of military bases, which America is increasingly lacking in its ability to economically sustain, are held as socially acceptable, the social norm. This might change though, but it will take a while.

America’s main competitors are China and Russia. Of the two, China is much more threatening. These are countries which have resisted the Anglo political and cultural system to this day, especially China, which is much harder to conquer, out of a combination of its size, competence, and alienness of culture, as a civilization that developed more or less independently from the rest of the world over millennia. The elites of the USSR basically sold out their country to America, whereas the Chinese communist elites managed to resist that. America and Britain had other competitors too, most of all Japan, but Japan was mostly tamed after WWII, and even with its economic and technological rise afterward, it could not escape the confines of the war legacy that it refuses to face. Germany is similar, but its attitude towards its war crimes is the antithesis of Japan’s. This is largely because the countries and peoples which suffered most from Nazism, where the ones to destroy it. On the other hand, Japan was defeated by America and the Soviet Union, not by China, who was too weak at the time, though China did play a major role in sinking more of their resources, particularly human resources, which were the main bottleneck, quantitatively, for Japan, as a small nation that had tried very hard and only half-succeeded at playing the game of world imperialism that it entered in too late.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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