anti-Chinese Jews

I’ve come to notice over time that Jews tend to be pretty anti-China, for obvious reasons. Of course, they can say that they like China, just not the Chinese government, but why would anyone reasonable believe that? I’ve decided that a list for this is worthwhile as well, mostly for my own record keeping, but also for anyone who might be interested.

  • Sergey Brin – refused to comply with Chinese local laws out of contempt for the Chinese government meaning that Google lost almost all of its then 20+% market share in China.
  • Amitai Etzioni – former Israeli independence fighter, later international relations professor at George Washington University who recently published Avoid War with China: Two Nations, One World, wherein he writes that “there is little question that until 1980 China was an aggressive state” and regards China as “not a responsible stakeholder” alongside many other vague, silly, biased statements.
  • Carl Gershman –  President of the National Endowment for Democracy since its 1984 founding. He was awarded Romania’s National Order of “Faithful Service”, and the Distinguished Person for Advancing Democracy honor from the Chinese Education Democracy Foundation. He received the Light of Truth Award from the International Campaign for Tibet as well as the Order of Diplomatic Service Merit (the Heung-In Medal) from the Republic of Korea.
  • Jonathan Katz – physics professor who on countries with independent nuclear weapons ability, writes: “Fortunately, most of these countries are stable democracies and therefore not aggressors; the two chief exceptions (the Former Soviet Union and China) were successfully contained for many years, and the more powerful of these is making a transition, one hopes successful and irreversible, to democracy.” Again, any major power who is not an ally of America is unambiguously an aggressor and ought to be contained, and ought to make a successful and irreversible transition to democracy (a codeword for wreckage), which China has been wise enough to avoid. This was written in 1994, and now China is much stronger than USSR/Russia.
  • Tom Lantos – House of Representatives member whose human rights commission invited the Dalai Lama, a CIA agent, to speak. Also investigated very aggressively Yahoo’s handing over an email of a Chinese journalist to the Chinese government. Obsessed with supporting Chinese dissidents with questionable tactics and motives, like Chen Guangcheng, who was awarded with the Lantos Human Rights Prize, of which more than half have been awarded to Chinese dissidents, Zionists, and Holocaust promoters. I say abolish all peace and human rights prizes, these silly political tools.
  • Norm Matloff – made baseless attacks and blatantly false claims regarding Chinese in the software industry. Also supports Taiwanese and even Hong Kong independence. Again, kudos to Arthur Hu for challenging him.
  • Lawrence Solomon – writer and environmentalist who is yet another critic and lobbyist against this atrocious Chinese communist dictatorship. He praises on the contrary a significantly worse off India for being the “largest democracy of the world” and having a “vibrant free press.” Also expresses doubt over Chinese creativity, with vague and questionable justifications sprinkled with narcissistic pro-Jewish references. Like many a high verbal lower math Jew, he displays a lack of ability to critically qualify non-rigorous arguments, with a title as presumptuous as “The Failure of Chinese Mothering” as well as to jump to conclusions too easily, not realizing that there are many variables influencing success in innovation which interact in a complex, highly non-linear fashion.
  • George Soros – billionaire financier who survived the Holocaust because his family purchased documents to say that they were Christians. Soros has expressed concern about the growth of Chinese economic and political power, saying, “China has risen very rapidly by looking out for its own interests…. They have now got to accept responsibility for world order and the interests of other people as well.” Keeps on saying that the Chinese economy will collapse except it hasn’t yet. Messed with Asian markets in the 1998 Asian financial crisis, and China very prudently sent him packing with losses.
  • Steven Spielberg – In February 2008, Spielberg pulled out of his role as advisor to the 2008 Summer Olympics in response to the Chinese government’s inaction over the War in Darfur. Spielberg said in a statement that “I find that my conscience will not allow me to continue business as usual.” It also said that “Sudan’s government bears the bulk of the responsibility for these on-going crimes, but the international community, and particularly China, should be doing more.
  • Mike Wallace – asked former Chinese president Jiang Zemin aggressive, ridiculous questions in a CBS interview, called him a “dictator,” as if that means anything. Sure he might have been following his boss’s orders, but almost certainly, his boss was a Jew. It’s the American media industry after all.

From my personal observation, it is generally that Jews are much worse than Chinese (and almost certainly Japanese too) at discerning bias, critically examining their arguments, and qualifying their statements, especially when commenting on social and political matters, and they tend to open their mouth on topics, some politically sensitive, without first accumulating the most basic background knowledge at the detailed level. I have seen many of them in hard sciences essentially turn off their rigorous mind, instead putting the Jewish interest as the foremost axiom, when commenting on political matters. They will denounce ideologies or systems they do not like in an utterly dictatorial fashion and unabashedly distort the truth.

Vis-a-vis Chinese, they also seem oblivious to or at least unable to acknowledge the tremendous advantages they, who are also often hard to tell apart from whites, both by face and by name, enjoy from being culturally Western. Their books, especially on soft matters, are much more likely to sell for this very reason.

There are Chinese who say that Jews are not actually as formidable intellectually as they may appear superficially, out of the subjectively perceived self-promotional tendencies and objectively disproportionate media ownership of Jews as a group, as well as economic advantages they enjoy that enable them to engage in creative pursuits at higher rates. Now, Chinese are beating Jews by a wide margin in 100% objectively fair contests at the elite levels, such as Mathcounts, USAMO, IMO, Putnam, and other science olympiads. Sure, those are for kids and not deep, but they are still an indicator of raw intellectual horsepower in a purely objective way. In research too, Chinese and especially Japanese are certainly doing quite well, though not as well as Jews at the highest levels if one uses formal recognition to measure, but with research, there is the critical difference that the aforementioned biases do exist.

Given the above, there is more than sufficient reason for suspicion of both Jewish ability and character, the latter especially, as a group, which deserves to be more closely examined.

Addendum: I stumbled upon today the Chinese Wikipedia page for 诡辩 (in English, sophism). I thought it was a very articulately crafted Chinese word, using the combination of characters for “fallacious/deceptive” and “argument/discussion.” It is in pinyin guǐ biàn and I felt the pronunciation harmonized well with the meaning. There is, pun-wise, another character matching to guǐ that is 鬼, which means “demon/sly.” Apparently, this is derived from the Sophists of Ancient Greece who were known for reasoning with clever but fallacious arguments. The Greeks were of course a very theoretical people with a rich culture of deductive reasoning and Socratic debate, in contrast to the very pragmatic Chinese. Though “sophism” in its modern usage is rather pejorative, I view certain cases, such as Zeno’s paradox, a flawed argument of course of a sophist nature, as very positive ones which spurred important progress in pure intellectual inquiry. However, this same style of thinking when applied to non-scientific matters, politics especially, can be rather suspicious and harmful, and I do see this often among Jews. In the above examples, many can be classified as engaging in some form of circumlocutory reasoning around omitted key points of inconvenience that presupposes certain implicitly imposed axioms of questionable validity, often absurd upon close inspection. In contrast, the Chinese, from my observation, prefer simpler, more straightforward ways of reasoning, emphasizing more of honest substance and less of deceptive literary flourish. In Chinese communist political culture, a political impostor in the likes of Trotsky is regarded as far more dangerous than a candid political opponent; one who waves the red flag to oppose it is far more malicious than one who openly opposes it. While these Jews listed above and many more are not quite at the level of pretending to be communists (to the extent that the classification of communist is meaningful), they are very well hostile to Chinese politics and perhaps even Chinese in general in a manner of an indirect and sophist nature. I will go the opposite way and say bluntly what I regard to be 100% obvious, especially to anyone of high political acumen, of which Jews abound, that the current Chinese regime led by the Party since its establishment almost 70 years ago has more or less proven itself to be a union for Chinese people in China, a very effective one, just as the American Medical Association is a union for American doctors, just as the Anti-Defamation League is a union for Jews. There is no need to pretend outside this plain reality, either to oneself or to others, though if done to the extreme in an American political climate that revolves around Jewish-controlled sophist media and lobbying, what is patently obvious could, as has been done, be artificially transformed into an unthinkable and politically incorrect absurdity.