Elizabeth Holmes, Kaifu Lee, and some remarks on fraud and manufactured success

Haha, father VP at Enron, fraud seems embedded in her bloodline. Fleischmann is Jewish, that means maybe Elizabeth Holmes can also go onto my Scandalous Jews list?

Recognition for “tireless optimism and a particularly warm smile.” What the fuck!? And lol, why would Chinese universities buy C++ compilers from her when they can easily obtain it free of charge.

You know this sounds like some real conspiracy theory out of Washington to manufacture a female Steve Jobs. Yet it failed miserably. Couldn’t the US elite do a better job of at least masking their corruption and nepotism a bit?

Speaking of which, a few days ago, I learned that Kaifu Lee, former Microsoft and Google VP, who was extremely popular among young people in China as a role model in the internet technology sector with widely read books on his life experience and on advice for youth, was actually exposed for fraud or at least gross misrepresentation and exaggeration of his career history and achievements, with many on the Chinese internet even suspecting him to be a half-closeted foreign influence agent. The guy who first ratted him out to the public on Weibo, where Kaifu has millions of followers, was Fang Zhouzi, a University of Science and Technology of China graduate and PhD in biochemistry (from Michigan State), who after doing a postdoc became a science writer and crusader against academic fraud. Fang pointed out how in his autobiography, Kaifu had written of himself as 卡尼基梅隆计算机系最年轻的副教授 (the youngest associate professor in the computer science department at Carnegie Mellon University). Fang emphasized the big difference between assistant and associate professor (one is tenured the other is merely tenure track), as well as the misleadingness of “youngest,” as Fang found a guy who had become an assistant professor in the same department as Kaifu earlier. In fact, there is not even solid evidence that Kaifu was even an assistant professor there; it’s possible that he was for less than a year before leaving for Apple. This was back in 2011 I believe, and it was all through Weibo, on which Kaifu finally had to give an apology, when excuses such as “nuances in translation” no longer worked.

As for the “foreign influence agent” part, we shall note how Kaifu was born in Taiwan, and his father was a historian there who wrote books to smear the Chinese communists. With some searches on Baidu one can also easily find that his uncle was executed by the communists soon after the PRC established, for allegedly having taken an active role in some campaign to kill Chinese communists earlier on. There are, too, accusations of his promotion of Taiwanese independence activists and the likes on his Weibo. Some people are even doubtful whether he actually got cancer; they suspect he might have gone to Taiwan where he could, with his political connections, fake it, all the while planning and organization with supporters there his next major influence operation. Note that while he did renounce his American citizenship (for tax reasons), he retained his ROC one (instead of switching to PRC citizenship). One can see much more such information on Kaifu here.

I was somewhat surprised as I had been under the impression that he has a very positive reputation in China. Certainly, I thought more lowly of him after realizing that much of what he had written in his book 《与未来同行》(A Walk into the Future), which I had read in high school, was basically superficial bullshit, which I’ve also mentioned here.

Yes, I much dislike it when people who are not actually all that smart and talented pretend to be and market themselves as such, even using PR professionals if they’re rich and connected enough. The truth is that there are some things one cannot fake, at least to a subset of people sufficiently knowledgeable. It’s obvious to me and many by now that some fields are much harder than others and thus the people in them tend to be much smarter and more talented on average. Similarly, stuff like SATs and math contests cannot be faked, and the existence of an actual cognitive hierarchy grounded on reality is apparent from the consistency of results in such contests. A 100 meter sprint time cannot be faked either. People who run sub 10 s times or close are real genetic freaks of nature, marvels of human biology. On the other hand, promotions and career success in the likes you get uplifted much under the whims of those already in power often reflect political favor and connection as opposed to actual ability and accomplishment. Even in the internet technology sector, you have politically enabled people taking credit for the work of others and even creating a cult of themselves within the company or the sector at large. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. We cannot really be that sure of them as individuals. We can be sure that their companies had some actually very talented and capable people who contributed collectively to their successful products. Yes, in statistics, it is sample size that can easily exponentially increase the level of statistical significance. On this, I shall note that if an individual fails out in the career/promotions world where there is a relatively high random component, it could have well been due to bad luck, though certainly, the longer the career, the more samples we have and thus the more confidence. In contrast, if a large group, like a nation or ethnic group, fails to produce top people or companies, we can be relatively sure that that group really is less competent at either the individual or collective level.

An ideal world is one where people recognize and respect those more talented than they are and get out of their way. If somebody else can visibly do a job much better than you can, you should just let that person do the job. Do something you’re better suited to. If you’re mediocre, then take a mediocre position and keep a low profile. Don’t pretend to be a genius when you’re obviously not. People in the likes of Elizabeth Holmes do enormous damage directly to actual quality and quantity of productivity by making shit out of vast resources they manage to accumulate out of family and political connections, that would have been made much better use of controlled by more appropriately competent people. An even more insidious effect is the trust it erodes in our society, which can be very difficult to recover. Elizabeth Holmes, her family, and her financial supporters must bear collective responsibility for the damage they’ve wrought to America, as this country’s elite. Evade it as they probably will and the long term consequence will only be more dire. Talented, capable people from other countries will want to come here less, and talented, capable people already in America will feel less incentivized and inspired to actually contribute. Eventually, they can bring this entire country down.

As for Kaifu, he was obviously a pretty legit research engineer, nothing like Holmes. His later public intellectual behavior is questionable though, especially his gross inflation of himself in his autobiography, which he had the ego and lack of judgment to publish before retired. Yes, Kaifu appears on the surface to have good intentions. In his book, he wrote about his dream of creating impact in China, about how he dreamed of returning to his motherland, which his father was not able to do. He considered himself very successful and a rightful inspiring figure, teacher, and role model for young people in China interested in technology. But he took that way too far, and even lied about his past experience to sell himself, which is quite shameful really. Also, there are a good number of mainland Chinese in his generation far more accomplished than Kaifu at science and technology at least; wouldn’t they, based on their achievement alone, make much better role models than Kaifu, let alone the shared background. As much as I dislike to judge people based on their national and political background, I’m realistic to acknowledge that it does matter to some degree as far as role models for a nation’s young people are concerned. Why Kaifu when there are mainland Chinese in computer science, let alone science and technology in general, visibly more talented and accomplished? I can think of off the top of my head Robin Li, the founder of Baidu, who as far as technical computer science is concerned, did win a Rankdex patent that the Google guys cited in their PageRank paper, though he does not have a PhD, let alone from a top CS school like Carnegie Mellon. Robin Li was from a pretty average family in a so so place in China, tested into Beijing University, was very successful though not wildly so in the US, and later returned to China where he founded China’s top search engine that has also created its own deep learning library and framework called PaddlePaddle. He is visibly a much better role model for young Chinese interested in computer science and internet technology than Kaifu both in terms of his achievement and his national/social/political background, but he does not have the vanity of the likes of Kaifu, becoming a social media celebrity and publishing all this superficial, even misleading advice for young people.

As for the KMT background of Kaifu’s family, I hate to say it, but human reality is such that one’s political associations and actions affect indirectly to some degree or another the outcomes of one’s offspring, and thus, one also takes some responsibility for the actions/crimes of one’s ancestors. Yes, in one’s behavior, one should not only think of how it affects oneself in the short term, but also how it would in the long term affect those inextricably bound to oneself. History has already proven his family to have sided with the losers, with those who failed to save China, as “patriotic” as he may appear in his words. Maybe they had good intentions, but nobody in the right mind would believe that a political party and army who lost a civil war the way they did would have done a much better job developing and modernizing the country had they taken over. Again, it can easily be hard to speak for particular individuals, but that the KMT got massive aid from the US and managed to lose control of all of mainland China meant that they MUST have been a seriously rotten and incompetent organization.

So if he wants to be taken seriously by the majority of Chinese in mainland China as truly patriotic, he would have to do somewhat more in terms of tangible contribution directly towards China than a mainland Chinese would and perhaps also make some political move to at least implicitly denounce the political background he inherited from his family not by choice. Yes, he was part of the founding of Microsoft Research Asia in Beijing, which did help cultivate many computer science talents in China and likely also transferred some substantial technology to Chinese companies. Quite applaudable. Still, Microsoft is not a Chinese company, and Google much less so, as advanced as they may be in their technology. Kaifu has not as far as I can tell made any meaningful and recognized contribution to an important Chinese company or organization. So people are naturally skeptical, especially given his public intellectual activities and Weibo celebrity status, which some suspect to be supported behind the scenes, perhaps even directly from Washington itself, in the likes of Holmes’s case.

It does seem that Kaifu Lee is no longer that big in China now compared to a decade ago. Surely, Fang Zhouzi discredited him quite a bit, and the courage it took in Fang to question a figure as high up and “authoritative” as Kaifu Lee is very admirable. And he did so in a very detailed, factual, and objective way, in contrast to the vague, generic advice Kaifu has given to young people.

As for Kaifu Lee’s Google background, I do recall how an ex-Googler from China, who characterized himself as a Han chauvinist 😉 had said that certainly his having worked for Google would not be considered a plus in the case that he later tries to make a serious career in some very government organization in China. I was somewhat surprised, but in retrospect, I can see how that is the case. So suspicion of Kaifu Lee in China is but natural.

It was certainly amusing how he regarded limitations to his career prospects within the Chinese government and its organizations as a much bigger deal to him than Google. Well, after all, the Chinese government runs a near superpower that is the largest economy (by PPP) and most populous nation on earth, whereas Google merely runs the most advanced internet search and distributed systems (and likely also AI) company in the world. Google needs the Chinese market much more than China needs Google. Without Google, China still has plenty of similar products which may not be technically as good but are definitely good enough. They left back in 2010 purportedly out of objections to censorship compliance, and now they’re trying to return with another censored search product, that 1000+ of its rather politically delusional employees are jointly protesting against. Of course, there is also that that guy is well aware how as a mainland Chinese, there’s basically no way he’ll ever rise up to even a modest position of power within Google, unless he sells his soul, as even the ones who joined quite early on were unable to do so, so there’s not much to lose anyway.

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.

0828_3

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.

and

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.

On the political English language

I recall how like four or five years ago, somebody told me that the Ministry of Education of China made English optional on the gaokao. I wonder what exactly was the rationale behind it. That was saying how English will not end up all that useful for most Chinese high school students (remember that those who immigrate to the US are a very small percentage, and that reading technical literature in English isn’t all that hard for smart people in STEM), and that time would be better spent learning more physics and chemistry as well as other non-language skills as far as economic productivity goes. This explanation certainly makes sense. China functions just fine doing everything in its own language, one notoriously difficult and complex in the eyes of outsiders. There is also that too much English might lead to more connection to America than is beneficial. On this note, I can think of how India’s English may have actually hurt it; because of it, the economy there naturally ended up depending too much on English services as opposed to actual industrial production, from which real economic power derives. Moreover, India’s English has greatly hindered her from developing a domestic internet industry, in contrast to China.

More generally, too much English inevitably leads to political brainwash. I’ve more sensitive now to how the English language, its content, style, and words in particular, has been shaped and accumulated over the years to transmit a form of political thinking and narrative in sync with the interests of the Anglo world. Politically, the English news media can be well characterized as relatively uniformly a fusion of fake left and right wing. There is remarkable consistency in how certain countries and political concepts are portrayed and explained in the English language media and education. Learning Chinese reading brought me to realize that the English narrative on China is actually quite a fake, falsified, and politically bastardized one, but most Chinese raised in America have not, sadly. There are also all kind of overused political buzzwords vague and meaningless. Freedom, democracy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, communism, etc. Nobody in China will in Chinese say, “China is a communist country.” They will instead say “China is a socialist country.” The word “communist” in English has obviously a negative connotation. Many Americans might call me a “commie,” and I simply could not give a damn. Most Chinese without exposure to this shit would go, “what the heck?” In Chinese, Marxism (马克思主义) is this political ideology, used in party rhetoric in a certain fashion. I never had any exposure to those politics classes in China where you actually learned about Marxism-Leninism, but I can be almost 100% sure that what they say of Marxism is completely different from this “cultural Marxism” in English, a political buzz term that I learned of recently, which is basically a pejorative for political correctness and multiculturalism.

I notice that I write on this blog about political matters in a way unusual in English, which is surely influenced to some degree by what I have read about such matters in the Chinese language. I must say that in the Chinese language, it is much easier politically to speak in a direct, straightforward, factually analytical manner on many matters than in English, again a product of manufacturing of various forms of political correctness in English by powerful interest groups over an extended period of time. Politically, I do see that in English, there is a strong tendency to talk around the root of problems than to analyze them in an honest manner. In other words, use of the English language has been well moulded for the purpose of fooling people.

Of course, English is the de facto international language. With that, people all over the world tend to see much more of the Anglo viewpoints. With that, people in the United States and other English speaking countries receive generally very politically biased information on a regular basis without awareness of it. Yes, there are certain points of views readily and commonly expressed in Chinese that would be very awkward to do in English, and also the other way round. So those who learn English as a second language in the formal way for academic purposes often communicate with it in a linguistic style and with word choice alien or at least unusual for the native American English speaker. And these people, as they are selected for both linguistic exposure and intelligence, tend to be those smart and learned enough to cross the often very artificially manufactured linguistic political boundaries.

I’m not sure how much the language itself shapes the political thinking through its most natural usage versus that the political forces slowly evolve the use of language to a tool for its own propaganda. I’ll say that from what I’ve seen, English is very good for fooling people by presenting a crude, superficial, distorted version of the picture. It’s good for a certain type of empty, disingenuous but glib talk that seems sufficiently effective at convincing and inspiring people with limited exposure outside the American and English language cultural and political context. It’s very good at painting a simplistically black and white, good vs evil picture of the world. It’s pretty shitty for what I would regard as genuinely powerful political and artistic expression of a more refined nature. As well as for political and historical realism, but maybe because the mass media propagandists have done their job just too well.

Oh right, I realize in English the word “propaganda” is very pejorative. In Chinese, there is no such word for “propaganda.” The closest word for it in Chinese is 宣传, which simply means “publicity,” and is more or less neutral, maybe even slightly positive. So culturally unaware Chinese made a fool of themselves by translating 中宣部 to “Propaganda Department of China,” though it seems they’ve changed that by now. Oh, there are ton of political buzzwords and slogans in Chinese too, but they’re, at least to me, far more humorous, tasteful, and powerful than what the English language can offer. I won’t go into example of that here, since this is supposed to be about the political English (not Chinese) language.

On Americanized Chinese females and colonialism

My general impression has been that Chinese females are generally much more susceptible to American culture than Chinese males. I was talking about this with a friend on this and his characterization of them was as follows

a lot of them are really stupid
there are some good ones

I asked him what kind of stupid, and he was like

mentally weak
self-hating
absorb the dominant ideology without thinking

This is of course consistent with higher conformism and group think in females. My observation has been that even many of the ones who did up through high school or even college in China get pressured/tricked into this.

Through family, I know of a woman college-educated who after marrying some old white conservative man became an evangelical Christian obsessed with prayers, and even went as far as to go on mission trips to Indian reservations. This is just absolutely gross, that Chinese women in the West can be converted into willing accomplices for arguably the worst part of Christianity, the part where it is forcibly put upon those already mercilessly conquered and ethnically cleansed. 共产党快把这类人屠杀好不好啊,饶不了他们在中国的家属。

The way those churches bait poor and lonely students on campuses with food is disgusting. They love to target poor new immigrants without community. And they’re so aggressive in the way they go about it.

By the way, my observation has been that Chinese are by nature very atheist and materialist in their view of the world, and in a poll, 61% of Chinese in China identified as atheist. So naturally, Chinese are also very receptive to HBD and IQ.

Now, many Christians get super emotional when they see a non-believer. As kids I’m sure we’ve all instinctively felt that way when met with some faith very different from ours. The thing is some people grow out of that much more than others, eventually learning to rationalize differences in others in their belief systems. They remove to some degree the psychological blind that is what they wish things were that arises from a more emotional impulse.

It’s amazing how effective Christianity has been historically as a motivator and justifier of conquest. Intrinsic to the religion is a deeply engrained missionary culture, a conviction that God gave some groups of people not just the right but the duty to conquer and colonize in order to spread it to liberate savages devoid of the faith. Speaking of which, the Chinese government is for the most part hostile to Christianity based much on historical experience. It’s symbolic of white, Western conquest of China over China’s so called century of humiliation. After the British easily won the Opium Wars with their modern military technology, among the stipulations with in the resulting unequal treaties was the right for missionaries to spread their faith across China and in exchange for that favor, to live like kings. I’ll put it pretty bluntly, that full-blown conquest of one country and people by another entails the following:

  • Killing their men in a war
  • Subjugating their people
  • Raping their women (to some extent)
  • Brainwashing them with your religion and ideology
  • Cultivating a comprador upper class within the colonized country to serve your interests and do some of the dirty work of managing and subordinating for you
  • Promoting your language and culture there too

And as always, it’s frowned upon but still okay for a man from the colonizer to marry a woman from the colonized, and if a colonized man married or even had intercourse with a woman from the superior, colonizing tribe, he would literally get destroyed and that woman would be shunned for life by her own.

This phenomenon is still very much alive today in the behavior of Chinese women. Their white worship is evident from all the white male Chinese female couples out there in the West as well as their white-loving self-hating behavior in terms of cultural preferences. It’s needless to say that marrying a white man for a Chinese woman is for the most part a straightforward way up the current social ladder.

It’s also somewhat apparent that the extent of white-loving self-hating behavior of East Asian women varies for the most part consistently, monotonically based on degree of colonization of the place of origin. In mainland China, Shanghainese girls are seen as the worst. There was after all the Shanghai International Settlement, despite Shanghai’s never having been fully colonized the way Hong Kong was. And yes, Hong Kong women are almost certainly worse. As for Koreans, we all know that during the Cold War their women were basically sex objects for American GIs. There was I’m sure an element of that for Japan too, though surely, Japanese are less this way due to their stronger history. Still, in the end, they got raped by the US Army. The thing is that Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore all very much developed under America’s patronage post-war. Japan is rather different as it was already rather powerful and advanced before the war, but that doesn’t change their insecurities about being associated with the weaker, inferior race.

Now, mainland China is quite different. It was semi-colonized yes, but the Chinese communists against managed to get even militarily with the former oppressors during the Korean War from 1950-1953. She subsequently modernized rapidly much through Soviet aid and technology, with exchange with the West minimal after the United States was so butt hurt about losing to this backwards country that was led by a ruthlessly competent and formidable new regime. Moreover, the Chinese communists won their civil war with very minimal Soviet aid. There was nothing as far as I know other than the Soviets Red Army secretly transferring Harbin in Northeast China to them, which had some leftover industry and equipment from the Japanese occupation for them to use. Obviously, the current regime in China is so feared and resented by the West because it’s the only non-white that has been able to resist the West. Naturally, the political culture there is relatively very strong and independent too, as opposed to one of subordination to superior outsiders. Still, nowadays, there are plenty of girls in China who would sell out to some white loser for more money and status, and there is little that can be done to prevent that.

Face it, women are the weaker, subordinate sex. They are smaller, weaker, and less intelligent. Mother Nature made it that way, too bad. So to portray the men of the conquered, inferior race as effeminate is the natural way to culturally degrade them and their race. It’s still very much this way for East Asians, that is the reality. Can this be changed? Yes, but it will take many generations. Culture and perception does take a long time to change. There will need to be the hard power, preferably a military victory, to back it up, plus at least a generation of cultural and political education and media in the same direction. You see, centuries of colonialism has been such that inferiority to whites and the West is deeply engrained, the British and Americans have spent generations if not centuries training their lackeys in the East and promoting a culture in their favor. This is why you see Hong Kongers, Taiwanese, Singaporeans, and South Koreans show so much contempt for their counterparts in mainland China, those poor brainwashed communists. Yes, China got Hong Kong back legally and militarily but not the hearts of its people. And the agreement with the British was such that a relative degree of autonomy would remain for another 50 years. There are some people in China who are unhappy with how Deng Xiaoping dealt with the whole thing, mentioning how there is still some British and some South African on some high court in Hong Kong. Hong Kong remains culturally and politically colonized, a hotspot for CIA subversion operations. It took a lot of beatings from the British for the residents of Hong Kong to become that way, I don’t know what the Chinese communists will need to do just to reverse most of that damage. As for Taiwan and South Korea, for the perception to really change, I think China will actually need to take them by force, with economic embargo plus military occupation. Really, you can only truly reshape the world order with military occupation, as the United States and Soviet Union did respectively post WWII, with the United States grabbing a bigger share of course, despite that Soviet Union did much more of the dirty work to win that war.

In some sense, the only guaranteed solution to the problem of ideological conversion is to kill, or sterilize. That’s happened all the time throughout history. During the Crusades, those with the inclination to resist religious thought were basically wiped out of the gene pool. Similar pressures in medieval Europe. Which explains why whites have such strong religious inclination. The Chinese communists also did their killing of counterrevolutionaries after taking over. Of course, there were some who really despised that regime but sucked it up and hid it well enough that they weren’t killed, and their descendants a generation or two could continue on with their liberal anti-communist crap once the political situation permitted. In South Korea, the solution of American puppet dictator Syngman Rhee was also to simply kill anyone suspected of left-wing leanings. There were plenty of socialists in South Korea during that time. The way to deal with them of course was to kill or at least make life hard for their families, with the effect of suppressing birth of more political undesirables to consolidate the next generation’s power.

Of course, now it’s no longer anywhere near as socially acceptable to use the cold kill or imprison method. (The US and allies can still do this though to small countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya and get away with it, as it is still too powerful, especially politically, that nobody else can really do anything about it.) Norms have changed, too much liberal human rights bullshit, not to mention to more to lose from actual war. Of course, economic and political pressure is still, and always will be, a viable option. Somebody wrote that the USSR lost much because it was much worse than the US at soft power, at getting others to willingly submit to them. Yes, and this has much to do with that the US was able to inherit centuries of British imperialism and colonialism, whereas the USSR was a new superpower that emerged from relative backwardness under the new socialist system they pioneered in order to survive, not to mention that in hard power it was still much weaker. Yes, soft power takes generations, even centuries to develop. The legacy of the British Empire and subsequent American post-WWII world order, and white, Western imperialism and colonialism in general, will be very hard to displace. Even when their hard power is no longer so overwhelming, cultural attitudes remain deeply entrenched, per the colossal political dependency and technological and institutional ecosystem accumulated over generations.

There is still hope though. China will have to create and promote internationally a culture in its favor, with a fuck you attitude to the West to the extent that she can get away with. You never win by abiding by somebody else’s rules. The West is naturally much advantaged in the idiotic politically liberal free for all market setting of its own creation that has effectively induced in people passive submission against their own interests and reluctance to face often unpleasant realities. China could go the opposite way of brutal state control optimizing for national interests in combination of more ethnic identity among the Chinese people. That means the state using access to its large domestic market to extort as much as they can politically and economically, taking advantage of the precedence of private corporate interest in the West. Basically, along with heavy investment on becoming self-sufficient in all advanced, strategically important technologies, telling the West that we’ll only make it easy for our people to buy your products if you give us something, technology or political favor. Tell them that if you say shit about us your companies will have a lot of profits to lose. That also means intense government directed pressure against liberal anti-communist ethnic Chinese. On this, we can see how many have already toned down such political activities for their economic expedience and benefit, just like how economic pressures from the American ruling class has worked wonders to induce the desired political correctness of expression. As this goes on, China will have to absorb more of the rest of the world into its own ecosystem, primarily targeting of course developing, formerly oppressed countries with shared historical sentiment. This means gradually establishing RMB as an alternative international reserve currency. At home, China can using its state media apparatus strengthen the no nonsense brutally capability-based nationalistic/militaristic side of its culture to encourage its people to achieve their potential in a way that benefits the national interest. On this note, I shall point out my observation that the US media loves to sway and deceive mentally weak people with fake ideological bullshit in the likes of freedom and democracy, whereas the Chinese in media discussions of political matters focus primarily on objective capability and leverage. The US is too good at culturally and systemically absorbing and manipulating, so China’s best strategy to counter it is to unapologetically go the opposite way both culturally and economically. You defeat someone by boycotting his rigged game, not by playing it.

All in all, China is still very much in what would America think mode, though recently, with China’s economic and technological strength ever more manifest, there’s been visibly more of an I don’t give a damn what you think attitude that now China easily gets away with, with the trend ever more in that direction. Just as America has used and still uses anti-communist Chinese in Hong Kong and Taiwan to make trouble for China, the Chinese government could, appealing to Chinese ethnic pride and identity, encourage Chinese in America, increasingly discontent with the discrimination they face there, to demand more, or at the very least, contribute to more ethnic inter-group tension in an already very racial spoils driven multiethnic society. After all, the people who win big are almost always those with a strong sense of entitlement and ambition, who dare to cross social boundaries.

I don’t think truly getting along is possible, out of realism. Powerful large ethnic groups/nations are almost always hostile to each other, especially when they are very racially and/or ideologically different. They really only cooperate when there is a more threatening common enemy.

Apparently China just blocked Quora

Verified on https://www.comparitech.com/privacy-security-tools/blockedinchina/.

More evidence on https://tieba.baidu.com/p/5827404115.

I wonder why. Quora is all in English. Hardly subversive. Well, I guess it still sends a political message.

China really is seceding from the world. Soon it might start targeting relatives of Chinese liberals abroad too. Reign in on political undesirables of Chinese descent all over the world. 看来他们还稍微征服了我,发现自己态度也越来越从融入,与对外搞好关系,到为将美国虚伪的自由主义世界体系土崩瓦解做贡献牢牢载入史册,创造人类新纪元。

其实我觉得Quora不是什么好东西。质量早已被不可数的印度害人虫严重污染,据Alexa,Quora在印度比美国流行的多,而且最近得知一位华裔理论物理学家,在上面问了问题,就是Why do Jews control so much of the media in the US? 结果呢?标题被改了!Those dastard administrators changed it to “Why do some people believe that Jews control the US media?”

I guess in some sense, you could say that the Chinese government is quite far-sighted. They recognize the enormous advantage of ethnic, cultural, and ideological homogeneity. They’ve already had to deal with Hong Kong and Taiwan, social attitudes a product of colonization. They know that liberal Chinese are mostly a pain in the neck, potential tools of unwanted cultural and ideological penetration. They know that China’s huge potential can be deeply limited if she accepts and fully integrates into the existing American liberal world order. It is needless to say that once you accumulate upon a major external dependency, it can be VERY difficult to detach. This was a regime founded on boycotting games, at first military ones, where the enemy has the obvious advantage and instead playing one’s own game on opponent’s weaknesses. You can’t really win when somebody else can freely manipulate the rules to one’s favor.

This regime understands the value of flexibility. They recognize the danger of going on irreversible tracks. They recognize the problems which inevitably arise from entrenched interest groups in deep contradiction with each other. They recognize the advantage of a powerful central force for the interest of the collective group, impossible in a liberal democratic capitalist society. The recognize the essentialness of unity and concentration of power. A group whose constituents are spread thin can be easily eaten up one by one. Much better to have firm, concentrated control over a few places than loose control of many.

On observing an ethnic potpourri within a mono culture directed by a minority ruling class culturally distinct, it is recognized that such a system can run only to the extent that they can fool more people into serving it through wealth, through the ideals of “freedom and democracy,” whatever those words mean. Once sufficiently embedded, they can further spread the gospel to those in their ancestral homeland, enticing more people into this system. They can potentially entice entire countries into the system too, through influence of their elites, their regimes.

So why feed more into it, when it can only hurt you in the long run? Why not keep those who go on a partial leash, just in case? Why not set a better example for the preservation of genuine ethnic and cultural diversity on this planet?

The colonizer conquers, the colonizer gains. Land annexed and slave labor reaped. Till the point when one inextricably ties oneself to the conquered. With language, they seep into one’s culture, one’s homeland too. Once too many and too quick to multiply, you find yourself surrounded, outnumbered by, and mixed with those once conquered, irreversible. By culture, you pretend they’re like you, but they are also not like you, they can never be like you. Yet they’re on your land, you must accommodate them. And in doing so, your face is changed forever.

If you remain pure as the other adulterates, why not preserve your purity? Not only for yourself. For civilization, if it to continue on this planet.

How the “civilized” get ethnically cleansed

My uber talented, smart, high-achieving Chinese-American friend is super insecure about his dating prospects, which of course relates to his being a Chinese male. On this, I once said to him

If you ever feel insecure about your race, just fantasize about how Genghis Khan’s warriors raped those Russian women!

Those barbaric Mongol nomads actually conquered Russia and Ukraine before they fully conquered the Han Chinese in 1279. Yes, they did fully conquer Han Chinese civilization militarily and for this, there is the saying 崖山之后无华夏.

There are traditional, Confucian Chinese who will bitch and bitch about Mongols ruined Chinese civilization. Well too bad. There was apparently a policy of 重文轻武 in the Song Dynasty, which means “emphasis literary and neglect military.”

It’s not just Mongols vs Arabs or Mongols vs Song. There’s also Greeks vs Romans. Also Manchus vs Ming. Even today, we are seeing somewhat of an ethnic cleansing of whites by Muslims, Hispanics, and blacks in their homelands. At the high echelons of American society, Jews have pretty much already won, and the Indians too are taking over American companies, especially in tech, with their dirty nepotistic group tactics. Nobody can stop them, at least for now. Whites cannot really stop them. Too much white guilt and actively trying not to be racist. The Chinese in America in this respect are even worse. They tend to be Confucian style conformist harmonious cucks, passively accepting American behavioral norms. There are plenty of Chinese in China with the aggressive nationalistic I don’t give a fuck attitude, but they tend to not end up in America, unless rich and buying real estate. 😉

Duke of Qin on Unz Review has written:

“Civilized” people get ethnically cleansed. I want the Chinese to be proud Chinese, not ersatz yellow Canadians. You know what happens to the considerate Chinaman? Other people walk all over him and take advantage of them at every turn and they are too meek to say a word otherwise. It’s a recipe for racial extinction. Submission to the behavioral norms of globo-homo-Amero culture one place means submission in other places too. Better by far for the Chinese to retain the blithe “fuck you” attitude and force others to accommodate themselves to our behavior than the inverse. Works for the Arabs and Israelies, the Chinese should copy them.

As for myself, I’m a nerd, trained in pure math, with pretty refined tastes, but I also respect much those with the practical survival fighting character, and I sincerely believe Chinese need more of those types. I also didn’t cuck out to idiotic American liberalism despite having been here since grade school, and I do have some contempt for those who did, which is sadly most, as well as their parents. The worst Chinese in my eyes tend to be those with the stereotypically Confucian, exceedingly closed-minded grades and prestigious schools and degrees above all else attitude. When transplanted to America, the result is more often than not pitiful. It’s fair to say that those were the types of intellectuals the Chinese communists wanted to reeducate and eliminate at all costs. Whenever I see a Chinese like that, I feel embarrassed myself to have to be associated with her by virtue of race.

I’ll conclude with another quote of Duke of Qin.

There is some quirk of human psychology, “squeaky wheel getting the grease” that seems to empower being the biggest ass hole around. It maybe that people just associate it with alpha like behavior. Just look at the poor behavior of blacks everywhere, yet everyone else is on tip toes around them. Or look at how obnoxious Jews are, yet the people who they screw the hardest are first to lick their feet. Hell look at Trump. He defies all social convention of his class, yet his followers have formed a cult of personality around him. Yes people do talk about such people behind their backs, but in public their power is absolute because of their willingness to break established norms.

First Chinese 2800+ in chess!

In the first game of the Ding Liren – Topalov match, held in Ding’s hometown Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China, Ding won as black. The 4.3 rating gain (2797.0 -> 2801.3)

30_180811210344_1_lit
Source: http://cca.imsa.cn/archives/69722

was enough to make him the first Chinese to break 2800 in chess. Even better, this was done in his hometown in China, whose people are known to be so good at business that they’re called the Jews of the Orient. 天佑中华!

We can safely bet that the first Chinese chess world champion will be Zhejiangnese. Not just because of Ding the individual, also because of Zhejiangnese intelligence, which at 115.8 is Ashkenazi level.

Of course, the current world champion, Carlsen, who stands out as much as Kasparov and Fischer did (but not yet politically so 😉 ), isn’t actually Jewish. He’s Norwegian. Of course, Norwegians are also extremely creative. Opera Browser. Abel, Sylow, Lie, Selberg, Skolem, Onsager. And they’re also not parasites, pretty much well-liked, except for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Ding actually had to withdraw from his last tournament back in May due to an injury while riding a bicycle. He recovered well enough to play again, and he actually won in his hometown Wenzhou, what a miracle! 温州人的骄傲,浙江人的骄傲,也是所有中国人的骄傲!

What’s wrong with the Ivy League

Very recently, a Chinese-American Yale undergrad cold emailed me expressing approval of this blog, and we not long after began to talk regularly.

A few days ago, in an email to Steve Hsu, me, and some others, he wrote:

I think the Ivy League is best understood as a giant money-making organism. Attached to it like a leech is a seminary for training priests and spreading the gospel of the American progressive religion. Attached to that leech is an even smaller leech which actually contains smart people doing good technical work. And gmachine1729 is right that the average Ivy student is not that great (but the top end does represent the best of the best).

Relatedly, I just saw an essay on Zhihu in Chinese by Yale finance professor Zhiwu Chen on the matter of 中国人那么优秀,为什么美国人还是更喜欢印度人?(Chinese are so exceptional, why do Americans still like Indians more). The essay was one of Chinese are smart and hardworking but modest, passive, conformist, filially pious per the Confucian tradition and emphasize hard skills at the expense of soft skills, while Indians, like Americans, are assertive and confident with strong leadership qualities. The comments, of which there were 27, were mostly dismissive. The first one, and the most memorable one was

你对比下毛主席和甘地还不能明白点?

In translation,

Can’t you better understand the situation by comparing Chairman Mao with Gandhi?

I’m very happy to see this. It means that Chinese are no longer dazed by Ivy League credentials. They are beginning to think more independently, to have more confidence in themselves. Maybe in another decade’s time, non-STEM professor at Ivy will become an explicit negative signal among Chinese in China.

Jack Ma

He’s one of those trendy major success stories. He’s basically gone viral in China. Especially after Alibaba IPO. His net worth is like $44 billion. I didn’t really care enough to learn more about him. What I did remember was that he was an academically dull student. From his Wiki page:

Later in his youth, Ma struggled attending college. The Chinese entrance exams are held only once a year and Ma took four years to pass. Ma attended Hangzhou Teacher’s Institute (currently known as Hangzhou Normal University) and graduated in 1988 with a B.A. in English.[8][9]

Okay back then, only a small percentage actually attended college (like 5%, maybe 10%). In the end, he could only get into a bullshit major in a shit tier school.

It seems like he was basically a complete loser until his mid thirties.

Jack Ma applied for 30 different jobs and got rejected by all. “I went for a job with the police; they said, ‘you’re no good,'” Ma told interviewer Charlie Rose. “I even went to KFC when it came to my city. Twenty-four people went for the job. Twenty-three were accepted. I was the only guy…”.[12] In addition to this, he applied 10 times to Harvard Business School (HBS) and got rejected.[13]

It’s funny he even applied for the police because I just learned he’s only 5′ 0″ (152 cm). Those people hiring in the police department were probably like, “who is this midget twit.” He doesn’t know shit about programming or computing and basically hired people who did to actually create Alibaba. I’m ever more convinced that he mostly was extremely lucky. There are zillions of average IQ people with entrepreneurial spirit in China, and I’ve had encounters with some of them myself. Most will only attain modest success. Sadly, people, even in China, are statistically delusional, and actually believe his success was mostly due to skill or “unusual business sense.”

I was just talking about this in a group chat. I wrote the following:

Honestly I’d respect a serious engineer/scientist in, say, the space program in China more than Jack Ma just about any day.

Mostly because there is actually real skill/depth/substance in that. The people who developed China’s nuclear weapons/missiles and satellites unambiguously created much more value for China than Alibaba did. They, the top scientists and engineers behind that, of course merely earned high salaries from the government. In contrast, the leverage China obtained internationally from that, in addition to the technical foundation essential for later economic development is easily on the order of trillions of dollars. Not that what Jack Ma did didn’t have a lot of value. It did, but it’s way overhyped, and more importantly, more people could have in theory lucked into that than there are people with the IQ to, say, master calculus, which by the standards of any serious STEM R&D would be but extremely rudimentary, more or less taken for granted.

This phenomenon is everywhere. In America, when Steve Jobs dies, it’s like the end of the world. When Dennis Ritchie dies, few people actually care. China, much thanks to a combination of Confucian culture and its hard-core communist past, is much better in this regard. But it has degenerated too, sadly. It’s quite problematic that now in China, young people aspire more to be Jack Ma than to be Qian Xuesen (钱学森). Mostly because of money. More convinced I am now that most of what is still culturally healthy left in China today can be traced back to the Maoist era. Yes, there was persecution of intellectuals, much of it an unintended side effect, especially during the Cultural Revolution. But overall, the serious scientists/engineers were highly respected, and even the top political leaders like Mao and Zhou paid close attention to them and their needs; the political attacks against them mostly came from below as a side effect of political movements. They were paid high salaries and given higher benefits, which is what should be done given their talent and importance to the country. Remember that back then, everybody was dirt poor and there were no jock entrepreneurs lucking out on millions.

Now we have an epidemic of highly talented, cultured, hardworking, perceptive, and well-meaning people in STEM being treated like shit, let alone the average Joe, so that more resources and wealth can be concentrated in the hands of idiot businessmen and corrupt politicians. This changes the culture too to value money above substance. There needs to be a strong counterforce to that, and only a powerful government and state controlled media run by actual smart, cultured people dedicated to preservation of national interest and communist orthodoxy can achieve this.

More on negative Chinese stereotypes

I talk with a guy who knows British race and intelligence researcher Richard Lynn, who prophesized back in 2001 in a book on eugenics that China will, with a combination of high IQ, size (both in land mass and population), and authoritarian government, eventually rule the world. I asked him what he thinks about that. His response was:

Chinese deeply incompetent and bad personality for innovation. But maybe if Western keeps importing blacks and Muslims…
It’s a good question and important

For more context on Lynn, I’ll copy directly from his book.

The nations of East Asia are likely to develop their economic, scientific, technological, and military strength during the twenty-first century by virtue of the high intelligence levels of their populations and the absence of any serious dysgenic processes. These countries have not allowed the growth of an underclass with high dysgenic fertility, and they have not permitted dysgenic immigration. China will continue its rapid economic development and will emerge as a new superpower in the early middle decades of the twentyfirst century. Chinese economic, scientific, and military strength is likely to be increased by the further development of the eugenic programs introduced in the 1980s and 1990s and particularly by the introduction of the new eugenics of embryo selection and the cloning of elites. As the power of the United States declines, China and Europe will emerge as the two superpowers. A global conflict will develop between them in which Europe will become progressively weakened by dysgenic forces and China progressively strengthened by eugenic programs. This conflict will eventually be won by China, which will use its power to assume control of the world and to establish a world state. This event will become known as “the end of history.” Once China has established a world state, it can be expected to administer this on the same lines as former colonial empires by appointing Chinese governors and senior military and administrative support staff in charge of the provinces of its world empire or by allowing nationals of its subject peoples to administer the provinces under Chinese supervision. The establishment of a Chinese world state will inevitably not be welcomed by the peoples of the rest of the world, who will become colonized populations governed by an oligarchy based in Beijing. There will be no democracy, and a number of freedoms will be curtailed, including freedom to publish seditious material and to have unlimited numbers of children. There will, however, be certain compensating benefits. There will be no more wars between independent nation states with the attendant dangers of the use of nuclear weapons and biological warfare. It will be possible to deal with the problems of dysgenic fertility, global warming, deforestation, the population explosion in the developing world, the AIDS epidemic, and similar global problems that cannot be tackled effectively in a world of independent nation states. Among the world state’s first objectives will be the reversal of dysgenic processes and the introduction of eugenic programs throughout the world. Over the longer term the world state will set up research and development programs for the use of genetic engineering to improve the human genome and to produce a new human species able to solve hitherto unsolvable problems and to colonize new planets. This will be the ultimate achievement of Galton’s vision of using eugenics to replace natural selection with consciously designed human selection.

This scenario for the twenty-first century, in which China assumes world domination and establishes a world eugenic state, may well be considered an unattractive future. But this is not really the point. Rather, it should be regarded as the inevitable result of Francis Galton’s (1909) prediction made in the first decade of the twentieth century, that “the nation which first subjects itself to a rational eugenical discipline is bound to inherit the earth” (p. 34).

And also an excerpt with reference to the perceived lack of personality conducive to innovation on the part of Chinese:

Once China has established the world state, it will be concerned with raising the prosperity of its subject populations, just as other colonial powers have been. One of its first measures to promote this objective will be to introduce worldwide eugenic programs. These will include programs of both positive and negative eugenics. With regard to negative eugenics, one of its first objectives will be to reverse the dysgenic fertility that appeared in Europe, the United States, and the rest of the economically developed world in the middle and later decades of the nineteenth century and persisted into the twentieth century and that developed later in most of the remainder of the world. It can be expected that in its European and North American provinces, the Chinese will introduce the same eugenic measures that had been pioneered in China, consisting of both the classical eugenics of parental licensing and the new eugenics of the mandatory use of embryo selection for conception. The Chinese may well also introduce the cloning of the elites of the European peoples. The Chinese will be aware that while they and other Oriental peoples have a higher average intelligence, the European peoples have a greater capacity for creative achievement, probably arising from a higher level of psychopathic personality, enabling them more easily to challenge existing ways of thinking and to produce creative innovations. This will be part of human genetic diversity that the Chinese will be keen to preserve and foster. They will regard the European peoples rather in the same way as the Romans regarded the Greeks after they had incorporated them into the Roman empire. Although the Romans had conquered the Greeks by their military superiority, they respected the Greeks for having developed a higher level of civilization than they themselves had been able to achieve. The Chinese will view their European subject peoples in a similar manner.

I do increasingly believe, as I’ve already written numerous times on this blog, that lack of creative potential of Chinese is way overstated. In the 20th century, they achieved a fair bit in terms of creativity at the highest levels, especially in STEM, in spite of very disadvantaged environmental circumstances. The Chinese did not develop modern science; I think though this has more to do with their having started later, civilization-wise, than the rest of the world due to limited scope and geographic obstacles than with their innate ability/personality. Agriculture and writing were independently developed in China substantially later than it was in Mesopotamia. I see an analogy here. Chinese often like to use the fact that Japan did not develop its own writing system to show contempt for this comparatively little country that Chinese themselves suffered so much from in modern times. This is clearly not because Japanese are less naturally talented (their IQ is about the same); they were basically too small to do so before Chinese characters were transmitted to them. There are actually quite a few Chinese who achieved at the highest levels of STEM (and even more Japanese), they are lesser known though due to their foreignness. As for names, there are quite a few, and one can easily find them online. I’ll go as far as Chen-Ning Yang in theoretical physics and Shing-Shen Chern in pure math.

Again, Chinese culture still lacks presence in the outside world, and China itself is still a developing country, though of course significant parts of China are basically at developed levels GDP wise. So even if Chinese are extremely good and creative, they have a harder time getting recognized and realizing their potential. This also has much to do with a relative lack of truly leading edge science culture and tradition in China, which will take some time. Transmission of knowledge from cultures and lands so far apart is by no means trivial.

We all know that it’s often not enough to be actually good. You also have to win politically. China is increasingly doing that. Its political system far apart from the norm set by the West is becoming increasingly credible to the dismay of many Western elites as China rises in economically, technologically, and militarily. The more powerful China becomes, the more easily Chinese will be able to advocate for themselves on the international stage and get recognized for their achievements. This reminds me of how many say Soviet scientists had to do better work than Western scientists to win the same big prizes, most of all the Nobel, because the West had the political sway to bias the committees to its favor somewhat. There is also, I guess, that the West can be very biased in who it promotes in the media. Like, the Nobel Peace Prize is a basically a complete joke, but there are people politically influential enough to make a big deal out of it.

What I believe is grossly under-recognized is how much creativity and daring it has taken for the Chinese to create their own, unique political system and maintain sufficient faith in it up to this day. In many ways, in this respect, the 90s, right after the Soviet collapse, when there was all this Francis Fukuyama end of history nonsense, was a nadir for China. But we’re now past that, and time seems to be on the side of the Chinese. I guess they will still need more people like me to advocate for these alternative perspectives to the extent that they becomes the new normal, in the international setting.