Some excerpts from a 2013 US Govt report entitled "The Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism."
The Chinese see multiculturalism as a sickness in the American body politic destroying a formerly-strong principally Anglo-Protestant US society. Racism keeps Chinese society strong and united against outsiders.
The report recommends US policymakers emphasize how open America is to immigrants and the many privileges to which nonwhites and women are entitled to attract other countries by appearing more inclusive than China. Why this would be attractive to third parties is left unsaid.
Celebration parallax: US education and entertainment have been retooled to "emphasize the contributions of racial minorities and the dangers of racism." Anti-racism is as emphasized as mathematics. Dissidents are cancelled. This is supposed to be a strength (how? No one knows).
19th century Chinese thinkers [like their US immigration restrictionist counterparts] saw whites and yellows as the only two truly intelligent and martial races, with blacks at the bottom of the hierarchy. "The blacks and browns are lazy and unintelligent."
Rudyard Kipling thought that spreading Western tech to China would make China terrifyingly powerful. Napoleon and Kaiser Wilhelm II thought similarly. They've been vindicated.
The report often refers to how racism, eugenics, etc are "discredited" in the West but are common in China. It never stops to ask: what if the Chinese view is factually correct?
Chinese view of whites: superior in the past, but no longer (though still sexually attractive). Europe is a backwater, America is destroying itself with multiculturalism. Of Indians: they stink and are uncivilized, but are good engineers. Of blacks: dumb and lazy.
Per the Chinese, America is rejecting what made us great via multiculturalism. Per the report, this change is good, though he can't explain why. The Chinese are happy to explain events racially, which is unthinkable in the West (he doesn't explain why the Western view is right).
Report argues that Civil Rights and the 1965 immigration act show the superior adaptiveness of the Western system, and that China will never solve racism on its own because of its closed political system. Left unsaid is why racism needs to be solved at all.
Report says lack of Civil Rights is why Uighurs stab/bomb Han. But Muslims/blacks behave the same way in the US/Europe. Difference is, when the Uighur's do it to Han, the CCP strips their civil liberties. When blacks/Muslims here do it to us, govts strip *our* civil liberties.
CCP has a policy of pacifying Xinjiang and Tibet by flooding them with more politically compliant Han, with the long-term result of eliminating Uighurs and Tibetans as peoples. The obvious parallel to Western mass Third World immigration is not mentioned.
I found this report incredibly frustrating to read. Constantly setting up the right questions, and then... completely whiffing them. Just uncritically repeating post-60s New Left consensus without even trying to evaluate if it's true or if the Chinese critique of it.
Also if you're a Sinophile and love the PRC (as distinct from acknowledging its strengths and virtues) and not Chinese, you are a cuck. esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Doc…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thread with excerpts from "How the War Was Won". Three basic theses: 1) Air-sea battle was more important than land to WWII, with all combatants except USSR focusing on it... 2) ...because it can interdict production before battle. 3) Eastern front was a sideshow, like China.
Germany, Japan, US, and UK all dedicated 65-80% of their economies to aircraft, ships, and anti-aircraft equipment. Aluminum, crtitical for aircraft production, was thus as or more important than the more famous (Rise and Fall of the Great Powers) steel production.
In 1944, when German production peaked, about half was dedicated to aircraft alone (not counting their weapons and ammunition), and the Germans had more aircraft workers than the US (though they were far less productive thanks to the bombings forcing dispersal).
By the way, since we know contraception/family planning/abortion were not in common use until 1760 (France)/1870 (rest of Europe) and bastardry/cuckoldry rates were both very low, we can be confident this goes back to at least 1300 (less evidence before then).
Some excerpts from Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime (Pipes). Key difference between Russia, where the Bolsheviks succeeded, and the rest of Europe, where they failed, is that the masses of the rest of Europe were at least a little bit patriotic.
Of the big Euro socialist parties, the Italians PSI joined the Comintern, but was expelled for not expelling the minority who didn't want to. The German and British Communists were unable to take over SPD/Labour, respectively. Only in France did the major socialist party join.
Communists being comparatively rare and treated with suspicion abroad, most Soviet support abroad came from liberals and fellow travelers.
Quick thread on The Rise of Christianity (Rodney Stark, 1996). Stark estimates that Christianity grew ~40% per decade until it made up half the Roman Empire, comparable to Mormonism (up until the 90s, I don't know about today).
Stark observes that contemporary cults (as distinguished from sects, which split off from conventional religion) overwhelmingly recruit from the religiously-unattached upper stratum of society, and infers that Christianity probably did too.
He also argues that, as religions overwhelmingly recruit within social networks and it's easier to change with a sense of continuity, early Christianity was probably dominated by Jewish converts.
Thread with excerpts from "South Africa's Brave New World." The white establishment gave up gracefully, despite having the military power to fight. The author himself fought apartheid and doesn't regret it, despite his findings.
Immediate capital flight amid massive corruption from the ANC. Chief ambition of much of the new elite: opening casinos, assumed to be a license to print money. Shades of US states doing the same for tax revenue.
Assassination was a common tool for the ANC elite both in exile and again in power. The author believes the ANC was involved in the assassination of Hani, a left-wing ANC leader, due to his threat to Mbeki.
"It is every migrant’s dream to see the tables turned, to see long lines of Americans and Britons in front of the Bangladeshi or Mexican or Nigerian Embassy, begging for a residence visa." - Suketu Mehta, India-born NYU professor. This in an argument *for* immigration.
From "This Land is Their Land: An Immigrant's Manifesto". Mehta is a professor at New York University. America gave him a far better life than he could have had in India, plus a taxpayer-funded ticket into our cultural elite. And he despises us for it.
It's easy to abstract away charts showing Indian-Americans being among the strongest supporters of Critical Race Theory, believing that white supremacy is a major threat, and strongly supporting Affirmative Action. Mehta is an illustrative example of this mindset in practice.