Amy Taxin, AP, July 16, 2009
A Chinese-born engineer was convicted Thursday of stealing trade secrets critical to the U.S. space program in the nation’s first economic espionage trial.
A federal judge found former Boeing Co. engineer Dongfan “Greg” Chung guilty of six counts of economic espionage and other charges for hoarding 300,000 pages of sensitive documents in his home, including information about the U.S. space shuttle and a booster rocket.
“The trust Boeing placed in Mr. Chung to safeguard its proprietary and trade secret information obviously meant very little to Mr. Chung,” U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney wrote in his 31-page ruling. “He cast it aside to serve the PRC (People’s Republic of China), which he proudly proclaimed as his ‘motherland.’”
Federal prosecutors accused the 73-year-old stress analyst of using his 30-year career at Boeing and Rockwell International to steal the documents. They said investigators found papers stacked throughout Chung’s house that included sensitive information about a fueling system for a booster rocket—documents that Boeing employees were ordered to lock away at the close of work each day. They said Boeing invested $50 million in the technology over a five-year period.
{snip}
After the ruling, defense attorney Thomas Bienert said he planned to appeal.
“A big feature (of this case) is not about what China wanted Mr. Chung to do, but about what Mr. Chung was willing to do,” Bienert said outside the courtroom. “There is no evidence that China used or benefited from anything in this case.”
Chung had been free on $250,000 bail before the verdict. His attorneys asked the judge to let him remain with his family in Orange until sentencing, but the government said a man facing such a long sentence with close ties to China could easily flee to the Chinese consulate and never return.
{snip}
Original article
(Posted on July 16, 2009)
Comments
One of many Chinese who are “serving the motherland” right here in the United States. I once worked with a Chinese who’d lived here for years. I spoke to him in Mandarin and English. I made the mistake of criticizing Communism, and he became extremely defensive of Chairman Mao and the Communist Party, and became extremely critical of the U.S. government and the United States in general. His attitude was the exact opposite of the media-generated image of the poor immigrant who just wants a better life and the freedoms that America has.
I’ve made comments on Chinese workers in sensitive security places in the U.S. before. I got some nasty responses from some Chinese posters, because I guess I hit a sore spot, like for instance, when I brought up Mr. Lee and the ten missing high security tapes. He was saved buy the Chinese community who circled the wagons to pay for his legal defense, and were more interested, apparently, in his not goint to jail, than whether of not he was a spy. I guess it’s all part of how we are “enriched” by diversity”, as one respected AmRen poster always puts it.
The Japanese, Chinese and Koreans are not your friends. They will stab a White person in the back to get their people ahead of us. They hate Whites and will not stop until they own our industries and military secrets!
“Chinese-Born Engineer Guilty of Economic Espionage.”
How unusual! I mean, because he crossed the US border and indicated a desire to be a citizen of this country, surely the transition itself is enough proof to this government that they have his complete, undivided loyalty. Everybody knows that crossing a border magically changes a person’s loyalty from the country he left to the one where he makes his new home.
Anybody so dense they arrive at another conclusion has got to be impared some way. You know, like being a racist.
To Bobby:
I don’t know for certain that Wen Ho Lee was guilty but there was absolutely enough evidence to warrant an investigation, as you noted.
His defenders played the race card shamelessly while chanting “racial profiling!”. Of course some of them were veterans of the Old Left who had previously declared the innocence of Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs.
““The trust Boeing placed in Mr. Chung to safeguard its proprietary and trade secret information obviously meant very little to Mr. Chung,” U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney wrote in his 31-page ruling. “He cast it aside to serve the PRC (People’s Republic of China), which he proudly proclaimed as his ‘motherland.’””
Gee, who’d have ever guessed that a man might have more loyalty to the nation which bore him than to a bland, publicly held corporation which cuts him a check every two weeks. Obviously this comes as some kind of revelation to a U.S. Judge like Mr. Carney, who probably can not conceive of someone having loyalty to their own country.
Last year in Canada’s capital, just before the Olympics, ethnic Chinese stood beneath the flag of the PRC with a sign proclaiming their racial loyalty. The sign read, “one China - one family”
When officials of the Chinese state bureaucracy visit Canada, they show a great amount of deference. Some may not like the communist party, but they all love and identify with Chinese nationalism.
I suspect that is just the tip of the iceberg.
It would have been much better if Ameria had remained labor self-sufficient like she was in the past. The is no labor market-economic justification for importing even one asian LEGAL immigrant since 1965. And one you throw in demographic and ecological issues, it is obvious that the case against asian LEGAL immigrants is very strong.
If you listen to the post 1965 asian “Americans”, they would have you believe that without asians, Native Born White America would never be able to produce her own engineers,scientists, doctors and computer programmers. This is a lie. For starters, Native Born White America manged to twelve Native Born White Alpha males on the moon. And the technological workforce that these 12 alpha Native Born White Males on the moon were 100 percent Native Born White Americans.
The lies of the post-1965 asians must be confronted exposed.
The passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act was a great benefit to Native Born White Amerians in an earlier century. And we can thank an Irish immigrant for its passage. Socialist and labor leader Samuel Gompers was a supporter of the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Post-1965 asians in Ameria are the mortal enemy of Native Born White Americans. They are actively involved in the destruction of who knows how many centuries of Native Born White Amerian Enginering talent-including future Nativ Born White Amerian Engineering talent that will never be developed. Post-1965 asians in America are waging a vicious race war aainst the Native Born White Majority.
Now we know why so many have come here and gotten jobs in high-tech or defense industries.
So is anyone going to ask the questions?
Yes he violated security protocols, but no mention of actually giving the information to Red China..
However, how does someone steal, print, store, access, 300,000 pages of classified documents, take them home, and NOBODY noticed
Is this ANOTHER failure of security??
Is this ANOTHER Madoff-Type failure: The system is so broken, incompetent, and corrupt that a ROGUE individual can pillage a company, organization, or government for years and nobody notices!!!
When are we going to wake up, individuals cannot not steal, embezzle, cheat anyone out of large amounts of money or classified inro unless the system AND the guardians of said funds and documents are involved or completely incompetent.
We have a systems wide failure in America and the attention is on certain individuals NOT on the people who develop, guard, and create these systems of security, government etc.
To all you “conservatives” ou there. If you voted for Repulican Presidents and Senators, you voted and continue to vote for Chinese tecnological and military espionage within the borders of America.
The Republican party is the mortal enemy of Native Born White Americans. Nothing could be more obvious.
For those of you who are Alex Jones fans:Alex Jones is a fanatical supporter of asian LEGAL IMMIGRATION. This makes Alex Jones a fanatical supporter of job theft, wage theft, tecnologocal and military secrets theft. If you don’t believe me..go ask him.
I keep hearing that Chinese have a mean IQ of 105, compared to the Caucasian average IQ of 100. If they’re so much smarter, why do they have to steal high-tech secrets from America?
13 — Anonymous wrote at 11:02 AM on July 17:
Anonymous wrote at 11:02 AM on July 17:
“I keep hearing that Chinese have a mean IQ of 105, compared to the Caucasian average IQ of 100. If they’re so much smarter, why do they have to steal high-tech secrets from America?”
The reason why the Chinese have to steal high-tech secrets from America is that Asians are smart, but they can’t innovate. They are very good at following directions precisely or improving upon advances made by white, Westerners.
“I keep hearing that Chinese have a mean IQ of 105, compared to the Caucasian average IQ of 100. If they’re so much smarter, why do they have to steal high-tech secrets from America?”
You keep hearing the wrong info, guy. China has a national I.Q. of 100, the same as the groupI.Q. for whites in the US. Factor in blacks and Hispanics and the I.Q. average drops to 98.
There is much more at play in determining intelligence than I.Q., although that would be the main ingredient, of course. There has to be other factors at work that decides intelligence besides group I.Q. figures. Otherwise, how do we explain why one race accomplishes far more than another? It’s got to be due to factors not yet coinsidered in overall intelligence, but I’m positive they will be included eventually.
Too, some Asians will score higher on average than whites regarding math, but whites score higher than all Asians on verbal portions of tests.
Also, can you discount success entirely? Absolutely not. Whites are successful because they have qualities and intelligence above the other races of the earth. There’s no question of that.
And, let me ask you one other question. Even if some Asian group I.Q. average is higher than the white average by 3 to 5 points, aren’t you pretty silly to describe them as “much more intelligent?” 3 to 5 points are pretty much negligible.
Incidentally, let me pose another question to ponder: If blacks in the US have a group average of about 85 why is it they could never accomplish the successes of Indians whose group average is 81? We see many doctors, engineers, etc., who are Indian, but almost zero blacks, unless they’ve been awarded a worthless AA diploma. Too, could blacks EVER build the civilizations Indians have and could they ever have the intelligence or creativity to come up with the religious concepts of Indians, to name only a few things Indians do that outperform blacks.
I.Q. tests are excellent for determining who can learn, but they fall far short of providing a basis that gives a true evaluation of intelligence.
There was this guy of japanese descent that hung out with my group of friends in late high school and early college. He used to make a joke that we shouldn’t question his math skills because he’s Asian. If I had thought about it at the time I would have responded that if Asians are so much better at math, then why did Japan go to war with a country (the US) with a population two and a half times larger not to mention industrial output.
Ice wrote …
“And, let me ask you one other question. Even if some Asian group I.Q. average is higher than the white average by 3 to 5 points, aren’t you pretty silly to describe them as “much more intelligent?” 3 to 5 points are pretty much negligible”
3-5 IQ points at the mean is NOT an insignificant difference in the Gaussian distribution, the reason being that at the extreme right of the Gaussian distribution, where the most intelligent are to be found,there are significantly more more individuals if the mean IQ is 105, than if the mean IQ is 100.
18 Anon: I don’t know that I buy the high Chinese IQ business. I doubt that the sample was random. How many rural Chinese get tested for IQ? The average is likely taken from the cities, which may have their share of donkeys, but will have all the engineers, accountants, smart machinists, and clever hairdressers. Any figures out of China’s government would be suspect anyway. And the Orientals in the U.S. are certainly not randomly chosen. From Vietnam we got the middle class refugees. From China we get people on student visas. The Japanese that came here a century ago were screened by the Japanese government to ensure that they would not embarrass the homeland. Ask yourself, what would the average IQ of New York or Los Angeles be if you didn’t include any non-Whites or any White with an arrest record or who had been on public assistance?
There are different types of intelligence that are not measured on an IQ test. I do think as a whole, Whites are more creative and inventive than Asians on average. That’s pretty obvious when you look at the fact that most inventions are created by Whites. I’m not trying to be arrogant or bragging here nor am I trying to put Asians down, just stating the facts.
However, how does someone steal, print, store, access, 300,000 pages of classified documents, take them home, and NOBODY noticed
Is this ANOTHER failure of security??
Most companies have to deal with security, and often the biggest threat to a company’s security is its own employees. Numerous articles have been written on the subject of employee theft of data. It’s all a matter of trust. A particular advantage that Asians or other minorities have is political correctness, which leads to a reluctance of White employers and co-workers to accuse a minority of wrongdoing.
Some of you folks are way too concerned about Chinese IQ. Who cares? What difference does it make? The overriding issue is the race replacement of Native Born White Americans at the hands of post-1965 non-whites. Why make the issue so complicated?
Anonymous wrote: 3-5 IQ points at the mean is NOT an insignificant difference in the Gaussian distribution, the reason being that at the extreme right of the Gaussian distribution, where the most intelligent are to be found,there are significantly more more individuals if the mean IQ is 105, than if the mean IQ is 100.
—————-
That’s if the SD (standard deviation) is the same for all races / groups, which it is not. While PC forces have generally tried to bury info on the differences in SD between the races, a couple of studies have shown that Whites apparently (and it’s likely a concrete ‘yes’) have a wider SD than E. Asians. Only Gottfredson put forth some work stating Asians had a wider SD, but besides her veiled anti-white political leanings, she allegedly placed SE Asian IQ’s into the mix to widen the SD. Then when computing IQ averages for “Asians” she and others use only E. Asian IQ scores, leaving out the lower averages for SE Asians. (There were also accusations the work was flat out falsified, not surprising) This type of exclusion is not done with White ‘averages’ to compute an overall, as separating N. European averages from other European scores shows averages that are a couple of points or so higher than E. Asians depending on the types of tests. However, the major differences between E. Asians and Whites aren’t in the IQ scores themselves, people get too caught up in that I have to agree. It’s the structure of the intelligence in each group, which is different. That’s why each group has relative strengths and weaknesses when compared to each other. Asians apparently have a cognitive structure that on average has them doing better in certain areas of computation than Whites, while Whites have a structure that has them doing, on average, better than E. Asians in divergent and analytical thinking. Whites seem to be able to ‘hook up’ and link unrelated ideas and concepts much more often and easily than other groups most of the time. This is where creativity comes in. That’s why the Chinese and others spend so much time and effort stealing. Ask someone at a college who has to read papers from all the Asian “geniuses” and they’ll tell you it’s staggering how unoriginal, how much of the papers are barely above cut and paste jobs from the internet. Whites aren’t smartest or best at everything, but we have a wider range of cognitive abilities. That counts for a lot.
I should add that Whites and Asians most likely developed their intelligence having to eke out a tough living during the Ice Age(s) as has been hypothesized by several scientists. It’s interesting how two separate groups developed differently along some cognitive lines in order to do some of the same things. Compare either group to the peoples who developed strictly in Africa or for the most part in Central and South America, where food falls off the trees and animals (for food) are abundant. We don’t see them developing anything in the areas of science, never mind trying to steal scientific ideas or concepts. They only compete with us because of an artificial situation that exists at the moment.
#5 Madison Grant, I didn’t realize that some of the old leftists resurrected themselves to get involved in Dr. Lee’s defense. I thought it was strictly a “Chinese thing.”
how many rural Chinese get tested for IQ? The average is likely taken from the cities, which may have their share of donkeys, but will have all the engineers, accountants, smart machinists, and clever hairdressers.
This question was raised at the 2006 Amren conference - by I think Paul Fromm. Rushton confirmed that the IQ testing of East Asians was in fact representative of their group, not done on simply a select elite.
3-5 IQ points at the mean is NOT an insignificant difference in the Gaussian distribution…the reason being that at the extreme right of the Gaussian distribution, where the most intelligent are to be found,there are significantly more more individuals if the mean IQ is 105, than if the mean IQ is 100.
Anonymous is absolutely correct - you don’t even have to go out too far - there will be significantly more above 115, 120 and 130 - and also just as importantly much less below 90, 85 etc, than for a population with average IQ 100.
Just get a Normal distribution table out and work it out- it is extremely simple stuff.
If they’re so much smarter, why do they have to steal high-tech secrets from America?
That is a ridiculous question - there are a whole lot of social and historical reasons for this. Industrially China started way behind the West and is in the catch up phase. Russia also use to do a lot of high tech theft - you might as well ask why is China behind Japan or behind South Korea - nothing to do with race, but there are obvious historical explanations.
John Liu is dodging some facts. Japan is one of the countries that engages in the highest levels of intellectual theft from the US. So is S. Korea. With the anti-white crowd that hammered US Patent laws and protections, on purpose, we now have E. Asian countries raiding our patent system, stealing ideas and inventions in process. E. Asian countries now take the materials and in more and more cases simply create false, backdated paperwork and claim they’ve ‘invented’ something, even when it’s been proven they actually ‘created’ items after rummaging through our patent system. The US govt is intentionally stifling inventors, white inventors and in fact pressures judges to be very PC, meaning anti-white, in their decisions whenever possible. All to build bridges with these ‘allies’ of course.
People claim they want to be blunt about race but they still back-off. Having worked with Asians for years in IT I can tell you that technically they were capable, but when it came to innovation, invention, out of the box thinking, and being able to ‘get off book’, almost all of them were lacking. They act arrogant with us acting as if they’re high and mighty because they are protected by the powers that be. However, they know the truth. It’s presented to us weekly in stories like this. It isn’t about “catching up”. It’s about a gap in creative thinking.
While PC forces have generally tried to bury info on the differences in SD between the races, a couple of studies have shown that Whites apparently (and it’s likely a concrete ‘yes’) have a wider SD than E. Asians.
Yes, I have heard of this also, but noone, not even on this website has been able to provide the sources for such studies. Your claim, Live from LA, is completely unsubstantiated.
this type of exclusion is not done with White ‘averages’ to compute an overall, as separating N. European averages from other European scores shows averages that are a couple of points or so higher than E. Asians depending on the types of tests.
You implying South Europeans score lower than North Europeans - not necessarily so - Italians, I believe score highest in Europe.
Then when computing IQ averages for “Asians” she and others use only E. Asian IQ scores, leaving out the lower averages for SE Asians.
South Europeans and North Europeans cluster very closely genetically. Not so East Asians with South Asians. Just a glance will tell you there is a vast racial difference between a Malay and a Chinese.
If SE Asians scores should be conflated with Japanese and Chinese scores, so Turkish, Middle Eastern, and Indian scores should be conflated with White scores. Afterall Arabs are more closely related to Europeans than SE Asians to NE Asians.
Ask someone at a college who has to read papers from all the Asian “geniuses” and they’ll tell you it’s staggering how unoriginal, how much of the papers are barely above cut and paste jobs from the internet.
Of course if you are talking about Asian students studying in the West with English as a second language. And yes, the Chinese education system is not one which does encourage divergent thinking. But I would hardly believe this to be the case with East Asians born, bred and raised in the West.
Are the average IQs of Orientals in America the same as the average IQs for their homelands? If so, then those homeland average IQs are invalid, since we know that the Orientals in America not a random sampling, but have been selected for superior cognitive ability.
Asians apparently have a cognitive structure that on average has them doing better in certain areas of computation than Whites, while Whites have a structure that has them doing, on average, better than E. Asians in divergent and analytical thinking.
Where do you get this sort of information from - any tests done to prove this, studies? Or is your mere conjecture?
Science and Technology, obviously Europeans have been the leaders the past three or four centuries - but that is not the only area where ‘creativity’ can be demonstrated. Asians cuisines, for one, are extremely creative - most European cuisines, by comparison, are dull and unimaginative.
There are historical and social reasons that explain far better why some areas of the world are better or worse at certain things than other areas of the world. Same goes for different historical periods.
Saying that Asians have less ability at science than whites because of white achievement of the past few centuries is at least as stupid as saying 12th Century whites were not as bright as 19th or 20th Century whites.
“Science and Technology, obviously Europeans have been the leaders the past three or four centuries - but that is not the only area where ‘creativity’ can be demonstrated.”
True. Espionage of the type this story details is an area in which Chinese are unquesionably world-beaters.
John Liu: Science and Technology, obviously Europeans have been the leaders the past three or four centuries - but that is not the only area where ‘creativity’ can be demonstrated. Asians cuisines, for one, are extremely creative - most European cuisines, by comparison, are dull and unimaginative.
There are historical and social reasons that explain far better why some areas of the world are better or worse at certain things than other areas of the world. Same goes for different historical periods.
Saying that Asians have less ability at science than whites because of white achievement of the past few centuries is at least as stupid as saying 12th Century whites were not as bright as 19th or 20th Century whites.
Mr. Liu comes off more like one of the droves of white apologists that haunt pro-whites sites than any real Asian who takes issue with some of the info presented here.
Something as trivial as cuisine is merely influenced by what’s on hand. E. Asians are similar to the French in that many sauces and colorful ‘coverings’ are created to hide and cover up the unpleasant look and / or smell of what is being eaten. That is in fact why a lot of sauces were invented. I guess Mexicans and Latin Americans in general are far more creative than E. Asians as their cuisine is more colorful, varied and imaginative than those found in E. Asia, even though apparently everything is on the menu in the far East.
The most well known study on SD in Asians was by Daniel Vining showing a narrower SD among Japanese than Caucasians. Which of course resulted in Asians getting irritated, as they’ll happily speak about areas in which they are on average better than whites, insisting it’s in the superior genes, while decrying any study showing whites to be better in certain areas as flawed, racist, tainted etc. Same thing many other non-whites seem to do.
Mr. Liu is disingenuous with some of the other information posted by others regarding IQ averages. The point was that N. European IQ averages are conflated with S. European etc scores when a “white” average is presented for public consumption. E. Asian scores are not merged with SE Asian scores when ‘average’ IQ levels are being computed, but are conflated with SE Asian scores by some looking to juggle numbers. This has been mentioned before on this board. All of this info is available on the net if one takes the time to do some homework. Italians do not have the highest average in Europe. Germans, Scandinavians, Poles etc score just above 106 to 107 on average depending on the tests.
The fact is that whites and E. Asians do differ in the structure of their intelligence. People can look up the info and those of us who are involved in technical work see the differences in front of us all the time. I used to be PC, fighting what I saw everyday in front of me. Asians are smart in many ways, but not near as creative as whites. If it’s not in front of them, they don’t see it. While whites can admit Asians are good at this, blacks at that, non-whites act as if a stake has been driven into their chests if it’s pointed out whites are good or best at something. When I worked in Silicon Valley we had a lot of Asians on hand. But the whites were the creative catalyst 99% of the time in all areas. Then we’d have to put up with hearing the Asians try to claim they did the ‘grunt work’ or weren’t being credited. However, in point of fact, the companies to be PC and gain VC would put some Asian as the nominal ‘head’ of something for the correct look. Without fail, these guys, no matter how little they did, would then attempt to take credit. Which companies would sometimes go along with to a certain point to again have the proper PC look. Asians are very good at being systems analysts in some areas, and good at certain areas of engineering. But they are not as innovative as often. This doesn’t mean they aren’t creative at all. Just less often or less so than whites. They were good when told what to do, given a roadmap. But no one wants to give whites their due. That’s why we’re hated. It’s jealousy.
The industrial espionage is possible at the levels we see only because a gang of anti-white, anti-Western Marxists is in control at the moment. They set the laws and make the rules that allow traitors like Dongfan Chung to be hired, to set foot in the US. They create the media and academia that promulgates the stories, the ideas, the philosophies that have all non-whites believing they are better than whites at everything, that only ‘circumstance’ and luck have led to whites doing so much.
The Chinese are doing well at industrial espionage because they put a lot of effort into it - and the Chinese are racially loyal.
The Chinese also recognize what has been called the “Creativity Problem” even though their sense of racial superiority, which is healthy in many ways, won’t allow them to admit it. Other East Asians have. Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist (like Rushton) flat out states that Asians are less creative than Caucasians, even after modernizing and churning out millions of students who study for hours during and after school, rote memorizing all, cramming for every test possible - outnumbering white engineers, scientists, mathematicians, etc. But falling behind in actual innovation and major breakthroughs. He kind of hedges things stating that it could be cultural, could be biological, etc. It’s biological, genetic, whatever anyone wants to call it: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep04120128.pdf Mr. Kanazawa says that Political Correctness is our biggest enemy. I would add our biggest enemy is the people pushing Political Correctness on us.
It’s OK to say that Chinese are good at this thing, Indians are good at that activity, Blacks have a talent for certain sports. But to say white people have a knack, a talent for something, at a higher rate or level than people who aren’t white, well that is a sin.
Asians do have a talent for math, to a certain extent. I think it’s genetic. A higher percentage of them have this ‘talent’ than other peoples. But if you look deeper, almost all Asians who concentrate on math as a field are in applied math. Relatively few move into mathematical logic, abstract algebra, number theory and so on. Most of the very top mathematicians, in all fields of math, are white. A top Asian mathematician, a big prize winner, will receive inordinate amounts of praise and press simply for being a non-white, for being a minority in the field.
My Three Cents:
The point was that N. European IQ averages are conflated with S. European etc scores when a “white” average is presented for public consumption. E. Asian scores are not merged with SE Asian scores when ‘average’ IQ levels are being computed,
I addressed this. Simply, if NE Asian scores should be merged with SE Asian, then white scores should be merged with North African and Mideast. NE Asians are a sub-race in their own right, just as Europeans form a tight genetic cluster.
If the average score of all Caucasoids, including Indians, Iranians, Afghanis as well as Europeans was calculated, it probably would not look too much better than the average Mongoloid score.
Without fail, these guys, no matter how little they did, would then attempt to take credit. Which companies would sometimes go along with to a certain point to again have the proper PC look.
That’s just does not ring true. Asians attempting to take credit?
But no one wants to give whites their due. That’s why we’re hated. It’s jealousy.
It’s OK to say that Chinese are good at this thing, Indians are good at that activity, Blacks have a talent for certain sports. But to say white people have a knack, a talent for something, at a higher rate or level than people who aren’t white, well that is a sin.
Untrue. Most people give credit the West for the scientific revolution, the enlightenment. The force unit in Chinese is also Newton. And there are plenty of books in China on great Western scientists. When has anyone not given whites their due for their achievements?
The only point here is questioning whether these achievements are mostly due to genes or mostly due to history and culture. Because some do not hold to the genetic theory does not mean they are not giving whites credit.
Blacks do very well in sports. Yet you similarly don’t hear many people openly discussing genetics as the main reason for this. So by your logic ‘My Three Cents’ and ‘Big as a Yeti’ people must hate and are jealous of blacks every much as they are of whites.
Other East Asians have. Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist (like Rushton) flat out states that Asians are less creative than Caucasians
The ‘paper’ written by this guy is a flat out joke-in fact other people here on another thread also picked this up. As well as being poorly researched and written, Kanazawa claims that Chinese inability to master English compared with other Europeans is some sort of evidence for their lacking in the verbal creativity area. I think even some of the most obtuse posters here would be able to see the absurdity of such a statement.
John Liu wrote at 11:57 PM on July 2 : “That’s just does not ring true. Asians attempting to take credit?
No one reading Kanazawa’s paper thinks it’s a joke. I took a look at it. It’s actually an answer to a Marxist who wants to turn a field (and actually everything else) over to Asians. That is, anything from whites. This Marxist goes on about the West collapsing but doesn’t mention that he and his ilk are the reason for the current problems although he is no doubt aware of it. Kanazawa is aware of it. The former head of Sony also stated Westerners are more creative. He felt Asians were good at hardware so to speak. Taking something and working on it and working on it while Westerners would move on to another big idea. Kanazawa doesn’t say Asians aren’t creative, he merely says they are far less so than Caucasians. He also lists sources for his reasoning.
Anyone who’s been to school with a lot of Asians knows that most of the time, not all, they seem to have a harder time learning languages than Westerners. Look at Asian “alphabets”. They’re pictograms. Massive libraries of pictures. Westerners realized they could create alphabets of limited size that could stand for and replicate almost unlimited sounds. This did not occur in the East. I’m sure this is a difference in cognitive ability. When you’re good in one area, it can sometimes take away in another, whether it’s physical or mental. Oh no, you have to be smart to study and study and memorize thousands of pictograms. Ok. Verbal ability is linked to creativity. Problems with language don’t necessarily mean a lack of creativity, but it can mean having less processing power for verbal and certain types of analytical information, and that is linked to creativity or a lack thereof.
In the end, “Mr. Liu”, who does come off like a white Marxist, starts calling everyone racist, haters of black and so on, pulling the “jealousy” card out. WN’s are not jealous of blacks, that’s for sure. The usual Marxist tactic, name calling. Whites bad, everyone else good.
While I agree that east Asians are not “superior” to whites, they are the only group that has come close to matching us. In 1850 Japan was a medieval nation of rice-farmers. By 1900 Japan had industrialized and her navy was expelling European powers from the pacific rim. If not for the US led alliance (US-UK-ANZAC) Japan would have become a global hegemon with colonies across Asia. Chinese and Koreans show as much proclivity towards industry and commerce. It can be argued that “all they do” is copy European technology but that in and of itself is a feat. We could force feed every blueprint of every machine ever built down the throats of Africans and they’d never build so much as a simple dam. India is industrializing but with significant foreign (European) investment. That ship will never sail on its own.
Anyone who’s been to school with a lot of Asians knows that most of the time, not all, they seem to have a harder time learning languages than Westerners.
Obviously it easier for a European to learn a foreign European language - most are closely related with one another. Chinese is a completely different language, with a very simple grammatical structure. It is for this reason Chinese have difficulty with European languages. Nothing to do with an innate lack of verbal ability.
They’re pictograms. Massive libraries of pictures. Westerners realized they could create alphabets of limited size that could stand for and replicate almost unlimited sounds. This did not occur in the East. I’m sure this is a difference in cognitive ability.
You are really off base here. Without an ideographic writing system, China would have been divided into multitudes of small states along linguistic, and later cultural lines, somewhat along the lines of the Europe. Chinese speaking different dialects could communicate with one another in writing, - Chinese speaking different dialects could be seen ‘writing’ a character in the air, to often communicate or clarify a word. With phonetically based systems this would be impossible.
While say a language like English is partially phonetically based (actually it is far from 100 percent purely phonetic), words are abstract, and instead of thousands of characters, you have instead many more thousands of words, many difficult to remember, which have meanings that cannot be deduced from their separate syllables. With Chinese, one only needs to learn as few as 1000 characters to deduce the meaning of a newspaper. Each representsa single syllable, but more importantly has a meaning associated with it. It is from relatively few building blocks that most of Chinese vocabularly is built. Thus for example the term ‘sad’ is a combination of the character for something to do with ‘injury’ and ‘heart’. Ambulance is a combination of ‘save’ + ‘injure’ + ‘car’ = jiu shang che.
Thus learning Chinese is like an exponential curve- ones skill increases at a rate proportional to ones current ability in the language. This is almost the exact opposite case to learning English. Chinese starts hard, but becomes very easy. English starts easy, but becomes very hard.
Because of the ease of vocabulary acquisition plus an extremely simple grammatical strucuture, a European can learn to speak Chinese to virtual perfection (apart from an accent), whereas Chinese not raised in the West basically find it impossible to speak perfect English, or indeed any other European language perfectly.
36 John Liu: “Without an ideographic writing system, China would have been divided into multitudes of small states along linguistic, and later cultural lines…”
Do I see here an admission that “China” is really an empire of many different nations, long ago ruthlessly forced into submission by one of the larger kingdoms? And that these nations remain distinct after millenia? That’s imperialism, whether it was 2000 or 200 years ago, or continuing today. Perhaps you can drop the pretense of Chinese innocence in future postings.
And, by the way, all colleges and civil service examiners know that the Chinese have been real innovators, in cheating. That’s why even the most politically correct will see to it that they don’t sit near one another, and use fingerprints to ensure that Mr Chang is really Mr Chang, and not his smarter friend Mr Wang.
Do I see here an admission that “China” is really an empire of many different nations, long ago ruthlessly forced into submission by one of the larger kingdoms? And that these nations remain distinct after millenia?
But China is basically all Chinese now - and happy about being Chinese, in spite of regional differences - which in the overall scheme of things are small. And in any case the differences have been kept on a leash by the ideographic writing system, among other things.
Just like I suppose most Germans are happy to be German, Italians to be Italian, even though these two nations were only united by force very recently compared with China.
Germans and Italians then are right now practicing imperialism - simply for being Germans and Italians, according to this particular posters ridiculous logic.
38 John Liu: I don’t doubt that most “Chinese” are happy to be “Chinese” now, despite resentment of Mandarin dominance. So are most “Germans” happy to be “Germans” now, despite some lingering mistrust of Prussians or condescension towards the Swabish. I don’t know that the “Italians” are quite so happy to be “Italians”, since that means Venice and Naples are part of the same country when they’d rather not be. Some of them might agree that “Italy” is an imperialist construct. In either case, as Mr Liu has pointed out, both countries were established by force, in the 19th century. Germany was in fact avowedly an empire, the Second Reich.
Which simply means that the imperial powers of Europe have taken the same path that China took millennia ago. The earliest “Chinese” emperors conquered their neighbors and forced their culture on them, and have pretty much made it stick. The European imperialists got a late start, and found themselves hedged in by “Russians”, “French”, or some other well-entrenched “nation”, tried their hand in other parts of the world, and have now gone home. The real difference between European imperialism of the last two centuries and Chinese imperialism of the last two millennia is that the Chinese have been much more successful.
And the point is that, given Mr Liu’s acknowledgment of China’s imperialist origins, it would be logical for him to drop the pretense of Chinese innocence in future postings. To argue for China’s interests is reasonable and worthwhile, for a Chinese. To argue for China’s virtue is irrational and childish. For example, one could say that the Chinese excellence in cheating on American academic or civil service tests advances the well-being of Chinese, and is therefore not wrong. I can accept that logic, from a Chinese. But to claim that Orientals would not attempt to take credit for something they did not do because it’s “Not their style” (post 33) is so laughably false that even the most PC, anti-White institutions in this country won’t buy it.
China is in fact for Mongoloids, I suppose, what whites would want for the white race.
Probably over 95% of East Asians are Han Chinese. Thus China could be considered in a sense, a pan Northern-Mongolid state.
Is that not what White Nationalists would want for whites? The dissolution of European cultural and ethnic differences, to be replaced by a grand racial nation?
So how can posters here begrudge the Chinese what they want for themselves?
“The dissolution of European cultural and ethnic differences, to be replaced by a grand racial nation?”
Kindly point to a single post advocating this. Thanks in advance.
