Beating Us With Our Own Weapons

Editor’s note: This review appeared in The Occidental Quarterly in the Fall issue of 2013. This is the only online version at this time, and it seemed particularly appropriate to post it now because of China’s role in disseminating the Wuhan virus, as well as their cover-ups and lies about it. Given my interest in individualism, the sections on the lack of creativity among the Chinese and how it is quite possibly linked to their collectivism were also enlightening. It’s as if Chinese espionage is a compensation for their inability to create new ideas and technology. 

Chinese Industrial Espionage: Technology Acquisition and Military Modernization
William C. Hannas, James Mulvenon and Anna B. Puglisi
New York: Routledge, 2013

The People’s Republic of China currently enjoys a $30 billion dollar trade surplus with America. More importantly, say the authors of this important study, she is exporting to us manufactured goods of increasing technological sophistication, while the principal US export to China is, “literally, scrap and rubbish.” China produces a million more automobiles than America and is now outpacing us in domestic computer sales.

Everyone has heard about China’s economic growth since 1978—“one of the fastest and largest accumulations of national wealth in world history” according to our authors—but it is not widely appreciated that this growth has been accelerating rapidly within just the last decade. Chinese GDP recently surpassed that of Japan and stands second only to the US. The long-anticipated rise of China has happened faster than anyone predicted, and many observers are left wondering where the Chinese acquired such capacities so quickly.

The answer is that they acquired them from us. In the authors’ words:

We are talking here of an elaborate, comprehensive system for spotting foreign technologies, acquiring them by every means imaginable, and converting them into weapons and competitive goods. There is nothing like it anywhere else in the world.

Although China’s stated goal is to become a scientifically “creative nation,” its science and technology are overwhelmingly driven by foreign developments; our authors speak of “the paramount role of mimicry.” Not all of this happens through espionage; much foreign knowledge is gathered in entirely transparent and legal ways, with the only distinguishing feature of China’s approach being the thorough and systematic nature of the process.

The Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China (ISTIC), China’s foremost facility for acquiring, processing and distributing open source scientific and technological (hereafter S&T) materials, opened its doors in 1958. The following year saw the appearance of the first specialized journal on S&T information, “along with a magazine devoted to methods of searching English language periodicals.” By 1966 the system could deliver to Chinese end users

11,000 foreign S&T periodicals; half a million foreign research reports, government publications, conference proceedings and academic theses; over five million foreign patents from over 20 countries; more than 200,000 standards from 40 foreign countries; several hundred thousand foreign product samples; and had S&T document exchange links with more than 50 countries.

Progress was then held up for a decade by the Cultural Revolution.

In the late 1970s, information gathering was resumed and computerized. ISTIC began enrolling graduate students in what was essentially a degree program in exploiting foreign scientific literature. By 1985 China possessed over 400 major S&T intelligence institutes employing more than 25,000 people. Egalitarians will gnash their teeth to learn that 53 of the 60 journals most useful to Chinese researchers at this time came from just two countries: the US and Great Britain.

In 1991, two Chinese information specialists, Huo Zhongwen and Wang Zongxiao, published a 361–page book entitled Sources and Methods of Obtaining National Defense Science and Technology Intelligence. The book candidly describes the structure and methods of China’s open source S&T information gathering system. Among the sources discussed are the Congressional Information Service, the US National Technical Information Service (NTIS), NASA, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the Department of Energy and the Lockheed Corporation.

Huo and Wang blandly acknowledge that

there are similarities between what we refer to as ‘information’ and what the foreign intelligence community refers to as intelligence work. … By picking here and there among the vast amount of public materials and accumulating information a drop at a time, often it is possible to basically reveal the outlines of some secret intelligence, and this is particularly true in the case of the Western countries.

Huo and Wang give examples of discoveries of which they are especially proud. One involves the mining of declassified documents from Los Alamos National Laboratory:

[American agents] reviewed a total of 388,000 documents in 33 days, so each reviewer had to review around 1000 documents a day, about two a minute. The pace of the reviews resulted in a large number of errors—around five percent—that is, some 19,400 documents that were mistakenly declassified, and of these there were at least eight highly secret items regarding thermonuclear weapons.

Our authors express surprise that publication of Huo and Wang’s book was ever permitted, and speculate that the Chinese did not realize how unusual their practices were in an international context.

As of 2005, over fifty thousand networks were serving up S&T information to some 27 million Chinese end users. Information is stored not merely on S&T itself, but also on Western S&T organizations and even individual researchers; files on individuals include “biographical notes, work and home addresses, achievements, writings, range of primary activities, recent work circumstances and whether they have visited China.”

The whole system works like a library network, except that it is operated by intelligence officers working for the Chinese government. By relying on foreign models, China shortens its own research and development process, thus freeing resources for commercialization and production. Such is the prosaic reality behind the Chinese “miracle.”

A key element of technology transfer to China involves the presence in the country of foreign research and development (R&D) labs. Multinational corporations have taken to setting up such labs in China both to take advantage of inexpensive local expertise and in order to improve their access to the world’s largest market. In Beijing alone one can find R&D labs operated by Google, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, Siemens and Sony Ericsson, among many others. Shanghai hosts Astra Zenica, Cisco Systems, Coca-Cola, Dell, Dupont, Eli Lily, General Electric, General Motors, Honeywell, Phillips, Unilever and many more. Whereas in 2000 there were just thirty such foreign R&D labs, by 2010 their number had grown to 1200.

At first, foreign R&D labs mainly concentrate on the adaptation of their products to the local market and offering technical support for local sales. Then they may expand their operations to “identifying and meeting local needs from the beginning of product development”—i.e., creating entirely new products specifically for the Chinese market. Some China-based labs, especially in the field of information technology, have already begun developing products for the global market. Primary research may soon be carried out in China by foreign R&D labs, if this isn’t happening already.

The Chinese government does a great deal to encourage the growth of foreign R&D on its soil. Its rationale is explained in the Ministry of Science and Technology’s 2006 policy statement Medium and Long Term Plan for S&T Development, 2006–2020. This document repeatedly stresses the need to build up “an indigenous innovation capability,” and even proposes to make China an “innovation-oriented” society by the year 2020. Yet, in a seeming paradox, the principal means for achieving this is to appropriate the maximum possible amount of foreign technology now. As our authors put it, “yet another period of acquiring foreign technology and know-how is perceived as critical for China to eventually wean itself from this reliance on foreign technology and know-how, transitioning to indigenous innovation.” This near-term emphasis on acquiring knowledge abroad is such that one observer has described the Medium and Long Term Plan as a “blueprint for technology theft on a scale the world has never seen before.” The authors stress, however, that R&D partnerships with China must be judged on a case-by-case basis, and that much depends on risk mitigation strategies which can be adopted by Western companies themselves well short of a complete pullout.

The authors devote one chapter to cataloguing some of the technology transfer organizations based in the PRC, and another to some of their counterparts in the US. In China itself I counted seven national-level agencies, ten supposedly nongovernmental organizations (some almost certainly fronts for the government) and ten web-based recruiting and placement networks, to which must be added an indeterminate slew of provincial and municipal bodies. The mission of these organizations is to send talented Chinese students to study abroad and to encourage foreign specialists to work or teach in China. Sometimes the latter efforts are focused specifically on ethnic Chinese living abroad.

After cataloguing these organizations as best they can, our authors append the following caveat:

While our account here is lengthy, we have no confidence that it is exhaustive. Entities expand, new ones appear, while others—including those run by technical ministries—stay mostly beneath the radar. Details about their transactions are often unavailable.

The recruitment practices of these organizations are not necessarily constrained by foreign espionage laws. In November 2006, Noshir Gowadia, an Indian-born US citizen, was indicted for divulging military secrets to China. He had visited China six times between 2003 and 2005; the visits were arranged through a representative of China’s State Administration of Foreign Expert Affairs (SAFEA), a high-level body which reports directly to the PRC State Council. According to SAFEA’s website, its mission is to facilitate the “introduction of advanced technology and make Chinese industry more competitive internationally” by managing the recruitment of skilled persons from abroad.

Another important recruitment organization is China’s Ministry of Personnel:

In December 2005, there was a banner-type ad posted near the top of the [Ministry’s] home page with the headline “Beijing Institute of Applied Physics and Computational Mathematics Invites Talented Persons from All Walks of Life to Join the Alliance.” This was followed by a description of the Institute’s mission in general terms, its facilities, staffing, and the types of skills sought. Details on application and compensation were also provided. For those unfamiliar with China’s S&T infrastructure, the Institute of Applied Physics and Computational Mathematics is China’s premier nuclear weapons modeling facility. In plain language, the [Ministry of Personnel] was asking ethnic Chinese scientists living abroad to support its atomic weapons program. Noteworthy was a statement requiring applicants to “cherish the socialist fatherland, support the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and submit to the needs of the country”—a reminder to applicants that they will undergo security vetting. References to the ancestral country and the lack of an English version indicate that the ad was aimed at overseas Chinese.

China defines “overseas Chinese” to include not merely as PRC expatriates, but also persons of Chinese descent who may never have set foot in China. When such persons supply Western-developed technology to the PRC, Chinese sources matter-of-factly speak of them as bringing the technologies “back” to China. The authors describe one pomp-filled occasion where PRC operatives urged more than a thousand visiting overseas Chinese to set up enterprises in China: “appeals to ‘patriotism’ were thick [and] the event ended with the groups singing the PRC National anthem, performed by the guests ‘with tears in their eyes.’”

In other words, the Chinese concept of nationality is racial—the norm everywhere outside the modern West.

The authors devote their fifth and most important chapter to cataloguing US-based organizations engaged in acquiring technology for China, including “diplomatic offices, a facilitation company, an alleged NGO, and ethnic Chinese professional association and alumni associations.”

All PRC diplomatic offices on US soil—including the embassy in Washington, consulates in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Houston, as well as its UN mission—contain an S&T office. According to their self-description, the Washington, DC, office “makes full use of its resources to raise the level of service it provides to China’s domestic S&T plans.” They are involved in negotiating S&T agreements between the US and PRC governments, and also meet with high-tech US companies, universities and S&T consortia in the US, “the heads of which are typically ethnic Chinese who have demonstrated commitment to China’s S&T development.” The authors recount how one Los Angeles S&T official invited 220 members of local Chinese S&T groups to a meeting with a “policy advising and reporting group” from the PRC. Attendees, whom the S&T official described as people who live abroad but whose “hearts and minds belong to China,” were informed “in detail” how they could participate in China’s S&T development.

These diplomatic S&T offices maintain websites with detailed information, much of it in Chinese, on how to support PRC S&T projects. Readers are encouraged to “use multiple means to develop multi-channel, multi-layer, all-around international cooperation and exchange” and to contribute research of a “practical nature.” S&T officers also engage in public discourse to “rally sentiment against ‘obstacles’ the US government places in the way of ‘free scientific exchange.’”

In 1993, the Chinese government established Triway Enterprise, Inc. in Falls Church, VA. The company hosts events around the country for Chinese recruiters and talent scouts, as well as “talks and exchanges” with ethnic Chinese scholars, overseas students and professionals. “Triway boasts ‘a one-stop, fully integrated solution’ to technology transfer that includes handling ‘complex travel arrangements’ and providing ‘top-quality translators.’”

Triway was also hired to help establish a Washington liaison office for the Shanghai Association for the International Exchange of Personnel (SAIEP), an alleged non-governmental organization with close links to SAFEA. In our authors’ words, “[n]ominal ‘non-governmental’ offices such as this provide PRC state and provincial units with direct access to US S&T talent while insulating the latter from the stigma of supporting a foreign state whose goals are often inimical to US interests.” The distinction between ‘governmental’ and ‘private’ is necessarily unclear in an authoritarian state such as China.

SAIEP’s Washington office serves to connect East Coast Chinese S&T personnel with appropriate partners in Shanghai. They maintain a separate office in Silicon Valley and six other cities around the world. Some idea of the scale of SAIEP’s operation is evident in its ’10,000 Overseas Scholars Convergence Program’ which aims at raising the level of Shanghai’s S&T talent and ‘breaking conceptual restraints on using overseas scholars.’ The program boasts ‘new methods’ [of] using foreign experts to fill posts ’at all levels of Party and government.’

Another major player in tech transfer is the Chinese Association for Science and Technology USA (CAST-USA), a supposedly non-political professional association founded in New York City in 1992. The organization claims to “serve as a ‘bridge’ between the United States and China for both personnel and information exchanges, and for cooperation in science and technology,” overtly listing “technology transfer” as one of its most important activities. CAST-USA now maintains eleven regional chapters and eight disciplinary subcommittees.

High-level PRC officials serve on CAST-USA’s board of advisers and attend their business meetings and social events in the US. Indeed, “many CAST-USA members who live in the US [also] occupy PRC positions.” Besides hosting PRC delegations to the United States, CAST-USA sends missions to China for events such as the annual “Returning Overseas Scholars Innovation Week.”

Here is just one anecdote:

At the seventh annual [Guangzhou Overseas Chinese Scholars tech transfer convention] in 2004, CAST-USA sent a 50-person delegation which brought to China “over 40 projects,” more than any other foreign delegation. While at the convention, it joined up with the PRC organizing committee to host the first “High-level Forum on a Strategy to Strengthen China through Knowledge” and to pass a declaration of support for China’s efforts to usher in high-tech industry. The proposal—conceived, drafted and presented by CAST-USA—aimed at positioning China among the world’s top seven countries in innovation by 2010. A report describing it began by affirming “competition between countries in the 21st century is a competition in knowledge.” The irony of helping China prevail in a competition against the country in which one lives seems to have gone unnoticed.

Graduates of Chinese Universities living abroad are organized in alumni associations which, from China’s point of view, amount to “a ready-made support base inside the host country … with the motivation to contribute to China’s technical modernization.” Some of these associations involve both Taiwanese and PRC institutions; in our authors’ words: “alumni from both sides of the Taiwan Straits can put aside their differences for their common interests vis-à-vis the non-Chinese world.”

Chapter Five continues with discussion of some of the “well over 100 US-registered advocacy groups that aim directly at technology transfer or achieve this as a consequence of their organizational structure.” Membership includes “US citizens, green card holders, H-1B visa workers and graduate students” from China.

Evidence of a China bias on the part of these S&T groups is found in their charters, activities and web postings, and in the spirit that pervades their literature. For example, among the dozens of S&T associations examined by the authors, not one failed to solicit money for the 2008 Sichuan earthquake relief—a project that has nothing to do with S&T and everything to do with helping China. By contrast, nowhere did we find concern expressed about contributing technology to a foreign country whose position on issues is often antagonistic to that of the US.

The authors discuss ten of these organizations based in Silicon Valley alone, as well as nine more spread across the US. They maintain

that helping China become a competitive power through “transferred” technology entails for these advocacy groups no contradiction, and the implications of their behavior for the larger body of Americans are to them irrelevant. In addition, while declarations of support for China are common, it is hard to find sentiment, not to mention concrete action taken, in favor of their American host.

As the authors predict, this fifth chapter will not find favor with the persons and organizations discussed, and one can anticipate that the more America-savvy among them will be quick with talk of “racism.”

Another important conduit for Chinese technology acquisition is its citizens studying abroad, of whom there have been some two and a quarter million since 1978. A large proportion of these come to the US: in 2011 there were 194,000 Chinese enrolled at American universities. They study mainly scientific and technical subjects. Between 1988 and 1996, 92 percent of US-earned doctorates by Chinese were in S&T fields, with the favorites being engineering, physical sciences, biological sciences and mathematics. By contrast, the US sent just 14,596 students to China during the 2010-11 academic year, most of whom studied social science or language.

Many Chinese get into American universities under false pretences:

One consultant working for US universities estimates that 90 percent of Chinese applicants submit false recommendations, 70 percent get other people to write their application essays, 50 percent forge their high school transcripts, 30 percent lie on financial aid forms and 10 percent list academic awards and other achievements they did not earn or receive.

Once here, they are monitored carefully by the mother country. China’s US embassy maintains an education section with the mission of “provid[ing] guidance for Chinese students and scholars in the USA.” This may help explain, e.g., the coordinated protests and threats of violence by Chinese students in connection with visits by the Dalai Lama and other Tibet-related events on American campuses.

Recent articles in Chinese S&T journals have openly advocated “expanding the role of Chinese scientists living overseas in conducting research on behalf of Chinese research institutes and facilitating technology transfer.” Sometimes students preparing to study in the US are approached by the Chinese Ministry of State Security in order to establish a clandestine relationship or task them with acquiring information.

The majority of Chinese who go abroad to study end up staying. In America, “according to both observers of and participants in the process, it is relatively easy to obtain a degree and get practical training while on a student visa, then to find a job and eventually to qualify for permanent resident status or even citizenship.” A 2007 survey by the Wall Street Journal found that 92 percent of Chinese doctoral candidates who received their degrees in 2002 were still in the United States, though more recently the number has shrunk to 82 percent. The Chinese government has adopted policies to encourage scholars to return, but has also emphasized the many ways in which Chinese scientists abroad can contribute to China by “serving in place” or by returning only for short visits.

Recently there have been proposals for a formal data center to keep track of overseas Chinese scholars. It would be operated by professional “overseas study management personnel,” a dedicated corps of S&T transfer specialists distinct from the technical experts themselves, whose task would be to identify overseas experts and find use for whatever information they have.

Semi-official sources advocate, in our authors’ words, “nothing less than PRC state control and manipulation of foreign-based ethnic Chinese scientists.” They speak in martial language of building an “overseas S&T corps” of overseas Chinese who have made outstanding contributions on all “battlefronts.” The following note of caution from a recent official publication shows that the Chinese authorities are only beginning to recognize the need for discretion in carrying out such plans:

To protect the personal interests of overseas persons of talent, China should adopt a “do more, talk less” or “do it but don’t talk about it” policy on recruitment and foreign S&T cooperation, especially in sensitive fields, and avoid by all means propagandizing on a large scale in domestic and foreign newspaper reports successes in our cooperation and recruitment, to avoid making them vulnerable and putting these overseas persons of talent in an embarrassing situation.

As already mentioned, an increasing proportion of Chinese studying abroad have been opting to return. Indeed, more than half of those ever to return have done so since 2009. Returnees have long played an important role in Chinese S&T:

81 percent of Science Academy members have studied abroad, as had 21 of the 23 people awarded for their work on China’s “atomic bomb, ballistic missile and earth satellite” projects. Almost the entire upper echelon of scientists responsible for China’s strategic weapons programs learned their skills abroad.

Since 1994, China has established a network of over 150 S&T parks for returnees to work in. Their mission is

not to create new technologies but “to accelerate the commercialization and industrialization of achievements in high technology”—an entirely different mission that depends on access to outside ‘talent’ and the ideas of others…. Experimenting “for its own sake” [is] discouraged in favor of a “practical and realistic” approach that adapted ideas brought in from abroad.

According to China’s Ministry of Science and Technology, some 22,000 overseas Chinese had been brought to work in such S&T parks by 2006; some parks are known to be dedicated to military projects. The authors note: “We know of no other country with a structure that is remotely similar.”

China also engages in outright espionage against the US and other countries, of course: “As early as 2005, Dave Szady, then assistant director of the FBI’s counter-intelligence division, told the Wall Street Journal that ‘China is the biggest [espionage] threat to the US today.’ The authors quote similar statements from Britain’s MI-5, Canadian security services and the southwestern German state of Baden-Württemberg.

The Chinese-American community is said to be the target of 98 percent of recruitment efforts by China’s Ministry of State Security. By contrast, the Soviet Union targeted ethnic Russians no more than a quarter of the time. The June 2010 arrest of European-American Glenn Duffy Shriver for selling state secrets to the PRC, however, may indicate a broadening of Chinese recruitment efforts in response to growing scrutiny of Chinese-Americans.

Cyber-espionage appears to be a Chinese specialty, “principally because of its logistical advantages and the promise of plausible deniability.” Joel Brenner, then-director of the US National Counterintelligence Executive remarked in 2008 that Chinese hackers are “very good and getting better all the time.”

Some [attacks], we have high confidence, are coming from government-sponsored sites…. The Chinese operate both through government agencies, as we do, but also through sponsoring other organizations that are engaging in this kind of international hacking, whether or not under specific direction. It’s a kind of cyber-militia…. It’s coming in volumes that are just staggering.

Specific infiltrations discussed include that of the US State Department (June 2006), the office email of Defense Secretary Robert Gates (2007), and both the Obama and McCain campaign computer systems (summer 2008).

The authors are to be commended for explicitly raising the issue of the Chinese capacity for innovation. Simply put, East Asian man has yet to show he is capable of continuous innovation on the scale observed in the West. The authors cite data from Charles Murray’s Human Achievement and from Joseph Needham, the preeminent historian of Chinese science, who “spent a lifetime documenting hundreds of clever Chinese inventions.” Needham “puzzled over ‘the lack of theoretical science in China’ despite the ‘high level of technological progress achieved there,’” and reluctantly concluded that the West had a monopoly on

the application of mathematical hypotheses to nature, the full understanding and use of the experimental method, the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, the geometrisation of space, and the acceptance of the mechanical model of reality.

It is also surely significant that pure science preceded the development of scientific technology by many centuries in the West. The classical view of science is well-expressed in the (probably apocryphal) anecdote in which a student of Euclid asked the master what benefit he would derive from learning geometric theorems; Euclid is said to have told his slave boy to give the fellow a penny “since he must gain by what he learns.” This aristocratic view of knowledge predominated in the West until the enlightenment and remains influential to this day. There is no historical precedent for the successful pursuit of applied science in isolation.

Might the Chinese lack of interest in theoretical science and weak record of innovation have an evolutionary basis? Psychologist Richard Nisbett has demonstrated through controlled experiment a difference in cognitive preferences between East Asians and Europeans which he characterizes as “continuity vs. discreteness, field vs. object, relationship vs. categories, dialectics vs. logic, experienced-based knowledge vs. abstract analysis, interdependence vs. independence and communal vs. individualistic.”

Citing Nisbett’s work, neuroscientists Joan Y. Chiao and Katherine D. Blizinsky have proposed (2010) a sociobiological explanation for the coevolution of collectivist behavior and the dominance in East Asian populations of a genetic variant that codes for the psychotropic drug serotonin, which [has an impact on] cognitive bias:

we speculate that S [East Asian] and L [mostly European] allele carriers of the serotonin transporter gene may possess at least two kinds of information processing biases that enhance their ability to store and transmit collectivistic and individualistic cultural norms, respectively. S allele carriers may be more likely to demonstrate negative cognitive biases, such as engag[ing] in narrow thinking and cognitive focus, which facilitate maintenance [of] collectivistic cultural norms of social conformity and interdependence, whereas L allele carriers may exhibit positive cognitive biases such as open, creative thinking and willingness to take risks, which promote individualistic cultural norms of self-expression and autonomy.

Chiao and Blizinsky note a correlation between the ‘S’ gene and the greater ability of East Asians to resist anxiety and depression, states strongly associated with creativity in the sciences. Our authors write:

It has long been clear that individualism supports radical creativity, which by definition entails a rupture from collective wisdom and, usually, negative affect from peers. Factors cited in the creativity literature as inhibiting novel discovery are conformist education, lack of privacy and political centralism, ethnic homogeneity, and isolation from “diverse sociocultural environments” (such as Internet restrictions). To us, this sounds a lot like China.

Coauthor William C. Hannas has also theorized that the character writing system is an impediment to Chinese creativity:

Unlike Western alphabets that force learners to parse naturally occurring syllables into abstract phonemes and make other types of analytic judgments, [Chinese characters] map directly onto syllables, depriving children of an early life-changing opportunity to move beyond the concrete artifacts served up by nature to an abstract representations of [their] surroundings.

Hannes developed this theme in an article for the Fall 2005 TOQ (5:3).

Yet it would be easy to overstate the practical importance of the question of Chinese creativity for Sino-American competition. Even if “innovative science” end up becoming the Chinese equivalent of controlled fusion—something perpetually ten years in the future—China could still beat us with our own weapons by developing a successful “early adapter” strategy. The principal impression Chinese Industrial Espionage left me with was the contrast between a complacent West amusing itself with consumption and exploring the outermost reaches of antidiscrimination ideology, while on the other side of the world an alien civilization dedicates itself to the single-minded pursuit of power.

In their conclusion, the authors note:

We must recognize that the root cause of the problem [of technology theft] is nothing less than our own individualism and find ways as a nation to take collective action against the common threat, because the same trait that makes us good at creating things makes it hard for us to defend our national interests.

48 replies
  1. TJ
    TJ says:

    A professor back ’69: “Orientals seem unable to understand the scientific method.” They have the wheel of Bah-Kua, with the S-shape in the center, in which A blends into B. The opposites are Aristotle’s law of Identity- A is A, and Law of Non-Contradiction- A thing is what it is and cannot be something else at the same time in the same respect.

    Orientals believe that contradictions do exist- in reality, not just in man’s mind. [Marxists hold the same view]. The twain shall never meet. . .The West is incomparably superior. . .

    During Clinton I all patents were put on CDs and handed over. . .the World is utterly dependent on the talents of the White Man. . .

    • Ronald
      Ronald says:

      re: “the World is utterly dependent on the talents of the White Man. . .”
      I am not convinced of that. F. ex.:
      – Look at Japan and S. Korea: they are Asian nations and it took them a while to adjust – but they have
      adapted quite nicely to technology: Japan is a serioud competitor for Germany and S. Korea is an
      industrial powerhouse in a number of branches.
      – And when you look at the US you can see that the technical domains where massive progress is
      occuring (the most glaring examples would be Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Bio-Technology) are
      now mostly under the control of “Deep State” actors whose mentalities and motivations are often
      far away from the founders’ christian worldview.

      • Le Hunt
        Le Hunt says:

        All of the technology Japan, Korea, China, India have is from the White man. None of these countries harnessed electricity on their own, they had to be shown how to do it.

        • Ronald
          Ronald says:

          True – but they have no problems with electricity now have they?
          We did not invent porcelain(which we even call “china”) or discover silk either, the Chinese did – but we have no problems with porcelain or silk now do we?
          This is what learning is all about – and people generally have no problems with that unless they consider it useless or immoral (i.e. for some basic emotional reasons).

  2. ps79
    ps79 says:

    So the review was written in 1993 before the book at 2013?
    Is this a review of the book or what?

    • RonaldB
      RonaldB says:

      “Editor’s note: This review appeared in The Occidental Quarterly in the Fall issue of 2013.”

  3. Ludwig
    Ludwig says:

    I’m glad this was posted again as I had not read it in its earlier posting in the OQ of 2013.

    I’m a little surprised though that the author didn’t mention in his review that the book authors had anything to say about the Lima Declaration of 1975 which ostensibly transferred, continues to transfer, western technology and capacity to the “third world”. I believe that using the words “third world” in the official agreements was a misrepresentation fostering the public impression that it was an altruistic response to ‘make the world a better place’. Helping less developed countries build an industrial base as we in the west are now building a ‘smarter post industrial’ economy. However, China by far has been the main beneficiary of that agreement and has become the manufacturing engine of the world while building up its industrial hardware base as well as expertise on which to build. This all coincided with banking cooperation western central banks.

    As just one example, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) with scientists in Australia, France, Chile & the US, who have been and continue to be, involved in official capacities sharing the western technologies with China. This is presumably a trade for market access for mineral sales such as iron ore, or outright treason depending on your point of view.

    In the 1970’s Australian politicians became acutely aware that Asia didn’t consider Australia “part of Asia” as it was touted by Australian and international think tanks. Hot on the heels of jettisoning the White Australia Policy Australia began to draw migration candidates from Asia of which the vast bulk have been Chinese. After the Tiananmen Square protests both sides of the political aisle have engaged in ramping up migration from china in earnest. International students – vast majority Chinese – are seen as export business for universities and colleges who are encouraged to fund their schools with ‘export revenue’. At the inception of these policies many Asian students were even taxpayer subsidised only to leave after accumulating skills for their own business operations in Asia. But it didn’t take long for subsequent students to apply for migrant visas to gain permanent residence.

    At the beginning of this the usual approach in most academic research is not to name the architects of this policy other than to just refer to the positive business opportunities. In some circles the Trilateral Commission or faceless greedy Wall Street types are mentioned but jewish involvement in this policy has been scarcely mentioned. Indeed, the key players were international jews in banking finance and ‘statecraft’.

  4. RonaldB
    RonaldB says:

    This is a very fine article. It gives chapter and verse concerning the methods by which China systematically steals the technological ideas of the West, as well as the finished technologies in which the West has invested great resources.

    I would like to make a few proposals which I believe would go a long way towards setting up barriers to this type of theft. I realize there are legislative barriers right now, primarily but not exclusively by the Democrats, which would make any protective measures extremely difficult. Nevertheless, there should be a road map.

    1) Eliminate dual citizenship. In order to gain the benefits of citizenship, a Chinese national would have to renounce Chinese citizenship. For professional espionage agents it’s not a big deal, but a Chinese might think twice before working for China if he had to go through re-applying for citizenship.
    2) Allow only US corporations to own property in the US. Any Chinese company would only be able to buy goods or technology in an explicit transaction easy to monitor.
    3) Require all directors of US corporations to be US citizens. This helps to eliminate US companies representing foreign interests.
    4) Forbid US corporations from owning foreign subsidiaries. If they want foreign products, they can buy them outright. If they want to invest, they can invest in the US. If they want to transfer their citizenship and corporate registry to Abu Dubai so they can be thrown in jail for drinking a beer, let them.

    I can think of other limitations, but what you really want to do is remove the structure of incentives to companies to be loyal to an entity other than the US. A company like Google or virtually any other will have a choice of taking profits in the US, or in other countries like China, but not both. Google will, of course, be able to sell services to China, but it won’t have an investment in Chinese property, and won’t have ownership and ownership interests in Chinese concerns.

  5. Jody Vorhees
    Jody Vorhees says:

    A brilliant assessment. Where are our defenders? Where have they all gone?

    How will the West not end up sitting in the ashes of its own destruction?

  6. Eric
    Eric says:

    “Gain of function” research at the Wuhan virological laboratory was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

    “Blame China” is an absurd proposition when we act as China’s co-conspirator.

    It’s not the U.S. versus China. It’s the world oligarchs against the rest of the world. We are now their slaves: locked down; dependent on their largesse; soon to be vaccinated, monitored, chipped, given social credit scores, and punished or rewarded based on our subservience or lack thereof.

    There will be resistance, and that is when we will know the good guys from the bad guys.

    Are there nations that are not subservient to the emergent New World Order that is being put together by Bill Gates, Jeffrey Sachs and George Soros?

    Russia is a possibility. It’s hard to say.

    China has gotten everything described in this article because the U.S. deliberately gave it to them — by refusing to stop them at best and by wanting it to happen at worst.

    While Jews play a disproportionately large role in globalism, their participation is not especially relevant right now. Too many traitors and turncoats have shown their hand, and they are not Jews. Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates, for example…Donald Trump, for example….

    • Angelicus
      Angelicus says:

      Excellent observation Eric. Most white leaders and scientists are traitors who happily serve the Jewish New Worl Order.

    • Junghans
      Junghans says:

      Bingo, Eric. I have been around as an observer of world events since the early 1960’s, and well remember when China was floundering in the “Great Leap Forward” and the Red Book period of “Cultural Revolution”. Then, along came Nixon and Kissinger, and the beginning of the short sighted and foolish rapprochement with China. It’s been all down hill for the Judaized White West ever since, as White technology and capital was poured into Chinese economic development by the West’s hostile, avaricious ruling ‘elite’.

      This self-destructive move was done primarily by greedy Jewish & Anglo plutocrats and billionaires who proceeded to export and cannibalize the West’s manufacturing base, and financially strip mine the people of the West. And, they got filthy rich in the process! These financial predators are the culprits who are the real grave diggers of the West in this scenario. The Chinese were not foolish enough to look a gift hoarse in the mouth, they took it and ran with it, as far as they could.

  7. Ronald
    Ronald says:

    We’ve known Chinese immigrants (in reality colonizers) for 30+ years now and we have learned to understand their way of thinking. We can very strongly confirm this article. It should also be noted that:
    – Chinese consider thruth as an enemy (i.e. if you show what you think you will become a victim)
    – Lying is considered as a stratagem (see the book “Strategeme” by Harro von Senger)
    – Chinese will never admit a lie or a mistake, they will refuse talking about it (“Lose face”)

  8. bruno
    bruno says:

    First of all, hats off to the author. There can be no genuine argument pertaining to China’s raise from obscurity to become the second most productive nation. She did this within decades.

    Although argumentation can prevail pertaining to the Chinese spectrum of unity, overall they have a conscience far surpassing EuroMan. Not only have we devoted all our energy to eradicating our brothers, the “us-against-them” element is quite solid within our mist. They have propagandized the JFK adventure, 911, WMD, numerous wars and even sold our high tech secrets to Beijing.

    Leaving Amdom we see that Berlin has just about supported TelAvivza’s carious concepts of indoctrination, not in Wally World, but in Euro World. Scumbags in Warsaw’s parliament have agreed to follow Berlin’s path in giving Zyds billions of dollars in reparation-type homage. No need to even mention the French, as perhaps they believe that, if you can function in the French language, you can be considered as “French.”

    Getting back to the USA. Take a look around the country and you’ll see several unofficial official City States. These are, in reality, Second World countries. If they were not recipients of our First World community, they’d (also) be Third World.

    Lastly, could it be that the Chinese are copying the bribe kultura and transnational networking emanating from the nemesis of mankind? With La CessPool Grande being detrimental to the majority of American citizens -think busing to the present wars- could it be possible that any upcoming competition with the Chinese will be more than an uphill run?

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      Wild Bill & Killary Clinton are ILLuminati whose ultimate loyalty is to the contemporary rendition of the original Bavarian Order of ILLuminati which was formally established in 1776 by crypto-jew freemasons and crypto-jew jesuits .

      ILLuminati are typically fully vested in global multi-national corporations and have no use for nor need of nation-states ; selling national defense secrets for big money would be a no-brainer for that secret society within the secretive society of freemasonry .

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      “They have a conscience far surpassing EuroMan…” I don’t think so. The Chinese are still ruled by a Communist Party that has killed tens of millions of people.

      Individual life counts for much less in China than it does in the West.

  9. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    Sounds just like Jews to me.
    NB – serious question – has anyone worked out whether Jews in China had a similar effect to Jews in Russia? Seriously.

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      Jewish communists educated Mao, helped him gain power, and helped him stay in power. They hated Christian Russians, but did not hate the Chinese people. On the other hand, they apparently didn’t object when Mao killed tens of millions of his own people.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      And of course with immense pressure to continue to head the world, even in the culinary arts, the Jews have outstripped us once again.

      My usual reliable sources among the Mossad leadership tell me, that there will soon be a novel, of course patented, kosher specialty available at all of their Delicatessen:

      Soup of Bat; sub-specie Mitzvah.

  10. phyllis costa
    phyllis costa says:

    mr occidental observer – stop being a racist against the smart and hard working Chinese people of China.
    I am white and certainly admire the Chinese work of ethics and so forth.
    Just so you get informed with the truth, the giant elite along with many criminal leaders like trump, nutyahoo, boris johnson are the perpetrators of the covid -19, just like they were with the 9/11.
    So, stop with your lies…you are controlled opposition….indeed I have deduced from your writings.
    Stand up for the truth, ethics, justice and fairness.

    • SBaker
      SBaker says:

      I realize there are many people posting here and at the UNZ that don’t believe in evidence-based science and I am not here to offend them. I also realize that both sites harbor many posters from China and the Muslim world–it would be nice if we could discern their identity to know why they avoid truth. I sent an email in the first week of February about the manipulation of the Wuhan virus outlining what the Chicoms have been forced to admit. Here is the latest: SARS-CoV-2 infects T lymphocytes through its spike protein-mediated membrane fusion

      To add to many studies already showing that the deadly and potent ways the SARS-Cov-2 has of attacking various human host cells and also critical proteins and cellular pathways in the human cells, a new collaborative study by researchers from the United States and China now shows that the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus also attacks the T Lymphocytes similarly to the way that HIV viruses act.

      The study has been published in the journal of Cellular & Molecular Immunology which is part of the credible Nature journals and has already been peer reviewed.

  11. Oracle
    Oracle says:

    The modern West considers itself to be post-national, so nations just are countries with an actual homogenous population.

  12. Richard McCulloch
    Richard McCulloch says:

    “The People’s Republic of China currently enjoys a $30 billion dollar trade surplus with America.”

    By “currently” I assume that the author is referring to 2013, when the review was written, but if so this number is either a typo or a factual error as it is off by about an order of magnitude. According to, which is consistent with other sources I’ve followed for more than a decade, the U.S. trade deficit with China (which is the same as the Chinese trade surplus with the U.S.) was $83 billion in 2001 (the year China entered the World Trade Organization), $266.3 billion in 2008 and $367.2 billion in 2015. What China “enjoys’ as a trade surplus that has fueled its economic growth and rise as a manufacturing power the U.S. suffers as a trade deficit that has cost it 4.4 million manufacturing jobs and seen the loss of entire sectors of manufacturing. Americans are still consuming the manufactured goods in the industrial sectors that have been gutted, but now the goods are imported from China rather than made in the U.S. The Chinese trade relationship with the U.S., and indeed the rest of the world, is the classic one of an advanced manufacturing economy with an agricultural colony or pre-industrial economy, with the China exporting manufactured goods in exchange for U.S. agricultural products, raw materials and other commodities.
    The Chinese have never been good trading partners. Because of their hyper-ethnocentrism or China-centrism they have little regard or desire for products made outside China. The only product they would buy from the British in the 19th century was opium as there was no domestic supply.

  13. j. eric smith
    j. eric smith says:

    Excellent point here and one that is overlooked, probably intentionally.
    The Chinese are nothing more than a pawn of the jew as we have been for the past 100 years.
    We are now on the chopping block, having been used up and a threat as this article illustrates.

    I have had a radical change since the false pandemic operation. This is beyond the pale and while it may indicate desperation of the jews and their minions it may also be a sign that that are confident of success of their insane “religious” agenda.
    I now feel that we are at war and anything else but military confrontation is pointless.

    I also feel civilization will be pushed back at least 100 years in technology. which is a good thing. If humanity survives these technologies must be banned as we have proven inca;pable of basic morality and ethics.

    We are an evolutionary failure.

  14. Panadechi
    Panadechi says:

    The ancient Chinese invented the abacus (first calculator), discovered the powder and developed fireworks and rockets, created the numerical matrix system (currently electronic data processing sheets), cultivation and production of silk, the system of primary financial instruments Sun Tzu developed the first major treatise on war, “The Art of War” written on bamboo papyri, 2,500 years ago, etc, etc, etc … they currently have intercontinental nuclear weapons and space technology, Japan is similar and They are at the forefront of robotics.
    They have three primary factors, ethnocentrism (superior survival vital force), high homogeneity, and high IQ. the first two disappearing in the west, and the last one declining due to degrading miscegenation.
    They (Chinese) will take the best and most useful from the West, and discard the rest (massive asymmetric immigration, LGTBI, anti-nationalism and individualism).
    Brain intelligence implies the ability to collect information, the ability to process it optimally, and the delivery of efficient and useful results. Asians own it just like whites. The subharianos do not possess that capacity, therefore they will be behind or parasitize the whites.
    Now what the Asians do for their benefit, like the Jews is not the most important thing, the really important thing is that the whites will do for their benefit and survival.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      The most important thing that westernworld nonjewish Whites could do for themselves to thrive-n-survive is to ditch their christianity of enslavement to the jewmasters and get onboard with the new religion of { The PRIME DIRECTIVE } for the survival of mankind beyond The Solar Extinction Event ; where it absolutely is different from and not about ” Star Trek General Order 1 “.

  15. RobertDolan
    RobertDolan says:

    The jews infiltrated China starting in the 9th century.
    Mao’s inner circle was jews.
    Check the latest FashTheNation, dealing with the jews in China.

  16. Keith Harbaugh
    Keith Harbaugh says:

    I have two comments:

    1. With regard to the East Asian alleged “lack of creativity”, whatever the truth may be of that, I have the highest regard for their technical capabilities. We have two examples of those:
    Their hacking prowess, demonstrated by, among many examples, the NoKo hack of Sony. The fact that so much of our supply chains have been moved, with extraordinary success, to East Asia.
    And not just the manufacturing capability. Also engineering skills have been mastered by many of the Asians. Just observe their success at engineering and building our electronics (not to mention automobiles).

    2. Regarding their culture: Is it not likely that a critical factor in their success is or was what Sir Arnold Joseph Toynbee called their Confucian culture? Toynbee, now almost entirely ignored by today’s “elite”, divided the world circa 1960 into great civilizations: Western, Islamic, Indic, Sinic, Orthodox Christian
    Toynbee’s POV and classification is now either ignored or derided, because, I don’t have the slightest doubt, it conflicts with the forces Kevin so well limned in CoC.

    As an example, in the early 2000s I queried a curator of ancient near eastern art at the Sackler Gallery in Washington as to what was the then-current opinion of Toynbee in her circles. She essentially responded that his work was now considered obsolete. I asked “Why?”, and she said, essentially, “Because we know so much more than he did.” I thought “Well, probably so, but that needn’t obviate his taxonomy of civilizations.” So I responded with “Well, he didn’t know EVERYTHING,” drawing out the last word. She responded “He didn’t know ANYTHING,” again drawing out the last word. I turned and walked out. The point to this anecdote is to illustrate how thoroughly today’s keepers of our culture deride Toynbee.

    • j. eric smith
      j. eric smith says:

      Kieth Harbaugh. With regards to point #1 I would add an anecdotal story.
      The Chinese have made up a huge portion of concertizing classical musicians of modern times. A friend of mine was studying with one of the premier piano instructors in the Philadelphia area and according to him she said the following her Chinese pupils:
      “They do EVERYTHING you tell them to do…
      And NOTHING you don’t tell them to do.”

  17. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    There is no doubt that there is Chinese industrial espionage in the West, just as there is Western industrial espionage in China. The extent is the unknown.
    I find it ironic that Americans ignore the fact that the Fìve Eyes have been spying on the world for decades, including the leaders of foreign countries. If they can do that, they are certainly capable of hacking into foreign companies to steal their trade secrets. Wikileaks Vault 7 release demonstrated that. After the circus with Russiagate, it is difficult to believe any of the US intelligence agencies. The US has come a long way from stealing the contents of the German Patent Office, post surrender, and selling them to US Corporations, as has the Black Ops in disinformation.
    A more credible threat is Israel. Jonathon Pollard not only caused the death of hundreds of US agents in foreign countries, he was sending military secrets to Israel, who was then selling them to the highest bidder.

    As for the current virus hysteria, demonizing China to stop Huawei and its 5G sales cannot be ruled out. If the Five Eyes want to continue their position of world surveillance, Huawei has to be displaced.

  18. ChilledBee
    ChilledBee says:

    Netanyahu declared Israel’s dealings with China “A marriage made in heaven”.
    Can you imagine the potential carnage these 2 countries can do to America. The same America that literally has many of its citizens signing a legal document agreeing not to criticize Israel before they will be given any government contracts. Oh, how historians will laugh.

  19. KoWid 91
    KoWid 91 says:

    “We must recognize that the root cause of the problem [of technology theft] is nothing less than our own individualism and find ways as a nation to take collective action against the common threat, because the same trait that makes us good at creating things makes it hard for us to defend our national interests”.

    To the author/admin. I stopped reading 1/3 through, because I had to laugh. You (allways = gov.) can be glad that China didn’t completely flattened your country first. After that glorious achievement, killing millions of your people for the good of your people in the process, they STOLE ALL Your knowledge, which you had gathered over a period of maybe”300/350″ years. Taking 3k tons of gold, all the engineering hardware with them and calling it “operation paperclip”.
    Over and above, they would have given your brightest brains the option, either judgement at, where could it have been, WDC? and swing, or you work for us,China, the only country with the highest moral standards in the world. I could carry for a long time. But your people would have never found back to your own self. China would have re-written the history, repeat it, repeat it, repeat it until you believe yourself that you deserve punishment ad infinitum. But what’s the point, YOU would never have gotten/ and still don’t get it.

    • Jordan S
      Jordan S says:

      “To the author/admin. I stopped reading 1/3 through, because I had to laugh. You (allways = gov.) can be glad that China didn’t completely flattened your country first. After that glorious achievement, killing millions of your people for the good of your people in the process, they STOLE ALL Your knowledge, which you had gathered over a period of maybe”300/350″ years. Taking 3k tons of gold, all the engineering hardware with them and calling it “operation paperclip”.
      Over and above, they would have given your brightest brains the option, either judgement at, where could it have been, WDC? and swing, or you work for us,China, the only country with the highest moral standards in the world. I could carry for a long time. But your people would have never found back to your own self. China would have re-written the history, repeat it, repeat it, repeat it until you believe yourself that you deserve punishment ad infinitum. But what’s the point, YOU would never have gotten/ and still don’t get it.”

      Imagine being non-relevant in history for the past 1000 years as such as the Asians were – lol. Please take a look at all advanced, modern scientific theories,models and practices a strange coincidence – all white.

      My ancestors were sailing the world, conquering and obtaining foreign land and people. Yours? Nothing.

      Not only are Europeans smarter, more creative(classic art,music,architecture,literature,dance,culinary) we posses a raw grit and strength coupled with and adventuring spirit that drove us to colonize most of this world. Asians?

      I’m not speaking chinese am I? But you’re speaking English. Quite strange I’d say.

      yes, asians can copy and replicate but their comparison to whites is highly laughable. One just needs to look at the countries and accomplishments of said country to see who’s better.

      Too bad we went to war before we started chopping up lines in china for ourselves.

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      You’re talking about what white people (Americans, British) did to other white people (Germans).

      You’re talking about an injustice to Germans that began at the end of the nineteenth century and continues to this day.

      It has nothing to do with China.

  20. KoWid 91
    KoWid 91 says:

    Not 3 k of gold, only 3 tons…
    As long as admin reads my 2 cents of uncomfortable Truth, I’m happy.

  21. S. Super
    S. Super says:

    Well well. The chinks ey. I think asian countries produce things at the highest level. Very impressive indeed.

    But lets throw away the nanufactured white guikt built most likely through architecture and creation of historic events.

    Lets rise up and create a new better world.

    Lets be ethnocentric, futurustic and make new FUN things and art.

    What path takes us there. Realization of the racial war struggle between many racially mixed folks and whites.
    4% if usa folks who think ey white part african. Probably 15 to 25 % of western population part gypsy/tattas. Most italians spaniards greek mixed with north africans, negroes and arabs. Finns largely mongolian sooften northern sweden and so on . Truly white folks are allready probably a minirity un their own countries.

    Racemixed oeoole controll politits media and capital.

    Niggers steal lie murder sell drugs. Chinese often steal. Latinis go for racemixing with whites arabs murder steal lie and RAPE en masse.

    The afro american organizations realized they needed a culture to get their people motivated… To have something to struggle for. they invested in culture soviet moneys. Very sucessfull strategy….

    Since western culture has been hijacked by racemixed white looking folks we need true white cultuee first.

    We need white venture capital. We need cheap living spaces collective solutions… New painted art books (new print houses…) New music.

    It cant be old it will be cutting edge and beat the other raciak groups …

  22. todd hupp
    todd hupp says:

    The serotonin angle is interesting. There are genetic differences among the races. It has been shown that serotonin controls dominance in certain lower species(eg Lobsters).The author’s comments suggest the East Asians have built in “Prozac” – so to speak. Enhanced serotonin via Prozac enhances mood and certain kinds of cognition.

  23. Keith Harbaugh
    Keith Harbaugh says:

    For a look at what happened, and why, to Toynbee’s reputation, please see the 2007 Haaretz article
    titled “This Is How We Ruined Toynbee’s Theory”.

    Jews ask the reasonable question:
    Why are (some) people so obsessed about Jews?
    The answer is:
    Because Jews do so much to influence society in ways that clearly are in their interest (“Is it good for the Jews”),
    but almost as a consequence of that,
    work against the interests of the general Gentile population.

Comments are closed.