Introduction:

Many of the world’s contemporary ills are a direct result of the philosophies, actions and policies of the mainstream establishment, its elites, and their bizarre ideology-cum-religion of liberalism, more recently dubbed “neoliberalism” in its most extreme incarnation. Figuratively speaking, it’s more than fair to posit that the dangerously interconnected and interdependent neoliberalized world is like a giant network server, ever perilously teetering on the verge of a cataclysmic failure. When writing of the excesses of the liberal system, and most notably the dangerous interconnectivity of the globalized world Guillaume Faye acutely summarizes our current predicament when he writes:

A series of ‘dramatic lines’ are approaching one another and converging like a river’s tributaries with perfect accord (between 2010 and 2020) towards a breaking point and a descent into chaos (Faye 2012, 12)

Continuing Faye then offers a glimmer of hope when he writes:

From this chaos — which will be extremely painful on the global scale — can emerge the new order of the post-catastrophe era and therefore a new civilization born in pain (Faye 2012, 12)

The accelerationists among our ranks will chortle that collapse is a good thing. They believe that civilizational collapse will pave the way for a “new world order,” images of valiant last stands reminiscent of those envisioned by William Luther Pierce’s The Turner Diaries or James Mason’s Siege first and foremost in their minds. While the more grounded elements of our movement—those interested in gradual, and realistic metapolitical, and eventual political change—tend to take another view. Realistically speaking, collapse would be a nightmare, wrought with unimaginable suffering and death. Moreover, presumably many of the victims would be our fellow Whites. Political disintegration is a recurring theme throughout world history, and as the study of history has taught, its seldom a pleasant phenomenon.

Bringing matters to a head, and intensifying the instability of the Western world, is the Chinese coronavirus. In true Huxleyan dystopian fashion, with each passing day the fate of the liberalized world rests atop “a pale tenuous membrane,” veering ever closer towards systemic planetary collapse. I cannot help but liken the current crisis to a near-death experience and like any near-death experience, I am cautiously optimistic that some good may arise from our collective veering so close to the proverbial edge. More precisely, I’m hoping that all the fear, misery and uncertainty engendered by the Wuhan pestilence elicits a bona fide existential crisis in whatever’s left of the dwindling soul of the European variant of homo economicus. Let’s hope that with what is tantamount to a national quarantine here in America and most of Europe, that the racially unenlightened kindred among us begin to contemplate just how we got here. The current litany of crises afflicting the West appeared long before the emergence of the Chinese coronavirus, but the virus has managed to bring many of the systems weaknesses to the world’s attention.

War is peace / freedom is slavery / ignorance is strength

In The Collapse of Complex Societies, Joseph A. Tainter argues that societies become unsustainable when the their problem-solving structures diminish (Tainter 1988). Liberalism as a way of life, has precipitated a number of calamities, on a global scale, many of which remain unresolved, and in fact, are growing to monstrous proportions, immigration chief among them.

Related to the above, the true severity underpinning the coronavirus crisis is a direct result of the extreme uncertainty as to how or when it will end. This uncertainty in turn endows the virus with a potency much more immediately felt than, say, mass immigration or overpopulation, both of which take years for their effects to be realized by the mainstream. Generally speaking, risk can be quantified, in fact, there’s a whole science of risk quantification present within the field of project management devoted solely to the evaluation of risk. Uncertainty, however, isn’t quantifiable, and by its nature is completely unpredictable, and it is this unpredictability which imbues the Chinese virus with so much psychological stress. From this the question arises, how will European man, and ultimately European civilization react to the uncertainty of the Chinese scourge? Will this crisis be the springboard which propels European man towards real ontological, and by extension, civilizational transformation? Or will the retracting empire of European civilization drift closer to the precipice of total racial annihilation? Only time will tell what the future will bring, but some optimism is warranted.

Regardless of outcome, it’s obvious to even the dimmest among us that tangible civilizational change is necessary, at least if the European race is to persevere beyond the twenty-first century. At present, the Chinese scourge is doing a fantastic job of illuminating the real contagion infecting the atrophied West, that of neoliberalism. From atop their echo chambers, a number of mainstream pundits have parroted the statement that the Chinese virus is a global problem. The Chinese virus is a global issue, but presumably much to their chagrin, it is a problem directly caused by neoliberal ideology, and more specifically by its intrinsic preference for and reliance upon globalism. It is the global reach and totalitarian nature of liberalism that has endowed its ideology with such pernicious virulence. It’s probably more than safe to say that if the West wasn’t enthralled by the deranged ideology that is liberalism, that there would be no coronavirus ravaging our homelands and endangering the lives of our folk.

Liberalism isn’t a precise ideology, unlike nationalism which is based on a simple, and fundamental truth, like the love for one’s nation, or an all-encompassing, consensual worldview, like National Socialism. Neoliberalism, unlike its more tolerant ancestor, is more akin to a Rabelaisian salmagundi of rigidly intolerant dogmas and precepts, which are slowly assuming all the accoutrements of a secularized mystery religion. For all practical purposes, liberalism is a loose-knit, ideology-cum-religion, premised upon an axiomatic dogma dedicated to fulfilling individual human wants and desires. Liberalism seeks to satiate these wants and desires, the so-called “happiness” of those under its sway, via the specious “freedoms” diffused by the market-economy.

Like all things en-vogue in contemporary in the West, there is a degree of utopian millenarianism present within neoliberal thought, which promises salvation from the cruel sufferings of this world via its fetish for free-market economics. Like all successful swindles, the unconscious pull of neoliberal thought comes from its ability to present and manipulate half-truths. The long and varied successes of the European race are derived from both the individualism and the competitive nature of our civilization, and it is this truth which neoliberalism insidiously exploits. To the neoliberal order, competition is the defining characteristic of human relations. However, competition is framed not as the conquest, or attainment of individual glory or achievement, but primarily as an economic process, of buying and selling, and thus of a hypertrophied free-market. Liberalism has apotheosized the free-market system by portraying it as the most effective, the most rational, and the most natural of social institutions, capable of producing the most “happiness,” and by extension arousing the most “freedoms” for the greatest number of people. These statements aren’t meant to say that free-market capitalism isn’t a profoundly powerful economic system, but rather to illustrate the point that as a concept, it is just a system of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, and not the totality of a civilization. As Alain de Benoist has correctly pointed out over the years, a society is not a market, and this notion has been twisted by liberalism for decades.

Adding to and intensifying the already perplexing liberal ideological milieu is the establishment’s confusion over the very real differences that exist between a capitalist system and a free-market system. A capitalist system focuses on the creation of wealth and the ownership of capital. In the traditional capitalist system of America, the economy was an industrially oriented economy, as opposed to the so-called “knowledge-economy” of present times in which growth is seen as dependent on the quantity, quality, and accessibility of the information available, rather than the means of production. The industrial orientation of the American economy ensured that economic growth occurred largely in the sectors of farming, mining, construction and manufacturing. Moreover, it was during the industrial period of American economic history, and by extension European economic history, that the middle-class was ascendant, and the private ownership of capital (i.e., small businesses) was disbursed among a much larger percentage of the population.

The liberalization of trade, and the expansion of globalism as an ideology rather than just as a byproduct of technological advancement, acted to deindustrialize large swathes of America, resulting in the mass economic dislocation of workers, specifically within import-competing economic sectors. The decades long process of the deindustrialization of America resulted in an economic restructuring of the economy, which precipitated a shift of the locus of American economic output from the generative (e.g., manufacturing) to the parasitic (e.g., financialization). The resulting postindustrial, “knowledge-based” economies of both contemporary America and the West, are focused on the services, finance, and technology, and as such are parasitic in nature, focusing on the exchange of wealth, rather than its creation. Obviously, creation does occur in the knowledge economy—say, for example, a new technology, but the actual production of the new technology will likely end up going to low-wage countries. This outsourcing of manufacturing has resulted in what one might term the intangibleization of the economies of the West, which has in turn led to stagnant wages for the working class and increasing economic inequality. This ongoing economic process has transformed Western civilization, with the its ancestral European peoples being gradually turned into a postmodern servile class dominated by a globalist elite that recognizes no borders. To wit, the current incarnation of the parasitic, free-market economy is a system most vehemently embraced by a Judaized “Western” elite, who profit off of the labor of others, and who have little in common with the new servile class that they now lord over.

The Eschewal of Inequality and the Perversion of the Natural Order:

Central to the noxious confusion of liberalism is its denunciation of inequality. European civilizational agency—the capacity to act in accordance with one’s own will rather than being a victim of some immutable external force or circumstance—is one of the hallmarks of Western civilization. However, the liberal conceptualization of “agency” ignores the fact that there are differences between individuals in the capacity for agency. These differences reliably produce different economic outcomes, and liberalism, despite decades of trying one panacea after another, has been unable to eradicate these differences at the group level: Blacks, e.g., are still underperforming academically as a group despite decades of interventions aimed at “closing the gap.”

From Jean Bodin to John Stuart Mills to Friedrich Hayek and beyond, classical liberal thought posits that freedom stems from the impartiality of economic markets and its role as the great equalizer, which in turn allows people to reach their maximum potential. In an attempt to reconcile the reality of inequality with their ideology, liberal elites have taken to a program of elevating those individuals, and groups, whole racial groups in fact, whose outcomes don’t coalesce with the egalitarian, and thus utopian aspirations of liberal ideology. In terms of general intelligence (the g factor) for example, numerous studies have shown that Sub-Saharan Blacks on average score a whole standard deviation (or more) below that of Whites. IQ is correlated highly to measures of academic achievement, and better academic achievement, more often than not, results in better life outcomes, in terms of social status. Objectively speaking, the higher an individual’s (or groups) status, the more socially valuable they are. This is an empirical fact, which is rooted primarily in genetics and phenotypic expression, and thus a facet of the inequality of the natural world. Liberalism has elevated hordes of the worthless in a confusing attempt to artificially improve their social status, despite their actual lack of tangible societal value. The relatively new concept of “human rights” is a product of this delusional logic.

To the typical liberal, the Black-White IQ gap is a matter of material inequality, an economic problem, and thus completely unrelated to genes or biology. Charles Murray summed up not only the differences in racial intelligence, but also the futility of the utopian neoliberal project perfectly when he wrote: There is this notion that if traits are genetically determined, that’s bad, and if traits are environmentally determined, that’s good, because we can do something about them if they are environmental. And if there is one lesson that we have learned from the last 70 years of social policy, it is that changing environments in ways that produce measurable results is really, really hard and we actually don’t know how to do it, no matter how much money we spend (Harris 2017). Thus, the neoliberal perspective is immanently flawed as it conceptualizes reality in a way which posits that all negative outcomes are a result of material or economic inequality—which is routinely glossed as the result of White racism—and not an issue of ability or capacity, and by extension a facet of objective reality. Liberalism as the reigning ideology has blurred the lines between the real and unreal, between subjectivism and objectivism. Our current age is characterized by a radical subjectivism, where any notion of absolute, objective truth has been deliberately disregarded and replaced by a facetious tapestry of plural “my truths.”

As the oft-used adage goes, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. It is the philosophical inadequacy of liberalism that reduces all things to the level of material and underlies the multitudes of fallacies present within the many “truths” which make up its pseudo-ideology. As Martin Heidegger posited throughout the entirety of his works, the factual world is perfectly real; it is the human, and by extension, the hyper-liberal propensity to base reality on “projection” (ideal) rather than on “facticity,” (fact) which corrupts the liberal mind and wreaks havoc upon the world.

It is neoliberalism’s adherence to the alleged agency of man, achieved solely by possessing economic and thus political rights, which limits its ability to successfully cope with actual real-world issues. Bridging the gaps in wealth and achievement and abolishing inequality is always just another trillion dollars away. Or it is just a matter of refining our laws to enforce equal outcomes between groups in areas such as income and academic achievement.

And because purely economic adjustments have proved ineffective, political solutions must be found. Policies like quota systems must be enacted and if they are threatened by public opinion—as they most assuredly are— liberalism necessarily morphs into a totalitarian ideology. Bertrand de Jouvenel described the liberal paradox as the cause of what he called “totalitarian democracy.” In the totalitarian democracies of the West, individual decision making, and the explicit “democratic” political processes, maintain the guise of political representation, while in reality decision making is a process done largely by groups of unelected donors—the oligarchs—and their politician minions who really run the system. This is a system which seeks only to maintain and enrich itself. And because its fundamental ideology conflicts with the realities of human nature, such as race differences in IQ, it must necessarily seek total hegemony because that is the only way it can attempt to exempt itself from the realities of nature. It must crush all dissent. Religion, the nation-state, and the family, are all obstacles to the smooth operating of the economy and are ground to dust beneath the machine of market economy. Race is useful only as a means of subverting the traditional power of White majorities, so that only the traditional White majorities are prohibited to have a racial identity or pursue racial interests.

Freedom as an ideal is so ambiguous in orientation that as an abstract notion it can be manipulated to represent anything. It is the economic determinism intrinsic to liberalism which endows it with the myopia of its reductionist tendencies and which, by extension, degrades all things which are real, true and beautiful. In The Society of the Spectacle, Guy Debord asserts that just as industrial capitalism moved the focus of existence from being to having, post-industrial culture has moved that focus from having to appearing (Debord 1995). Postmodern neoliberalism isn’t about reality, it’s about the maintaining of appearances to perpetuate the farce of reality—lies, injustice and ugliness masquerading as truth, justice and beauty.

In the degeneration that is the liberal age, presentism is the rule of the day. The generally low-IQ, high-time preference “men without chests” of the postmodern world sacrifice all future gains, whether they be economic, political, racial or otherwise, in favor of high-risk, and often fleeting, short-term gains. As GOP Senator Ron Johnson recently phrased it, we have to reopen portions of the American economy post-haste because “death is an unavoidable part of life.” This train of thought is exemplary of the philosophical weaknesses of liberalism, particularly as it relates to its overreliance on presentism. The behavior of individuals currently living will generally have long-term consequences that affect the well-being of those who will come to live in the future. In this age of dissolution, many people pay lip service to future generations, but act as if it’s not necessary to treat the interests of future generations as equivalent to those of their own. Again, this lack of future-mindedness, and overall lack of care for others beyond oneself, specifically for one’s racial kin, is baked into the giant shit cake which is the liberal establishment.

Conclusion:

The money-grubbing elites of the West have willfully, and quite deliberately forgotten that the purpose of the economy is to serve a people, and not vice-versa. It is this inversion, Nietzschean in its transvaluation of reality, that has led to the series of crises and conflicts destabilizing the West. However, in America, and throughout Europe, people of European descent are gradually awakening to the hostility of these elites. Each new crisis spurred by neoliberalism both edges our people one step closer to the proverbial edge and potentially one step closer to civilizational transformation. In fact, over the past several weeks many legacy media outlets have been publishing stories about the need to suppress the natural, “nationalistic instinct” which has arisen in response to the China plague. Like the farce of multiculturalism, the pervasiveness and popularity of this “nationalistic instinct” is rendered self-evident by the obvious fact that the talking heads in the media are actively working to suppress it. If the works of George Orwell have taught us anything, the more preposterous an untruth, the more vigorously it must be defended.

In times of turmoil like these, it’s important to remember that the disease of liberalism, and those who perpetuate it, are the true enemy of all European people. If America and the West weren’t dominated by the perversion that is money-power, then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. If the hostile elites hadn’t sold out the American people and gleefully deindustrialized America, then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. If we weren’t dominated by a ruthless and rootless, predominantly Semitic, transnational elite whose only interest is the “almighty dollar,” then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. If the borders of America were closed and if immigration was biased toward Europeans, as it was before 1965, then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. If we lived in a racially homogenous nation-state, populated by people of European descent, then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. In other words, if neoliberalism wasn’t the rule of the day, then the coronavirus wouldn’t have happened. Regardless of what emerges from these times of trouble, let’s hope that the loss of life isn’t great, and that the Wuhan scourge is one more nail in the coffin which is the absurdity of postmodern neoliberalism.

---

Debord, Guy. 1995. The Society of the Spectacle. Cambridge: Zone Books.

Faye, Guillaume. 2012. Convergence of Catastrophes. Budapest: Arktos Media Ltd.

Harris, Sam. 2017. Forbidden Knowledge – A Conversation with Charles Murray. https://samharris.org/podcasts/forbidden-knowledge/.

Tainter, Joseph A. 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Who is advising our Governor?

Who are these “experts” who issued the latest projections of disease trajectory in Oregon? They are from Washington State, The Institute or Disease Modeling in Bellevue, WA. Computer models! Of course they claim the “aggressive interventions” prevented the spread and “flattened the curve”, or else we’d have almost 4 times as many cases, and “health care systems would be overburdened.” Here is where the Governor got her cartoonish graph projecting a spike in hospitalizations if we shift to “moderate interventions” instead of maintaining the “aggressive interventions” we endure now, and here is where she is getting her main advice: The Institute for Disease Modeling.

“Conclusion to Date” (4/10)

The exact document which informs the Governor’s Executive Orders locking down Oregon is titled COVID-19 intervention effectiveness and epidemic trends for Oregon: a model-based analysis.  We can see their logo at the bottom of every page. They say: “At this stage, any relaxation of the current aggressive control measures is likely to result in epidemic resurgence.” IDM confirms the wisdom of the “aggressive interventions”, and their recommendations include “the urgent need for enormously increased testing capacity, detailed contact tracing… and likely the quarantining of infected individuals away from households…”   But IDM  “acknowledge(s) how strong the impacts of these measures will be across society, especially for low-income families and other vulnerable populations, and we hope Oregon will also act to mitigate the largest societal costs.”

Thanks a lot. What thin sympathy, but this is where the Governor is getting her advice. The Institute of Disease Modeling (Mongering) in Bellevue, WA.

The Authors

The following names are listed as the authors of this document, from a Washington modeling center making “aggressive” pronouncements and recommendations for Oregon: Cliff Kerr, Brittany Hagedorn, Dina Mistry, Daniel Klein. Three of these four (excepting Mistry) are also listed as the authors of a document informing and advising in Washington state. Another co-author of that document, Hao Hu, is listed as representing the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and according to Linkedin is “ Interim Senior Program Officer at Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Greater Seattle Area Philanthropy.” I will devote some brief study to each of these authors of the document advising Governor Brown in Oregon.

Cliff Kerr

Dr. Kerr has worked extensively on human neurological and brain systems interface with machines, including one project with DARPA, the Defense Advance Research Project Agency. In 2017–18, Kerr used a grant from the Gates Foundation of over $155,000 .”..to identify optimal spending portfolios for investments made by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, with particular focus on emerging medical technologies.” This needs no translation. One of the authors of the primary document advising Oregon’s Governor used Gates Foundation money to help Gates figure out how to invest his money more effectively in new medical technologies. Think global COVID-19 vaccines, and much more, as we will see. This alone is a flagrant conflict of interest.

Brittany Hagedorn

This co-author is Senior Financial Analyst at IDM. She has co-authored six research publications, one in 2020 and the rest in 2019, four published in the journal Vaccine, all focused on vaccine cost-effectiveness, and all from her position at IDM. One of her papers explores the cost effectiveness of identifying which Third-World children have already had a few measles vaccines, and whether it would cost less to inject them again without finding out. In other words, the study tried to determine if it was a cost savings to inject children with another measles vaccine without finding out if they already had their required injections. Two of her papers rely on data drawn from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, which receives its funding directly from the Gates Foundation as well as many other sources Gates funds, such as World Health Organization (Gates is now the #1 donor), UNICEF, US CDCP, GAVI (Gates is a major donor and has one of only four Board seats), and Rotary International.

Dina Mistry

Dr. Mistry is a Postdoctoral Research Scientist at IDM. Her work there “focus(es) on modeling human response to disease awareness and the impact this has on disease spreading”, .”..using digital signals of health information and communication (such as Google, Twitter, Reddit) to model disease awareness and response…” In other words, surveilling our internet activity to track our exposure and spreading of disease. Other papers she has co-authored, one as recent as late February, acknowledge “ The growing need for realism in addressing complex public health questions is however calling for accurate models of the human contact patterns that govern the disease transmission processes.” It is reassuring to know that “realism” is now a research parameter. I hope they got it right for Oregon. These papers were published through Cornell University. Gates is a big donor.

Daniel Klein
Klein is listed as a Senior Research Manager at IDM. He helps develop the computer models and algorithms IDM uses to predict disease progression, like those which produced the graphs our Oregon Governor is using to justify the continued “aggressive measures.” Even though Klein joined IDM in 2010, “During 2018, he led various data science and strategy initiatives as a Senior Program Officer in the Global Development Strategy, Data, and Analytics team at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.” Klein’s co-authors of his most recent papers are both from the University of Washington, Seattle. Gates is a huge funder of this institution, with over $1.6 million just this year, and enormous funding going back over a decade. An earlier paper by Klein saw Hao Hu as a co-author, who, as already shown, is a direct recipient of Gates funding.

Keep in mind that the Gates sponsored vaccine programs have inflicted immense damage and death, especially in the developing world, including hundreds of thousands of children paralyzed, millions of women sterilized, and many thousands dead. “Experts” at IDM are sure to know this.

Studies From China

Six of the nine references listed on the final page of the document (pg 10) used by these IDM personnel for their modeling come from Communist China. These are highly suspect sources and cannot be trusted. We have not been told the truth by our own media much less propaganda out of Communist China. This document based so much on studies out of China and which Governor Brown is using to guide her Executive Orders for Oregon is less disease modeling than disease mongering.

Who Funds Institute for Disease Modeling?

The Institute for Disease Modeling (Mongering) gets lots of its money from—you guessed it—the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. IDM is an organization within the Global Good Fund, which is entirely funded by Gates.

Global Good invents technology to solve some of humanity’s most daunting problems. We do this by collaborating with leading humanitarian organizations, forward-looking governments, research institutions, and corporate and private sector partners that bring our inventions to market.

Gates keeps a focus on markets and profits when helping the world’s poor and sick. Gates appears to be a global demagogue trying to vaccinate and chip everyone in the world for power and profit. Global Good features a picture of Gates fiddling with some tech object in a lab while a geek and a woman look on—right after the big banner picture close-up of a mosquito with its proboscis buried face-deep in human flesh and its torso engorged with red blood. Lovely. Which one is the worse pest scourge of humanity?

Funding From Patent Lawyers

The other Corporation that ‘collaborates’ with Gates on Institute for Disease Modeling (Mongering) is Intellectual Ventures. To whit:

Intellectual Ventures is an American private company that centers on the development and licensing of intellectual property. Intellectual Ventures is one of the top-five owners of U.S. patents, as of 2011. Its business model has a focus on buying patents and aggregating them into a large patent portfolio and licensing these patents to third parties.

Global Good is so intertwined with Intellectual Ventures that the GG logo says underneath “Ideas by Intellectual Ventures.”

Intellectual Ventures (Vultures) is active in spinning off new companies as it acquires patents, and their pace is accelerating. One of these spinoffs in 2018 is Carillon Technologies, a military contractor “to aid national security and government contractors.” Carillon’s investors include Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft.  Another of many spinoffs is Terra Power, which “provides, safe, affordable and carbon-free energy” (nuclear). Chariman of the Board? Bill Gates. Echodyne is another IV spinoff with military applications for which Gates is an investor. Gates Investments is an investor in spinoff Pivotal Commware, and Lumotive, and AI developer Lexset through Microsoft, and 3D “immersive media” company YouVue…  These are just a sampling of some of the ventures IV spins off, and Gates is invested in most of them if not on the Board.

Main founder and CEO of Intellectual Ventures is Nathan Myhrvold, who formerly worked at—wait– Microsoft! Turns out he’s the geek in the picture with Gates and the woman in the lab on the Global Good site.

Edward Jung, Co-founder of IV, also worked formerly at Microsoft, playing major roles as “chief architect and advisor to executive staff” and much else. Before joining Microsoft “he founded the Deep Thought Group, working on neural network chips for learning and parallel computation.” Direct computer mind control? These behind IDM advising Governor Brown are technocrats moving for all forms of technocratic world control. Eddie also worked on AI at Microsoft. was an “advisor” to Harvard Medical School, and “consultant” to Asia Pacific Federation, the China Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and WHO.

IV Executive Vice President, Invention Science Fund Chris Alliegro formerly worked at Microsoft. Executive Vice President, Global Good and Research Maurizio Vecchione leads with the following statement: “In this role, Maurizio oversees Global Good, IV’s collaboration with Bill Gates to invent and deploy technology specifically focused on improving life in developing countries, as well as the research and operations of the Intellectual Ventures Laboratory (IV Lab) and Institute for Disease Modeling.”

Conclusion

The co-founders of the Institute for Disease Modeling (Mongering) are the world’s most currently hated man Bill Gates—for declaring lockdowns have to continue until he develops and deploys his new untested RNA vaccine worldwide—and big-time patent lawyers, corporate CEO’s and tech spin off experts at Intellectual Ventures (Vultures). These people are in it for the money and power, not Oregon’s public health. These are the “experts” from whom Governor Brown is getting her advice in running Oregon during the “state of emergency”: Gates and a bunch of corporate patent lawyers and mad scientists who want to vaccinate and chip the world. These are the technocrats trying to profit and seize power by imposing technological “solutions” they invent and sell. They see money and power in the ongoing destruction of Oregon’s economy, society and people. They get their “studies” from Communist China to inform their tables and graphs, and from these issue their recommendations to our Governor for continued lockdown apocalypse. Their paper which informs Oregon’s Governor Kate Bronw in her remarks and presentation is now exposed for multiple conflicts of interest and domineering control by Bill Gates and his high tech lawyer cronies.

Action

Impeach Governor Brown. If she does not know of these flagrant conflicts of interest among the source of her advice, that is criminal negligence. If she knows, that is criminal malevolence and a crime against the humanity of the State of Oregon. This is not partisan, this is life and death.

And impeach Gates! Wait, he was never elected. If we want real advice, hire Dr. Wittkowski, his thirty-five years experience in epidemiology will be a much better guide for Oregon, though his practical concept of natural herd immunity will not sell the vaccines and other medical tech promoted by Gates and Intellectual Ventures through the Institute for Disease Modeling (Mongering). Wittkowski’s advice would stop the damage the ongoing lockdown is inflicting, and allow us to start to recover. IDM’s will not. I sent IDM an email asking if they are getting paid by Oregon tax money to advise our governor. The reply: “We are an independently funded entity and neither seek nor accept outside funding.” We know where you get your funding.

Something seems rotten in the state of Washington, but it is likely a corruption spread throughout the Northwest by the big money power of Bill Gates.

Let’s bring the good out in Oregon. They have Global Good, we have Oregon Good. Can we get the Governor on our side?

Restart Oregon!

George Mackenzie  is a writer who lives in southern Oregon.

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.