Philosophy BS

No one likes reality

When I was reading  Robert Greene‘s “The 48 Laws of Power”, I found the following sentence shocking but hitting the truth.

“The truth is often avoided because it is ugly and unpleasant. Never appeal to truth and reality unless you are prepared for the anger that comes from disenchantment. Life is so harsh distressing that people who can manufacture romance or conjure up fantasy are like oases in the desert. Everyone flocks to them. There is great power in tapping into the fantasy of the masses”

I immediately associate with three types of powerful theses that could well match this description: hardcore leftism who deem democracy and universal egalitarianism as the divine code; inveterate right-wing nationalism who wholeheartedly believe the supremacy of one race or one country; and the third type, the fanatic martyrdom who would do anything to ensure their religious thoughts are dominating.

The rest of people, mostly being ordinary emotional not so intelligent mortals, appeal to those three thoughts as means to avoid the insurmountably harsh reality. A leftist hates to see there are always big power trampling weak “victims”; nationalist hate to see leftists are victimizing and empowering the inferior groups that they see as unwanted and disposable residues; a martyr hates to see there are actually other competing doctrines and infidels existing in the world. However, those denial thoughts stride by addressing the mass emotional defiance to the reality instead of enlightening people of what it is really going on in the end. A realist would not be the most popular kid in the block.

But does all this matter when an individual being one would never have the power to turn the tide. Who could get rid of all those gay leftist ideologies? Who would achieve absolute equity and fully functional democracy? Not to mention the possibility to make one’s  religion surpassing everyone else. Certainly some goals probably appear easier than others. But there is still virtually insignificant amount of chance to make it actual happen. Hit the bottom, don’t hate me, hate the reality.

Then what’s the point of not holding some sort of silly stubbornness and hoping for the mirage to actually become an oasis, which makes our life “meaningful”? First it is stupidity to believe it something out of one’s wishful thinking and it serves no meanings to one’s actual living conditions. Second, there’s plenty of other things that are worth digging I would say. This is when pragmatism kicks in: since the world is pretty messed up as it is, we might as well just play the role to get the best out of it. Money, women, family, kids, land, food, diamonds, gold, security, fame, power, whatever this is intrinsically attractive to you and also attainable based on your personal strength, don’t hesitate to pursue it. Sure if you plan to go against the legal system you are under much higher risk of failure, but it’s worth trying if you want it so badly.

My understanding is, reality is something one could only keep to himself and know how to react accordingly to optimize his utility. If you have the openness to stop believing what you emotionally attach to, start questioning about the real point of keeping those “principles”. As far as I could see, this world is NOT running because of some principles and moral codes.

No one likes reality, but we could perhaps start to be optimistic by appreciating reality and adjusting our own behaviors.


It’s a death cult.

Geniality doesn’t exist in our age, it won’t exist in the future and it certainly never existed in the past. But I don’t mind. Nostalgia is where I belong.

These days my mind has been occupied by a series of pettiness that one could not possibly neglect in my situation. The trap that I disdain is finally besieging my bastion. No alternatives, as everyone has to give in for the mediocre reality. This is when I miss the “good old time” the most, despite I have never had the honor to live in those times.

Nostalgia, the ultimate fantasy of many intellectuals. Unlike toothless elderly that live on flashing back the great youth and vitality of the past, people like me always like to indulge himself in the ocean of history, picturing the mighty glorious classic era to which one would find a sense of belonging that has been long lost in this estranged and unfamiliar world of the 21st century. I somehow recall a line I read sometime ago: “Solitude is the friend, for it’s the only thing that accompanies you and makes you think who you really are”. Defying the mediocrity in search for the eternal medication to overcome the loneliness in this intellectual allurement, I chose to lull myself in the purgatory of nostalgia, a helpless pain too ablaze to resist.

Every pretentious individual soul has it own interpretation of nostalgia. I recently watched the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and there was this interesting story line: The actor was in love with the era of the “Lost Generation” in Paris and met a girl who was chased by both Hemingway and Picasso in his 1920’s Paris nostalgia, whose dream was to live in the Belle Époque in late 19th century. They later fell into her nostalgia and met Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec and other great figures in that age, who were speaking of their great admiration of the old Renaissance. The line stops here but I could extend it to speculate that the great figures like  DanteMachiavelli and Michelangelo would never feel content to the great Renaissance Era but longing for the dust of the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece… Alas, history is too overwhelming for a helpless individual being. He who might be actually creating a great appreciation for future generations is probably living in his nostalgia of the precedent sage. It’s like the fine sedimentation of the earth, one layer after another, each builds on the previous surface. The truth is, in the end of the day, it is always the external surface that matters the most to the biotic of the planet: it means delusive nostalgia is no better than the conformation of the current appalling reality, whatever that means to you. Yet, I still blindly drown myself into a time when Tang’s generals could have the honor to gallop across the desert into the steppe spreading the glory of mighty middle empire, or when every ambitious man spoke of his mind to the great kings for the unity of China together with the Confucius in the Hundred schools of thought. But the hubbub had long been immersed by the dust of history. What was past is never coming back. I could almost assure that even if I were in those times, things that I would have appreciated would have been those happened even a thousand years earlier, the era of Yao Shun Yu Tang Wen Wu (堯舜禹湯文武).

Nostalgia is the morphine for those who are sober enough to sense the whole picture. But the whole picture never really changes that much along the time. We will only rest in peace in a fantasy where it is too blurred and vague to know exactly how it felt to live under. That’s why Mark Twain initiated the trick of alternative history by imagining going back to the past to the era of King Arthur, probably under Telsa‘s influence. We simply followed. People like me would rather answer to the call of the wild and worship the brave old world as the real thing that I have been looking for all the time.

It is utile to express your ideas with others

Reflecting from my friend’s assertion “It is futile to express your ideas with others”, here is my rebuttal.

The Novel Point

Good logic and good data are indeed the essence of a good argument. Of course people could choose to deny it in the end, citing the axiom on which a good logic is based on can not be proved. Nonetheless, the grand point to argue with others (other intelligent people) is not to convince other people that what you are saying is correct so that you could claim victory in the battle to fulfill our intellectual’s mega ego. In my opinion, the grand point for the debate is to foster the clashes that could create sparkling for one’s own enlightenment. To explain further, there are four possible scenarios in an intellectual debate:

1. Let’s say both me and the opponent have good logic but my data is dwarfed by a better one in the debate. This is the most rewarding outcome I hope for. I would then love to absorb the new data and improve my knowledge and revise my logic so that it could better reflect the more thorough data it covers. Great learning experience.

2. Let’s say both me and the opponent have fairly the same level of knowledge about a debating issue, but his/her logic assumes way less axioms and hypotheses than mine. I feel like swallowing the bitterness but have to admit he/she has better logic structure than I do in such matter. I would be willing to be convinced as well and consequently upgrade my logic to incorporate his/her more sophisticated ideas. I consider it great learning experience as well.

3. Let’s say both appear to have well structured logic to one’s own data but I have better data than the opponent. Therefore most likely his logic can not stand still in front of mine. As a result, his argument eventually would be dwarfed by mine. I consider it a humanitarian mission to inspire those who are open-minded and stoic like myself to become more well-informed.

4. Let’s say both appear to have similar level of understanding in debating subjects but I have an apparently more straightforward and concise interpretation than the opponent. I then would love to help those potential individual spirits to improve their own perceptions about certain issues.

My friend omitted the first two scenarios and strictly emphasized on the latter two in his argument. But even himself did admit that he might not have the best data, so there’s always opportunities to learn from other hermits disguised in the populace, even for him. As a parenthetically unctuous blathering dabbler like myself, my own quintessence is far from perfection that could stay invincible over waves of intellectual clashes. The first two scenarios are the primary reasons why I want to exchange my ideas to others in the first place.

As for the last two scenarios, emotionally I am always willing to influence those potential He Shi Bi in this mediocre hubbub. Even though 8 out 10 times people retreat to the last resort to brawl for denial as my friend stated, there will always be some, if not many, insightful smart fellows who appreciate and benefit from those intellectual confrontation with me. For those who are persistently either cognitively biased (failed to recognize better logic) or ignorant (failed to possess better data), I don’t hold any illusion to proselytize them out of their slogan-shouting-fanatic religions. I have no problem being the target of their emotional outcry and denial for my blasphemy and apostasy to their gods, Allah, Jesus, Che Guevara, democracy, universal equity, white power, Gaia or whatsoever. I’d be rather interested in learning why those smart fellows devote their intelligence in something that could easily be debunked rationally in minutes. I consider this also fairly good learning outcome. Cognitive bias is always an interesting topic to explore for me, after all.

Reading is a good way to learn, so does the exchange of ideas to other living souls. I call it as a way to reach the Novel Point, where you could reach a new level of your own logic, data, and understanding of other people’s cognitive perspective from merely expressing your ideas with others. Subsequently you could upgrade your level, and others may as well. It’s the novel point where sparkling of the clash ignites a new area where has not been illuminated in your mind before. I consider that a very rewarding experience. Whether people dig signalling or not doesn’t matter to me, as long as I long for the soundness of the argument, to inspire and be inspired by people, even if I could only get into a good debate 1 out of 100 times.

P.S. Regarding the unfortunate encountering of dumbasses in a debate, I wouldn’t waste my time reasoning with unreasonable rocks as soon as I spot their stupidity and stubbornness. It is futile to lower your level into their quarrel.

It is futile to express your ideas with others

Yesterday I had an interesting debate with a friend of mine about the significance of debating. He was the one who inspired me to set up this blog in the first place. However, he is also the one who is strongly against the very idea of debating with others, or expressing one’s thoughts to others in general. I disagree. Therefore I am writing this post to start a debate on whether it is pointless to exchange ideas and thoughts with others.

I have asked him to provide provide original structured lemma for the post so that his contention will not be misconstrued by my subjective interpretation in the monologue. With his consent, I hereby first introduced his views on why it’s pointless to talk to others about your own ideas:

The End Point

To put it short, any good argument assumes good logic. So if both sides use good logic, in the end it’s a debate only about data. The problem with data is: as a last resort you can always deny it. Because logic relies on axioms. But axioms can never be proved. So you can always deny the reality of data put forward. Say blacks on average are stupid than Caucasians:

No they are not!”

“Yes: data…”

“The data is manipulated by racists.”

“No it is not!”

“Yes it is!”

… The endpoint reached.

Of course moral principles aren’t provable either.

Let’s say “Tibet should be free”

“No it shouldn’t”

… The endpoint reached.

Meanwhile, spreading thoughts is good when you are dealing with influenceable people. But those tend to be pretty stupid and I hate dealing with them. I like to deal with smart committed people like myself. But with those have strong beliefs we will get to the endpoint sooner or later. Then again I believe my data is not very good still. So I’d rather keep on learning new data and new theories than going on preaching. If I really want to convince smart people I must continue to raise my level. You, on the other hand, have no pretenses of being a philosopher and are a social person used to deal with normal people. So people may listen to your arguments about the peril of lesser breeds. In Robin Hanson’s blog, as smug as it is, has good point saying that: people don’t take sides because of soundness of arguments; people take sides because of status signaling. So Kennedy, youthful good looking alpha dude, was popular because people wanted to associate with him, albeit his crappy arguments. In contrast, Nixon was way smarter but he was ugly and arrogant. So people didn’t want to be associated with him. I am not the most popular fella so I’d rather stick to my books. I did try to talk to those people. They didn’t like me. I returned the favor. Simple chicken and egg problem. Once again you listen to good arguments because you aren’t particularly biased. Most people just follow the mood. Whatever is popular whatever people will follow.

So what’s the point of spreading thoughts for me?

In order not to make another verbose unreadable lengthy article to deter all the potential readers stumbling upon, I presented my rebuttal in another post adjacent to his argument.

O the Brave New World!

O the brave new world!

That was John the Savage’s exclamation when he was about to be brought to London from the Savage Land in Aldous Huxley’s brilliant novel “Brave New World“. A lot of people think Huxley was mocking the industrialization process, especially the introduction of assembly line at the time in his book. Maybe he was. But I could also feel that his obsession with the bizarre biological future-land he created in his novel. I was particularly fascinated with the conversation between the world controller and John the Savage in the end. There’s no absolute right-or-wrong judgement as far as I could see, but more of different options and consequences. To me he was rather struggling in between those human civilization’s classic paradoxes all through his book. This is reflected in his novel at three levels.

The first level is mostly reflected on the description of those personal figures in the book such as Bernard, Professor, Lenina, and John. The clashes among those different personalities with different world views and backgrounds reveal the most obvious, and the most affectionally, contradiction presented in the book. The conflict of rationalism and emotionalism in terms of individual cognition and values is reflected in almost every sentence they said and every word they used in the conversation with each other. What should we use to guide our life, the logic but robotic rationality or the impulsive but flaring emotion?

The second level of contradictory clash takes place on the higher society level, as it is expressed in the the roles of Barnard and Professor in the centrally-planned, well-organized and smoothly-functional collective society that is intolerant of any individualistic emancipation from slogan reciting. But at the same time the novel also admits that personal enlightenment from things other than those hypnosis, though beautiful, is extremely dangerous and damaging to the functionality of the society as a whole. The riot of epsilons and gammas in the hospital, the rampage near the old lighthouse… Is the stability of the social order bigger than the consciousness of the individual being, or is an individual mind deserving or capable of the freedom of will?

The third level sublimates the discussion all the way up to human civilization. The whole idea of the Brave New World, from the beginning to the end, presents a highly developed and static utopia that focuses on the stability and routine over any changes. Social values are extremely steered at the pursuit of happiness, with the deprivation of old moral bondage on human sexuality and the institutionalization of intoxication as a solution to any potential individual discontent. Moreover, the basic traditional social unit, family, and the biological process that naturally create the bond of a family, is overrun by the human decanting process. It is an extreme civilization that goes beyond absolute stasis and successfully attains it while fully satisfying almost everyone in the society with hypnosis, from the highest alphas to the worker bees-alike epsilons (except for a few smart alphas who are too smart to be satisfied, but they are sent to the islands anyway). The ultimate question here is: should we ever pursue such static civilization that prosper for eternity or long for an unpredictable risky expedition that constantly involves imperfection and the pain caused from those imperfections?

John the Savage chose the pain and disdain the Brave New World, for he thought suffering is a inevitable process of life. The world controller bows to the prosperity and stability of the civilization, and chose to govern the Brave New World not with passion but rationality which he deems ruthless but necessary. Imagine a world with absolute social order, everyone is programmed to do his/her position to the fullest and at the same time enjoy with their life to the fullest, with full exploration of sexuality, boundless soma meditation, and the extermination of pain, hatred, and dissatisfaction. Sure there won’t be any Shakespeare to read, but they reach full satisfaction in those hypnotized slogans.

In the beginning of the novel Huxley described how people eventually chose to build the new world: years of global warfare, instability of hypocritical social order, constant dismay of the people from unfulfilled desire… What a great resemblance to the current old world! Except for another global warfare, we pretty much fulfill every other criterion for initiating the Brave New World as described in the book. Modern civilization in the over half a century has been nibbled by the leftism’s dominion and crumbling in front of the ill polity and dysfunctional social dynamic (from Norway shooting spree to London raiding and looting, with more disheartening news to come), not to mention that the global economic system at the verge of debacle… I see too many unfulfillable souls everywhere, too many sadism and masochism, and too many vulnerable lies and despicable excuses. This is a world that embraces emotion over rationality, individualism over collectivism, and constant changes over tradition and stability, marching towards another extreme point. Human culture is indeed in a nutshell. The abuse of slogan “freedom, equity, and rights” has brought mankind nothing but self-destruction in this world. Think of the Brave New World, you wouldn’t feel much different about freedom, equality, and rights. Under the similar hypnosis procedure, people are just programmed to repeat different slogans that sustain their life and strengthen their faith, the only difference being those slogans bringing static stability and eternal happiness and putting the word pain out of the new dictionary instead…

Perhaps in my bone I am an incurable hedonist, but who doesn’t want to be happy? I was destined neither in some isolated jungles that people could be stupid enough to remain their inner peace, nor in the tiny group of fortune who are able to live above the mediocre trap like those big bankers or family with their own coat of arms, not even in a mindset of the average Joe that could have some slavish faith in some miraculous bubbles. This is not my world, nor yours. If I want to choose something to blindly believe in, I’d rather go for the Brave New World.

O the Brace New World! where there is the soma treatment or the solidarity service, where everyone belongs to everyone else. Take this savage also to the brave new world please!

Read the book, and enjoy a slice of mental masturbation.

Human culture in a nutshell

This is the first guest article in my blog. Credit goes to “spandrell”, a white friend of mine. I got the honor to publish his original work in my blog to share with everyone. Enjoy!

There’s this question I’ve wondered about forever. We are all told humans are individuals who think independently and are totally creative and unique.

But I grew up and read, travelled, went to museums. And I thought: if all humans are individuals with individual souls and fully capable or whatever,

Why are cultures so uniform? And why do they vary so much? Why do Egyptians cut clitorises? Why do Chinese worship money? Why do Indians worship bullcrap? Why do Moroccans drink mint-tea? Etc.

The answer to cultural diversity between cultures, uniformity inside them; and to the world’s utter dysfunction in the postmodern age is,

Most people are stupid. As individuals, most people are pretty dumb. I won’t show the Bell curves here. But it’s pretty well known. Or it should.

Well dumb people can’t do anything by themselves. They have to be taught. Repeatedly. Drilled mercilessly on their brains until they reach basic competence.

And that’s what most cultures do: the same fucking thing over and over again for generations. Attach some mystical value to the whole thing (some God fucked a sheep and its son invented the technique), some ancestor worship (they came up with doing that on the first place), and over time you have a people who have become very proficient in, say, falcon hunting, horse-archery, cow worship, temple building, oil painting, whatever.

Of course this works at all levels: nation-level, tribe-level, caste-level,  art school level. It’s the only way to really acquire proficiency at anything, to practice forever under people who have practiced forever. Indians took it too far and even force you to marry only other people who have practice the same thing forever. The average human can only do something with an acceptable level of proficiency if he does that and ONLY that for, well, ever. Over time come marginal changes, little evolutionary changes which cause what we call cultural change, i.e. that which we write on history books, or how we arrange museum expositions. Of course cultures have different degrees of change, some are quite fast (post Black-death Europe) some are pretty much static (Eskimos). Different variables influence that rate of change. I remember seeing in the Louvre museum those cylinder seals the ancient Middle-easterners used to decorate their clay tablets. They used those for over 3000 years!  A damn cylinder carved as to print a relief in clay when you turn it forward. I’ m sure it was pretty neat when one Mesopotamian relief artist got fed up with carving every single clay tablet once by one, and invented the thing back in 3500BC. I bet all other artisans were blown away. But when Alexander’s armies 3000 years later went through the area the local artisans were still busy carving their cylinders. Now that’s what I call tradition.

My hunch is that IQ is the defining factor in the rate of cultural change. Some people just can’t really come up with new stuff. Say Papuans, who have been probably decorating their penis sheaths forever.

Meanwhile Europe was always busy destroying everything the previous generation had left over.

Yet again East Asians are pretty smart, yet aren’t as unfilial as Europeans. The thing is cultural change is not an unmitigated good: it destroys the proficiency-by-drilling thing, i.e. if you stop drilling you stop making good stuff. Japanese artisanship is a good example of what boring practice is capable of. Of course Europeans invented machines so there’s little need for practice-based artisanship, but that has caused widespread misery for those who need to be drilled to make anything useful, not to mention awkwardness for the older generations who can’t keep up with the new stuff.

Well that awkwardness is what Asians will NOT stand. Old people are in charge there, and young people accept the need to wait to be in charge. And when they are in charge they will make sure that the cycle is not broken and they get the respect they waited for so damn long. Cultural change in a sense is a form of disrespect over what was left over by forebears, and breaks the drill cycle (cultural transmission). I’m sure the old man wouldn’t be happy if its son decides to make fishing nets in a different way. Or stop making nets altogether. If you allow kids to stop making nets you may end up without the knowledge to make them and force the whole hamlet to starvation.

Breaking the drill cycle brings good and bad things. Good is it creates progress! You stop teaching something, people stop being able to do it. So you need to come up with something else. Better. Voila, steam machine. Voila, airplanes. Voila, penicilin. Voila, smartphones. It’s pretty cool and we all owe a lot to it.

The bad thing is that it causes the vast majority of the people (those unable to come up with things, those who NEED the drilling to be able to do anything) to become miserable inefficient workbots. The solution is more effective drilling (what we used to call ‘education’) to make them proficient at whatever productive industry there is at the moment. It worked while 1. The rate of change was pretty much generational, i.e. you could expect to use the skills learned in school when you become an adult; 2. Schools drilled kids with merciless efficiency and brutality. So kids actually learned 1. Manners 2. A trade.

But now? We have become so enamored with ‘progress’ (cultural change) that we came up with the fantastic idea that if you stop ALL drilling at all, and just teach instead some abstract nonsense about queer history and democratic values, people will come up with new things all the time! Ain’t that awesome? So there’s some stupid idea out there that the innovation rate is not enough (tell that to Mesopotamians which decorated their houses the same way for 3000 years), so we need to come up with even more new stuff, but people just can’t keep up. Why could that be? Real Answer: people just aren’t that smart. Mainstream answer: Kids get bored at school with drilling, so we need to stop drilling and they’ll become super creative!

This has been done since around the 70s, with the predictable results of a complete breakdown of traditional manners and culture, making dumb people (= left half of the Bell Curve) totally unproductive, ultimately becoming junkie welfare addicts. Smart people still somehow come up with enough things to keep the economy going, but demographics predicts it can’t last much longer. The 3rd worlders we are importing to replace our useless new underclass are even dumber than the natives, and we aren’t educating them either, so we are just creating a doubled up junkie welfare addict plebeian mass. And don’t get me started with Jihad.

So European obsession with change (‘progress’)  made it deny the most basic human way of cultural transmission, that is: focused drilling. Asians are still pretty much for it (too much, as they drill also their smart kids, which become boring workbots), so they’ll probably keep some level of civilization while Europe strives to get its shit together. If it ever does.

Is there a logic behind every observation?

I have been pretty busy working on something that doesn’t really require much of intelligence in Germany these days. The work has pretty much taken over all my time, leaving no time to read and write. Speaking of my way of writing, I am not sure how many of the readers are willing to suffer to finish all those tediously verbose articles I wrote (I did try my best to construct my writings as concise as possible after all). But I do feel excited once someone has the curiosity and the virtue (patience of virtue) to read over my heretic bs and feel like tossing a piece of his/her mind on my face and declare my theses completely bogus.

I am not masochist, and certainly I get very annoyed at people’s hysterical emotional outcry and slogan yelling (examples here and here), but I am always curious to know how people think and respond to new or different ideas. The other day I was walking home from work with a friend mine, I started to intentionally steer the casual discussion into a serious polemic on the pursuit of individual happiness. With my great rhetoric skills (I started training myself in the debate team and public speaking clubs ever since those wild days a.k.a. college period), I managed to lead the conversation to the direction that 1. the western society is almost as fragile as an old hollow tree on the verge of being nibbled out by massive parasitic bugs, and therefore 2. to pursue one’s happiness to the fullest, one should be as selfish as possible to strive for highest level of satisfaction over his/her 50 years of consciousness (provided that he/she lived 70 years perfectly health and sound).

Of course such arguments are far away from being an impeccable contention if the debate were held in the written form. But it was solid enough to overwhelm in that verbal discussion. That friend of mine, a well-informed and concerned westerner who does have a sense of respect for logic and reasoning, was pushed to reiterate his arguments for his idealistic middle class country life mode over and over again and finally did admit the logic of my politically incorrect arguments, though reluctantly.

“What’s the point? How do you explain the happiness from helping others for nothing?” He dropped the defense for his contention and started to seek any cracks from my arguments for an unexpected ambush.

“Point? Everything has a point.” I stammered for a while trying to organize my reasoning defense.

“The world is not only about ‘point’, we are imperfect mortals with deficient emotions. Happiness is not about to reaching a point” He tried to probe further for retaliation. But it was a pretty lame operationalization and immediately inspired me how I should respond, “the point of a thing is that thing’s realistic logic explanation. Everything could be explained by logic. There’s no exception. Emotions are pre-programmed logic that we are not even conscious about most of the time. Say you have the emotional tendency of sympathizing other people, or animal etc. This stems from the fact that you value your own organic life, more precisely your DNA, or your own consciousness. In pre-historical times humans were not physically fit for survival on our own, we need to cooperate with others and sometimes this means to ‘selflessly’ help others to survive in a group. The DNA of your spices thus has a higher possibility to be passed down and also you will have a higher chance to survive with others’ help in return. The evolution in those uncivilized ages have pre-programmed this essential logic, the continuation of DNA, into the existence of human sympathy in our ‘imperfect mortal emotions’. So essentially you feel happy by helping others, like liberal leftists feel happy by helping the inferior breeds and granting them superior rights, is a direct extrapolation of satisfying a point. Figure out what your points are and only focus on satisfying them, then you will get happy. Likewise, exactly because it’s pointless to live happily ever after in the western cultural Marxism bubble, you ought to further review your pre-programmed logic to fit in the current environment for your best existence, that is, to optimize your well-beings for two things: your ‘delusive free will’ and ‘core value of organic life – preservation of your DNA’. You need to always use logic over emotional instinct on things that you don’t understand at first.”

What a bunch of confusing and abstract combination of words. I left two ways out for him at that moment: either he burst into a serious emotional condemnation or stay confused and muted to digest the reasoning logic. Fortunately he chose the latter one (part of the reason why I consider him as a good friend, for he is reasonable and could be convinced by rationality). But the odd thing is that when I almost convinced him “wrong is wrong for there’s nothing wrong” such paradoxical theory, I started to instantaneously doubt about the validity of the contention I just made up. So, is there a logic explanation behind every observation?

So there is at least one logic explanation for everything that was happening and not happening? Does that imply that everything in this world could be explained by rationality and reasoning? What about those seemingly irrational decisions made by “imperfect” people? Well, now that even emotion could be rationally explained as the process of pre-programmed rational choice, it should be possible to look for a logic explanation for lots of un-logic things that simply don’t make sense. Is that contradictory? Let’s see. I have always thought that leftism is largely established on the denial of objective facts and logic speculation. To deny the natural differences among different groups of people certainly does not follow the logic of objective facts and of course this would bring a lot of avoidable serious social problems for the western society. But ss there a rational logic behind the leftists’ explicit irrational preference and blunt denial of objectivity? One could argue that those who were significantly pushing this ideology into the mainstream modern society must be extremely intelligent and know exactly what they were doing (unlikely most of their blindly following pupils). Why did they fail to detect the evident contradictions in their beliefs and objective facts? For the time being I would emphasize on the role of emotion in clouding their judgments. Perhaps exactly because they felt too proud to get down to the ground for practical ideologies all the time. Instead, they feel naturally superior to the rest, especially to the inferior types all over the world (e.g. Africans, aborigines, Muslims etc.). One of the most predictable consequence of such admittance of superiority over those people is to naturally pity them. As I mentioned above the feeling of sympathy does make sense somehow, 10,000 years ago probably. And it has been unconditionally amplified or shall I say abused with the luxury to afford doing so in the modern civilization. It is not easy to think deep enough to look for a logic speculation on pre-defined irrational items such as emotions (I wouldn’t even remotely touch such speculations if not stimulated by that spontaneous debate). Hence it is indeed logic to conjecture that leftist ideologists concluded that human kindness is pure and divine (without probing further why emotion) and therefore the ultimate justification for every action that goes against cold-blooded objective facts (leftism). It’s a much upgraded version of “helping others to feel better for yourself”. So we shall say the key to those smart leftists’ stubbornness (stupid ones are not worth discussing here) in denying objective facts and logic is their failing to see the rationality behind human emotions and taking sympathy as a universal virtue for granted. In this way it explains the reason why they would create a whole new thesis that is heavily built on sentimental values, which could be easily absorbed and recognized as resonating ethics with quasi-religious worship by the majority people who live in luxurious society of excessive productivity (most people don’t even bother thinking this far, so they would just take whichever makes best sense with their pre-programmed logic). Then the next thing you know there are people shouting these slogans as the undisputable divinity to infidels…

Does that logically interpret why the mainstream modern civilization adapts such blatant fallacy as THE brainwashing belief in the education and mass media nowadays? If so, then there’s still a hope to revert such actions: one could certainly hope that when the ugly bitterness finally comes back to those affluent beings from their denial and devastation to the foundation of modern civilization, more people would be able to see the realistic calculation out of their emotional cloud and act accordingly…

Anyhow, once again I have written so much already for one article. I’d like to stop the explorative discussion right here. Just one last question, how do I even know my logic is closer to the reality than others? Everyone has his/her own cognitive bias. What logic makes the most sense? One could argue from the theory of Occam’s razor. It is always more feasible to explain logic from the viewpoint of pragmatism than the pursuit of the “truth”. I tend to add two more criteria in judging the precision of one’s logic: your logic is most likely to be more practical to the real situation if 1. you are more well-informed than others (both the range of information and the depth of information), and 2. you are more open-minded to use reasoning to subjects you are not familiar with (favor objective facts over subjective emotional response).

Liberal’s cognitive bias

A few days ago I was engaged into an online extemporaneous polemic with a highly respectable Chinese professor in Hong Kong that has tremendous accomplishments in the field of life science. Aside from his great achievement in science, this professor also exerts great interest in politics and has always been a firm advocate for democracy in Hong Kong. Like most of strong liberals in Hong Kong, their view of democracy has specifically meanings, that is to vote and to be voted, more precisely, the universal suffrage for the election of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong. They have always been the forefront in waging populist protests and decrying most of policies and measures from  the Hong Kong SAR government, a puppet of totalitarian Beijing authority and local capitalist moguls as they perceive. It is unsurprising that a strong liberal like this professor would also be very critical and even bigoted towards the mainland Chinese society and government in particular.  Long story short, the debate started when he was accusing China with an unverified seemingly highly unreliable viral message regarding the current bullet train collision in China on the internet. In the beginning we were only focusing on the authenticity of the information and the responsibility and credibility of information propagation. It all of sudden escalated into a very intensive argument on the subject of democracy itself and of course, China. In order to stay strictly objective and fair in this article, and most important to make my article as authentic and genuine as possible,I will not give any further arguments in this article to analyze who’s right or wrong or who’s making more sense than the other. Instead, I am simply posting the original dialogue between me and him. I believe you as objective observers definitely have enough commonsense to make the judgement yourselves, and could reflect on why I chose this title for this article.

Here is the original conversation log:

starting with the professor posting the demagogic viral message that claimed “a riot after they found 300+ corpses from the train collision” (with all major Chinese and Western media reporting the casualties of 39) with the comment that “Chinese government is way too cold-blooded and anti-humane” 

ME: it’s better to go through triangulation to confirm the authenticity of such viral message

Prof:. t.s.e (my real name, replaced as t.s.e. here), in mainland, there is no TRUTH under the one party leadership…rather believe no riot because the govt can crack it down immediately !!False is real and real is false in mainland and so i dont want to debate with really does not matter. …if you don’t think there is a riot that’s fine, do you think by my spreading of such message a riot would happen?/ Who cares? In mainland, a human live is like an ant !!

ME: I absolutely understand your infuriation over the train crash and the reactions of the government. The same here. Freedom of press is always a mirage in China, that’s why I never read from Mainland news sites. I always try to rationalize my opinions based on confirmed facts and logic speculations. That’s why I disapprove such sketchy hearsay around the internet. One thing we could see is that the government is improving its publicity skills and reactions to such impromptu societal events, but that’s nowhere near acceptable level still. Riot or not, one could only speculate at this point, I’d rather wait for more solid proof to exert my opinions on it later. Right now what I care the most is how to prevent such incidents from happening again in China rather than how government repress people of free will. I don’t think there’s a strong ideology that drives the gov’t to ferociously confine its people other than retaining in power. However, it is the means this gov’t adopts to retain its authority is out-of-fashion and clumsy. In mainland, as mentioned in the article I provided above, the society is highly impetuous, wherein money is placed the highest value over all other matters. I deem that as the ultimate cause for such horrible tragedies in China. For the very same reason, people in China are way more pragmatic than others, therefore giving a possible space for such lousy governance. Hong Kong should not be unfamiliar with that. Functional democracy (ones in the West) is based on the existence of a well educated and enlightened majority, not by a democratic political system itself. I don’t think China is anywhere remotely near democracy.

Prof: T.S.E, this is totally wrong to think that only educated people can have democracy !! In 1930’s, communist party in CHina had full democracy…Democracy is a human right !!

ME: by educated people I am referring to a well-enlightened majority that could support a well-functioning democracy. Flaws emerge when democracy implies on people who have little sense of its basic doctrines. The situation in India is the best example. in 1930 communist party appears to have democracy on a small group of communists and its supporters, and CCP was NOT in power that time. To them democracy would be a new fancy tool to attract intellectuals frustrated by KMT’s totalitarianism and peasants in poverty. Freedom is a human right, democracy needs societal and mental pre-conditions to enforce and reinforce. Projecting a political system that’s highly developed based on a much higher level society will not bring prosperity for a society that is nowhere near ready for it. The only way to ensure a functional democracy system is through education and natural accumulation of economic and technological capital itself.

Prof: is this a good excuse to ignore basic human needs and become dictatorship?? No way. Your mind set is basically a dictator’s mind set. Hopeless.

ME: This is not excuse, it’s a piece of inconvenient fact. One brutal example: elections have been tried in selected villages in more developed region in China. It was deemed an experiment by the gov’t, but brutally failed when vote buying stepped in and screwed up everything, exactly what happened to democracy in Thailand. Truth is, a suitable political system is determined objectively the socio-economic development of the society itself. There is no good or bad in political system, only the fit or unfit ones. This is exactly the argument when modern democracy was first created in Europe. Read the The Social Contract by Rousseau. I am simply reflecting the reasonable facts. Free election will only become a basic human needs when people truly realize the value of democracy. My mindset is based on logic reasoning, and I am not bashing democracy, I do think it’s a much more sophisticated and effective political system, but it has its preconditions and limitations that determine it is not desirable at least in nowadays China

Prof: I have heard many easy reasons not to have democracy in china, none of them is a good reasons except to let communist party rule and keep the hard liner’ ruling such that their power and benefits or advantages over regular citizens forever!

ME: I’d like to see the downfall of communists in China as well. Regular citizens seem to woo that idea for sure. But then I will never be back to China again, coz I could feel what regular citizens feel and once seemingly defend for the CCP one time by accident on facebook. Oh wait, I wasn’t planning to go back anyway, CCP would still bust my ass for I have criticized them over many times. Democracy? Nah, I want my freedom but politicians are all hideous clowns. I’d go to Singapore probably…

Prof: In your blood, you liked to be controlled and so I am speechless

ME: Let’s blame it on the blood. I am indeed very submissive, I could never challenge the international standards and universal principles, I’d rather be Kunlun Nu than a deriding heretic, If that’s the price of being a realist. I was engaging a pure political discussion with logic reasoning and rational analysis. Your sentimental trajectory really upsets me. I do not deserve such outcry. I was simply questioning the essential logic of your contention “democracy is the basic human needs”. I would rather be willing be convinced with rational reasoning with objective facts than emotional response of right or wrong. I am just a person who likes to question a bit more than many others. I don’t think I am hopeless.

Prof: Your concept is totally wrong, democracy is a human right by international standard! Like it or not, it is a basic right to vote and to be voted.

ME: That doesn’t sound a logic explanation to me. Democracy is definitely not an international standard. As far I concern it’s a political system that works on some places and doesn’t seem to work much on other places. Why is democracy a basic human right then? To the same argument I should tell you “like it or not China is never going to get democracy, ‘international standard’ never applies on China..”, but it doesn’t sound convincing, does it? Either way, I will drop the discussion for the time being, as apparently you are unable to rationalize behind “Democracy as universal standard and human rights” at the moment. If you found my comments too shallow and ignorant, enlighten me, or maybe you could provide me with some good articles that I could get convinced by that idea.

Prof: simple, in your mind, you are superior than others and so some people’s rights could be ignored. your mind set is like a dictator’ s mind set and perhaps over the years you grew up in mainland you have already got those idea that democracy is not good for china, looking over all other countries, even they have democracy they can do manage themselve, democracy may not be the best political system but at leadt it is a fair system and i have to keep sying that democracy is basic human right.

ME: First of all, I was never putting myself in the realm of democracy discussion. I am purely regarding it as a political concept and philosophical treatise for logic argumentation. There’s no black and white here. I could give you tons of examples that democracy might have negative impacts on people that are imposed upon instead of embracing themselves. I am a realist that listen to rational reasoning and logic analysis. I left China when I was 17 and frankly I developed most of my cognitive system based on years of exploring different countries one after another and tons of intellectual reading. I care way more about the humanity than myself. However, the same argument I could impose on you: how do you know China is suitable for democracy when you never have the experience of everyday life there? As far as I concern, vote or to be voted are not the basic needs for the people in China at the moment. Political chaos is what it could bring and anyone with common sense would foresee that happening. And there would be absolutely no benefits to the normal people at all. Personal freedom is what normal Chinese deserves at the moment. People are not born equal, and exactly because of that, the best political system must be customized according to the variety of different society. The only difference is that you religiously believe in democracy as a divine doctrine whereas I see it as a mortal conception. If you really think people’s rights are the most important things in a society, you’d be more socialist than a democrat. Of course my arguments would not be strong enough shake your faith, as I mentioned before, everyone has certain level of cognitive bias. But I see rational reasoning as a possible bridge to at least ignite some intellectual discussion here. That would be the attitude for such debate rather than projecting philosophical contentions as if it were physical theorem. Having said, I still have high level of respect for you, since you are even willing to exchange ideas to me in the first place. However, I have to say, personal attack and emotional outcry are for politics, not political discussion between two intellectual individuals.

Prof: I do not have any emotional outcry , still an intellectual debate and i believe that all humans are created equal and thus democracy is a basic human right. In China, there is no personal freedom at al, no justice, people are not born equal but it does not mean than we cannot be treated equal. Mainland chinese officials are doing everything against the ideology as a socialist and they are just dictators, that is my conclusion. And they are using all the excuses like you have to say that democracy does not fit Chinese.

ME: You are being unreasonable here. “All humans are created equal and thus democracy is a basic human right” is a not a mere assertion that is not even a logic cause-effect. You still try to label me as mainland Chinese over anything else, and therefore uncompromisingly link my realistic and logic point of view to the Chinese government’s propaganda. I take as you have never personally challenged the concept of democracy in the first place and questioned the rationale behind the statement such as “democracy is basic human need and people are created equally”. My hope is that you could read more about the concept of democracy and develop an absolute logic explanation to justify your position. We need to be convinced with reasoning based on facts and logic, not emotional attachment. This is NOT a “now-or-never” “good-or-wrong” moral discussion. It would be pointless to argue if one denies the logic despite it reaches the commonsense ground. You assertion is fine. But it needs a lot more theoretical support which you couldn’t provide with. This is no different than the church claimed geocentrism is the truth and that’s final in the medieval age, then using this mere assertion as a divine dogma to accuse anyone else who tried to challenge the contention. As a result, it would be pointless for me to argue the conceptual standing ground of democracy with you. Then let’s switch the topic down from abstract logic to a specific case China. As I mentioned before, Chinese government was merely making efforts to retain its power and authority, as far as they see having democracy in China would impose great risk to their power. Hence they tend to also create “unquestionable” assertions such as China is China and democracy deems not fit for China is unique. It is true they often cite the instability and chaos democracy associates in non-Western countries to scare Chinese away from the idea, the same logic to use ethic argument to deter people from challenge a philosophical thesis. I do not like their obscurantism, either. In a fair conclusion, I think you need to be better informed about China to see it is really as you claim there’s no personal freedom, no justice and people live like ants in China. Those are very absolute and specific claims that are usually based on either an extremely well-informed observer (rare cases a political system could still survive after so much wrongdoing) or a ill-informed opinionated outsider who could choose only to look at one facade with their own prism. Though I have way more legitimacy to talk about those specific issues you mentioned for I have a more thorough sense of mainland Chinese society than you do, I won’t use that as an argument to convince you anything. I honestly hope you are more open-minded to know more about China other than those subjective news reporting. I got the feeling that it is rather you that are speaking from a superior position to me. I would advise you to stay for a period of time in Mainland to talk to the normal people, the group of people you are defending for in this conversation, and then let’s talk if government is evil and people live in no freedom and justice like ants. That does sound fair to you, doesn’t it?

Prof: Fact and logic is that all humans are created equal and thus to vote and to be voted are basic human right, very simple and fair. I know China very well since i was a kid from cultural revolution until today !! I never speak from any superior position, just that you have such “Class Struggle” concept in your mind and I went to mainland very often until I am not allowed to enter anymore. Because of many people with your idea and concept of democracy in China and thus the dictators can rule CHina forever, or perhaps you were brain wahed since you were young and hence I am not surprised to see you wrote such a long paragraphy to debate with me. Poor you.

ME: Your pre-assumptions and accusations don’t really make yourself a better argument here. “Fact and logic is that all humans are created equal and thus to vote and to be voted are basic human right” is a simple statement that needs logic justification and operationalization. People have spent generations and generations in Europe to devise the idea. How can you say “humans are born equal and that’s logic” without further reasonable explanations? That sounds no difference than “Allah is the only god so shut up!” I don’t know what a “class struggle” is, and I probably was brainwashed, that’s why I could organize my arguments structurally and logically. Your cognitive bias will simply satisfy what you want to believe, you are constantly dodging from my logic arguments all the time and emphasizing on a fraction part of my life experience and assume my way of thinking is solely built on the empirical cognition I received at that stage and attack your imaginary stereotype in your imagination which is itself incoherent and simply don’t make any sense. How can you attack my well-structure rational argumentation with “brain-washing by the communists when I was young”? With all due respect, I was very well polite to you all through the debate. But at this point, it looks like you are just hysterically insulting my rationality and intelligence. Unlike you, I will not toss the emotional derisive personal attack back to you. Instead, I have saved all our conversation and post it on my blog. Let’s let others to judge who is making sense here, or maybe in the future when you calm down from your emotional blockage, your rationality could be enlightened by reading our conversation again.

Prof: Sorry, I do not have any emotional blockage. You just want to use your so called logical thinking to justify your right over others .Actually you should not have posted our personal discussion up on to your own blog. Anyway, it does not matter.Again, this posting of our discussion shows that you have no concept of what is basic human right.

Excuse us for our broken English and especially my verbose arguments. Aside from that, this pretty much tells you what the level of cognitive bias is like for a strong liberal in Hong Kong.

Religious fundamentalist?

Not sure about who did the bombing in Olso yesterday (he suspected to be in charge of that as well), but it has been confirmed that the massacre in youth camp was done by this dude, Anders Behring Breivik, a 32-year-old right-wing Christian fundamentalist (who expressed his right-wing thoughts from his facebook and comments on various blogs but nowhere near a Christian fundamentalist).

By the time I am writing this article the death toll has already risen up to 92 The death toll has risen up to 93 been confirmed to be 76, the highest death toll in a single day after WWII in Norway, not to mention that out of these 91 93 innocent lives most of them were poor young fellas in that camp.

What a tragedy! If confirmed that indeed this dude was behind all these savage barbarism, then he is no different than those Jihadists and violent leftist protesters either.

I usually consider myself a logicist, a pragmatist, and a eugenicist. I do share a lot of concern with the conservative rightist about Islam, illegal immigration, and failed attempt of multi-culturalism. However, there are always a lot of low-IQ and ignorant epsilon proles, who oversimplify the reality to mere love and hate, mostly hate,  appearing to be in the same block with the conservative right-wing . I am of course talking about those true racists, white nationalists, and jingoists. At the same time, though disagreeing with most of their arguments, I do recognize few of the good points made by the liberal and leftists, such as the idea of liberty and human rights, though they have been largely distorted by modern populists and abused by many who don’t deserve such nobility. But of course, there are way more widespread violent reactions to dissidence from the extreme leftist/liberals than extreme conservative rightists (see the graph).


I don’t think there’s much difference among extreme conservative rightists, violent liberal leftists, and those uncivilized barbaric who calls for jihad. They all tend to easily get influenced by simple opinions and start to build stark emotional attachment upon it. To them those philosophies, ideologies are simply RELIGION to them. After unconditionally and wholeheartedly taking those religious doctrines they see themselves as the ultimate defenders. So in the end of day they would not mind pouring every single profane word they know on you and viciously and ferociously attack you verbally and physically with full emotion as if they were fighting a holy war against infidels, if you somehow unfortunately project a different opinion or a simple unacceptable fact that they couldn’t handle rationally. A perfect example is the inexorably slandering comments by this fellow who thinks I am a disgusting chink who likes picking up others. Those breeds turn to assume that every other people are the same like them, highly emotional, religiously devout to a rigid ideology , and resenting dissidence wholeheartedly.

A picture is emerging of Norway attacks suspect Anders Behring Breivik

However, having said that, conservative rightism do have the tendency to appeal more messed-up sociopath who misinterpret the ideology and dress himself as a medieval crusader to justify his anti-social behaviors. Such is the case with this horrible tragedy in Norway. So he is not happy with the labor party youth camp preaching around liberalism and leftism to those kids. Then why not start exerting your own influence? I doubt if he ever got the intelligence to start such work anyway  If he was largely driven by his anti-Islam sentiments, why didn’t he choose Mosques or Muslim community for his targets rather than Norwegian kids in a central-left political party camp? What on earth happened to him that made him commit such horrible terrorism is still a myth, given from all the internet traces (see comments below). The bottom line is: there’s no any reasonable justification for such mass killing anywhere. The only explanation I could speculate is that this dude somehow unleashed his antisocial darkness that blended with too much blindness and inhumanity. And only a devoted religious fundamentalists or a total sociopath could condone such disgrace (reminds me the lunatic who conducted the mass shooting in Tucson).

Let’s wait for a thorough investigation of who he is and why he was doing so in a few days.

May those innocent souls in this Norwegian tragedy rest in peace.

What constitutes a Chinese?

What constitutes a Chinese?

First and foremost, I need to emphasize that once again (and it’s the fact): Chinese is a not a single race. Chinese is a a sense of belonging for all the people that live under the influence of Chinese culture and develop (either voluntarily or involuntarily) their identity and affiliation to Chinese civilization, such as adopting Classic Chinese language, adjusting into Chinese agricultural societal order, converting into Chinese philosophy, recognizing the orthodox Chinese historiography, and using Chinese naming system etc. In the Chinese history, there were innumerable counts that northern Turkic/Mongolic/Tungusic/Tocharian nomads invaded the agriculture-based China and gradually submerged in the widening gene pool of modern Chinese population (mostly between Mongoloid nomads and Chinese, e.g. Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic; Tocharian influx is very limited), as well as southern Hmong-Mien/Tai-Kadai tribes that integrated the Northern Chinese settlers and became sinicized over the time. Basically Chinese agricultural civilization is like an super vortex that kept on engulfing its neighboring steppe riders and forest dwellers. The China Proper today is a direct result of Chinese culture expansion up to late 19th century and early 20th century (from both cultural assimilation and Han Chinese immigration). Countries like Korea and Vietnam would be rather difficult to strive for independence if they did not struggle out of sinosphere – their artificially-made written script plays a vital role in keeping their original identity from the gradual sinificiation process.

On the same time, it is rare in the history that Chinese expanded China proper through successful military campaigns. As a matter of fact, after Anshi rebellion in mid-Tang dynasty, or around 750AD, China had always been passive in dealing with the nomads. China proper even started to be at the hands of steppe riders completely by the Mongols in 1279AD and later by Manchus in 1644AD (while Northern China proper briefly under Nomad’s control in Wu Hu era (304AD-439AD) before Anshi rebellion and Ming dynasty (1368AD-1644AD) be the only effective Chinese central government’s control on Northern China Proper after the Tang dynasty).  However, the expansion of China proper (Chinese culture) went even further and more swiftly after the influx of nomads in Northern China and outflux of Chinese in the Southern “savage land”.

To explain the extremely elastic vitality of Chinese culture before the arrival of Western influence (communism being the ultimate terminator of classic Chinese culture), I always like to compare Chinese culture to the expansion of Christianity in Europe. Those two share a lot of similarities. They both hold a holistic and coherent worldview and social codes to help maintain an agricultural-centric society; they both highly adopted by the ruling class as a sense of identity to increase the centripetal force among all social classes; and they both expand outwards while outer culturally inferior tribes were militarily superior and invading inwards. The only difference is that while Christianity was more proactive in converting nomadic tribes and forest hunters in the name of religion, which emphasizing more on the recognition of its religious worldview and less on the assimilation of culture and language (Christianity being the major force in creating the written script for many European languages and thus preserving their own ethnic/cultural identities in Europe); Chinese never proactively preached non-Chinese, instead it was largely those nomads and tribes that have got in contact with the Chinese consciously decided to fully assimilate into Chinese, therefore taking up the whole package of Chinese philosophy (language, history, worldview etc.) and developing into the defenders of Chinese culture  (the most notable case being the sinification process of Emperor Xiaowen of Northern Wei in late 400AD).

The reason behind the strong magnetic effect of Chinese culture is quite straightforward: Chinese civilization (especially Confucianism) provides a stable social order for the agriculture-based regime, and thus a much easier livelihood for steppe nomads and southern mountainous tribes. Chinese culture superiority in East Asia was thus based on its complementary agricultural ethics and technology as well as the enormous luxury it produced. Who would rather go to hunt in the mountains and herd sheep while they realize could just make food out of agriculture? Classic Chinese therefore became to Lingua-Franca in the whole East Asia.

As a result, many Northern Chinese would probably carry more blood of Hu (Chinese term for all northern nomads) and many Southern Chinese with Man (Chinese term for all Southern tribes) blood. Interestingly, at certain point there were even speculations that a Chinese village in Northwestern China might have lived the descendants of the missing Roman legion after the Battle of Carrhae in 53BC. Though this proved falsified later, DNA test did confirm a significant contribution of Caucasian gene in the village (probably more likely as a result of Persian-Sogdian influx). All of these point to the fact that the identity of being a Chinese is rather a sense of cultural identification than a result of kinship expansion. And Classic Chinese culture (which is a result of thousands of years’ gradual assimilation of all agricultural breeds in the Yellow River basin until 221BC) played a vital role in connecting different breeds into the China proper.

However, Classic Chinese culture experienced drastic downfall since the May-fourth Movement in 1919. The traditional Sino-centric worldview has bee fiercely attacked by Chinese intellectuals who viewed Classic Chinese as the dead-weight that held back China modernization. A wave of aggressive anti-classicism movement surged at that time. At that time someone even proposed to totally abandon Chinese script, one of the three independently developed written script (the one being Sumerian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyph) and the only one that has been continuously developed and used ever since, to adopt a total romanization of Chinese language. Though this was even seen extreme at that time, classic Chinese was gradually downplayed in the Chinese education ever since. Vernacular Chinese, a colloquial interpretation of Northern Mandarin Chinese dialect, was promoted nationwide as the standard Chinese ever since. Without the support of Classic Chinese, the cultural identity of Chinese significantly declined. Instead, the modern nationalism stepped in and replaced Chinese culture as the main source of Chinese identity afterwards. Chinese Classicism was later put into an end after the takeover of the extreme left-wing communist regime after 1949, especially after the introduction of the modern ethnic definition in China and the  Cultural Revolution. Nowadays, alas,  Chinese Classic culture becomes merely an exclusive possession of a very few number of Chinese intellectuals like me, who could only find a sense of comfort and admiration in the past while looking at the contemporary desinicizing China.

What constitutes a Chinese? As much as I am aware of every logic reasoning in this question, I still firmly believe a proper Chinese could have a full understanding and appreciation of Classic Chinese culture and language. Just because you happen to have genes that give you Mongoloid facial feature and speak vernacular Chinese (or even don’t know how to speak among some overseas Chinese), doesn’t mean you are qualified as a Chinese (Starting calling yourself Asians, good for both of us). As a Chinese Classicist I found it quite hard to obtain a sense of belonging in the modern China (ill-manner, money-worshiping, dishonesty are never classic Chinese!). Classic China is all I could relate to. If you want to be a real Chinese, act like a proper Chinese.  君子明春秋大義也!