Gulags in China?

[Palinurus]

Added after editing privilege expired:

I also noticed the NYT only speaks of "numerous" detentions, carefully avoiding to substantiate any real numbers. Thousands ? Tens of thousands ?? Hundreds of thousands ??? Millions ???? Who knows ?????

 

[Woodsman]

China is about as far from Communist as France. In fact, France is probably closer.

Okay, that's strictly true.

And I can’t call _______ Fascism either, because it also doesn’t hold to the historical definition.

So what then does one call _______?

(I first started thinking about this question after a discussion regarding Antifa and far left outrage mobbery I was having with some folks a year or so ago.)

“You're describing Communism.”

"Okay! Good! Let's continue then..."

Except strictly speaking...

You can’t call _______ Communism either because of similar, strictly true details.

Fair enough. But when the word for _______ is removed from play, it makes it hard to identify _______, to discuss and honor it as part of Objective Reality. And this is a deliberate tactic, I would say. Words and thoughts are tightly linked, after all.

So what then, is the modern word for _______ which will communicate the appropriate “There Be Monsters” response which language is trying to convey with the suitable force, tapping a universal understanding? So that when one points at Monsters, everybody responds appropriately without instead settling into crux-Lite discussions while the Beast advances?

Authoritarianism? Ponerism?

The tribe will be scratching their heads in puzzlement moments before they are consumed by that thing which people fear and which causes them to retreat into themselves and across national borders, to self-censor and to choose against their souls in favor of fleeting safety.

And can we be sure that when a name is settled upon for ________ which properly communicates and elicits the correct response that it won’t be crossed off the list of game fair language again?

In China's case, they seem to have refined Socialism in a manner whereby they outsource collectivist work so that individuals are allowed to accumulate wealth in a capitalist manner, so long as they don't commit acts of state-decreed wrong-think, complain about public policy or seek any sort of social influence or watch Pooh Bear. So long as they submit to total control in every other human respect that matters.

As described in one of the posted articles, the corruption purge seemed to clearly disfavor those who bore hints of party mis-alignment.

Do we have a name for that? -And for the kind of obedient, toothless, opinionless drone society which ________ strives to establish?

 

[hlat]

@Woodsman, I was kicking around this idea. What do you think? Let's say your current thoughts on China are analogous to you being on the same side as the moon landing was fake. What would it take to get out of the maze? What facts and evidence would you need to satisfy yourself? I'm not saying that you are wrong. I'm asking how do you know that you are right?

 

[Woodsman]

@Woodsman, I was kicking around this idea. What do you think? Let's say your current thoughts on China are analogous to you being on the same side as the moon landing was fake. What would it take to get out of the maze? What facts and evidence would you need to satisfy yourself? I'm not saying that you are wrong. I'm asking how do you know that you are right?

Ha ha. Oh brother. Let's not say that.

I'm still trying to distill what I think IS right; to assemble enough of a framework to contain what I currently call knowledge, what I can verify in that data set as being correct knowledge, and what I am still learning.

So to answer your question, "What facts and evidence would you need to satisfy yourself?"

I'd first off define "satisfaction" as being "in alignment with truth and reality." So, anything that can be reliably thought of as correct and objective. I'll adjust my perception of reality accordingly, because what I have now is by necessity just an approximation.

I'm still going through things, but from my early impressions of the previously arrived at concensus thinking on SOTT, I would hazard to say that certain negative elements of Chinese culture are being glossed over in order to make the current working model continue working. (That model having come from an earnest and honest place, is reactive and on high alert to the very real threat of STS Western systems of domination and cold/proxy-warring). All that being so, I still think China is pretty screwed up in many ways, and I have to square my personal experiences with Chinese people and their stories with whatever final picture emerges since they constitute part of my "facts which need to fit" sample.

I wonder how many here have had the opportunity of lengthy conversations with people from mainland China about life and customs, beliefs and the various stresses which come with that heritage? I've been fortunate in having had these sorts of opportunities pop up during my life many times. I spent a couple of years in the company of diplomatic family with long experience with China and Chinese culture, and thus have seen and heard some intriguing stuff not everybody would be privy to. I wouldn't call myself an expert, (it wasn't my primary interest and I wasn't paying close attention), but I have also learned enough to blink in surprise at what appears to be an unrealistically rosy assessment of China. However, I don't think folks here are foolish enough to suggest that China is not worthy of any criticism; several have already made it quite clear that they are not trying to engage in black & white thinking. -Which basically indicates that it's likely just a matter of definitions and small adjustments to the overall theory.

Indeed, based on past performance, I have little doubt that the learning systems around here will continue to pull reality into better and better focus, sift true from fake knowledge and accumulate new nuggets as we go.

FWIW I'm finding that with my own starting ideas are being challenged so that I am having to be far less lazy in my own searching and self-analysis. I definitely had enough long standing impressions about China to readily believe that they were capable of interning millions of innocent people, even when reports are clearly being amplified through propaganda organs. Why do I feel that way? Well, the reasons don't appear to be without without some basis in reality. How much of that is signal and how much is noise is what continued reading is all about determining.

It's all good stuff!

(Addendum: I should also add that there is much about Chinese culture I find quite beautiful and worthy of respect. It's where Kung Fu comes from, along with the I-ching, extensive energy/spiritual theory as well as one of my favorite sci-fi authors. To name but a few items!)

 

[Scottie]

Ah yes.

First, the USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Naturally, who in the US wouldn't want to point the finger at China? We wouldn't want to have to look in the mirror, now would we? It's basic human psychology on a mass scale.

Second, the videos of Evil Chinese Police: How about the videos of Evil French Police shooting peoples' eyes out during Yellow Vest protests? If you watched those videos out of context, you'd be terrified of setting foot in France. Yet life here is pretty calm for most people and for the most part. That doesn't mean Everything is Awesome - far from it!

Next, we could say that rising Chinese dominance of high-tech industries is a good thing because it dethrones the Western/American tech/spying dominance. Well, great... Except that the 9/9/6 thing is real: many Chinese work like animals, 9am to 9pm and 6 days a week. That's not very good for them in terms of family and health, but it IS good for removing the West from certain dominant roles as well as creating a rising Chinese middle class (aka less poverty for them). But then less poverty usually means even more materialism. Oy...

Or how about Russian military prowess? It's a great thing. Look at Syria. But hang on, what happens when Putin steps down? Does anyone really doubt that at some point, some psycho bozo will step up to the plate and take full advantage of Russia's new toys? Of course! That's called life on Planet Earth. Even Putin can't prevent that.

Trump: He's better than Hillary. That doesn't mean all Democrats are stupid donkeys, or that all Republicans are the Second Coming. It also doesn't mean that Trump = Good. No one can make America great again except for Americans, and they have way too many other things to worry about and too many problems to deal with at this point.

The point is that - especially nowadays - we must carefully and strictly watch ourselves for any sign of polarization. It used to be that you could feel righteously angry about something, and you could be pretty sure that you were "in the right". Nowadays, there are so many traps and pitfalls and there is so much polarization and division that IMO, ANY extreme feeling or identification with one side or another of any conflict of any kind should be examined quite judiciously.

It's been nearly impossible to avoid noticing the severely increased rate of identification with one cause or another in recent times.

Of course, identifying with things is natural, and often necessary as a means of "looking in the mirror". But the longer it goes on, the more we risk falling into the trap and being unable - even with the help of others - to get ourselves out.

It seems to me that if we assume that our observations of increased chaos in the physical world are spot on, and if we assume that our observations of increased chaos within other people (and ourselves) is also correct, then it shouldn't be hard to realize that things are getting complicated.

IOW, the more chaos there is, the more possibilities and causes and effects there are for any event, the more effects will be generated (both good and bad), and the more we need to observe - yet stay the heck out of it!

That doesn't mean we can't discuss things, but it does mean we should strive to see all sides of the situation, keep an open mind, remember to be compassionate, and definitely keep our own "feelz" out of the equation.

It's like everything up to this point was training for dealing with mad chaos and multi-pronged global changes of all types. Now, either the rubber hits the road, or we careen off the cliff.

So, more Putin-like diplomacy and understanding, and less Trump-like "tweeting".

 

[luc]

So that when one points at Monsters, everybody responds appropriately without instead settling into crux-Lite discussions while the Beast advances?

Authoritarianism? Ponerism?

I don't think there is any word that people react "appropriately" to when you describe a whole country or political system, especially a country like China that is as big as the whole of Europe and has twice as many people in it. Even Authoritarianism or Ponerism doesn't cut it, even among us here who know about these concepts. Reality is just too nuanced for such things, so there is no other way than describing in detail what we think and see, constantly, IMO.

The thing about the word "communist" is that it's such a loaded and emotionally charged term. I suspect that a big reason why so many American conservatives seem to think China is evil incarnate is purely an emotional reaction to the fact that China has a communist history and hasn't broken with it in any clear-cut way. That doesn't mean China is all-good of course, but considering such a vast land as evil incarnate is just preposterous, especially coming from the US.

(Addendum: I should also add that there is much about Chinese culture I find quite beautiful and worthy of respect. It's where Kung Fu comes from, along with the I-ching, extensive energy/spiritual theory as well as one of my favorite sci-fi authors. To name but a few items!)

Yes, and besides the bad working conditions (which may be a result of exploitation but also aspirations and drive of the workers, something we in the west have a hard time understanding I guess), they also have exceptional technological capabilities, a start-up scene (especially hardware) that is getting as good as Silicon Valley (minus libtardism) etc. and IMO they have crushed the West, or are about to, in many ways. Which might be another reason for the panic of so many people in the West. Heck, sometimes it almost seems as if China just doesn't "switch off" the West out of some sentimental feelings and pity. (Which isn't true of course, but you get the point.)

I don't know a lot about China to be honest, but I think all this is very nuanced, diverse, with positive and negative things going on etc. And how can you even judge the development of a country that basically EXPLODES exponentially for 20-30 years now, especially during the last decade, developing all over the place in ways that basically have no known historical precedent? How can you even keep track of what's going on from one month to the next?

Next, we could say that rising Chinese dominance of high-tech industries is a good thing because it dethrones the Western/American tech/spying dominance. Well, great... Except that the 9/9/6 thing is real: many Chinese work like animals, 9am to 9pm and 6 days a week. That's not very good for them in terms of family and health, but it IS good for removing the West from certain dominant roles as well as creating a rising Chinese middle class (aka less poverty for them). But then less poverty usually means even more materialism. Oy...

Yeah, regarding the materialism/anti-spiritualism, I've been thinking that maybe this is just a natural process. China is developing so rapidly, generating so much wealth in so little time, lifting people up, mixing up society etc. that Chinese people probably see a very bright future for their country in material terms. This naturally creates a strong Aim or drive to be part of it and profit from it. In the 19th/early 20th century, materialism took hold in the West, just as the Western civilization was on its way to dominate the world and generate massive wealth through industrialization and technological leadership. In the 60ies, the whole lefty-liberal-atheist utopia took over, in tandem with rampant materialism and hostility towards religion - again during a "golden era" of Western civilization characterized by growth and opportunities. Maybe this is in part what's happening in China now - spiritual things take a backseat when everyone has a strong purpose and feels the future belongs to them?

Maybe it's not so much about which civilization is good or bad, but about cycles playing out endlessly. It's pretty grim and hopeless, but isn't this our motivation to "get out" of the endless restraints and cycles of 3D reality by trying to "see the unseen"?

 

[Bluegazer]

China hoy: un imperio comunista de lujos, consumo, alta tecnología y censura

A 70 años de la fundación de la República Popular, poco queda de aquel país pobre en tiempos de Mao Tse Tung. Hoy, casi un tercio de su población, 400 millones de personas, integran la clase media más grande del mundo.

www.clarin.com

The article has 2 months and is in Spanish. Talk about exactly how China has evolved over 70 years.

Translated:

China hoy: un imperio comunista de lujos, consumo, alta tecnología y censura

A 70 años de la fundación de la República Popular, poco queda de aquel país pobre en tiempos de Mao Tse Tung. Hoy, casi un tercio de su población, 400 millones de personas, integran la clase media más grande del mundo.

translate.google.com.ar

 

[Niall]

Let's say China has/does lock up Muslims by the millions.

The West, especially Europe, welcomes them by the millions.

China has had no (or few, relatively insignificant) terror attacks.

The West has had many terror attacks. (Certainly, Western intelligence agencies likely had a hand in most of them, but Muslims played their part too, especially in the numerous smaller, 'garden variety' attacks).

Which is better?

And IF you still come down on 'the ends don't justify the means' wrt to Uyghur 'gulags', then you must account for what it is the Chinese authorities are doing differently to be so successful at containing terror over the course of the last two decades of 'the global war on terror'.

What I'm getting at is that their system - communist or whatever you call it - effectively protects people by stamping out terrorism; the Western system, by contrast, doesn't, and apparently encourages it - specifically, domestically, as a tool of authoritarian governance, and externally, as a tool of attacking governments it doesn't like.

Which is better?

 

[Beau]

For a recent example of the continued effort to demonize China in the West, there's this article from a few days ago:

Chinese government may have falsified organ donation numbers, study says

Researchers raise new concerns about the use of executed prisoners and other forced donors for transplants

www.theguardian.com

In the article you'll read that, according to some cryptic mathematical equation, China may have not given true numbers for organ donations. The basis for all this is the conclusion by one expert that China's submitted numbers are "too neat to be true." Then the paper jumps to the conclusion that:

The BMC Medical Ethics paper argued China’s organ transplant industry was opaque and the sources of organs difficult to trace. It found that while China had reformed its organ transplantation system to an extent, this was used to mask the continued use of non-voluntary donors or donors who are coerced into giving organs.

“Rather than the solely prisoner-based organ transplant system of years past, or the untarnished voluntary system promised by officials, the available evidence indicates [There is no evidence!] in our view that China has a complex hybrid transplant program: voluntary donations, incentivised by large cash payments, are apparently used alongside nonvoluntary donors who are marked down as citizen donors.”

There is no actual evidence that China is doing this, merely the suspicion raised by questionable math. Yet everyone involved, from the scientist to the medical journal to the media outlet, argues for the jump from suspicious numbers to basically "China is forcing people to give up their organs." Where are the studies and the alarmist stories from other countries that have been involved in suspicious organ harvesting, like say Israel? Why isn't anyone in the West doing studies and publishing articles about that?

So who is funding a study by an Australian PhD student to look into China's organ donation numbers, and how is that study getting published in a medical journal and then covered by the Guardian?

 

[Glenn]

I think China realizes that it is in the horns of a dilemma.

China probably has awareness of:

• The West's use of methods to destabilize and take controls of countries with many examples in recent history and not so recent history.
• They KNOW that they are on this list.
• They know that they have many minorities within their border that would be ripe for this type of weaponization.
• They know that there is, at present, infiltrators, in such groups.
• They would also have to assume that there are agent provocateurs placed all throughout their society.
• They have a fire on their doorstep happening right now in Hong Kong.
• They can see the chaos unfolding around the world in real time, and could surmise that at any time, a signal could be given, and that chaos could be ignited in their country.

When you look at the situation that they are facing, then their response kind of appears in a different light.

(Formatting turned a bit funky when migrated)

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I've got a few thoughts on the gulag question and China overall. First, I read the recent NYT report. Of course, the documents may be fakes, but there are a few points that lead me to think they may be genuine. For example, if you actually read what they quote, it is not as bad as you would think. As in, if they were faked, you would think they would try to make them even more incriminating than they seem to be. For example, there's this:

In several surprising passages, given the crackdown that followed, Mr. Xi also told officials to not discriminate against Uighurs and to respect their right to worship. He warned against overreacting to natural friction between Uighurs and Han Chinese, the nation’s dominant ethnic group, and rejected proposals to try to eliminate Islam entirely in China.

“In light of separatist and terrorist forces under the banner of Islam, some people have argued that Islam should be restricted or even eradicated,” he said during the Beijing conference. He called that view “biased, even wrong.”

But Mr. Xi’s main point was unmistakable: He was leading the party in a sharp turn toward greater repression in Xinjiang.

Before Mr. Xi, the party had often described attacks in Xinjiang as the work of a few fanatics inspired and orchestrated by shadowy separatist groups abroad. But Mr. Xi argued that Islamic extremism had taken root across swaths of Uighur society.

At the very least, that sounds plausible to me. But it is also plausible that given the top-down party system in China, that those lower down the food chain would still overreach. That's human nature, so also sounds plausible to me. In practice, what that would mean is that while the reports of "millions" of detainees is probably a large exaggeration, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Chinese security services have detained numerous innocent people. Note that the papers don't give any hint as to how many people have been put in the "re-education" centers. It's probably a significant number, but the Western media and governments have no doubt greatly exaggerated.

As for the Chinese system in general, I agree with a lot of the points raised by Woodsman, Eulenspiegel and duyunne. But I wouldn't say "China is totally evil!" or anything like that. If I could sum up how I see things in general terms at the moment, it would be like this:

All countries are a combination of better and worse features, whether cultural, political, economic, social, etc. Some countries may have more good features than bad, and vice versa. But chances are, no country will have an overwhelming number of either to the point where you can say one is objectively good and another objectively evil - and every country will probably have some distinctive positive features. Also, any two countries may have vastly different features or policies that are BOTH bad, but in different ways (e.g. 'communism' vs 'capitalism'). And each policy or feature may have its own good or bad features. One may get good results while producing an additional evil. Another may not get any results, but may keep at bay a different evil.

For a while I've watched videos on YouTube of Westerners who lived in China for years until recently. For example, the serpentza, laowhy86, ADVChina guys. These guys in particular used to just make videos about traveling around China on their motorbikes, trying different foods, visiting different regions, making friends with new people, explaining what it's like and how to live as an expat in China, etc. It was mostly all the stuff they loved about China, and why they chose to live there. But according to these guys, things have become worse over the past few years: harassment by police and Chinese nationalists, higher costs, worse bureaucracy, more government propaganda, among other things. Now they're talking more about all the things they don't like about China, but didn't previously talk about - because they "didn't want to be political" or too negative, and also because they would have gotten into trouble with the authorities.

Now these guys aren't geopolitical experts. They parrot a bunch of Western media disinfo, IMO. But they also share their own observations - things they've actually seen and experienced over the ~15 years living there. For example, they agree with the point made above, for example, that in general China is an extremely materialistic culture. Money is the most important thing, consumerism rampant, that kind of thing. But overall, I get the impression that China is very much like practically all other places: very nice in certain ways, but flawed and evil in others. It's certainly no oasis of greatness.

 

[Niall]

In several surprising passages, given the crackdown that followed, Mr. Xi also told officials to not discriminate against Uighurs and to respect their right to worship. He warned against overreacting to natural friction between Uighurs and Han Chinese, the nation’s dominant ethnic group, and rejected proposals to try to eliminate Islam entirely in China.

Telling. Even when they've got Xi 'at his worst', he's humane.

Meanwhile, many Westerners are praying for a miracle in the form of someone who will come and grab the terrorism-mass migration-social chaos beast by the horns. Instead they're told by their effete elites that they'll just have to "get used to" terrorism, no-go zones and transgender sex ed.

 

[Anthony]

Telling. Even when they've got Xi 'at his worst', he's humane.

Meanwhile, many Westerners are praying for a miracle in the form of someone who will come and grab the terrorism-mass migration-social chaos beast by the horns. Instead they're told by their effete elites that they'll just have to "get used to" terrorism, no-go zones and transgender sex ed.

Thatcher's TINA all over again, and such programming has been going on for decades now. Thanks in part to political correctness, those who point out potential dangers about mass immigration, Islam etc., are hounded and denounced as racist and nazis (among other things). And public opinion be damned. No wonder there's such increasing enstrangment between the liberal elite and the population all over Europe.

As for the "gulags" in China, a blog called China Rising has been covering MSM exaggerations for some time. One user comment is particularly poignant:

Does it not ring a bell that the same publications which demonised Muslims during the Bush years are now the ones singing in chorus about the CPC “interning Uyghurs in concentration camps”? Even bloody Wikipedia contains a few mentions of China’s development programmes and anti-terrorist initiatives in Xinjiang, plus mainstream Islamic organisations registered with the government. I’d bet 200 euros that Chinese Muslims are less discriminated against than their counterparts in France or those Eastern European nations with socially ultraconservative administrations (*cough, cough* Poland and Hungary). Just like the Dalai Lama’s encore, the “World Uyghur Congress” likely has ill intentions for Xinjiang.

 

[Chu]

Much as I appreciate your nuanced view, itellsya, I have to agree with Woodsman on a few things. I am writing this as half Chinese person who has spent time in China and Taiwan and is engaged in Chinese Studies, especially relating to religion and metaphysics.]

I found your posts very interesting, and I could only agree with them! I'm saying this as a person who lived in China for one year, and in other countries as well. So, my experience is more limited than yours, but I could have written practically the same. For example:

The notion that China is guided by "Materialism and Anti-Spirit" sounds like a horrible overgeneralization, but it is true to a certain extent when it comes to Modern China. While scholars point to Confucian classics/Chuangzi/Laozi/Yijing, they often forget that they play no role in the education system of the PRC(hardly anyone can actually read Classical Chinese proficiently). Not even in Taiwan do people learn much about it(not even in my mother's generation. My Italian professor, who specializes in the alchemical side of Daoism, once joked that most people on the streets of Europe can probably tell you more about Daoism than native Chinese people).

True. I experienced this myself when working with sophomore students. I was teaching them French, and when topics related to Taoism or Chinese medicine were picked, they hardly knew anything.

As such, it is not surprising to see that when I ask Chinese university students or village peasants about the existence of ghosts, they'll reply, without thinking, "of course they don't exist". Temples are, for the most part, tourist attractions and religion is reduced to philosophy(in imitation of philosophy faculties found in the West) and the practical side is practically dead. It simply has no influence on the average Chinese person's education and lifestyle.

I've had similar experiences too, and also regarding pretty much everything else you wrote, including Sichuan.

BUT, in the latter case above, for example, I then discovered that it takes a while, and it's only when the person knows you and trusts you a bit, that they start sharing what they REALLY think. And most of them, to my surprise, actually believed there was something else other than material life.

Will they be different than the US empire? Of course. Will it be any better than the current world order? Unlikely.
In my opinion, it may offset the reach of the US empire and as such, the enemy of my enemy is my friend holds true. But in the end, it might just be a different flavour of the same thing.

Agreed. But again, there are some nuances which are important to remember, in my opinion:

For example, what I explained above about what people tell you at first, and what people REALLY think. The same fear of others is quite visible in France, in spite of having more "freedom of speech".

I also lived in Denmark, and you could say that there, people will say whatever they want. The educational system couldn't be more different than the Chinese. Yet, see where that is leading them? They are, IMO, one of the worst cases of extreme libtard ideologies taking hold of the population. Everything is so "free", that they seem to have lost the meaning of right and wrong. Not only that, but having the freedom to choose, I didn't meet a lot of people in Denmark interested in anything other than material things. So, freedom doesn't equal open-mindedness always.

Yes, Chinese business practices can leave much to be desired in many cases, but how many countries has China invaded, destroyed and raped as opposed to the country of "freedom and democracy"? How many people do big companies like Nike exploit abroad? Can we really say that China is that much worse in the grander scheme of things? (I know you aren't saying they are worse, but it's more for others that I'm writing this.)

One thing to keep in mind, IMO, is that there is always a price to pay, and in the case of nations, I think it may have something to do with specific karma and lessons as a whole. Take education, for example: Yes, the Chinese (and others) have a much harder time and things that are "free" in other countries. But that also allows for them to develop qualities that are becoming very rare in other countries. Like the sense of needing others to achieve something good, or discipline, work ethics, a less egocentric view of "I can do what I want and to hell with everyone else." I'm not saying that makes it much better or anything, but there are pros and cons in every culture, and perhaps part of that has to do with what individuals and societies are here to learn. Regardless of the circumstances and conditions, there is always only a handful of people who are capable and willing to grow beyond. And I think it has a lot to do with the attitude people adopt when faced with adversity, perhaps more than it has to do with equal opportunity or "easier conditions".

As for what will happen if the US stops being at the top of the pyramid, well, probably what humanity will choose as a whole. JiPing, Putin and their circles won't be there forever. The only thing that seems a bit more hopeful is that the "lobbies" have historically been interested in the West more than the East (where they seem to be kept at bay a lot more), so at least for a while, the world may experience a different dynamic, or at least not be as blood-thirsty as it is today. For how long, nobody can know. Better, worse? That depends on the type of suffering that is needed and chosen for growth and lessons.

But at least we should try not to be sucked in by the propaganda (like these "gulags", for example). Then we have a better chance of seeing things a bit more as they are, and of preventing labels that don't lead to understanding anything, and only feed stereotypes and the deeper agenda. OSIT.

 

[adam7117]

Here is a quote from The Anatomy of Violence by A. Raine.

I think it is an interesting data point in this context.

There is no question that we all must be extraordinarily cautious in interpreting any genetic differences between ethnic groups, especially with respect to crime and violence.

At the same time, the evolutionary argument put forward is not entirely implausible. Counterpoint: While the base rate of the low-MAOA gene is about 34 percent in Caucasian males and 56 percent in the Maori, it is 77 percent in Chinese males. Yet the homicide rate in China, at about 2.1 per 100,000, is less than that of the United States—the Chinese are not exactly known for their fearless, warrior-like tendencies.

We’ll return to the ethical issues on the biology of violence, but for now let’s turn away from the debate on genes and violence in the Maori and back to a more established body of evidence that does not rest on ethnic-group differences.

Importantly, let’s consider that the type of aggression we are talking about may make a difference. The MAOA warrior gene may well be especially important in predisposing people to hot-blooded, emotional, and impulsive forms of aggression—rather than cold-blooded, regulated aggression. Han Brunner documented that the men in his Dutch kindred study tended to display more impulsive forms of aggression that often occurred in response to anger, fear, or frustration.

Consistent with this interpretation was research done in Los Angeles that found that UCLA students with the low-MAOA gene not only had more aggressive personalities, but showed greater interpersonal hypersensitivity—their feelings were more easily hurt. They also showed a greater brain response to being socially excluded, suggesting that they were indeed more easily upset by personal slights. Those with the warrior gene are more hypersensitive to criticism, which in turn results in increased impulsive aggression.

Australians with the warrior gene not only exhibit higher levels of antisocial personality, but also show an abnormal brain response to processing emotional stimuli.

No, I’m not going to say it’s all due to Australians’ being the offspring of 160,000 convicts shipped out from England in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. I believe instead that this indicates that the low-MAOA gene has an across-the-board linkage with crime. By and large it cuts across cultures.

As far as opinions on China are concerned, I would say that this country's imperialist tendencies are self-evident. The current multifaceted drama is merely a natural reaction to those tendencies - expressed on the political, economic and interpersonal levels.

The most worrisome development is the increasing totalitarian slant - particularly, technological totalitarianism. It is not only worrisome for the Chinese population but also for the world at large, because it will likely become infectious and overt. No longer in the domain of conspiracy theories but a domain of an accepted fact.

I would be cautious and watchful here.

2c.