Moses Wouldn’t Expect ‘China’ to Change

Chris* writes: In fact, no rational observer since Hegel has doubted his incisive judgment that nothing fundamental has changed in China over a span of three-plus millennia (‘Lectures on the Philosophy of History,’ ca. 1830). Hegel didn’t make it perfectly clear whether it was “nature” (race) or “nurture” (culture), but reading between the lines shows he believed the former.

Therefore, scientifically, and also informally, the fundamental question about the intractability of “China” remains. Is it because “Chinese leaders” have never and do not now see any advantage to their own status and the situation of their countrymen, as writer Christopher Balding suggests? Is it merely their inscrutably obtuse pragmatism? (Baldwin ignores the vast sweep of Chinese history.)

No, the reason why the Asian (or Mongolid) mind won’t change is simply that it is incapable of fundamentally changing–that is how it is made or, in modern terms, is “wired.” Thus arises its notorious ANCESTOR WORSHIP and its well-documented, bloody disposition to kill anyone who steps spiritually or “corporeally” out of line. RESPECT THE ELDERS, it teaches every generation. Violation of the rules means ostracism or death.

All this implies that Caucasid and Negrid brains are also hard-wired differently, each from the other. In fact, modern science is on the verge of showing at last that this is CORRECT. Neuroscience can easily falsify this prediction simply by stepping out from behind its paralyzing “political correctness.” The answers it is likely to find will surprise it.

High-density EEG (“hdEEG”) and task-based response regimes can now establish precisely how the three races neurophysically use their brains in three different ways, with serious cognitive consequences. It is NOT A QUESTION OF SUPERIORITY but, rather, EACH RACE IS DEFECTIVE IN ITS OWN WAY. (We must pass by the supremely interesting question of precisely WHY the three races were each created DEFECTIVE.)

We also must pass by an adequate neuropsychological characterization of the Caucasids and the Negrids, except to assert that, in the deep theory of all three races, one can find the ultimate explanation for the palpable and quite obvious political-historical differences in their “achievements” over historical time. (Classic authors, such as Gobineau, and recent authors, such as John Baker, Nicholas Wade, and Kevin MacDonald, may be consulted, though each of them falls short of the fundament outlined here.)

Notwithstanding the obvious, it is still not likely that will appreciate this wonderfully deep problem rationally, given its uncritical Hebrew bias towards VICTIMHOOD and towards hiding behind race differences in order to disguise RELIGIOUS differences (specifically the 3,500-year-old Hebrew ethnic war against the goyim). We state our unbiased position: Hebrews are racially Caucasids and sons of Shem (see below).

This is the way it is, gentlemen: When one speaks of “China” one is really speaking of A RACE. When one speaks of RACE (if one refers to Hebrews) one really is speaking of a RELIGION and of a RELIGIOUS FEAR going back to Abraham. (To speak of these fears is not “racist.”)

Moses, however–blessed of God–was spiritually big enough to see through the smoke and did so in ‘Genesis’ with his story of Shem, Japeth, and Ham. One only has to understand him deeply enough.

Modern science indeed has the power to truly understand Moses and to isolate the biased (anti-mosaic), unreconstructed Hebrew position at last, while simultaneously UNBIASING modern science’s proclivity to avoid the highly important concept of the RACES and their actual neurocognitive differences. (To reconstruct the relentlessly faithless Hebrew mind and make it beloved of Moses again is a heavenly prospect.)

We can imagine what the arch-liberal Michael Bloomberg would think about these ideas. Hence, we can imagine what his employee-writer Christopher Balding will say in response–nothing. But perhaps we underestimate Balding’s love of reason and truth? Can Balding learn to read and comprehend Moses aright, and understand the scientific consequences of doing so? Happy day!

…The deep theory of the races, in addition to what has been suggested between us, is likely to demonstrate further that “race mixture” does not somehow make the defects of the pure-blooded races better. On the contrary: the result is worse.

Michael Levin suggested, as you may remember (on p. 57 of his book ‘Why Race Matters’) that definitive proofs could be obtained with modern neurophysiological and/or neurocognitive methods, which is absolutely true and MUST BE DONE sooner or later.

As for the general problem of presentation of the deep theory, given the hugely difficult problem of “political correctness” afflicting the entire world of politics as well as science as a whole, I would welcome your ideas and/or solutions.

About Luke Ford

I've written five books (see My work has been followed by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and 60 Minutes. I teach Alexander Technique in Beverly Hills (
This entry was posted in China. Bookmark the permalink.