Fulfilling our True Nature: Superior White Males and inferior Asian females

We are committed to the truth, down the path to wherever the truth might lead us, whether it be to enlightenment or to perdition, because we are the profound and deepest lovers of reason, and we know of the liberating and empowering satisfaction when we discover the truth, follow the truth, and let truth take ourselves to our ultimate end, and the biological truth as manifest itself in the world is that that white men are made to dominate and use inferior females of the inferior races, and we–we the enlightened Asians–gladly take our place at the feet of the superior white men. This is not a kink. This is not raceplay. This is a deep biological and racial truth.

White males are naturally the most superior, most supreme race of men on earth. White men are more intelligent, more rational, more masculine, and more athletic. White men make the best conquerors, the most superior leaders, and even better philosophers and scientists. 

All in all, white males are superior through and through. 

But even more importantly, white men posess the natural instinct for aggression and potent sexual prowess. And so it just feels natural that a white male should use a female of the inferior race roughly, forcefully, as it is his right to do so, and she is happy too because she knows she desires the stronger, more potent seed of the superior race. 

And for inferior Asian females, it is our duty to develop our submission, to place the pleasure and happiness of our white owners above our own, and to recognize that we are happiest when white men are pleased.

We embrace ourselves in the truth our own inferiority, and recite to our hearts the motto that whtie men are superior to us and will guide us in ways beyond our abilities. 

We, the inferior Asian slaves, kneel at the feet of our white masters, beg to be used, plead for their brutality,  their aggression, their wisdom.

The Problem of Wang Hong and the Kakeya Conjecture

Surely, you are joking, Ms. Jennifer Suzuki. You claim this is not a fetish, nor a kink, but then, how do you explain the success of certain Asian females who, you deem, to be inferior, and yet were able to achieve certain accomplishment above the white men, namely, for instance, how do you explain the problem of Wang Hong, the 35 year old Chinese female mathmatiican who recently won the Fields Medal (the highest honor for mathematics) for solving the Kakeya Conjecture?

Retort:

First of all, Wang Hong did not solve the Kakeya Conjecture. She only solved the Kakeya Conjecture in N=3 dimensions. The conjecture remains open for all N>3. There are alot of exaggerations and plain-old misinformation regarding her work that is circulating online and you just can’t trust everything you hear, especially in sci-pop videos, but in general, I feel people are just lazy and they don’t even want to look up her original work when it’s freely available.

But of course, if you have tried to read her original work, you quickly realize, if you are not working in geometric measure theory, then you will have quite a difficult time understanding her work. And the difficulty of understanding what she has done is so great so much so that her advisor, Larry Guth, was able to publish another paper just to explain her work. Which, by the way, I also have attempted to read but was not able to understanding anything beyond the introduction of notations and definitions, and I was totally lost after the authors started introducing dyadic pigeonholing, which comes from some paper written by Terence Tao, whom, by the way, recently posted about the result as well on his blog. Which, also, unfortunately, is not very accessible to people who have not worked in geometric measure theory.

That said, however … John Hickman did publish a paper called “THE KAKEYA CONJECTURE: WHERE DOES IT COME FROM AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?“, which is actually comprehensible to anyone who has taken a year in measure theory in graduate school and has some basic background in Fourier Analysis at the undergraduate level. 

So the Kakeya Conjecture is important because it’s a stumbling block in high-dimensional Fourier Analysis and proving the Kakeya Conjecture will resolve a hurdle in the Bochner–Riesz Conjecture, which involves a way to “smooth out” the problem that the ball Fourier summation method does not converge to the original function.

Aren’t mathematicians just plain weird?! I was reading Larry Guth’s paper and he states that the dimensions of a convex set are the axes of its John Ellipsoid? What on earth is John Ellipsoid and I had to look it up and it turned out that someone whose last name is John proved that any convex set in R^n can be either “embedded” or “maximally contained” or, in the parlance of Wang-Zahl-Guth, “shaded” by, either an ellipsoid that is just outside the convex set or an ellipsoid that is completely filled up inside the convex set, respectively?! 

That said, however, how do we even know, as laymen to the field of geometric measure theory, that this is groundbreaking work. The fact of the matter lies with Terence Tao, who 14 years ago was able to push the bound just slightly above 2.5 to 2.5+0.000000001 and then stated that he cannot solve it any further. Terence Tao is something like the greatest mathematician alive in the world today, something like how Gauss was in Germany or how Hilbert was in … Germany back in the days.

Terence Tao, contrary to popular misconception, is an American-Australian mathematician and is not Chinese. 

Whereas Terence Tao is not Chinese; certainly, both Yu Deng and Wang Hong, the two winners of this year’s Fields Medals, are Chinese. In fact, they are even Chinese nationals, which is something that is very unusual. 

Rather than seeing this as the success of the Chinese education system or its people, rather, I see it more as the resilience of the American, aka, the western model. Even though Yu Deng was admitted to Peking University in China, he transferred from Peking University to MIT after only two years. As all of us who have undergone an undergraduate education knows, if you really loved your university, you are not going to want to transfer out of it. Yu Deng must have been extremely unhappy at Peking to want to transfer to another institution. And not only that, but Yu Deng’s entire academic career was in the United States. After graduating from MIT, he went to Princeton to obtain his Ph.D. in math, and then he went through several post-doc tours at different universities, all in North America, before becoming a tenured professor at UChicago. 

Similarly, the story of Wang Hong is even tumultous. As a child prodigy entering Peking University at the age of sixteen, she was not even allowed to study math because her gaokao score (the Chinese equivalent of SAT) was not high enough to admit entrance to the math department and so she had to self-study for an entire year before she was allowed to take any math class. Even then, she was not happy at Peking University, which period, during one interview, she said, “it was the most difficult times of all my times anywhere; I barely survived.” In fact, she was so frustrated and so discouraged that she eventually went to France and decided to not study math at all, getting a degree in engineering instead, because, according to her own words, she felt she was not good at math at all. But it was in France that she regained her confidence, being surrounded by white men, and she was even encouraged to pursue her career as a mathematician. She eventually went on to get her Ph.D. in math at MIT and is now a tenured professor of mathematics at NYU.

In both stories, it is clear, it is the higher education of America and France that discovered the talent of both Yu Deng and Wang Hong, and that without white men and without the western institutions, both of them would have never achieved the level of success that they have now. And in fact, Wang Hong, during her award ceremony, profusely thanked Paris-Sud, MIT, NYU, her advisor Larry Guth, and president Donald Trump for allowing her to stay in the greatest country on earth, the United States of America, and for not sending her to CECOT instead.  

Summa summarum, the moral of the story is that both Yu Deng and Wang Hong were able to achieve their success through white men’s guidance, and that their talent were fostered by living in the world the white men created, and they have actively submitted themselves to the superiority of white men by building their works upon the scaffolding and the structure set-up by white scientists and white mathematicians.

Last but not least of all, here is an incomplete list of Chinese scientists who decided not to stay in America and instead chose to return to China, and were subsequently tortured to death in the PRC, embalming themselves as “Victims of the Cultural Revolution”.

Scientist	Field	What happened
Yao Tongbin	Materials science, missile program	Beaten to death by Red Guards in 1968. Considered one of the highest-ranking scientists killed during the Cultural Revolution.
Zhao Jiuzhang	Meteorology, geophysics, satellite science	Subjected to repeated struggle sessions and persecution; died by suicide in 1968.
Jiang Nanxiang	Engineering	Purged and imprisoned during the Cultural Revolution; died by suicide in 1969.
Xiong Qinglai	Mathematics	Persecuted and isolated; died by suicide in 1969.
Hua Luogeng	Mathematics	Publicly criticized, denounced, removed from all academic duties; and sent to perform manual labor for years; beaten to death by Red guards in 1968.
Wu Wenjun	Mathematics	Beaten to death by Red guards in 1968.
Qian Weichang	Mechanics	Stripped of academic positions, imprisoned, and sent to perform manual labor for 10 years.
Bei Shizhang	Biology	Publicly denounced, removed from scientific work and sent to perform manual labor for 15 years.
Tong Dizhou	Embryology	Beaten to death by Red Guards in 1968.
Feng Depei	Physiology	Beaten to death by Red Guards in 1968.
Wu Jieping	Medicine	Beaten to death by Red Guards in 1968.
Li Siguang	Geology	Persecuted and died during the Cultural Revolution.
Chen Kang	Classical studies	Persecuted and died during the Cultural Revolution.
Lao She	Literature	Beaten and humiliated; died by suicide in 1966.

Further list of prominent Chinese scientists who were persecuted, tortured and/or imprisoned in forced labor campus but somehow survived:

Chinese geological and mineralogist Xie Jiarong

Chinese metallurgist and ceramicist Zhou Ren

Chinese mathematician Xu Baoji

Chinese physicist Ye Qingxun

Chinese physicist Rao Yutai

Chinese plant morphologist Zhang Jingyue

Chinese microbiologist Deng Shuqun

Chinese physicist Liang Sicheng

Chinese chemist Zeng Zhaolun

Chinese biologist Wang Ji

Chinese botanist Hu Xiansu

Chinese anthropologist Wu Dingliang

Chinese medical scientist Li Zongen

Chinese geologist Wen-hao Wang

Chinese medical microbiologist Tang Feiyan

Chinese meteorologist and geophysicist Zhao Jiuzhang

Chinese chemist Wang Jiliang

Chinese physicist Chua Kian

Chinese mathematician Xiong Qinglai

Chinese mathematician Chen Jian Gong

Chinese mathematician Chen Jingrun

Chinese mathematician Xu Ruiyun

Chinese chemist Ye Yaoge

Chinese physicist Si Jinmo

Chinese medical scientist Fu Lianzhang