Chinese Eugenics

A Shanghaiist interview with Leta Hong Fincher wanders into inspiring delicate territory:

… in 2007, China’s State Council came out with a very important population decision. They announced that China had a severe problem with the so-called “low quality” of the population, that it’s going to cause problems for China in the future, in the global marketplace, that it’s going to affect China’s ability to compete with other nations, because the quality of the population is too low. So they made it an urgent priority to “upgrade population quality” (tigao renkou suzhi). And then they designated certain agencies to be the primary implementers of the goal of upgrading population quality. One of the agencies they named was the Women’s Federation. And they also named the Public Security Bureau. Shortly after that population decision, the state media suddenly came out with all these Leftover Women media reports, news reports cartoons, commentaries, columns, and it was just ubiquitous.

And then, the Women’s Federation defined the term and the Ministry of Education adopted the term shengnü [or ‘leftover woman’] as part of its official lexicon. And it’s just amazing when you look at these reports and cartoons just how little they vary. Fundamentally it’s the same message, kind of reworded. It’s the same theme over and over again, year after year.

The basic message is targeting urban, educated, successful, professional women. And it shows these women as being too picky. They’re too focused on their careers. They’re overly ambitious. If they simply lowered their sights, and made more compromises, then they would easily find a man to marry. So it’s the woman’s fault that they are not getting married, that their standards are too high. And then there are a wide variety of insults hurled at these women: that they don’t like sex, that they’re afraid of commitment.

And I noticed that they are evolving. The propaganda machine is evolving now to include single, divorced mothers. Just a few months ago, I noticed Xinhua News came out with something talking about how single, divorced mothers also have an obligation to go out and get married again and that they shouldn’t use their children as an excuse not to get married. They also have a new category of so-called leftover women which is single female homeowners. They say that single women lull themselves into a false sense of security by buying a home of their own. In fact this is going to make it even more difficult for them to find a husband.

All of this is really tightening its hold on this group of urban, educated, professional women. And why are they focusing on these women? It’s because these women have, in the view of the government, higher quality. The government has a tradition of eugenics. These educated urban women are seen as having higher quality, but these are the very women who are choosing to delay marriage because they want to pursue their educations, because they want to pursue their careers. It’s a very natural thing to do and that’s what women around China are doing. In South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, and even Hong Kong, women are delaying their age of first marriage and some of them are even rejecting marriage altogether.

And so the Chinese government feels this urgency, I believe, that they need to stop this trend. They have to get these educated women to get married and have a child because they see this as the basic function of a woman. Her duty to the nation is to have a child. But they are focusing on educated women. They’re not encouraging the illiterate rural woman to have children, because those women are considered to be of “low quality”.

This elementary common sense is supposed to be appalling beyond comprehension, of course.

ADDED: Bernard Harcourt on Michel Foucault on Gary Becker — Now, Foucault refers to this … specific danger around page 228 of the English translation of his lectures when he talks about eugenics, the problem of eugenics. And he says, “as soon as a society poses itself the problem of the improvement of its human capital in general,” that is, once we have a theory of human capital, and once we view the important issue as being improvement of human capital, that “it is inevitable that the problem of control, screening, and improvement of the human capital of individuals … [is] called for.”

May 6, 2014admin 43 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : ,

43 Responses to this entry

  • Orthodox Says:

    If they want to succeed, propaganda should begin around age 8.

    [Reply]

    handle Reply:

    That’s the beauty / nightmare of an evolving implementation of policy in a totalitarian country. If what you do today isn’t working, then either what you’re trying to do is Inherently impossible, or you need more radical interventions. It’s obviously possible for quality women to have more babies, but the kind of Culture work needed to get them to choose to do so ‘voluntarily, on their own’ is a long way away from what the Chinese are doing now. But give them time. If they keep believing it’s important enough, and really have no hard limits (which they do) then they’ll ratchet it up until it works. One wonders what’s in their contingency file a few dozen ratchets down the line.

    One approach Israel took was free IVF for mostly older professional women, which has had some success. China could probably find a way to do this too, being very sneaky about who gets first in line to get impregnated. They could make super alpha or ubermensch sperm available, where the top percent of guys have lots of offspring, and it seems that when you let women choose sperm donors, they are enthusiastic for this anyway.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You might be over-estimating the level of practical commitment and capability involved here. The reason for this kind of exhortation is the absence of stronger forms of compulsion. It will mostly be ignored. (I’m deeply skeptical about the possibility it will make much difference — its significance lies in its acknowledgement of a problem rather than in what it amounts to as a effective program.)

    [Reply]

    handle Reply:

    “The reason for this kind of exhortation is the absence of stronger forms of compulsion.”

    Perhaps. But it’s just as likely they are trying to see whether these exhortations will have any positive impact without having to engage in more provocative interventions. I don’t think we have any way to predict future levels of commitment to the issue. I haven’t even seen a graph of global demographic forecasts for, say, how many prime age +1sd humans will be living in various nations in 2025, 2050, and 2075. The assumptions one has to make to estimate those figures are probably reckless too, even looking at the number for the year 2075 makes my head spin with indeterminacy.

    Posted on May 6th, 2014 at 8:48 am Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    suzhi 素质 doesn’t mean quality as in physical quality. That’s 质量 zhiliang, and it is also used by parents when they tell their children to have children soon, to avoid having sickly babies.

    Suzhi is usually used to refer to the civility of the population. Peasant migrants having bad suzhi, and all that. So by using that term they are avoiding to making it clear than they believe in heredity; which is of course anathema to Confucianism, which is all about everybody being able to cultivate itself into a cultured gentlemen.

    But anyway, it is plausible that the Chinese government has been reading Lee Kuan Yew and thinks that having smart women not have babies is a bad idea. Not that the campaigns are doing any good. The shengnü problem is huge, getting worse, and is effectively as big as it is in western countries or Japan. Female education is the problem, and the Chinese government isn’t willing to go against that.

    [Reply]

    handle Reply:

    One of my ‘are you a Soviet spy too?’ ways of feeling out prereactionairies is to say that I read about the Chinese government pursuing some very reactionary policy like this, laying out the “Chinese” case, and seeing how my subject responds. Sometimes it’s simply appalled disgust, “Oh, that’s horrible! Those evil Chinese!”. Hopeless. Sometimes it’s intuitive approval, ” well they have a point, that seems kind of smart.” There’s a footsoldier. And sometimes there is more diplomatic jostling, cautiously feeling me out too, to see if there’s a trap, or what is really safe to share. There’s a good deep stater, who can rise to the top and never get caught.

    [Reply]

    Dan Reply:

    Nice!

    I think that the best way for people to be reached about the issue is to present without opinion the drastic recent and projected demographic decline of Europeans as a share of the population all over.

    Even leftist who think Europeans have been dominant and oppressive don’t want Europeans to just vanish.

    I dropped on my SWPL sister causually in conversation, “….since American population by that time will be more like Brazil…blah, blah, economic third world blah, blah”

    No tone change, just a bit of conversational scenery on the way to making an economic point, me casually acting as if this is something everyone knew….

    Her side of the line went silent but her head was no doubt spinning.

    Helpful policy solutions right now are reasonable and eminently doable. Welfare and especially food support would have to be linked to birth control usage (two things leftists love already!). Surely leftists themselves will quietly get it, maybe eventually even more than the Christian right, since leftists need there to be heaven *in this world*.

    You should be able to have total freedom to have as many kids as you want and access to all the food aid and welfare you want but not both at the same time. This will be have to be the route one day for I see no other way. It will fall on leftists since they will have power and since they already have the ability to unify around the most absurd positions.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 6th, 2014 at 10:59 am Reply | Quote
  • Solex Says:

    “Female education is the problem, and the Chinese government isn’t willing to go against that.”
    But admin will be willing soon.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’d be OK with some subtle incentive-flipping already, but far from convinced that complete elimination of talented women from economic activity is either doable or desirable. Any society that tried that (through coercion) would push its highest-quality females into the Exit-line.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 6th, 2014 at 11:07 am Reply | Quote
  • MW Says:

    These educated urban women are seen as having higher quality

    Unfortunately wouldn’t translate in the US. We already have enough privilege-checkers per capita.

    [Reply]

    MW Reply:

    @MW

    huh, not sure why that happened. TLDR was making a crack against educated American women being prone to unpalatable liberalism.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 6th, 2014 at 1:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Says:

    This elementary common sense is supposed to be appalling beyond comprehension, of course.

    Though to be honest the way the whole thing is expressed is downright autistic. “Upgrading population quality” – even Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri was less blunt about eugenics.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The autism is probably what I’m tingling along to.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 6th, 2014 at 3:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • Musson Says:

    “So it’s the woman’s fault that they are not getting married, that their standards are too high.”

    This jives with what my late Mother-in-law always stated:
    “Any woman can find a husband if they just lower their standards enough.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 6th, 2014 at 5:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • Doji Star Says:

    “Female education is the problem, and the Chinese government isn’t willing to go against that.”

    Because without educated women working, the high-productivity labor force would be far too small. Hell, without badly educated women working the labor force at all would be too small, especially to support an ageing population. China doesn’t want to be India, where women largely don’t work. India is poor.

    The long-run solution will probably come from their research into genetic intelligence. Until then, watch them start paying top college grad girls to donate eggs and peasant girls to pop out the kids. Any reasonably decent person can rear children (disclaimer: I’ve just disqualified myself). They just need intelligent women’s DNA, not their mothering skills.

    But keep in mind, we’re just talking about women. China’s had the male side of the equation solved for millenia. Poor men simply can’t marry or reproduce. Until recently, successful men (incorporating both IQ from the imperial exams and the necessary EQ/social skills to get ahead!) had lots of wives/concubines and kids… oh wait, rich men still have concubines.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    And who’s doing that research?

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    Zhao Bowen is said to be doing interesting things at the Beijing Genomics Institute

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Deserves a retweet. BGI will disrupt history. (Also, 23andme is bailing on the Land of the Witch-Hunters, although probably not heading to China, at least straight away.)

    spandrell Reply:

    Whatever happened with that? It’s been a while since Steve Hsu started hyping.

    Posted on May 6th, 2014 at 7:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • SGW Says:

    Seems like they have already found a solution to their peasant-surplus.

    http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/will-detroit-be-the-first-major-chinese-city-in-the-united-states

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 6th, 2014 at 7:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • A semi-dystopia in honor of Chinese eugenics to upgrade civility | vulture of critique Says:

    […] http://www.xenosystems.net/chinese-eugenics/ […]

    Posted on May 6th, 2014 at 8:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • Merrille Says:

    I’d be OK with some subtle incentive-flipping already, but far from convinced that complete elimination of talented women from economic activity is either doable or desirable. Any society that tried that (through coercion) would push its highest-quality females into the Exit-line.

    I believe economists do regard child bearing and rearing as “economic activity”.

    Obviously it is doable, and whether it’s desirable or not depends on what one desires. If, say, lowering labor cost is your highest desire, then sure, keeping women out of the public workforce is not desirable.

    Coercing women out of the public workforce does not push them into the “Exit-line”. Housewives in the 50s were nestled in their suburban houses, not fleeing anywhere. The “highest quality females” entering the public workforce is a case of them entering the “exit line” as their fertility rates subsequently plummet.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Obviously it is doable” — I’m not seeing where this confidence comes from. It sounds like the NRx weakness for easy answers to me. The ’50s aren’t coming back for innumerable reasons, prominent among them the fact this decade was an anomalous moment reflecting American ascent to global economic supremacy in a war-trashed world, and not any kind of replicable model in an environment of intense global economic competition.
    (1) There is no set of laws that can engineer people’s domestic arrangements without unviable totalitarianism.
    (2) Maybe a religious revival could do it — please go ahead.
    (3) The economic trade-off is real, and deep, on both sides. Yes, stay-at-home moms are a good investment in the next generation. They also subtract something a little south of 50% from the human capital stock.
    (4) Populations migrate towards economic opportunity more than towards social ideals, especially talented people. That’s simply a fact, however regrettable. A neo-1950s society would be brain-drained beyond belief.
    (5) An ‘economic activity’ produces tradeable goods and services. Trying to define stuff you like as ‘economic’ is just trade-off avoidance, reminiscent of lunatic left-feminist ‘wages for housework’ memes.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    What is natural does not require state intervention to succeed.

    Without mandated education, employment, subsidies the “50% of human capital stock” isn’t 50% of the workforce. And except in industries they traditionally dominate we aren’t losing 50% of the work. We’re just not. If that wasn’t clear 50% of staff does not equal 50% of work. [giggle, gag, LOL].

    Really if the Media/Entertainment business got behind early motherhood as well as the government education complex [which only has to tell the truth about motherhood later] then we could quite have children first, career later [or never].

    Or we could just have free employment, no subsidies. Especially educational subsidies. No I’m not sexist, I don’t want to pay for anyone but my own. Especially considering what the schools are – in America learning comes last. DEAD LAST. The issue isn’t so much educating women [you will pay for this yourself dammit] the issue is they are all too effectively and easily swayed by POWER, in this case the Teachers and Comrade Prof.

    Mother Nature doesn’t require massive statist/Madison Ave assistance.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 8th, 2014 at 12:30 am Reply | Quote
  • Merrille Says:

    The 50s aren’t coming back because, um, that demographic is undergoing rapid population replacement. And pushing the women of that demographic into the workforce and sterilizing them has been a key factor in their rapid population replacement.

    When I pointed to the 50s, I wasn’t referring to America’s “global economic supremacy”, which is irrelevant here. I was pointing to basic patriarchal social arrangements that have been the norm in civilization.

    Laws that institute patriarchal social and domestic arrangements are the exact opposite of totalitarianism, since they return some sovereignty to individual adult men in local and domestic spheres.

    The economic trade off depends on one’s interests and desires. If one is simply focused on using a human population to centralize wealth by lowering labor costs in the short term, then yes, there certainly is a real and deep tradeoff here.

    Female evolutionary psychology is not a “social ideal”. The economics of family formation makes clear that women and people generally are not motivated simply by “economic opportunity” when it comes to family formation. You really have no excuse to miss this since this is the kind of thing covered in non-mainstream, HBD type sites.

    The characterization of the 1950s as brain-drained is just Cultural Marxist slander. I’m not sure why you’re resorting to it, unless perhaps it’s because you have neo-liberal tendencies, and neo-liberalism incorporates many aspects of Cultural Marxism.

    I’m not the one defining housework as “economic”. Economics defines housework and everything else as “economic”. The lunatic left feminists and you agree here, since both of you presumably wish to monetize housework and women more generally.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “The characterization of the 1950s as brain-drained” — that is not at all what I said. If you continue attributing completely random arguments to me, I’m going to get irritated.

    “Economics defines housework and everything else as ‘economic’.” — this is nonsense.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 8th, 2014 at 5:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Merrille Says:

    There is simply no evidence that civilization is compatible with women’s suffrage, liberation, employment, etc. High social status for women, indeed, appears compatible with just two forms of human ecology:

    1) Female saturated gender ratios resulting from high male mortality due to paleolithic die-offs of males from natural hazards.

    2) Female saturated gender ratios resulting from high male mortality due to neolithic die-offs of males from artificial hazards (single combat as the appeal of last resort in disputes in agrarian societies—and mass war in civilizations, but war appears dysgenic since the most heroic tend to die childless).

    In both cases high social status does _not_ equate to high sexual status, and indeed seems to be an opposing force.

    Sexist, patriarchal religions and political and social arrangements relegate women to the low enough social status required of civilization.

    It is unclear whether high female to male ratios achieved via gender selection can let women have high social status in opposition to high sexual status, while maintaining civilization, but one thing is clear: Civilization is not natural and we should expect to have to do some pretty intrusive things to maintain it.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 8th, 2014 at 5:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    The 1950s are a normal, healthy society at peace being well ruled.

    Dad works, Mom has children and takes care of home, crime is controlled swiftly by whatever means works is – normal.

    In the 1950s the elites and government rule their people with the self interest of nation at heart, regardless of mistakes.

    The 1950s is aberrant to us because 1) it’s not at all what we’re used to, we’re used to living a a circus freak show, and if you take all of human history into account – or your dataset if you prefer the 1950s are normal. We have been living in an extended and now hyper-extended abnormal freak show. What we call music gets men thrown out of rough wharf bars in normal . We don’t know what normal is first hand, it appears bizzare to us.

    2) We haven’t been well ruled our entire lives. We have hostile elites vs the people they govern. We’ve had a minority of elites that both hate and fear us engaged in our comprehensive ruin across the board. For instance in America’s precious schools not only birth control but fellatio techniques on props are taught to children, using the schools to sexually corrupt children isn’t normal.

    So it isn’t a question so much of 50% of global GDP returning to America [or China] it’s a question of sanity restoring itself. At which point we may expect normal child rearing and not so much traditional but genetically encoded roles to return. It requires massive state intervention to sustain the freak show we’ve got. Any economy that isn’t near mass starvation is quite sufficient to sustain normal human prosperity.

    India and China have had massive statist intervention down to the village level for more than 2000 years. That’s how it happened there, it’s normal – for them. Also at all times mass suffering and repression and always on brink of disaster. Which isn’t my problem and I don’t care, but it’s no model for the West.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 8th, 2014 at 11:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Gonna harp on this, cuz I’m a Harp.

    We have grown up in a Huxleyite Gulag of social democracy, pron, drugs and subsidies of soft totalitarianism. 1950s was last period of normalcy so it seems aberrant to us. Yes times were good economically as well especially in terms of employment.

    However the family life was: normal. Not freakish. Freakish is what we think of as normal. It isn’t.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    The 1950’s was not the last period of normalcy, wtf.
    The 1950’s was when all of this started.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 8th, 2014 at 11:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • Merrille Says:

    What is natural does not require state intervention to succeed.

    Mother Nature doesn’t require massive statist/Madison Ave assistance.

    You’re confusing ecologically imposed monogamy and socially imposed monogamy.

    Monogamy, or more accurately, the suppression of polygyny, is an artifact of technology which allowed people to expand into other climates where female dependence on male technology for reproduction was a fact of life. This is ecologically imposed monogamy.

    So if the individual male is no longer the primary provider, then it’s Africanization time. In Africa, women do most of the agricultural labor because the environment lets them bear it. There is no ecologically imposed monogamy in this environment. Civilization tends to produce a more benign, more “African” environment with caloric surplus. This is where socially imposed monogamy becomes critical.

    In the West, women are “farming” the managerial state because the environment lets them bear it. The pressure toward polygyny is actually from the females although they would never admit it. Many women simply cannot maintain a fertile relationship with a man who they perceive as genetically a dead end—which, in the current vicious environment, is any so-called “nice guy”. But neither can they admit to themselves what, exactly, is bugging them. So many end up with no children at all. Moreover, many of these women end up being kicked out of their positions as concubines to the managerial state—usually right around the age they are starting to run a risk of “difficult” pregancies.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    1] what did that gain you or your cause?
    2] without subsidies your precious africanization isn’t possible
    3] this state will never impose family and father. This is the state we have.
    4] now that it’s a proven formula for breeding slaves, state subsidies to women for either education or breeding bastards will never go away as a tool of tyranny.
    5] Any State’s natural course is tyranny

    Further..
    6] Moldbug apparently realized the Dire Problem is intellectuals
    7] so moldbug then invents a more perfect Internet, to firewall them forever.

    I can go on but you get the point.

    No. If someone wants social engineering they can Exit to China or India as they have been doing it for 2000 years.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 9th, 2014 at 12:00 am Reply | Quote
  • DB Says:

    It’s not a perfect natural experiment, but one could do worse than treating the Mormons as a “1950s” control group.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Excellent point.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 9th, 2014 at 1:50 am Reply | Quote
  • Merrille Says:

    “Economics defines housework and everything else as ‘economic’.” — this is nonsense.

    It’s true. Economics defines everything as “economic” activity. Not just mainstream economics, which often notes that things like homemaking are economic activities that aren’t formally counted by GDP statistics but nevertheless are economic activities, but even less mainstream economics like the Austrian school, which I gather you’re favorable towards. Von Mises says this in Human Action.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The economy consists of the entirety of traded goods and services. Beyond that lies metaphor, or extremely speculative extension of the economic model for purposes of illumination (i.e. Becker).

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 9th, 2014 at 4:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Merrille Says:

    I can go on but you get the point.

    I don’t get your point. I’m not sure what you’re saying. Can you clarify?

    I don’t think you understood my comments either.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    I understand the points and am rejecting them.

    I do understand you think the economic situation requires state or elite [ruling class] push towards
    the traditional family. I am saying it is natural and does not. The Africanization as some put it required enormous expenditures, malice and effort to accomplish. It may be natural to west Africa, it is unnatural elsewhere. I don’t care what happens to West Africa in the slightest.

    I am saying the natural course of any state is towards more power and hence tyranny.

    I am saying these elites in particular are evil, insane, rapacious, genocidal hostile towards western Civ, and sociopathic in their policies. Nothing can be done that is good while they have power. They must go and until they do all is frankly fantasist nonsense.

    Further now that the tools in the tyrants toolbox include breaking the family to make it dependent on the tyrant the notion that giving any state extant now, or existing in the future powers over family structure is an exercise of insanity. This will now happen again and again.

    But it not need be suffered further now.

    If they are ever gone which certainly won’t happen because of blogging then the family should be left alone above all. To restore the sacredness of family which means hands off is more important than even restoring property rights by an order of magnitude.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 9th, 2014 at 4:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Hurlock,

    It’s not important but I don’t see Transgressive Freak shows as being the cultural norms of the 1950s. Maybe I missed gay/transgendered marriage as an issue in the Adlai Stevenson vs Ike races, or coming up during the Suez Crisis. Certainly the History books can’t be trusted.

    And less sarc what is normal now was pretty much past the Transgressive Urban freaks of the 1970s. The Freak show was on TV. Porn was a vice in a paper bag. Divorce shot up, crime was actually higher. But the Freak show was regarded as exactly that.

    My main point is the 1950s are regarded and presented as the Height of Injustice and Repression when in fact they were normal and that was the last normal decade.

    In fact [as they have admitted it] the 1950s were just too damn boring for the Boomers. So they decided to burn down their Parents boring civilization and destroy their lives work. In this they have succeeded.

    Meanwhile in 2014 we are here and have work to do.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 9th, 2014 at 5:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Merrille Says:

    I don’t think you did understand my comments.

    You should specify what you actually mean by “sacredness”, “natural”, and “traditional”. You seem to be just using them as emotive terms roughly meaning “good”and opposing them to “the elites” who are “bad” and “evil”. Which is fine as it goes, but there’s just nothing really to address in an emotional narrative. If there’s more to it, it’d be good if you could clarify.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 9th, 2014 at 7:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Genevieve Says:

    The 1950s:

    Two decades into the Roosevelt coup and bureaucratic statism. Normal.
    Two centuries deep into the failed experiment of revolution and democracy. Healthy.
    The elites divorce their State Department pet Stalin, true, but only after having made the world safe for communism. Sane.

    Is this NRx or NRO?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Thank you — that needed to be said.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 9th, 2014 at 7:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mouthbreathing Machiavellis Dream of a Silicon Reich « WORDVIRUS Says:

    […] is Nick Land, a British former academic now living in Shanghai, where he writes admiringly of Chinese eugenics and the impending global reign of “autistic nerds, who alone are capable of participating […]

    Posted on October 7th, 2015 at 8:45 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment