This article is based on an article in the NY Post, August 2, 2016, p7.
Kun Shan Chun, 47, had worked for the FBI for many years in the technical department, and he just submitted a guilty plea and is facing two years in jail.
Now, let’s be honest, isn’t just writing about such an episode racist? What is wrong with me? How could I have decended so low?
But the real immorality is with the great liberal fallacy. It is this:
For the liberal (“Progressive”) mindset, it would have been ok to mention that “a man” spied on the FBI and not even mentioned China. But the fact that I mentioned he was Chinese and that he spied for the government of China is racist.
It is implying that there might be a tendency among Chinese people – regardless of how small of a tendency – to give their home country trade secrets of their American employer.
As obvious as the fires in California or the floods in Louisiana are associated with global warming, it is obvious that mountains of information that have been passed from American companies to Chinese companies is associated with Chinese employees in American companies and the American government.
And, as always, there is an anti-thesis. We can deny both man-caused global warming and Chinese-American leaks to China. However, there is overwhelming evidence for both hypotheses.
One small bit of evidence for Chinese leaks is a modern jet bomber that the Chinese military recently displayed. It was an exact copy of a modern American jet. What a coincidence!
The only way this could have happened was either the theft of the blueprints of the jet, and the only way the theft could have happened was by illegal computer hacking or a Defense Department employee leaking the blueprints.
This rather ordinary incident has a few themes that we find in today’s world. That is, besides the theme of the taboo against rational generalizations about groups of people.
For instance, it is a taboo thought – even worse than a pornographic thought – to think that a Chinese-American worker might have a poor relative or friend who had a struggling business in China who could use the intellectual information that the Chinese-American has from his American company. It is also taboo to consider the probability that the worker might have more loyalty to his home country and his home people than to the United States and the American people.
We must believe that as soon as an immigrant arrives in the U.S. he has more loyalty to the U.S. than his home country. Any other thought is considered racist. It is considered right wing and conservative and not liberal and Progressive. It is a thought of an uneducated, racist, xenophic, backward person, possibly even a redneck.
Another associated theme concerns racial profiling. It is taboo, and even sometimes illegal, to treat an individual as part of a group. (This is taboo unless a minority group wants to be treated as a part of a group, for example to benefit from diversity quotas, excuse me, goals.)
Thus just because there is widespread leaking of intellectual property from American companies to Chinese companies, it is taboo and even possibly illegal to believe that there is an increased probability that a Chinese worker might leak information to China than, say, a European-American worker. If an employer had this belief concerning a Chinese worker, she could cry “racism,” “racial profiling,” and “discrimination.” She could even sue the employer.
An example of this is with the U.S. government employment. If a supervisor has five bad experiences in a row with hiring, say, African Americans workers, it is absolutely prohibited for him to be biased against the sixth African American job applicant. And this taboo of the government has spread throughout the whole society. For example, if a citizen has been assaulted or robbed numerous times by black males, he cannot have any increased anxiety or caution when he encounters a strange black male, as compared to, say, an strange Asian male.
Even though this general policy against discrimination may be necessary and may result in a good quality of life for everyone, it is a flight of reason. Today, it is taboo, and even illegal, to think rationally or react to experiences with a reasonable emotional responses when dealing with racial experiences.