Monthly Archives: January 2010

Guys: Will Your High IQ Get You Women?

Please…you’ve got to be kidding me.

tulio writes in the comments section:

Some women do appreciate high intelligence. That’s why my favorite type of woman is the “sexy professor” type. Brains + beauty.

I learned long ago that this is one of the lies of females, or rather, their self-deceptions. Women often say, “I love a smart guy!”

Bullshit! No they don’t.

As someone with a high IQ, I can vouch for this. My high IQ never once got me laid. I don’t think it ever even got me a Goddamned date. What good is it? I don’t know. I like it, but it sure never got me any chicks. Back in the days when I did great with women, my one secret was hiding my brains. I on purposely acted like a dumb surfer-stoner idiot. My brothers used to take me to task on that. “You’re acting stupid on purpose! And you’re not! You’re smart! It’s fake! Quit acting stupid.” Oh for Chrissake, man. I was only trying to get some chicks. The dumber I acted, the more chicks I got. Real simple equation.

Young women will openly admit that they want a hulking caveman with a club, a rough and stupid type. It’s sexy. That’s what turns them on. Even high-IQ young women are like this. They often marry big dumb macho guys, and spend years of unhappiness. Finally when they are 40 and their sex drive goes down or their they gain some sense, they marry some brainy nerd for his money. And they are a lot happier.

Once they start getting a bit older, women start saying that smart guys are a turn-on. Yet another female self-deception. It’s a lie. I don’t believe it!

I had one girlfriend who claimed to like my brains, but it was obvious that it didn’t turn her on. She acted like my brains were some weird mystical object in a museum that you can’t understand. Is it weird? Yeah. Is it cool? Sort of, except you can’t understand it. Does it make you horny? Yeah right.

We had an open relationship (my specialty) so there was no such thing as cheating, but she loved to do it anyway, and rub it in my face at that. Being a decadent postmodern degenerate, I really didn’t care. She’d tell me I had go home. She was off for the weekend. Ok, no problem babe.

“I have a date!” she’d scream.

“Good for you,” I was stoned and didn’t care anyway.

She hadn’t gotten my attention yet, or pissed me off, her object.

“With a Black guy! I’m going to be gone all weekend!”

“Great, have fun,” I said, and I meant it. I should have asked her to take pics and show them to me. I was getting a lot out of this nonstop sex relationship. So she wants to take a vacation, hey, go for it, babe.

The more she couldn’t get a reaction out of me, the more pissed she got. I was a mystery, no ordinary man. I didn’t care if she cheated on me, just leave big megahelpings for me when you get back, honey.

Now, it’s obvious this chick did not get off on my brains. Here she was cuckolding me for some hulking Black brute with a double digit IQ and a monster dick.

Chicks dig brainy guys. Yeah right!

I would like to make some amendments to this rant. There are some women who like brains.

Asian chicks! Yo! Especially Chinese women. I’m convinced that the Chinese have been selecting for brains for a long time now. I did a lot of reading on China for a recent piece on the language. There were some interesting anecdotes.

One said that in a village in South China, there was a young man, the smartest guy in the whole village. All of the young women, especially the most beautiful, were lined up for him. They all wanted him. Why? He was the brainiest of them all! This suggests to me that maybe Chinese society has been selecting for brains. The women see the brainiest guys as the sexiest, or at least the best marriage potential. The best women compete for the brainiest guys. What’s the end result? 107 Chinese IQ! Good thinking, Chinese!

There was another anecdote. In central China, in a small village, they had a creative writing class. It was mostly full of women, as such classes always are. But there were a few guys. There was one guy, strong and silent, kept to himself, the best writer in the whole class! All the single Chinese women in the class wanted this guy! The best writer of them all!

Grab him, before someone else does. They hung around his office making fake excuses for being there and asking dumb questions. There was almost a line outside his door. He was also kind of macho for a Chinese guy, so that helps. But the main thing was, his writing kicked ass on everyone else’s. One Chinese woman snapped him up and was the envy of the rest.

I’ve also noticed this in Japanese and Thai women, but both of those cultures are heavily Sinicized.

Another exception: Jewish women! It’s true, Jewish chicks love brains. Being sexy and handsome are added attractions, but brains are definitely not a turnoff. I think it’s actually a sexual turn-on for Jewish women.

Once again, we have evidence for cultural evolution in selection for brains. In the traditional Jewish ghetto, the most beautiful young women were more or less auctioned off to the smartest young men. Say the rabbi had some daughters, really beautiful women. The hottest women in the village would hold out for the brainiest guy of them all.

The rabbi would virtually hold contests in Talmudic scholarship to see which boy was smartest, who would then be given the hot rabbi’s daughter babe in marriage. The smartest guys got the hottest chicks in the ghetto. This went on for centuries, and now you have Jews with average 113 IQ’s. Pretty smart cultural evolution there.

Hispanic/Iberian women. Not this pitiful excuse for an Hispanic culture here in the US, I mean the real deal in Latin America. Down there, especially in Peru, Brazil and Argentina, a scholar is a good thing to be. It’s widely accepted in society. There’s no such thing as scholarly nerds, since scholars conform to the same macho norms as everyone else. I’m not sure why, but hot young Latin American women like a brainy guy. Maybe he has good earning potential and is a good catch, maybe because scholars are highly valued in these Iberianized societies.

I also think that Iberian women have the same values. Spanish and Portuguese women seem to respect a smart guy. There’s a long tradition of valuing a scholar in these places. Iberian scholars were often macho, studly guys, highly respected by society, and they could get hot women.

French women. I suspect that French chicks like intellectuals more than your average European woman, but I’m not sure. Many French chicks are quite intellectual themselves, even ordinary working class women who you would never expect. It’s a very intellectual culture.

Cultures where the women do not value brains – this one is going to be hard. I would suggest right off the bat, the rest of Europe.

German women. Forget it. Even very smart German women want a caveman type, the dumber the better. Why this is, I have no idea.

Turkish women. I don’t think so. This is an extremely macho society, and the females conform strongly to macho norms. This is what they expect in a man.

Black women. Forget it. Of all women, Black women love the most masculine men of all – Black men! A lot of Black women think White guys period are wimpy, so you can imagine what they think of White intellectuals. It must be two thumbs down. This has got to be true for any Black society.

Some societies I am not sure about.

Russian women. No idea, but I suspect that they may respect intellectuals. Even ordinary IQ Russian women read Dostoevsky, listen to Tchaikovsky, etc. Intellectuals in Russia are not seen as effete. They are hardass, macho Russian dudes. They can get good women.

Arab women. I think Arab women are great (Check em out, guys!) but I’m not sure how they feel about intellectuals. Intellectuals are highly valued in Arab society, and they are macho, tough, Arab guys who conform to hypermasculine Arab values. They are well-respected by Arab society too – there’s nothing effete about working with your brain here in the land of dates and Crescents.

East Indian women. A commenter says they like smart guys, especially the middle class and up ones. I don’t know, because I have little experience with these women. We have a lot of Punjabis in my town though, and it’s striking how much they seem to respect education and an educated guy. It’s very highly valued. Further, many of them are either formally educated or if not, self-educated. Problem around here is that East Indian women are totally unavailable. They only go for Indian guys.

But anyway, in general, no! Your stratospheric IQ will not get you women, not in the US. It’s actually the opposite.


Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Intelligence, Psychology, Sex, Women

War Against the People and the Historic Lalgarh Movement

From the website of the Democratic Students Union of India, we have War Against the People and the Historic Lalgarh Movement by Amit Bhattacharyya. This is an excellent article in so many ways. I urge all of my progressive minded readers to check it out.

One thing he makes clear is the utter uselessless of the “Left intellectuals” in India, especially in West Bengal. They argue against the Maoist People’s War, advocating instead some Gandhian passive resistance or peaceful struggle thing. The problem with those arguing this line (this is also being argued in the Palestinian case) is that these resisting peoples have been using peaceful struggle for years, typically decades. What’s it gotten them? Jack diddley-squat! That’s at best. At worst, even peaceful struggle has met with violence at the hands of the state.

Furthermore, the Maoists and only the Maoists have been able to actually make dramatic and material improvements in the lives of the Adivasis, something that all the decades of peaceful protest and various Indian governments, including the fake Communists in the West Bengal government, have utterly failed to achieve.

I’m actually not a Maoist, though everyone thinks I am. I’m just a socialist.

But in India, everything over than the project of the Maoists has utterly failed. Who is there left to support? Show me a party other than the Maoists who has a project for dramatically bettering the lives of the 80% of poor Indians, and I’m with you. It’s not there, so I’m with the Maoists.

Another thing the article makes clear is the utter failure of the fake Communist sellouts of the CPI-M, in power for 20 years in West Bengal state. They have done nothing for the people and have become the worst sort of corrupted and frankly reactionary oppressors. With Communists like that, who needs enemies? Just because it calls itself Communist or socialist doesn’t mean it’s on the side of the people or even that it’s progressive. Important point.

War Against the People and the Historic Lalgarh Movement

Amit Bhattacharyya

The Indian ruling classes and the central government they have set up to serve them have very recently declared one of the most unjust and brutal wars against the people which is quite unprecedented in the history of our country. Such a massive mobilization of armed forces, paramilitary forces, police forces and air forces totaling around 1 lakh personnel, along with US-Israel military assistance of various types only highlights the magnitude of the war.

They have identified the Maoists as the ‘greatest threat to the internal security of the country since independence’ i.e, the security of the Indian ruling classes. The entire forested region in central and eastern India have been divided into seven Operating Areas, which wants to ‘clear’ within the next five years of all resistance, including that by the Maoists and other Naxalite organizations. A massive amount of money to the tune of Rs.7300 crore has already been earmarked for meeting the cost of this war.

Needless to state, this war against the people is being waged in the interests of foreign capital and domestic big comprador capital. Hundreds of MoU’s have been signed between imperialists and domestic sharks and the central and state governments that would further intensify the process of plunder and loot of our vast natural resources and bring more displacement and add to the misery and ruin in the lives of the impoverished people of our country.

Lalgarh, nay, the Jangal Mahal region, is a region that, as the central home minister Mr.P. Chidambaram declared, would be treated as a laboratory to undertake experiments in dealing with this ‘greatest internal threat’ and then to utilize that experience for crushing resistance in such states like Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa. We propose to deal with the great Lalgarh movement that has already found its rightful place in the history of just struggles of our country.

The ongoing struggle in Lalgarh, nay, Jangal Mahal has already completed one year in early November 2009. This struggle is totally different from any other recent movement in our country. If Singur faced the initial experience of defeat, Nandigram could take pride in having tasted victory in course of a long bloody battle against the anti-people ‘left-front’ government and terror perpetrated by the hermads backed by the ruling CPI(M).

The struggles waged in both Singur and Nandigram were directed against the land-grab movement resorted to by domestic big comprador capital and foreign imperialist capital. In both Singur and Nandigram, the parliamentary parties played some role, although in the case of the latter, the Maoist party that rejects the parliamentary path did play some role. In the case of the Lalgarh movement, on the other hand, parliamentary parties were actually rejected by the people and the Maoist party played a major role.

In one sense, the Lalgarh movement began in a different context. It started as a response against the brutality perpetrated by the police on 5 November 2008. It was, at the same time, a fight against age-old deprivation and humiliation and for the assertion of dignity and the rights of the people.

However, if one takes into account the land mine attack on the WB chief minister on 2 November 2008–the day the corporate house of the Jindals inaugurated the Shalboni steel plant (it was a SEZ), then that event possibly acted a catalyst that started a snow-balling process. In that sense, it started as a response to the land-grab movement also, like those in both Singur and Nandigram.

The Lalgarh movement can be divided into Five phases:

A) From 5 November 2008 to the day the dates for parliamentary elections were announced.

B) From that day to 16 May when results were declared throughout the country.

C) From 17 May2009 to 17 June just one day before ‘Operation Lalgarh’ was started.

D) From 18 June 2009 when the joint forces started moving into Lalgarh to 26 October when decisions were taken by the PCAPA to form the people’s militia.

E) From the formation of the ‘Sidhu-Kanu Gana Militia’ on 27 October till date. The day coincided with halting the Rajdhani Express by the members of the PCAPA demanding the release of Chhatradhar Mahato, release of political prisoners and the withdrawal of joint forces.

Each of these phases has its distinctive features. If one studies the movement, one will be able to see that it was not just a movement against land grab or just for the assertion of the rights of the adivasis or against age-old humiliation suffered by the tribal people; it was more than that.

And that broader aspect gradually unfolded itself as movement rolled on. One of those major aspects of the movement is their advocacy of a pro-people new model of development—a model that definitely shows the imprint of the Maoist party. This aspect of the movement hardly received any attention from the urban intellectuals. Let us take up that neglected, but very important aspect first.

New Model of Development

The model of development the Indian ruling classes and their political representatives have adopted ever since they came to power in 1947 was the policy of dependence on foreign capital and technology, which actually means the selling out of our country’s economy, water, land and vast natural resources to foreign imperialist capital and domestic comprador big capital for rapacious plunder and loot.

It was the Naxalbari movement and the CPI(M-L) led by Charu Mazumdar that first raised the demand for radical land reforms, opposition to and the confiscation imperialist capital, and at the same time formulated the blueprint for alternative model of development. That programme could not be implemented by the Communist revolutionaries of the first phase of struggle for reasons into which we would not enter at present.

At a later period, the Maoists put into practice an alternative development programme in the Dandakaranya area covering mineral-rich states like Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa. The main elements of this programme are the rejection of foreign capital and technology, self-reliance, equitable distribution of resources and property among the people, distribution of land to the tiller, all-round development in the countryside based on people’s initiative and voluntary labour and the weeding out of foreign influence and control over our economy, society, culture and politics.

As in Dandakaranya, such attempts are being made even at the rudimentary level in the Jangal Mahal area of West Bengal. This is evident from the following newspaper report captioned ‘Welcome to India’s Newest Secret State’ by Snigdhendu Bhattacharya:

Here across a 1,000 area bordering Orissa in West Medinipur district, the Maoists over the last 8 months have quietly unleashed new weapons in their battle against the Indian state: drinking water, irrigation, roads and health centres…carefully shielded from the public eye, the Hindustan Times found India’s second ‘liberated zone’, a Maoist-run state where development for more than 2 lakh people is unfolding at a pace not seen in 30 years of ‘left front’ rule.

Apart from taking over the organs of the state and most notably the executive and the judiciary, the Maoists here have built at least 50 km of gravel paths, dug tube-wells and tanks, rebuilt irrigation canals and are running health centres, with the help of local villagers”(HT, 10 June 2009).

Another daily reported under the caption, Lalgarh Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (Maoist) Rise and Rot of a Rebel ‘State’ that the People’s Committee-Maoists began the following schemes: Jobs for landless – work in development projects in lieu of Rs.60-80 per day; building kutcha roads, culverts and water reservoirs and digging deep tube-wells; bringing medical teams from Kolkata; lending money to repair and build cheap houses (The Telegraph 24 June 2009).

The first attempts were made by the PCAPA soon after it was born. It set up village committees each of which consisted of 5 men and 5 women, where decisions were taken on the basis of mutual discussion. That was followed by the formation of women’s wings and youth wings of the committee. These were democratic bodies some of which bear the imprint of the old adivasi society and some, particularly the women’s wing, is new and signified the true empowerment of women.

In June 2009, before the deployment of the joint forces for ‘Operation Lalgarh’ a team comprising seven students belonging to the Democratic Students’ Union, JNU, New Delhi and two journalists visited Lalgarh and adjoining areas for an on-the-spot investigation. That report throws some light, even if at a rudimentary level, on the development programme initiated by the people.

Since then, many new steps were taken in this direction, as is reported by different sources. However, because of the existing situation and the imposition of Section 144 against entry into the region, joint fact-finding missions could not be undertaken, despite attempts from several quarters. So this report is the last published on the region. Let us state some of the features.

A) Agriculture and Land distribution: Anyone going to Jangal Mahal would be able to realize that the much trumpeted ‘land reform’ programme of the ‘left-front’ government does not have any presence there. In areas where trees have been cut to introduce land reforms, nothing has been done and vast tracts have been allowed to be converted into waste lands. Although the WB government through an act of 2004 vowed to distribute these lands among the landless adivasis, nothing has as yet been done.

On the contrary, the WB government and the CPI(M) that rules it had decided to hand over thousands of acres of those lands for the setting up of a SEZ to the corporate house of the Jindals whom they are committed to serve as its most trusted lackeys against the interests of the people. Faced with such government apathy and deprivation, it was quite natural for the people of Jangal Mahal to organize under the banner of the PCAPA to initiate true land reform programme.

The Committee initiated a programme to ensure full rights of the adivasis over forest land to the landless with adequate facilities for irrigation. Opposing the government policy of welcoming multinational seed companies the PCAPA opted to build seed cooperatives through the promotion of organic fertilizers prepared with either forest ash or cow-dung.

Another important step is land distribution. The village committee decided to ensure 1 bigha of land for the landless and 15 kathas for peasants with less land and no land for those having 5 bighas or more. The JNU team visited Banshberia village and were witness to a land distribution meeting. However, one problem was that land was not in an arable condition due to the senseless plantation of eucalyptus trees by the state government as part of its ‘social forestry’ project that was promoted by the World Bank.

The plantation of such eucalyptus trees was aimed at drying up the land so as to facilitate future extraction of mineral resources from the region. It is a nefarious anti-people conspiracy deliberately hatched by corporate foreign capital and domestic capital with the backing of both the central and state governments. In order to undo the damage to the soil, the people decided to grow fruits and vegetables there for at least two seasons before it becomes fit hopefully for paddy cultivation again.

Side by side, it was also decided that the lands of ‘new landlords’ such as those of the CPI(M) leaders like Anuj Pandey, Bimal Pandey or Dalim Pandey—the rural bosses-rogues-cum-moneylenders who had amassed millions by expropriating the wealth and land of the peasants as also by swindling money from governmental projects would be confiscated and distributed among the real owners.

B) Irrigation: In the dry Jangal Mahal belt, where rainfall is scanty, special attention is needed. However, one cannot see anything of the sort. The government has built a huge canal that runs from Mayurbhanj in Jharkhand to Midnapur town so as to provide water to the field when the rainy season was over.

However, because of faulty construction, the huge canal remains dry throughout the year and the pipes that open to the fields remain completely choked. The Committee, in response to this governmental maldevelopment, started building small check dams and lock gates that would store the water during monsoons and preserve water flowing down from natural streams. Such a check dam was in the process of construction at Bohardanga village when the DSU team visited the place.

C) Construction of Roads: If one goes to the Lalgarh villages , one will be struck by the absence of roads worth its name. During the monsoon the roads are muddy and water-logged and virtually impossible to walk on. Transferring patients, pregnant women or dead bodies become difficult tasks. The villagers of Adharmari complain that the transportation facilities are pathetic and during monsoon, the village gets totally cut off from the world outside. The same is true for many other villages as well. The Committee took up this issue and constructed roads with red-stone chips which locally available at a cheap price.

The construction was done through voluntary labour, as in the Dandakaranya region. It is an example of participatory development where human resources are mobilized for developmental work for the people. During the Yenan phase (1937-45) of the Chinese revolution, this principle of Mao Tse-tung was applied in many regions and helped in unleashing the creativity of the masses. In villages such as Korengapara, Shaldanga, Bahardanga, Papuria, Darigera etc, it was the villagers themselves who took part.

This was unlike the earlier government projects where helplessly witnessed from a distance their development funds being siphoned off by the corrupt CPI(M) party members and government officials. According to Chhatradhar Mahato, the spokesperson of the PCAPA, unlike the state which builds 1 km of road spending Rs.15,000, the Committee could build 20 kms spending only Rs.47,000.

D) Water, Shelter and Health facilities: A dry and arid region that Jangal Mahal is, it is difficult to get drinking and irrigation water. The Committee took initiative to set up mini tube-wells and install submergible pumps. The people also gave voluntary labour to facilitate irrigation. The Committee also took steps to ensure that government projects like the Indira Avaash Yojana reached those who needed it most. There was hardly any medical facility in the whole zone.

The Committee took the initiative to set up health centres at Kantapahari, Belpahari and Chakadoba. It was a people’s health centre with an ambulance van and a team doctors from Kolkata. Nearly 1,500 persons visited the centres everyday for treatment. These health centres are now under the occupation of the joint forces and converted into paramilitary camps.

E) Education, Culture and Social Awareness: In the charter of demands placed by the Adivasi Moolbasi Janasadharaner Committee and published from Purulia, the adivasi people demanded promotion and spread of the Santhali and Kurmali languages and alchiki script. In fact, a large number of indigenous languages have gone into oblivion due to the domination of one or two languages. Quite naturally demands have been raised for the recognition of the Santhali language.

This year (2009),  February 21st – observed as the ‘Language Day’ in both West Bengal and Bangladesh – was observed as a Black Day. It was an expression of protest against the cultural domination of the Bengali language. In fact, as has been reported in the press, as a result of globalization and the domination of one language over another, thousands of indigenous languages had already gone into oblivion and many more are awaiting the same fate all over the world. These developments take place before our very eyes, but we hardly pay any attention to them.

In fact, the Lalgarh struggle has put forward the demand for the restoration of the nearly extinct languages of the people. The reality is that in areas where people’s struggles are very strong, the possibility of the regeneration of local languages is a reality, and the local artists, writers and singers make their marks in respective fields of activity. In this way do extinct languages appear again. Dandakaranya has had the same experience.

Traditional weapons comprise an integral part of the adivasi culture. Thus if any restrictions are imposed on the display of such weapons by the government, the adivasi people would treat it as an infringement on their traditional culture. On June 5, 2009, the Kolkata police put a restriction on the display of such weapons at proposed rally to be organized jointly by the CAVOW – an all-India women’s organization and the women’s wing of the PCAPA.

The women’s wing has also initiated campaigns against consumption of liquor, superstition, pornography and domestic violence. The Matangini Mahila Samiti (MMS) has earlier taken steps in this direction in Nandigram.

F) People’s Court: The system of justice that prevails in our country is, needless to say, meant to serve the ruling classes. In Lalgarh, the people set up their own court—the People’s Court. Here decisions are taken by the people and punishment, if any, is meted out. There was much criticism from some quarters (civil rights activists and others) against such a system of justice.

G) Fight against Environmental Pollution: Environmental pollution caused by three sponge-iron factories came under from the Committee. These three factories had been causing immense pollution in the area for the last 15 years. There was a mammoth gathering of more than 12,000 people on June 7, 2009 at Lodhashuli village near Kharagpur where decisions for the boycott of the factories was taken.

It is clear that the Committee had integrated local day-to-day issues with the broad struggle against state repression. Needless to say, this would not have been possible without the active participation of the Maoists. This has been an entirely new experience in the history of West Bengal. It did not happen in the first phase of the Naxalbari struggle. Without the active participation of the broad masses of Jangal Mahal, this alternative model of development at Maoist initiative, could not be implemented.

Intellectual Reaction to the Maoist presence and the role of the Maoists

It is crystal clear that the intellectual response to the Lalgarh struggle is basically different from what we had seen during the Singur and Nandigram struggles. Here, they did not stand up to state repression in the way many people expected them to do. On the contrary, they have become very critical of what have been going on in the region. Those who came forward at the early stage later retracted and kept mum.

Meanwhile, the tide was blowing for a ‘change’; the total isolation of the CPI(M) got reflected in the elections, and one section among the intellectuals found it more attractive to keep closer to the prospective winner – the TMC – in the approaching elections and receive bouquets and cushy jobs as biddwajjans (learned personalities).

However, as later events have shown, some of them did not have either the wisdom or the minimum courage to stand up to state repression and constant intimidation coming from the corridors of power. In the face of such timid response from this section of intellectuals, the present writer feels the absence of late Samar Sen much.

In fact, artists and writers who visited Lalgarh and met Chhatradhar Mahato after the beginning of ‘Operation Lalgarh’ seemed to have been particularly concerned with extracting a statement from Chhatradhar Mahato condemning Maoist violence and also openly distancing the PCAPA from them, as only then would they be in a position to mediate between the state and the PCAPA.

One well-known prize-winning writer informed us through an article published in a Bengali daily Bartaman that the destruction of Anuj Pandey’s palatial building was the outcome of a secret understanding between the CPM and the Maoists, as that would fetch a massive amount of money for the CPM boss from the insurance company.

In this way, she exposed her appalling poverty of thinking; at the same time, she also sought to tarnish the heroic struggle of Jangal Mahal and humiliate the people fighting for their dignity and for justice. One can only pity such intellectuals. What is important for our purpose now is that the response of this section of the urban literati depends on the part played and influence exercised by the Maoists in the Lalgarh struggle.

Main points of Criticism

First, the people of Jangal Mahal had been continuing their movement quite well. It is the Maoists who entered the scene from outside and made a total mess of everything and misguided and derailed the movement. It is their violent activities that brought joint forces into the scene.

The result is that the people are now being sandwiched between state terror and gun-toting Maoists or ‘non-state’ actors, as civil rights organizations such as the APDR are fond of describing it. The most bitter attack, however, came from the two Delhi-based historians – Sumit Sarkar and Tanika Sarkar. In a journal, they wrote an article in the most malicious manner, some portions of which are as follows:

Maoists have done incalculable harm to the movement. Their activities and intentions are shrouded in mystery, their secret terror operations express total indifference to human lives, their arms deals lead them…into shady financial transactions with rich and corrupt power brokers…They come into an already strong and open mass movement, they engage in a killing spree discrediting the movement, and then they leave after giving the state authorities a splendid excuse for crushing it” (Economic & Political Weekly, June 27-July 10, 2009).

Second, it is the Maoists who have derailed the movement towards a violent and undemocratic path. These are the main points of attack, although there are other minor points. For the time being, we will concentrate on these points.

Maoist Presence

Chhatradhar Mahato has stated that the People’s Committee consists of different political forces, the Maoists included. The Maoists have mass base. They are in their place as we are in ours. The Maoist leader, Kishenji made a press statement that they had been working in Lalgarh from the 1990s. In fact, from the historical point of view, the MCC had been active in the region from the 1980s and the CPI(M-L) People’s War in places such as Belpahari, Garbeta, Shalboni, Lalgarh, Banshpahari, Ramgarh, Sarenga etc from the mid-1990s.

The issues over which they fought were as follows: against corruption in the panchayets; to ensure proper distribution of grants coming through government projects such as forest preservation samiti which rightfully belong to the adivasis; against the felling of trees useful to the people; for raising the price of kendu leaves etc.

People in the urban areas can still remember the extent of police repression in the zone from 2001-02. Behula Kalindi and Sulochana Kalindi of Belpahari were forced to undress by the raiding police party to enable the police forces ascertain their sex. When Jaleswar Soren was not found in his house, his ten-month pregnant wife, Sulekha Soren was taken away and sent to Midnapur central jail which the government calls ‘correctional home’ on charges of waging war against the state.

Pyalaram Mahato, an 87-year old man who was even unable to walk alone as his jail-mates would testify, was charged with the ‘offence’ of being a People’s War squad member. A woman named Meena Sardar of Belpahari was so traumatized by what the raiding police party did to herself, her mother and her house that she lost her mental balance; when she was released on bail after spending months in jail, she became totally mad, stayed at her home with her mother by becoming a ‘liability’, and ultimately died in that state without any treatment.

One can distinctly remember also how Prof. Kaushik Ganguly was arrested and beaten up at police lock-up, how Abhijit Sinha, a government official, was haunted by the fear of being arrested and tortured by the police and how he died near railway lines under mysterious circumstances in 2002.

The Jhinka jungle that has become news during ‘Operation Lalgarh’ for being a Maoist hideout, is the area where the body of the People’s War activist, Ashim Das Kanchan was found with marks of wound on all parts of the body some years back. It was, according to the findings of civil rights bodies, a case of fake encounter killing. Many village houses were destroyed, ravaged and looted by the police and paramilitary forces.

People were beaten brutally as if such acts of torture were the birthrights of the state forces, property was looted, kerosene oil was dropped into wells which were the only source of drinking water for the villagers, grain was mixed up with cooked rice, house deeds, documents, ration cards and other things were simply taken away never to be returned.

Civil rights bodies such as APDR had published many fact-finding reports of such despicable acts done by the WB police forces. However bitter it might sound, the fact is that a large section of city intellectuals paid no attention to these things at that time and were only too concerned with receiving patronage from the West Bengal government.

The reality is that the Maoists did not fall from the sky, nor did they come from a different planet; their social root lies in the soil of Jangal Mahal, however disturbing it might sound to the (a-)historians and sections of those ‘learned personalities’. The list of proclaimed Maoist ‘offenders’ that the police forces have furnished will show that with the sole exception of Kishenj who hails from Andhra Pradesh, all others are sons and daughters of the soil—either adivasi or non-adivasi.

Some of them are Sasadhar Mahato, Jagori Baske, Karan Hembrom, Bimal Mandi, Jyotsna, Tarit Pal, Sudip Chongdar and Sumitra Sardar. (HT, Kolkata Plus 26 June 2009).

According to reports, all of them did political work in the region at one time or other. Thus the statement that the Maoists are external to the movement, that they have just entered the scene all on a sudden and taken control of it, does not have any factual basis at all.

As to the ‘sandwich’ theory circulated by sections of the intellectuals and the media, it can be said that the advocates of this theory hereby have actually been portraying the masses in a way that they are devoid of any thinking of their own, that they are like unthinking, unfeeling robots who can only follow, but cannot lead.

In this way, these urban intellectuals, themselves keeping a safe distance from the actual field of battle, pose as being possessed of all earthly knowledge and from whom the ‘ignorant’ adivasis must learn the art of how to conduct the movement. The sooner these ‘learned’ fellows come to their senses the better.

Peaceful ‘democratic’ movement and armed ‘undemocratic’ movement

The Lalgarh movement has given rise to debates that are old in states such as Andhra Pradesh, but new in states such as West Bengal. Such issues had come up time and again from within human rights organizations and ‘civil society’ whenever armed resistance developed or revolutionary armed struggles gained in strength.

The issue has been hotly debated earlier within the APCLC (Andhra Pradesh), PUCL, PUDR, APDR, BMC(WB) and very recently within Lalgarh Aandolan Samhati Mancha (Lalgarh Movement Solidarity forum) or Lalgarh Mancha (Lalgarh Forum). According to some intellectuals, the ‘peaceful and democratic’ movement of the adivasi masses of Lalgarh was derailed by the Maoists and it took a violent turn as a result.

The view that comes up is that democratic struggle should be peaceful, and when it takes a violent turn and the people get armed, then it loses its democratic character. To them, ‘democracy’ is identified with order and peace, and if there is disorder and violence, then it becomes un-democratic. Needless to say, such ideas have been very carefully and successfully planted by the state propaganda machinery through media and other means and well-known historians as also intellectuals have become victims of such campaigns.

History, however, proves otherwise. It is not the people but the state which is armed to the teeth, and it is the state again which uses all conceivable methods of violence to keep people under subjugation. Peace-loving people are thereby forced by the state to raise the banner of armed resistance, as the real perpetrators of violence leave behind for them no option other than that. History is replete with many such examples.

The great slave revolt under Spartacus against the might of Rome in 73BC that shook the slave empire to its foundations was not at all a peaceful affair; on the contrary, it was armed and violent in nature. Was it undemocratic in character? The great peasant rebellion in Germany under Thomas Munzer in the 1520’s was clearly armed and violent. Was it also undemocratic? The great Taiping peasant rebellion in mid-19th century China (1851-64) also was one of the greatest peasant revolts and very much an armed affair. Was it undemocratic?

The history of British India is also full of examples of armed anti-colonial struggles such as the Great Revolt of 1857 or those by Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen, Bagha Jatin, V.G. Pingle and many others. Many revolutionaries courted martyrdom with the aim of making our country free from colonial subjugation. Could those movements be branded as ‘undemocratic’? The reality is that all these struggles represented the genuine interests and aspirations of the Indian people and were just and democratic in character.

In the class society of today, class contradictions, conflicts and sometimes, class wars are inevitable. The ruling classes had always exploited the majority of people, killed and maimed them, perpetrated terror and, in this way, extracted the sole right, the legitimacy to perpetrate terror against the people whom they pretend to serve. Names such as the ‘Greyhound’, ‘Cobra’, ‘Scorpion’, ‘Jaguar’ and many other state-trained police-butchers only betray the violent character of the Indian state.

Whenever, in response, the oppressed people themselves take up arms, break that state monopoly over the means of violence and ‘legitimacy’ enjoyed by the state to control masses, the ruling classes raise the bogey of law and order and utilize that legitimacy to drown people’s movement in pools of blood. If anybody calls that resistance struggle ‘terrorism’, then that ‘terrorism’ definitely is of a different character.

That reminds one of Mark Twain, the American writer. At the centenary year of the French Revolution in 1889, he wrote a novel entitled A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court. The Jacobin period or the period of Danton and Robespierre during the French Revolution has been branded by many as the ‘Reign of Terror’. While criticizing such a view, Mark Twain wrote:

“There were two ‘Reigns of Terror’, if we would but remember and consider it: the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the ‘horrors’ of the minor Terror, the momentary terror, so to speak; whereas, what is horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak?

What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over, but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves”.

Mark Twain was not a revolutionary; however, his inquisitiveness and sensitivity helped him arrive at a truth. In the late 1920s, Mao Tse-tung talked about terror of two types, while he analyzed the Hunan peasant uprising. One was white terror or counter-revolutionary terror; and the other was red terror or revolutionary terror. He wrote:

“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an act of insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another. A rural revolution is a revolution by which the peasantry overthrows the power of the feudal landlord class.

Without using the greatest force, the peasants cannot possibly overthrow the deep-rooted authority of the landlords which has lasted for hundreds of years. The rural areas needed a mighty revolutionary upsurge, for it alone can rouse the people in their millions to become a powerful force”.

These facts are not unknown to the writers, historians and others who ruminate about their craft and actually keep a safe distance from the field of battle; however, whenever it comes to connecting them with the present situation, they fail to seek truth from facts, their logical mind ceases to respond, their sense of history suddenly loses its steam, and they betray their utter inability to grasp the essence of that historic struggle.

It has become obvious that the Lalgarh struggle has posed a serious problem to the civil rights movement, democrats and sections of the urban intellectuals. When the masses were attacked and tortured, when they protested through processions, meetings, petitions and other ‘democratic’ methods as permissible by the government, and did not raise the banner of armed resistance, the city-bred intellectuals stood by their side and raised their voice.

There was no problem in Singur and Nandigram; in the case of the latter, despite the presence of armed resistance, as the mainstream TMC party was also active there. But the Lalgarh story was entirely different. Here the urban literati are confronted with the emergence of the resisting warrior masses and in their presence, are at a loss what to do, what position to take. This is an entirely new situation, unlike any in West Bengal for many years.

This entirely new situation has placed them in a dilemma, and they are yet to cope with and digest it and then take a position on it. That is why we find sections of the APDR, APCLC, PUDR, editors of some little magazines and others condemning both state and ‘non-state’ violence in their statements, articles and public speeches. The transformation of the ‘repressed masses’ into ‘warrior masses’ have reduced them to such a pitiable condition!

On 16 September 2009, one English daily organized a thought-provoking discussion in Kolkata with the caption ‘Surely the Maoist is not one of us’. Most of the speakers sought the genesis of the Maoist emergence in the ‘failure of the system to deliver’.

Let us quote a few lines from the report:

“When a landlord takes away a villager’s wife, keeps her in his house to sexually abuse her and orders the husband to go away when he pleads with him for returning his wife to him and his two children, what is he supposed to do? Mouth platitudes about non-violence and peace? ‘Or take up arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them?’

In one such case a youth in Andhra Pradesh went straight into the jungle, organized a group of about 25,000 people, killed the landlord and ended by being Maoists”. This is part of the speech delivered by Prof. Hargopal from Andhra Pradesh, which only corroborates the view that it is the oppressive state that breeds armed resistance (The Statesman 17 September 2009).

There is one important point on which we believe most of the people will be in agreement, the Maoists included. This is related to the death of civilians, of medical staff, government officials on polling duty in the Jangal Mahal region over the last few months or common innocent civilians. As to the deaths due to mine blasts of the medical staff and polling officials in the Belpahari area of West Medinipur some months ago, the Maoists have tendered apology time and again as those civilians were mistaken as security forces.

One may note here in passing that Kshudiram Bose, the revolutionary from Bengal, made a similar mistake when he killed the Kennedy couple, instead of the notorious magistrate, Kingsford back in the 1910’s and was hanged by the British rulers. These acts – even though done unknowingly – were rightly criticized by cross-sections of the people. In the recent period, another such act took place, this time in Jharkhand. One intelligence official, Francis Induwar was beheaded by the Maoists.

That raised a hue and cry among the central home department and media in varied magnitude. While the Maoists later, as reported in the press, made self-criticism for adopting such a method of exterminating an enemy. However, this particular act needs a bit more consideration.

First, the first two instances were clear cases of mistaken identity, but the third one was not. It is related to the method of killing, and not the killing as such. The region in which he was killed is a tribal belt, and sharp weapons such as axes, knives etc are used by the tribals as their traditional weapons.

Let us simply cast aside for the time being the veil of ‘civilization’ from our person and for a time keep in mind the hard reality that in the name of this very ‘civilization’ as created by capitalism and its clients in countries like India, the ruling classes had over the decades only perfected the methods of torture on people, prisoners and all dissident voices not only in Vietnam, Afganistan or Iraq, but also in Kashmir, Chhattisgarh, Nagaland, Assam, Andhra Pradesh and other states that would put to shame even some of the most brutal characters in history.

While most of us will, in all likelihood, disapprove of the adoption of such a method of beheading for killing a ‘foe’, one can legitimately ask the ruling elite, sections of the media and the security forces whom they train up for committing unheard-of-barbarity on their own people whether they – the perpetrators of violence – themselves have the moral right to raise such moral questions at all.

Second, this part of criticism appears to me to be quite amusing and self-contradictory. As has been pointed out before, sections of the urban literati and some civil rights activists have expressed their disapproval in the taking up of arms (meaning firearms) even for self-defence by the adivasis of Jangal Mahal. The urban literati would rather accept their wielding of traditional weapons, but not the firearms. If that is the case, then what is the harm in beheading a person as in that case traditional weapons rather than firearms were used.

Let us now pass on to another aspect. The major section of the ‘civil society’ of West Bengal has learnt to accept state-sponsored violence as natural and somewhat legitimate, in the sense that it can be taken for granted. To them, therefore, the perpetration of state terror against the people of Lalgarh is the legitimate application of legitimate violence (we include in it arrests, interrogation, long period of incarceration, not to speak of torture in police and jail custody); they had never questioned or challenged the legitimacy of that state-sponsored violence.

What they are concerned about is that there should be no excess and the casualties should be less. They talk only about legality, about laws being trampled down, but hardly talk about justice. They do not question the system; they only tell the government to abide by rules and not to deviate from them. To them, governments are elected and thus have broad support of the people, and that these do not have any class character of their own.

But when the Lalgarh masses dared to take up arms in response to that state-sponsored violence and used the same weapon against the state machinery and the CPM hermads to pay the oppressors back in their own coin, and renounced the ‘democratic and peaceful’ path as looked at by that section of the ‘civil society’, then that resistance struggle which is legitimate and just from the people’s point of view, came to be considered impermissible under the law and would merit criticism and even condemnation from their side.

To some people, there is hardly any difference between state-sponsored violence and ‘non-state’ violence and both are condemnable; in the eyes of some APDR people, 90% condemnation is to be reserved for the former and 10% for the latter. The same is the attitude of some of the editors of Bengali little magazines/periodicals such as Aneek—as is evident in signature campaigns–which quite religiously devotes some pages in its issues to the condemnation of the ‘non-state’ ‘senseless’ violence committed by the Maoists or the resisting warrior masses of Lalgarh.

The pertinent question here is: could the violence committed by the state against the people and that done by the people against the state agents be the same? Would they also denounce—even if not in the same breadth–the ‘violent’ struggles as championed by Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen or the peasant rebels in Telengana? Would they condemn the heroic armed resistance and national liberation struggles of the people of Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq?

Every year, the Indian state is spending millions on the modernization of its forces whose main purpose is to subdue and crush people’s movements, while lakhs of people are dying every year out of malnutrition and hunger. Have they ever challenged the legitimacy of the state to rule? Have they ever demanded large-scale demobilization of armed forces and paramilitary forces and the diversion of that massive amount of money to the cause of people’s real development?

Struggles can be of different types—just and unjust. If they make no distinction between just struggles and unjust struggles, between the violence perpetrated by the state forces and hermads/salwa judum goons on the one hand and the violence committed by the armed people, on the other, then they would have also to denounce the long tradition of people’s heroic armed resistance down the ages both in our country as also outside.

The struggle in Jangal Mahal is not a spontaneous movement; it has been a politically conscious movement, as its process of unfolding made it clear. By now, it is obvious that the Maoists have been playing a major part in it. The urban literati should not grudge it, because who is to lead and guide the movement, what form that movement would take is to be decided by the sons of the soil themselves, and not by those who keep a safe distance from it.

The movement is coming out with new features, new methods of struggle at regular intervals—participation by the broadest masses, ingenuity, alternative model of development, formation of people’s militia (‘Sidhu Kanu Gana Militia’ drawing its name and inspiration from the past, from the names of two Santhal leaders of the mid-19th Santhal rebellion in colonial India), women coming into leadership and probably also taking part in policy-making—all these and many other things have made the movement stand apart from others that preceded it.

The direction that it is taking drives home the fact that some concrete political ideology, a fair amount of knowledge about military strategy and tactics and seasoned political brains stand behind it as guiding spirits. Without the active role of the Maoists, the movement would not have taken such a shape. This constitutes its main strength. At the same time, the presence of the Maoists and the resisting warrior masses is also the reason why sections of the urban literati keep aloof from it.

It appears that had the adivasi people kept aside firearms (AK-47s, landmines etc) and took up their traditional weapons (bows and arrows, axes etc) to stand up to the combined assault of the CRPF, the COBRA’s, Straco, the BSF, the EFR, the Greyhounds, the American satellites, the state intelligence, the army, the Air force and of course, the CPM hermads and in that totally unequal war inevitably lost the battle, these intellectuals would have derived silent pleasure (or if not so, would have been stimulated to take the field), and like during Nandigram, would have given the call for a big procession(silent, of course!) with candles and with giant banners again demanding ‘Hang Butcher Buddhadev’ (or Butcher Chidambaran also?), and would have again derived much pleasure by seeing their own faces in newspapers and TV channels.

Lalgarh would thus have turned into a second Nandigram. It would have been defeated. And like the peasant rebellions in China, which were utilized by ruling classes throughout ages to initiate dynastic changes due to the absence of new productive forces and correct political ideology, the Lalgarh struggle would also have been utilized, as Singur and Nandigram struggles have been utilized recently for election battles, to initiate ‘change’ in the way sections of the urban literati, not to speak of the parliamentary political parties, envision it.

Whether one likes it or not, the struggle of Lalgarh has moved in a different direction. This constitutes its strength. For those who long for a society where human values would triumph over the lust for profits, the Lalgarh struggle holds the promise of hope for the future.

Today, the Lalgarh struggle is not confined within the borders of Jangal Mahal region. It has extended far beyond, providing inspiration to people of other states; it has also been accepted as the new symbol of defiance and resistance by the democratic and freedom-loving people in other countries of the world. Movements in solidarity with the Lalgarh struggle have already developed in the urban areas of West Bengal as also in other states; solidarity gatherings, meetings and conventions have also been taking place in foreign countries such as UK, Greece etc.

The central government has joined hands with the American intelligence and state governments and initiated the ‘Operation Greenhunt’ against the people of our country—in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Orissa, West Bengal and other states in the name of combating the Maoist movement.

The central home minister, P. Chidambaram did not mince words when he said that they were treating the Lalgarh operation as laboratory for experimentation and that his policy would be one of ‘zero tolerance’ towards the Maoists. It is a clear threat to the people; it means state-sponsored genocide and brutality to be perpetrated against the people.

They are doing it because they have already pledged (through MOU’s etc) to hand over vast stretches of our country full of natural resources to the hands of domestic and foreign big capital for rapacious plunder and loot and those who are resisting this plunder—Maoists and others–have been singled out for attack and extermination in the name of ‘development’.

The people of Lalgarh have stood up against this with their heads held high. Today or tomorrow, all the intellectuals, human rights activists, teachers, artists, writers and other democratic people would have to take some stand. Should they allow our country’s natural resources to be sold out to corporate capital by the central and state governments which would bring more ruin to our country, or should they stand up as true patriots to oppose it?

Over the last decade and more, there had been much military collaboration, besides collaboration of other types, between the American and Israeli governments, on the one hand, and the Indian government, on the other. The American FBI has opened its office in the capital, if not also in other Indian cities, many years back and joint military exercises between the American and Indian armed forces have been taking place regularly in Mizoram and other areas. American and Israeli military officials are keeping regular contacts with their Indian counterparts.

And if armed resistance of the Indian people and Communist revolutionary movements develop further despite the massive armed mobilization by the central and state governments for the ‘Operation Green-hunt’—and I am not talking only of Maoist insurgency—then, as it appears now, a time will not be long in coming when the people of India would have to confront American soldiers on the Indian soil.

Confronted with such an eventuality, how would the civil rights activists, intellectuals, editors of little magazines and other sections of urban literati react? How would they respond when they would see people of their own country, their brothers and sisters dying, falling down but rising up again and putting up armed resistance against the foreign aggressors like that in Indochina in the wake of the American imperialist aggression?

Would they condemn that people’s armed struggle then also, as some of them are doing today, on the ground that that struggle smacked of violence? Would they behave and act like patriots, or would they act like unthinking robots and still keep on murmuring that the aggressors also have their right to life?

In 1932, one year after the Japanese aggression in China, Soong Ching Ling, the wife of Sun Yat-sen and one of the leading personalities of the China League, a civil rights body, wrote an article on the duties of the League. China at that time was torn by civil war between the Communist Party and the Kuomintang and was controlled by a number of imperialist powers in one way or the other.

In that article, she dealt mainly with the plight of the political prisoners in China (the overwhelming majority of whom were the Communists), voicing demands for their unconditional release. When confronted with the question whether the China League supported the revolution (meaning Communist revolution), Soong Ching Ling made it clear that the League stood for the ultimate victory of the people and the assertion of their rights, and that victory could be attained only through revolution.

Urban literati and civil rights activists in India may find the essay quite illuminating. Let us now come back to India. Many of us living in India still do not know who to look forward to for guidance and leadership; but what many of us do feel is that how we live today is far removed from how we ought to live, that the present system has already outlived its utility, has been failing to deliver and that some fundamental change is necessary in the interests of the majority of the people. Is Lalgarh showing the way?

It is high time that we should raise our collective voice against this unjust war waged by the central and state governments against our own people, and also demand large-scale demobilization of armed forces and paramilitary forces and the diversion of that massive amount of money from the nefarious goal of committing genocide on our people to the task of creating a new society fit for human living.

Leave a comment

Filed under India, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Regional, Revolution, South Asia

Does a Higher IQ Make You Superior?

There’s a debate raging in the comments section about race and IQ. I’m staying out of it, but if you’re familiar with this blog, you know very well how I stand on this issue. In some ways, I feel that the less said about it the better, although it’s true I do talk about it a lot on here. That’s because I’m trying to fashion some sort of a progressive response that’s fair to all ethnic groups out of the very un-PC facts on the ground. I’m more interested in raising IQ on this blog. That’s why you see all these posts on the Flynn Effect. Anyway, enough about me.

In the debate, Tulio makes an interesting observation:

Many people feel that if you say one group is collectively less intelligent than another, that is akin to saying that group is “inferior”. After thinking about it though, I’m not sure why someone being of less intelligence makes them inferior. No matter how smart you are, there is always someone smarter. Do you feel that you are inferior or less human than that person? I don’t. Do White Gentiles walk around with an inferiority complex to Jews? Or feel that they are inferior? I’ve never seen it.

Why does being smarter make someone superior per se? We don’t think that on an individual level, so why on a racial level? It just means they’re better at abstract reasoning on average. It doesn’t say whether you have common sense, whether you’re a nice person, a hard worker, a loyal friend, sociable, obey the law or gazillion other qualities we judge people on. Doesn’t say anything about them having superior humanity.

Tulio makes an excellent point. In ordinary society, the one I live in, no one cares about brains. I just went to the drug store to fill a prescription. There were mostly Hispanics in there, and I know some of them. A few poor Whites too. One thing I can tell you for sure: Not one of those people in that store gives two shits about IQ! Or even intelligence, really.

As someone with a genius IQ (over 140), I can tell you, it’s not so great.

You know how many people in Meatspace think my stratospheric IQ is cool? Just about zero!  It doesn’t benefit me in life. One more thing. You know how many chicks in Meatspace think that Chicago Tower of an IQ is cool? Just about zero! It’s been this way my whole life. No one cares if you’re a brain. Definitely, no one has ever thought that that made me a superior person! I did, sure, but who cares what I think? What matters is society. Society does not treat us brains like we are superior! If anything, it’s the opposite.

So in the real world Meatspace of ordinary humans, no one gives two shits about IQ or even intelligence really. Although I have done extremely well with women in my life, nevertheless, all my life, females have been abandoning and scorning us brains in favor of blockhead dumbass hulking caveman, thug and jock types. I don’t chicks don’t even want to screw brainy guys unless they have something else going like Game or Looks! They want to screw double digit IQ caveman with a club types.

So what good is a high IQ? Sometimes I wonder. But in general, society does not treat a higher IQ group, not to mention individual, as superior to a lower IQ group or individual, assuming the low IQ folks are not so dumb that it’s obvious that something is wrong.

In Meatspace, if you bring up IQ, you get resentful stares and attempts to change the conversation. Please don’t think this is something that happens to me a lot. I don’t do this very often because I know how people think. I do bring up my IQ in Meatspace sometimes, but 90% of the time it goes ok because I know how to say it without making people mad. What’s the secret? False modesty.

However, I do bring it up on the Web, but not very often either because I know how people think. But I have brought it up a few times on this site. And why not? This is an IQ blog after all where we talk about IQ as one of our main subjects of interest. But I can’t bring this up at all on the Web. I get slammed all the time for discussing my own numbers on here.  Now I don’t think discussing your own achievements is bragging – bragging is more in how you do it. What is interesting though is that I have “bragged” about quite a few other things on here, and no one cared, or I got nothing but praise. But IQ? Nope.

It’s funny a guy can go on and on about his achievements with women, in business, in sports and in building up his bank account, and the chicks will shower him with propositions and flirtations like confetti at a parade. But dare mention those two upper case letters denoting intelligence quotient, and most females will start screaming at you and calling you a braggart.

They’re lying, but women always lie. Thing is, women don’t care about braggarts; if anything, they like them. The biggest braggarts get the most and best women. It’s just that to women, they only give you pussy points for bragging about certain things, like the size of your damned wallet! The size of your IQ has no importance to a female in terms of their libido (in fact, it probably cools them down), so they raise a hissy fit if you bring it up.

Even around a bunch of White people, IQ even in general, leaving your own numbers aside, is not a popular subject. People start squirming in their chairs and trying to change the subject. Why? Because as far as IQ goes, even most Whites don’t have a very high one! So they resent the whole conversation. Even Whites with IQ’s around 115-120 or so or resent it, because they’re insecure, and they think that’s too low.

If you tell Whites that Blacks have lower IQ’s than Whites, most have never heard of it. Some are intrigued.

“Really?”, they ask, eyes twinkling with intrigue.

“Yep, it’s true.”

Then they sort of chuckle and say, “Well, that figures,” or “I always thought so.”

But then they move back into the “Yeah, but IQ means nothing” thing.

If you tell Hispanics, at first of course they don’t understand the whole subject (What do you expect?), then they mildly disagree.

“No way, it’s not true.” But they’re not agitated, just dismissive.

Then you convince them that it’s true.

Then they say, “Yeah well, so what? Who cares?”

The White nationalists and cognitive elite types have a dream. If they keep pounding away at this race-IQ thingie, at some point the evidence will become so overwhelming that Joe Sixpack White Guy will put down his beer, say, “Niggers ain’t got no brains!”, vote to rescind the Civil Rights and Fair Housing Acts, affirmative action, and all anti-discrimination laws, then I guess shave his head, and what? Move to Idaho?

Forget it! Your average White person is not that smart and resents the whole IQ subject and debate for that very reason. This issue will never resonate with average White people.

The charming folks hoping to spark the Great White Revolution would do better to focus on Black crime, an issue that resonates much better with average Whites.


Filed under American, Asia, Blacks, China, Culture, Eurasia, Europe, Europeans, Germany, India, Intelligence, Japan, Jews, NE Asia, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Russia, SE Asia, South Asia, Thailand, Turkey, Whites

“The Kindness of Gentlemen,” by Alpha Unit

It was early 1933. Mahatma Gandhi was in prison, fasting. Beer was made legal in the United States, eight months before the final repeal of Prohibition. Diego Rivera began a controversial mural at Rockefeller Center that included a portrait of Lenin.

And in April, Elizabeth Bacon Custer died at the ripe old age of 90.

It had been her life’s mission to redeem the reputation of her husband, who had died in battle in 1876. The memory of George Armstrong Custer was not to be tarnished by the events at the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

“Libbie” Custer had actually followed her husband on his military assignments. Biographers of Custer speak of how devoted they were to each other, although their relationship began under difficulty. Libbie’s father had not been that impressed with Custer; he didn’t come from a good enough family.

It was his military successes that brought her father around. After being commissioned a second lieutenant, he took part in the First Battle of Bull Run (or, First Battle of Manassas, for the Southerners). He moved up the ranks of the Army throughout his early Civil War campaigns, and after becoming brevet General (a temporary rank) Libbie Bacon’s father relented and approved of their marriage.

Toward the war’s end, Custer distinguished himself with two separate defeats of Confederate armies led by Lt. General Jubal Early. He pursued Robert E. Lee to Appomattox Court House, and was present when the Confederacy surrendered.

This was the high point of Custer’s military career. He went on to serve with distinction in the so-called Indian Wars – until June of 1876, near the Little Bighorn River in Montana Territory.

What happened during this battle, and why, has been studied and debated for over a hundred years. It was a defeat of the U.S. Army by Indian tribes. That was shocking enough for a lot of people. Custer’s 7th Cavalry was devastated. Custer – along with some of his male relatives – was dead.

But Libbie Custer was a part of the reason for some of the reticence about setting the record straight about the Battle of the Little Bighorn. She became her husband’s staunchest defender, becoming an author and lecturer to preserve his legacy as a great military man.

And the men who knew better let her do it.

There was plenty of information that would have shed much-needed light on the events of June 1876, much of it damning of Custer. But because she was a grieving and determined widow, men who had been there kept it to themselves. They let her go out and promulgate the image of her husband as a great military hero defending his position “to the last man.”

All along they indulged her, the way men tend to do with women. You might say they were men of their time – gentlemen who never would have publicly criticized the widow of an Army officer. But whether they were gentlemen or not, what they did took guts. And they resolved that as long as she was alive, they would remain silent.

The thing is, she outlived them. Just like a woman.


Elliott, Michael A. 2008. Custerology: The Enduring Legacy of the Indian Wars and George Armstrong Custer. University of Chicago Press.


Filed under Alpha Unit, Americas, Gender Studies, Guest Posts, History, Modern, North America, Regional, US, USA, War, West

Ford To Roll Out Great New Model Car

Ford rolls out one for the ladies! Ford seems to be mining the female demographic with this brilliantly designed new car.


Filed under Humor, Women

Black Response to “We Don’t Respect You”

I really enjoyed this response to We Don’t Respect You from a very pro-Black Black man who calls himself Black Thought. It’s sounds Afrocentric to me, but he says he’s not an Afrocentrist. There is an Afrocentrist who regularly comes to the comments section too.

However, I do respect some of these Afrocentrist types as long as they are polite to us.  There is something shameful about a Black person, or any person, who does not respect their own race or kind. It seems like such a basic, primal instinct. Respect your family, respect your tribe, respect your people, respect your race.

Since your race is part of you, if you don’t even respect your own race, how is it you respect yourself? The Afrocentrists at least stick up for their own kind. As everyone should. Everyone should stick up for their own. As an ethnocentric White man, I lament the fact that Whites can’t respect ourselves anymore. But what I want for myself, I want for others too. I want Blacks to wake up in the morning and say, “Thank GOD for making me Black!” I want everyone else to do the same, Hell, even the Aborigines.

His response, followed by mine, is over at his blog.

I can’t overemphasize the importance of this lack of respect because so much seem to flow right out of that. If we could ameliorate Whites’ lack of respect for Blacks, race relations would be so much better, no? Since so much flows out of it, I’d love to see a major Black political leader bring this up, if they could politically get away with it.

What if Barack said, “You know, White people just don’t respect Blacks. That’s all there is to it. This is the crux of the problem.”? Now, politically, he could not do that, but let’s suppose for a minute he could.

Could you imagine that all over Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and rightwing radio? What would White people say? Would they deny it? Some would, sure. Would they admit it? Now that would be interesting! Surely there would be some Whites calling in to the stations and telling it like it is, “Hell no! Hell NO we don’t respect them!” Then the firestorm debate would be off. I’d love to see a fascinating conversation like that engulf this nation for a week or two, or however long the public’s attention span is these days.


Filed under Blacks, Europeans, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Sociology, Whites

Adolf Hitler, Standup Comic

Boy, that Adolf guy could really keep them rolling in the aisles, huh? That one joke right there was practically a LOLercaust!

However, this clip also shows that Hitler’s comic skills were somewhat lacking. I mean, he mentioned Roosevelt and no wheelchair joke. Mein wacky Führer, you disappoint me. How could you pass that up?

And why no jokes about the Jews? Speaking of Jews, it’s well known that Krauts have no damned sense of humor. And Jews start cracking jokes when they’re still in the womb. Those kicks Jewish mothers have to endure are due to their fetuses collapsing in the uterus in spasms of humor. I’ve always wondered about those Hitler had a Jewish grandparent rumors, and this clip shows it must have been true.

Funny as a crutch, Rich!

This wasn’t really one of Adolf’s loopier lines. The Fuhrer could really be a card sometimes. “Heil honey, I’m home!” jokingly tossed off to Eva as he jackbooted through the front door, will be warmly remembered around the globe for many years to come.

Anyway, so these two Nazis and a rabbi walk into a bar…

Oh, forget it. This post has already gone too far.


Filed under Humor, War, World War 2

Female Rule Violates the Laws of Nature

In the provocatively titled The Cunts Versus the Men post, perceptive commenter Tyciol writes:

Maybe a better word than feminism would be ‘equalism’ or something?

Like, it’s relative to position. Women were certainly downtrodden in the past and lacking rights, so equalism would be feminist in that case.

But in the reverse scenario, if men could not vote and related things then equalism would have a masculinist agenda.

Suffrage and stuff to me has never been about focusing on women’s rights, but simply equality since they are also people and also have opinions which should be counted. Similarly, right to choice (abortion) to me is not about favouring women, but rather that people should not be forced to carry parasitic feti for months if they don’t wish to.

I’m pro-choice, and I’m all for equality for women in all of the sane ways. But I wonder if equality ever works. We offered women equality, and instead they took their equality and ran past the 50 yard line heading for our goalposts to try to dominate us and rule us. I guess it’s natural. Neither sex is going to be happy with mere equality. If you give women equality, they’re always going to use that step stool to try to install Female Rule. And I guess we asshole guys will always try to install Male Rule.


Nevertheless, equality is surely something to support. Better than equality: how about this? Rights. Not necessarily equality, but rights. No matter what we think of them, females have basic rights, and in most ways, they have the same basic rights as we do. So do gays, Blacks, lots of folks. It’s not a matter of liking. You don’t have like Black people; a lot of White people don’t. And a lot of straights are not too fond of gays. But how can we deny that gays and surely Blacks have a set of basic rights that any human does?

I have nothing against Female Rule in principle, assuming they were capable. But I don’t think they are. And I don’t want to live under Female Rule. The chicks will dig it (I guess! Or maybe they won’t?!), but it will suck for the guys. We already have a Matriarchy with the Politically Correct crowd, and honestly, it sucks.

Male Rule sort of sucks for women, but they seem to be happy, and the men surely are happy. Female Rule violates Nature* and seems to make both sexes increasingly miserable.

I don’t think that females ought to be allowed to install their Female Paradigm in society. Think about it. Is there any society that ever let the women rule? I can’t think of one. Why is that? Surely it must have been tried in the past. Not all human males are patriarchal shits, and a lot of us are lazy. Surely there were times in the past when the lazy guys said, “We give up. You do it. You rule. Go for it.” I assume it was tried in many cases in the past, and the result was the same as it is now: Chaos. In which case, the sane people realized that either you have Male Rule or you have Chaos.

Allowing the Male Paradigm to rule society works, and most societies work that way, but it also often violates women’s rights and keeps them down. But in a lot of these societies, like Hispanic ones and many other traditional societies, women seem to like living under Male Rule. You go to these places, and as long as Male Rule isn’t too evil, everyone seems happy. It’s like they know they are Living In Nature.

I don’t hear a lot of complaints from the Hispanic females around here about the Male Rule they live under. Women get to be feminine, men get to be masculine, and everyone is happy. I don’t think Hispanic women want to rule. They want some relative equality, at least in terms of earning power, and around here they are granted that. Hispanic women can make quite a bit of money, and some do here. But they’re still quite feminine.

OTOH, White women seem to have so much greater freedom than Hispanic women, but they seem to be so much more miserable! It’s like the more freedom you give women, the less happy they are, and the more they complain about Male Rule.

Even when the women are in charge, increasingly the case nowadays, the women keep complaining about the Patriarchy. As Female Rule deepens, the women get angrier and angrier (paradoxically as they get more and more rights and power!) and become more and more masculine. This upsets Nature, and Nature doesn’t tolerate defiance. She demands balance, just like in the forests and jungles.

As the women get increasingly masculine, the males will have to become increasingly feminine to compensate and create the Balance of Nature. As women become increasingly masculine, they get more and more unhappy, because it violates women’s own nature. On some level, the female organism knows that acting masculine is fucked up, and this throws the organism into disarray.

Of course, as males become increasingly feminine, they get more and more miserable too, because femininity violates man’s own nature. So you end up with Northern California White People, where even the straight people act like queers and dykes.

It follows from this scenario that you would see increasing situational and opportunistic homosexuality in both sexes. As males feminize, they engage in increasing amounts of homosexuality. As females masculinize, they also engage in increasing amounts of homosexuality.

As Female Rule deepens, women will increasingly reject persistent marriage and raise fatherless men. Once again, a violation of Nature. Nature demands that both males and females have fathers. Nature punishes those who defy her. She punishes fatherless males by turning them into criminals who lash out at the World As Surrogate For Missing Father. She punishes fatherless females by turning them into sluts, trying to screw their way to Daddy’s Missing Love.

Both criminals and sluts are often unhappy, probably because most men are not supposed to be criminals and most women are not supposed to be sluts. Both criminals and sluts frequently lead at least difficult and often tragic lives.

Women can have power, but only if they either don’t upset Male Rule or at least only try to be equal.

*I am applying Nature in the sense of Natural Law, especially the Catholic or philosophical sense. When I say something violates Nature, I mean it violates Natural Law – that is, it’s unnatural in terms of mankind’s evolution.

Of course violations of Natural Law occur, but as they violate our evolutionary imperative encoded in our genes, there will be ill effects, since humans are not meant to violate Natural Law. Violations of Natural Law will have consequences.

Feminine men and masculine women are miserable. Female Rule (matriarchy) violates Natural Law and results in chaos and even unhappiness for females, since even females dislike Matriarchy deep down inside because it’s unnatural. Fatherless families violate Natural Law and result in criminal boys and slut daughters, both miserable.

When I say something violates Natural Law, I mean it violates our evolutionary imperatives coded in our genes. The result will be unhappiness and pathology as our natural and genetic imperatives are violated, thwarted and twisted.


Filed under Anthropology, Biology, Criminology, Cultural, Evolution, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Masculinism, Radical Feminists, Sane Pro-Woman, Science, Scum, Sex, Sociology

Mutual Intelligibility As a Scientific Concept For Dividing Language from Dialect

I have suggested previously that intelligibility testing is the best, and really the only, way to scientifically attempt to divide languages from dialects.

Dividing based on intelligibility is a more scientific concept to the dialect/language concept than the sociolinguistic or political concepts currently used that have resulted in chaos surrounding the language/dialect question.

The resulting chaos has caused linguists to throw up their hands. Many now take the weird and soft science position that there is no way to tell a language from a dialect. This means that English and Mandarin may well be dialects of one language or California English and Massachusetts English are possibly separate languages. Make sense?

Focusing merely on intelligibility and nothing else turns the language/dialect question from its current senselessness towards a more solidly scientific basis.

There are other ways to distinguish language from dialect, but these just make things messier.

One way is structural divergence. Structural divergence is fairly well correlated with intelligibility, but not completely. Some divergent lects are quite intelligible, for instance, Turkish and Gaguaz. If you split structurally divergent yet intelligible languages, you run into the strange situation where speakers of two completely different languages can understand each other perfectly.

Dividing languages on sociological or, worse, political grounds is almost thoroughly anti-scientific. You run into odd cases, such as with Galician and Mirandese, where people of two intelligible lects wish to insist that they speak different languages in order to cynically acquire state funds and recognition, or because they dislike the other group, or maybe live in a different country than the other group.

You also run into odd cases like various unintelligible Mayan languages of Guatemala who insist that they all speak dialects of one language because this is the way they have always referred to these lects, or in order to preserve the unity of the language. In this case, you run into the bizarre case of speakers of two different dialects of a single language who can’t understand each other at all. If they can’t understand each other, who says they are speaking the same language?

Political reasons are much worse. States typically deny that minority languages spoken within their borders are languages in order to preserve the unity of the state and ward off fears of separatism and ethnic conflict. That linguists acquiesce to such blatantly fascist demands with a shrug of the shoulders is disturbing. States such as Sweden have recently engaged in gross manipulation of the ISO code process in order to deny language rights to minority tongues. It is disturbing that SIL caved in to the demands of the Swedish state so easily.

All in all, intelligibility is really the only way to go, and avoids all of these other anti-scientific minefields. A recent paper in Computational Linguistics by Harold Hammarström points out that intelligibility testing works, is valid and reliable and can consistently separate languages from dialects. The unscientific notion, now dogma in Linguistics, that there is no scientific way to determine mutual intelligibility of different lects, belongs in the trash can.

The typical position of Linguistics nowadays is to bash Ethnologue and SIL for excessive splitting of dialects into languages. In general, this perception is incorrect. As a recent review by the same man, Harold Hammarström, shows, Ethnologue generally splits dialects from languages in an accurate fashion, and it excessively lumps as often as it excessively splits. In fact, Ethnologue’s dialect/language distinction lines up very well with the specialist linguistic literature.

So if Ethnologue are mad splitters, so are the specialist authors themselves. The attacks on SIL and Ethnologue are poorly informed and typical of excessive emotionalism and fanaticism that has overtaken Linguistics recently and threatens to make it into yet another joke soft science social science. It is interesting that the same wild-eyed screamers who oppose lumping in genetic classification (opposition to say, Penutian and Altaic) are the same snarks who sneer that Ethnologue excessively splits.

The one thing that they have in common is the typical soft science dodge that we can’t prove much of anything about anything. We can’t prove what’s a language and what’s a dialect, so leave it alone. We can’t prove any more language families due to time depth or the weather or whatever, so let’s stop making any more families until we sit down, relax for 20-30 years over cups of coffee and get this stuff all sorted out.

The other main attack on Ethnologue is bizarre. It’s based on the fact that Ethnologue is run by Christian missionaries who translate the Bible into many languages. There are many atheists, usually very leftwing atheists, in the academic field of Linguistics, and it’s clear that their sneering contempt for SIL is based on the fact that they are unapologetically religious.

The bizarre insinuation is also made that since they Bible-translating missionaires, they could not possibly be competent linguists. How strange. Why can’t one be a Bible-translating missionary and a linguist at the same time? And other than that this is an obvious ad hominem attack, what’s so bad about being religious anyway? This sort of condemnation reminds one of the former USSR. Surely being a religious believer should not disqualify one from being a competent linguist!

Another strange and ultra-leftwing attack on SIL is that they somehow are CIA spies of some sort. I’m not competent to respond to that attack.

However, some Indian organizations in Latin America have protested the organization and tried, sometimes successfully, to get them banned from their nations, usually on grounds of trying to convert Indians to Christianity. Somehow the fact that SIL was banned from various backwards, dysfunctional banana republics for “trying to convert the Indians” is evidence that they can’t possibly do competent Linguistics.

How bizarre. Competent scholars are regularly banned from silly nations for sorts of strange political reasons that have nothing to do with scholarship. Once again, linguists appear to be siding with fascist-like states and opposing scholars.

Harold Hammarström, a man working in computational linguistics, which I would hope is about as scientific as our field gets, offers some hope to steer our field back to a more scientific path and reclaim some territory from the soft science mush-heads.


Hammarström, H. 2005. Review of the Ethnologue, 15th Ed., Raymond J. Gordon (ed.), SIL International, Dallas, 2005. LINGUIST LIST 16.2637 12 Sept 2005.Hammarström, H. 2008. Counting Languages in Dialect Continua Using the Criterion of Mutual Intelligibility. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 15:1, pp. 36-45.


Filed under Dialectology, Linguistics, Sociolinguistics

Yet Another Scandinavian Intelligibility Study

We’ve reviewed several of these studies before, and this subject seems to send a lot of Scandinavians up the wall for some reason. Especially Swedes are quite insistent that Swedish and Norwegian are a single language. They get pretty furious when people say that they can’t completely understand each other. A new study I found adds some weight to that notion. Here are the results of a study of Scandinavian students on an intelligibility test of other Scandinavian languages:

                  Swedish  Norwegian Danish
Norwegians        89                 75
Swedes                     83        24
Finnish Swedes             75        14
Danes             53       57

As you can see, Norwegian and Swedish are almost dialects of a single language. In this test, Swedish-Norwegian intelligibility was 86%. That’s not quite dialects of a single language, but it’s very close. It’s better to say that they are extremely closely related languages. If we include Finnish Swedes, the results go down somewhat, but most Swedes don’t live in Finland.

Norwegian-Danish intelligibility was lower, but still high, at 66%. That’s higher than Spanish and Portuguese. Norwegians can understand a lot more Danish than the other way around, but the Danes can’t seem to understand their neighbors very well.

Swedish-Danish intelligibility was lowest of all at 39%. It’s safe to say that these two don’t understand each other well at all. The Swedes and especially the Finnish Swedes can hardly understand Danish people at all.

Here are the results of a study of “Dutch” students on an intelligibility test of other “Dutch” languages:

                         Dutch  Frisian  Afrikaans
Dutch                           55       62
Frisians                                 67
South Africans           44     25

The intelligibility of Dutch and Afrikaans is much exaggerated. Swedish and Norwegian are much closer. Combined intelligibility of Dutch and Afrikaans is only 53%. That’s about the same as Spanish and Portuguese, not so good. In particular, Afrikaans speakers seem to have a hard time understanding the Dutch.

The intelligibility of Frisian and Dutch is also much exaggerated. Here, Dutch understood 55% of Frisian, about the same as Spanish and Portuguese. Frisians were not tested on Dutch since they all understand Dutch.


Gooskens, Charlotte. 2007. The Contribution of Linguistic Factors to the Intelligibility of Closely Related Languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 28:6, 445-467.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.


Filed under Afrikaans, Danish, Dialectology, Dutch, Frisian, Germanic, Language Families, Linguistics, Norwegian, Sociolinguistics, Swedish, West Frisian