Category Archives: Laos

What Is the Average IQ of Women?

Answered on Quora.

The answers below are not completely correct, as they leave out the fact that for a long time, women had IQ’s that were 4.5 points below men. This was a longstanding fact of science for decades. Sexist comments that men make like saying women have “little tiny pea-brains” may be rooted in this.

Actually I think men think women are stupid because women think in a much different way than we do, and we think the way they think and stuff they think about is stupid. However, a female friend recently told me that women think that men are idiots too, probably because of the way we think.

Women have always matched or surpassed men on verbal IQ, but they always lagged behind in nonverbal. The “directionally impaired” woman is a common joke that may have a biological basis. On the other hand, I have been lost in good-sized cities at nighttime with no map, and I was still able to orient myself somehow and figure out how to get out of town in the direction I wanted to go in. I can do that even easier in daytime. I told my mother this and she was astounded. “How can you get around in a strange town or city without even a map?”

However, James Flynn has proven that in the past 3–4 years, women have closed the gap with men. They still lag somewhat in nonverbal skills, but their nonverbal has risen to the point where, combined with women’s advantage in verbal IQ, women now have precisely the same IQ that men have.

And that IQ in the US would be 100, the US average, I believe. However, if you were in Laos, on the same scale, men and women would average 89 IQ. In India, men and women average 82 IQ. In parts of Africa, men and women have IQ’s as low as 70. So they don’t always come out to 100.

Some articles have said that women are smarter than men now, but that’s not really true. They only surpass men by .1-.2 percentage points. The reason for the rise, says Flynn, is our increasingly technological society which is actually making women smarter on nonverbal skills.

I have met quite a few bright women. We were in a gifted program that needed 132 IQ to get in, and there were plenty of girls in that program. I have met a number of women with IQ’s in the 140’s, and I have known two women with IQ’s of 156. Women with Genius level IQ’s are not particularly rare, and some of their minds are stunning to behold, almost like one of the Great Wonders on Earth.

Leave a comment

Filed under Africa, Asia, Gender Studies, India, Intelligence, Laos, Psychology, Regional, SE Asia, South Asia, USA, Women

Repost: The Classification of the Vietnamese Language

This ran first a long time ago, but I just sold an ad on this post, so I decided to repost it. Rereading it, it’s a great Historical Linguistics post.

One of the reasons that I am doing this post is that one of my commenters asked me a while back to do a post on the theories of long-range comparison like Joseph Greenberg’s and how well they hold up. That will have to wait for another day, but for now, I can  at least show you how some principles of Historical Linguistics, a subfield that I know a thing or two about. I will keep this post pretty non-technical, so most of you ought to be able to figure out what is going on.

Let us begin by looking at some proposals about the classification of Vietnamese.

The Vietnamese language has been subject to a great deal of speculation regarding its classification. At the moment, it is in the Mon-Khmer or Austroasiatic family with Khmer, Mon, Muong, Wa, Palaung, Nicobarese, Khmu, Munda, Santali, Pnar, Khasi, Temiar, and some others. The family ranges through Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, Burma, China, and over into Northeastern India.

It is traditionally divided into Mon-Khmer and Munda branches. Here is Ethnologue’s split, and here are some other ways of dividing up the family.

The homeland of the Austroasiatics was probably in China, in Yunnan, Southwest China. They moved down from China probably around 5,000 years ago. Some of the most ancient Austroasiatics are probably the Senoi people, who came down from China into Malaysia about 4,000 years ago. Others put the time frame at about 4-8,000 YBP (years before present).

A major fraud has been perpetrated lately based on Senoi Dream Therapy. I discussed it on the old blog, and you can Google it if you are interested. In Anthropology classes we learned all about these fascinating Senoi people, who based their lives around their dreams. Turns out most of the fieldwork was poor to fraudulent like Margaret Mead’s unfortunate sojourn in the South Pacific.

The Senoi resemble Veddas of India, so it is probably true that they are ancient people.  Also, their skulls have Australoid features. In hair, they mostly have wavy hair (like Veddoids), a few have straight hair (like Mongoloids) and a scattering have woolly hair (like Negritos). Bottom line is that ancient Austroasiatics were probably Australoid types who resembled what the Senoi look like today.

There has long been a line arguing that the Vietnamese language is related to Sino-Tibetan (the family that Chinese is a part of). Even those who deny this acknowledge that there is a tremendous amount of borrowing from Chinese (especially Cantonese) to Vietnamese. This level of borrowing so long ago makes historical linguistics a difficult field.

Here is an excellent piece by a man who has done a tremendous amount of work detailing his case for Vietnamese as a Sino-Tibetan language. It’s not for the amateur, but if you want to dip into it, go ahead. I spent some time there, and after a while, I was convinced that Vietnamese was indeed a Sino-Tibetan language. One of the things that convinced me is that if borrowing was involved, seldom have I seen such a case for such a huge amount of borrowing, in particular of basic vocabulary. I figured the  case was sealed.

Not so fast now.

Looking again, and reading some of Joseph Greenberg’s work on the subject, I am now convinced otherwise. There is a serious problem with the cognates between Vietnamese and Chinese, of which there are a tremendous number.

This problem is somewhat complex, but I will try to simplify it. Briefly, if Vietnamese is indeed related to Sino-Tibetan, its cognates should be not only with Chinese, but with other members of Sino-Tibetan also. In other words, we should find cognates with Tibetan, Naga, Naxi, Tujia, Karen, Lolo, Kuki, Nung, Jingpho, Chin, Lepcha, etc. We should also find cognates with those languages, where we do not find them in Chinese. That’s a little complicated, so I will let you think about it a bit.

Further, the comparisons between Chinese and Vietnamese should be variable. Some should look quite close, while others should look much more distant.

So there’s a problem with the Vietnamese as ST theory.

The cognates look like Chinese.

Problem is, they look too much like Chinese. They look more like Chinese than they should in a genetic relationship. Further, they look like Chinese and only Chinese. Looking for relationships in S-T outside of Chinese, and we find few if any.

That’s a dead ringer for borrowing from Chinese to Vietnamese. If it’s not clear to you how that is, think about it a bit.

Looking at Mon-Khmer, the case is not so open and shut. There seem to be more cognates with Chinese than with Mon-Khmer. So many more that the case for Vietnamese as AA looks almost silly, and you wonder how anyone came up with it.

But let us look again. The cognates with AA and Vietnamese are not just with its immediate neighbors like Cambodian and Khmu but with languages far off in far Eastern India like Munda and Santali. There are words that are found only in the Munda branch in one or two obscure languages that somehow show up again as cognates in Vietnamese.

Now tell me how Vietnamese borrowed ancient basic vocabulary from some obscure Munda tongue way over in Northeast India? It did not. How did those words end up in some unheard of NE Indian tongue and also in Vietnamese? Simple. They both descended long ago from a common ancestor. This is Historical Linguistics.

The concepts I have dealt with here are not easy for the non-specialist to figure out, but most smart people can probably get a grasp on them.

A different subject is the deep relationships of AA. Is AA related to any other languages? I leave that as an open question now,  though there does appear to be a good case for AA being related to Austronesian.

One good piece of evidence is the obscure AA languages found in the Nicobar Islands off the coast of Thailand. Somehow, we see quite a few cognates in Nicobarese with Austronesian. We do not see them in any other branches of AA, only in Nicobarese. This seems odd,  and it’s hard to make a case for borrowing. On the other hand, why cognates in Nicobarese and only in Nicobarese?

Truth is there are some cognates outside of Nicobarese but not a whole lot. In historical linguistics, one thing we look at is morphology. Those are parts of words, like the -s plural ending in English.

In both AA and Austronesian, we have funny particles called infixes. Those are what in English we might call prefixes or suffixes, except they are stuck in the middle of the word instead of at the end or the beginning. So, in English, we have pre- as a prefix meaning “before” and -er meaning “object that does X verb”. So pre-destination means that our lives are figured out before we are even born.  Comput-er and print-er are two objects, one that computes and the other that prints.

If we had infixes instead, pre-destination would look something like destin-pre-ation and comput-er and print-er would look something like com-er-pute and prin-er-t.

Anyway, there are some fairly obscure infixes that show up not only in some isolated languages in AA but also in far-flung Austronesian languages in, say, the Philippines. Ever heard of the borrowing of an infix? Neither have I? So were those infixes borrowed,  and what are they doing in languages as far away as Thailand and the Philippines, and none in between? Because they  got borrowed? When? How? Forget it.

Bottom line is that said borrowing did not happen. So what are those infix cognates doing there? Probably ancient particles left over from a common language that derived both Austronesian and AA, probably spoken somewhere in SW China maybe 9,000 years ago or more.

Why is this sort of long-range comparison so hard? For one thing, because after 9,000 years or more, there are hardly any cognates left anymore, due to the fact of language change. Languages change and tend to change at a certain rate.

After 1000X years, so much change has taken place that even if two languages were once “sprung from a common source,” in the famous words of Sir William Jones in his epochal lecture to the Asiatic Society in Calcutta on February 2, 1786, there is almost nothing, or actually nothing, left to show of that relationship. Any common words have become so mangled by time that they don’t look much or anything alike anymore.

So are AA and Austronesian related? I think so, but I suppose it’s best to say that it has not been proven yet. This thesis is part of a larger long-range concept known as “Austric.” Paul Benedict, a great scholar, was one of the champions of this. Austric is normally made up of AA, Austronesian, Tai-Kadai (the Thai language and its relatives) and Hmong-Mien (the Hmong and Mien languages). Based on genetics, the depth of Austric may be as deep as 30,000 years, so proving it is going to be a tall order indeed.

What do I think?

I think Tai-Kadai and Austronesian are proven to be related (more on that later). AA and Austronesian seem to be related also, with a lesser depth of proof. Hmong-Mien seems to be related to Sino-Tibetan, not Austric.

The case for Vietnamese being related to S-T is still very interesting, and I still have an open mind about it.

All of these discussions are hotly controversial, and mentioning it in linguistics circles is likely to set tempers flaring.

References

Author and date unknown, What Makes Vietnamese So Chinese? An Introduction to Sinitic-Vietnamese Studies.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anthropology, Asia, Austro-Asiatic, Austro-Tai, Austronesian, Cambodia, Cantonese, China, Chinese language, Cultural, Hmong, Hmong-Mien, India, Language Families, Laos, Linguistics, Malaysia, Mon-Khmer, Philippines, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan, South Asia, Tai-Kadai, Thailand, Vietnam, Vietnamese

The Peopling of Indochina

jw: Hi Mr Lindsay, where did the South Chinese come from? Are the Indochinese the same as the South Chinese?

The Vietnamese people came from Southern China about 4-5,000 YBP. There is a Vietnamese legend that says that the forefather of the Vietnamese people came from an area in Southern China near a large lake, the name of which escapes me now. I believe that legend actually lines up with the facts. There was a huge Southern Chinese Yue invasion of Vietnam 2,300 YBP.

There was also a huge movement of Chinese from Yunnan into Thailand 900 YBP.

There was some sort of similar large movement into Laos. In addition, in the last 300-400 years, there was a large movement of Southern Chinese Hmong people into the north of Laos. The indigenous people are composed of a number of small Mon-Khmer speaking groups in the southeast of the country. The Khmu are an example of such a group. The Lao people proper are very similar to the Thai linguistically and anthropologically.

The Indochinese people have a lot of Chinese blood in them, particularly the Vietnamese and the Thai. In both Thailand and Vietnam, the population is heavily mixed between an indigenous group of Paleomongoloids and the newer influx of Neomongoloid Southern Chinese. A good representative of the earlier stock of Paleomongoloids in Vietnam would be the rather primitive Montagnard people in the Central Highlands of Vietnam.

Thailand has a large Indian component mixed in. Cambodia also has a large Indian component, and their Indian admixture is greater than that of the Thai. The Khmer are probably Paleomongoloid indigenous + Indians + a smaller number of Neomongoloid Chinese. The Khmer may have the largest Paleomongoloid component of the four nations.

7 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Cambodia, China, Chinese (Ethnic), East Indians, Khmer, Khmu, Lao, Laos, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, South Asians, Thai, Thailand, Vietnam, Vietnamese

An Example of Anti-White Propaganda: “White Men Raped Their Way around Most of the World”

Chinedu: And yet hundreds of millions of people, populating entire continents and regions, are the products of white rape.

That was a long time ago though, was it not? Anyway, the newest theory on Black-White mixes in the US is that most came after the Civil War and most were consensual even before the Civil War. Yes there were rapes but they were not common. Heading up until the Civil War, in the 1830’s-1860’s, there were many White men working for money in the fields next to the slaves. There were many unions derived from this close contact. Further, many Black females desired to have sex with the slaveowners in order to become house Negroes, etc. Southern White culture was very conservative and Southern wives did not take well to their husbands taking up Black mistresses. Most White Black unions post Civil War were obviously consensual.

There is no reason to think that things were any different in Mexico, Honduras, Belize, Nicaragua, Panama, anywhere in the Caribbean, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina or even Brazil.

We have no reports of mass rapes of Black women by White men in any of those places.

I am not aware of any mass rape of Black women by White men in Colonial Africa, even in South Africa. The problem in the East was exacerbated by Islamic slavery, and I suppose many of those were rapes, or maybe they were consensual. No one seems to be able to figure this out when it comes to slaves. Probably your best case for mass rape of Black women by White men would be in the Middle East, especially Arabia and then Mesopotamia and the Levant. And I am quite sure this was the case in North Africa as well.

There isn’t any more raping of Black women by White men anywhere on Earth and certainly there is no mass raping.

As far as raping Indian women, this is very hard to figure. I know that here in California, many Whites simply married Indian women and become squawmen who were much derided by their fellow men. These unions were quite consensual. There were some rapes in this area and maybe some enslavement but it was mostly consensual. Before we had Spaniards and missions run by priests in which there was almost zero rape. The Spaniards did not even do much to Indians other than capture them and send them to missions.

As far as the rest of the US, I have no idea, but I have not heard a lot of reports of mass rape of Indian women by White men in the records. The breeding seems to be once again White men taking Indian brides and becoming squawmen. In Canada there was little to no rape or mass rape.

It is often said that the mass unions of Mexico were the product of rape but no one knows if this was true. There were very few Spaniard males and many Indian women. The Spaniards hardly had to rape with 100-1 or 1000-1 ratios.

I do not know much about the colonization of Central America to comment. However, Costa Rica tried to keep itself delberately White for a long time. Also the Indians were wiped out very early. Obviously there was mass mixing through this whole region, but I know nothing about the details.

I have not heard many reports of rape or mass rape in the Caribbean. Yes there was mass rape in the beginning in the context of a genocide, but Caribbean people now have little Indian blood. Barbadians are 1% Indian. Cubans are probably even less. Jamaicans, Haitians, Dominicans, Dominican Republicans, etc. have almost no Indian blood. Puerto Ricans have a lot of Indian blood, but I do not know how it got there.

Yes Whites conquered Indian nations in South America. Obviously a process of mestizisation occurred there, but I have no details on it. The wars were short and over with quickly. The mestizisation process appears to have been slow and I have no details on how it even worked. In Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, the Guyanas, I have no details at all. In Brazil what little I heard was that it was mostly consensual. An early Brazilian colonist, a Portuguese man, was reported to have twenty quite happy Indian wives. This was said to be pretty normal. In the 1800’s there was a Banquismo campaign, a very racist compaign intended to mass import Whites from Europe to swamp out and breed out Indians but mostly Blacks. Apparently it worked quite well.

In Argentina, the Black-White mating was so unrapey that many Blacks present in Argentina in the late 1800’s seem to have vanihsed into thin air. Argentines are now 3% Black, so you can imagine what really happened to the Blacks. Much the same happened in Uruguay.

In Mexico it was much the same thing. Mexico was pretty Black in 1820. In 100 years, there was little left. Now there’s almost nothing left and Mexicans are 4% Black. They are quite Blacker in other areas such as Veracruz. It doesn’t sound like a lot of rape went on in these “vanishings.”

In Chile the Indians were slowly bred in after the wars in the late 1800’s and now Chileans are maybe 20% Indian. In Argentina, the Indians were also defeated but many remained in the Pampas and the gaucho was typically a mostly White mestizo, the product of unions between Whites and Indians on the Plains.

Peru and Guatemala are still heavily Indian. Bolivia is probably mostly Indian.

There is not much evidence of mass White rape of non-Whites in Asia either. We have no reports of such from the Russian East or Siberia. We have no such reports from Malaysia, Indonesia or India either, and there were few Whites or Dutchmen anyway. Nor do we have reports of such from Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia. Nor do we have mass rape reports from the Philippines, where Spanish colonists were apparently few in number. There are also no reports from the US colonization of the Philippines.

Although it would not surprise me, I would like to see some data that the mass mixing of Aborgines and Whites in Australia was the result of rape. Aborigines are now 50% White on average and their 85 IQ’s reflect that. The 64 IQ reports are from unmixed Aborigines.

I have not heard any reports of mass rapes of Maori women by Whites in New Zealand.

Hawaii was indeed colonized by Whites, but I have not heard any reports of mass rape.

I do not know much about the history of Polynesia.

Central Asia is mass mixed between Mongol type Asians and Whites but there is no evidence that Whites mass raped Asians. In fact, much of the mixing may have been the other way around, as Mongols mass raped the Iranid Whites already present in those places. So in one place on Earth where we do have evidence of mass rape producing White-non-White mixes, it was the Whites who were getting raped and not the other way around!

Possibly the best case for mass rape of non-Whites by Whites may have been with Aryan Whites and Australoid South Indians in India. There was a lot of interbreeding, but there was also a Hell of a lot of rape especially were South Indian women were enslaved and made to serve as temple prostitutes for Aryan men. Even today Australoid Dalit women are commonly raped by more Aryan and higher caste men.

All in all, I do not think there is much remaining evidence for mass rape of non-Whites by Whites. There were a lot of unions in the last 500 years for sure but most were consensual.

334 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Americas, Amerindians, Argentina, Argentines, Asia, Australia, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, Christianity, Colombia, Colonialism, Cubans, Dominicans, East Indians, Ecuador, Eurasia, Europeans, Guatemala, Guyana, Haitians, Hispanics, History, India, Indonesia, Islam, Jamaicans, Jamaicans, Laos, Latin America, Malaysia, Maori, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mexico, Middle East, Mixed Race, NE Asia, North Africa, North America, Oceanians, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Political Science, Polynesians, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Russia, SE Asia, Siberia, Sociology, South America, South Asia, South Asians, Spaniards, Uruguay, US, USA, Venezuela, Vietnam, Whites

Have Countries Improved by Moving Away from Social Democracy and Towards Neoliberalism?

HBD investor: Many countries floundered in various socialist schemes and their economies massively improved when they became less socialist.

None of this is true.

Many countries had problems with centrally planned economies with many or all state firms. This is called either state socialism or Communism and the record is not so wonderful. It isn’t so bad either. Been to Eastern Europe? See all that infrastructure? That was all built by the Communists. Go to Russia and see the same thing. Same in China. Communists built Russia and China up from nothing. They were nothing before, and Communism turned them into superpowers. They also had very high economic growth in industry and agriculture for decades. They massively expanded the nearly nonexistent education system. The Communists made monumental gains in housing in both countries. Health care improved to an incredible degree in both countries.

Now with Communism you can get great economic growth for a while, maybe a few decades, maybe more, but at some point it all starts bogging down in bureaucracy, lack of a pricing mechanism and a market, a lot of people just not working very hard and massive thievery of state property. In addition, the rate of economic growth slows. Although Communist countries usually wipe out poverty, in its place they only allow a relatively low standard of living. People probably want to live better than that. In addition, the collectivization of agriculture has been such a failure in Communist countries that I believe we should stop trying it. Production usually goes down by quite a bit and there are sometimes famines at the start if they try to do it too fast.

Yugoslavian Communism worked very well by the way, and they had a very good standard of living, the highest in Eastern Europe.

In addition, state socialist schemes with central planning had a lot of problems in Syria, India, Tanzania and other places. It just doesn’t work very well.

On the other hand, some form of social democracy is the norm all over the world. It’s not true that social democratic countries did a lot better as they shed most of their social democracy and adopted neoliberalism. The world has been doing that for a long time now and the record is in. It’s been a massive failure.

All of Europe except the UK is voting in Left parties, and at least the people want more social democracy and less neoliberalism. There’s no move towards neoliberalism and away from social democracy in Europe outside of Latvia and the UK.

There is no neoliberal free market capitalism in the Arab World. Arabs actually don’t believe in neoliberalism because Arabs and Muslims are sort of “naturally socialist” people. The Gulf states are huge social democracies. There is a lot of social spending and considerable state involvement in the economy in much of the Arab World.

Iran has been pretty much a socialist country ever since the Revolution. There is vast social spending, and the state is involved in the economy. Afghanistan is collapsed, but Communism was actually pretty popular there. Pakistan has been run by social democratic parties in recent years. India is officially a socialist country. It’s written right into the Constitution. An armed Maoist group is very powerful in India. Communist Parties have been running the states of West Bengal and Kerala for decades. Nepal is run by a coalition government consisting of a socialist party and a Communist party. The large opposition is made up of Maoists. I believe Sri Lanka is run by a social democratic party.

Myanmar’s been socialist forever. Vietnam and Laos are Communist. Cambodia has been run by Communists in recent years. The Philippines is a bad example, but they have free state health care for all, and education is free through the university level. Indonesia recently elected a socialist, a woman. The very popular newly elected president says he is a socialist. An armed Maoist group is very active in the country.

Australia and New Zealand are longstanding social democracies on the Canadian model.

Canada is a longstanding social democracy.

The largest party in Mexico is a member of the Socialist International, and the oil industry is state owned. Education is free through the university level, and health care is also free. El Salvador and Nicaragua are now run by former Marxist guerrillas, the FMLN and the Sandinistas. Costa Rica has been a social democracy since after World War 2. Honduras recently elected a leftwing president who was quickly overthrown in a state-sponsored coup. The military is still in power in Honduras, but everybody hates them.

A socialist party called Lavalas, the party of Jean Bertrande Aristide, continues to be the most popular party in Haiti, even though it has been declared illegal. To show you how popular Lavalas is, in the last election they ran in, they got 92% of the vote. During his short reign, Aristide built more schools than had been built in the entire 190 years before him.

A number of Caribbean island states are members of the Bolivarian economic bloc set up by Venezuela. Most Caribbean political parties are leftwing parties with the words socialist, revolutionary, workers, labor, or popular in them. Cuba is Communist and has a lower infant mortality rate than we do. A few years ago, they also had a longer life expectancy than we did.

Venezuela is still run by the Chavistas, a socialist party. Ecuador is run by a Leftist. Peru recently elected a leftwing Indian, although he has not been able to do much as his hands are tied. Brazil has been electing the socialist PT or Workers Party for many years now. A former Marxist guerrilla was the most recent president, and she was only removed by an illegal US-sponsored legislative coup. Paraguay elected a Leftist Catholic priest, a preacher of Liberation Theology, but he was soon overthrown in a legislative coup. The illegitimate party is now in power.

Uruguay has been a social democracy forever, and it is now governed by a former Marxist guerrilla. Juan Peron put in a social democracy in the 1950’s. Argentina was recently governed by a leftwing husband and wife team who alternated in the Presidency. Chile has been electing presidents from the Socialist Party for about 20 years now. The most recent Socialist, Michelle Bachelet, is a radical, but it remains to be seen what she can do. Chile has a huge class divide, the upper and lower classes  want to murder each other, and there are regular violent protests, leftwing versus rightwing street brawls, and riots, lately by students.

In Latin America, radical neoliberalism was imposed for 20 years, and it failed so badly that the whole continent has been electing leftwingers ever since.

I do not know much about Africa, but most African parties have been officially social democratic for a long time now. The Communist Party was recently part of a South African government. If anything has failed in Africa, it is neoliberalism.

21 Comments

Filed under Africa, Agricutlure, Americas, Argentina, Asia, Australia, Brazil, Britain, Cambodia, Canada, Caribbean, Catholicism, Central America, Chile, China, Christianity, Costa Rica, Cuba, East Africa, Economics, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eurasia, Europe, European, Government, Haiti, History, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Laos, Latin America, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Mexico, Middle East, Neoliberalism, Nepal, Nicaragua, North America, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Politics, Regional, Religion, Russia, SE Asia, Socialism, South Africa, South America, South Asia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tanzania, Uruguay, USSR, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yugoslavia

The Hell with the Pentagon

As the agency which enforces US foreign policy at gunpoint, the Pentagon has always blown.

First of all, there is no such thing as the Defense Department. When has the Pentagon ever defended the country? Pearl Harbor? They did a fine job there, huh?

Obviously the task of the Pentagon is not to defend the US mainland, which is all it ever ought to do anyway.

Its task is to running around the world starting wars and killing people in other countries. Leaving aside whether that is sometimes a good idea (and I think it is,) what’s so defensive about that?

The real name of the Pentagon is the War Department.That’s what it was always called until World War 2, which the War Department won. After that in a spate of Orwellian frenzy, we named an army of aggression an army of self-defense and comically renamed its branch the Defense Department.

It’s like calling cops peace officers. You see anything peaceful about what a cop does in a typical day? Neither do I?

There was a brief glimmer of hope there in WW2 when we finally starting killing fascists and rightwingers instead of sleeping with them, but the ink was barely dry on the agreements before we were setting up the Gladio fascists, overthrowing Greek elections and slaughtering Greek peasants like ants.

Meanwhile it was scarcely a year after 1945 when the US once again started a torrid love affair with fascism and rightwing dictators like we have always done. We were smooching it up right quick with Europe’s fascists, in this case the former Nazis of Germany (who became the West German elite), Greek killer colonels, Mussolini’s heirs, actual Nazis in Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, Jew-Nazis in Palestine, Franco (who we never stopped sleeping with anyway), Salazar, the malign Mr. Churchill, the true repulsive Dutch royalty and disgusting European colonists the world over, who we showered with guns and bombs to massacre the colonized.

In 1945, a war against fascism, reaction, Nazism and malign colonialism had ended, and for some reason America had fought against these things instead of supporting them as usual.

1946, and we were back in old style again, hiring Nazis by the busload for the CIA, overthrowing democratic governments and putting in genocidal dictatorships, becoming butt buddies with fascist swine everywhere.

So you see we have always pretty much sucked. World War 1 was fought amidst one of the most dishonest propaganda campaigns the world had ever seen, the Korean War was a Godawful mess where we turned North Korea to flaming rubble with the population cowering in caves while slaughtering 3 million North Koreans.

The horrific catastrophe called the Indochinese Wars, such as the Vietnam War, the Secret War in Laos and the Cambodian Massacre, where we genocided 500,000 Cambodians with bombs, driving the whole place crazy and creating the Khmer Rogue.

Panama and Grenada were pitiful jokes, malign, raw, naked imperialism at its worst.

The Gulf War was a brief return to sanity but turkey shoots are sickening.

Of course that followed on with the most evil war in US history, the Nazi-like war on aggression called The War on the Iraqi People (usually called the Iraq War), the Afghan rabbit hole which started out sensibly enough but turned into another Vietnam style Great Big Mess.

I suppose it is ok that we are killing Al Qaeda guys and I give a shout out to our boys over there fighting ISIS or the Taliban and Al Qaeda in South-Central Asia, Somalia and Yemen. Some people need killing.

But I sure don’t feel that way about their superiors, the US officers who fund and direct ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. out of an Operations Center in Jordan with Jordanian, Israeli (!), Saudi, UAE, and Qatari officers.

And it was very thoughtful of the Pentagon to cover up the Ukrainian Air Force shootdown of the jetliner which we saw on the radar of our ships in Black Sea.

And it was nice of the US to relay the flight path of the Russian jet to the Turks 24 hours in advance so they could shoot down that Russian jet and kill that pilot.

One hand giveth and the other taketh away. For every good thing we do in Syria and Iraq, we do 10 or 20 bad things. Pretty much the story of the Pentagon.

Sure if you fought in WW2 or one of the few other decent wars, you have something to be proud of, and I can even say, “Thank you for your service,” but the main thing is that you signed up for the rightwing army of the rich that is dead set against the people and popular rule everywhere on Earth. Sure, it’s a great army, professional, super-competent and deadly, but it’s generally tasked with doing lousy things. Why anyone would sign up for that reactionary nightmare of an institution is beyond me. America needs to level the Pentagon and put in a true People’s Army instead. Like that would ever happen.

9 Comments

Filed under Africa, Americas, Asia, Britain, Cambodia, Caribbean, Central America, Cold War, Colonialism, Conservatism, East Africa, Eurasia, Europe, Fascism, Geopolitics, Germany, Government, Greece, History, Imperialism, Iraq War, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Laos, Latin America, Lithuania, Middle East, Military Doctrine, Modern, National Socialism, Nazism, NE Asia, Netherlands, North Korea, Palestine, Panama, Political Science, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Russia, Saudi Arabia, SE Asia, Somalia, Spain, Syria, Ukraine, US, US War in Afghanistan, USA, Vietnam, Vietnam War, War, World War 1, World War 2, Yemen

Heterosexual HIV Transmission in Southeast Asia

John writes:

If you look at the transmission statistics for several Asian countries, it will say “heterosexual” is the main form of transmission. Laos, Thailand and Vietnam included.

Anyways, several of my friends from Southeast Asia say they barebacked prostitutes several years ago (10+ years ago) and nothing happened to them, and now they have families (a wife and kids) and they are showing no health problems. Not that I advocate barebacking whores because it seems risky (even if you don’t get HIV you can still get some other nasty disease or infection), but they were lucky.

Well in Thailand the disease there probably started originally with IV drug users and that still drives a great deal of it. IV drug users give it to each other, and then those men take it home and give it to their wives. That is what is driving the epidemic in Southern Thailand on the peninsula around the Phuket region.

Then a lot of it was going due to transmission from whores to their clients. This was mostly the Thai whores were serving Thai men, and that scene is a lot sleazier that the more high class ones that serve Westerners. The ones that serve Thais were working in brothels were they had to serve many men a day, and after a while, they did not even get turned on anymore, so they were getting fucked dry. This can cause some bleeding, so these whores were bleeding when they were having sex. The bleeding was spreading it heterosexually to the Thai men.

However, some Thai whores who were serving Westerners were also HIV positive and there was some transmission taking place to the Western customers. There are report, though not common, of Western men barebacking Thai whores only one time and getting HIV.

But an information campaign got a lot of those whores to use condoms and now the rate of female -> male HIV in those brothels is very low to none.

I have no idea what is driving the spread of HIV in Laos and Vietnam, but Thailand had a serious HIV problem at one time at least.

In addition, that subtype of HIV does seem to spread easier female -> male. They even proved this scientifically when they tested HIV positive women who had this subtype. Titers were significantly higher in vaginal fluid in these Thai women then they are in US HIV positive women who have the subtype B clade. The subtype B clade for whatever reason seems to mostly want to spread via blood. Titers in vaginal fluid of women with the B clade are so low that I wonder how they can even transmit the illness.

There are other subtypes in parts of the world outside of the US and Europe. Some of these are in places where there seems to be is more HIV spread by heterosexual contact than in the US, where it mostly goes:

male/HIV drug user -> male -> woman -> transmission stops.

For whatever reason, almost all HIV in the US has always been clade B since the start of the epidemic. The other subtypes have just not made it over here yet in any real numbers, though there are some non-B clades in Europe.

Leave a comment

Filed under Asia, Health, Heterosexuality, Illness, Intoxicants, Laos, Public Health, Regional, SE Asia, Sex, Thailand, Vietnam

Questions of Meritocracy under Capitalism and Socialism

Galton, an HBD type, writes:

First, there is nothing wrong with inequality, join in the same country a population heterogeneously cognitive and you will never be able to achieve equality and social justice, really.

You do not really know what you’re saying, Chile seems a great country, much better than mine, Brazil. Venezuela and Brazil believe in education, but it does not work miracles. If you have a population stupid not believe that with education they will become intelligent or politicized. Education can polish a rough diamond, but never an ordinary stone.

Socialism, Trotskyite style, is the death of meritocracy and all its qualities.

This is a socialist blog. We don’t believe in extremes of inequality such as you see in Chile, Brazil and the US. It’s just wrong! And inequality is actually a catastrophe. It’s bad for society in countless ways. It’s even bad for the individual on the medical health level.

The truth is that there are no Trotskyite projects happening in any nation anywhere on Earth. There aren’t even many Soviet-style Marxist programs. That project had so many problems that the truth is that no one wants to copy that model anymore. And that’s what my Leftist, Marxist-sympathetic friends tell me.

Even Cuba,which has copied the Soviet model, has a model that no one wants to copy anymore. Cuba itself is probably going to copy the Vietnamese doi moi market socialism model. The Cuban project as it stands has not been able to overcome the problems of the Soviet model “We pretend to work; they pretend to pay us.” Overcrowded housing with a huge backlog. Shortages in state stores. Lousy state products. Low productivity on state farms. Mass theft from state institutions.

North Korea has removed all statues of Marx and Lenin. Market socialism is alive and well in Vietnam and Laos.

So the specter of Marxism is basically an idiotic boogeyman raised by the Right.

The modern socialist projects look a lot like what is happening with the Leftist governments in Latin America who are instituting a variety of Leftist and socialist type projects. These are occurring in Cuba,Venezuela, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. There is talk of one in Peru, but it may not materialize. Leftist projects were overthrown by US-backed coups in Paraguay and Honduras.

I never liked the socialist model whereby a doctor doesn’t make much more than a ditch-digger. Why go to school for all those years to be a doctor then. Under a proper socialist society, I think there should be a graded pay scale, say 1-8

Let us say that Scale 1 is the minimum wage in the US of 14,250 year.

Grade 1 (lowest level workers): $14,250/year.

Grade 3 (Bachelors Degree) $42,750/year.

Grade 4 (highly skilled blue collar workers such as mechanics, tool and die, welders, plumbers, electricians) $ $57,000/year.

Grade 6 (Master’s Degree or Secondary Degree like Teaching Credential) – $85,500/year.

Grade 10 (highest level workers at the doctorate level – physicians, professors, vets, pharmacists, professors, physical therapists, dentists) – $142,000/year.

There is your meritocracy right there. Education = IQ. I don’t see why society should pay you a whole lot more than that Grade 10 though. Why should we?

Now, if we allow a market to exist, maybe you could go try your hand in the market and see what you can make. Despite the nonsense of free market idiots, successful businessmen are not necessarily the best and brightest at all, and many only have average IQ’s.

There’s nothing meritocratic about capitalism in the market sense as far as entrepreneurs go. Sure, a few inventors get rich, and now there is a “brains capitalism” whereby smart, nerdy types set up companies, often in IT and the like, using the cognitive talents to make money as entrepreneurs.

But businessmen in general all down through history have simply had good people smarts, a lot of ruthlessness, extroversion and mostly a lot of luck. Capitalism is hardly a meritocracy!

Anyway, states like China, the USSR and Cuba did have relatively equalized wages without great differentials for persons of radically different intelligences, so it’s certainly possible to set up a society on that basis.

join in the same country a population heterogeneously cognitive and you will never be able to achieve equality and social justice, really.

So the comment above is just not correct.

14 Comments

Filed under Americas, Asia, Capitalism, Caribbean, China, Cuba, Economics, Labor, Laos, Latin America, Left, Marxism, NE Asia, North Korea, Regional, SE Asia, Socialism, USSR, Vietnam

A Little Discussed Value of Socialism – The Decent Society

Atheist Indian writes:

In my personal observations of South East Asia, societies that lean towards free market capitalism put far less value on the human aspect of our existence as people while the socialist leaning societies are more tolerant and humane.

Nothing I could put in words would illustrate it better than a visit to region, especially South and North Vietnam. If you are a Laotian or a North Vietnamese, you are likely to have a more dignified, sane and contended life than the Thais or South Vietnamese, who could sell anything, including their soul, for the goodies that money can buy.

As far as AI’s second paragraph, I think this is something that is little discussed when talking about the debate of socialism versus capitalism.

All we hear is that all manner of socialism is a failure, and all manner of capitalism is a success. Why is that? Well, we get a ton of economic growth, “wealth,” per capita income, and other crap thrown at us. A bunch of numbers. Numbers about what? Numbers about money! Money and stuff. That’s all that matters in capitalism – money and stuff. People? They can all just die or go to Hell or whatever. They’re simply not important at all besides the all powerful value of wealth, material and otherwise.

I am told over and over that Chile is the richest place in Latin America.

Chile, with horrible slums and with one of the most vicious class systems on Earth, a society riven to the core with sheer and homicidal class hatred, one of the most unequal societies on Earth, where the rich live behind walls topped with barbed wire as the poor prowl into the rich neighborhoods every night to redistribute things one way or another. Where the poor and working classes engage in violent riots with stunning frequencies (recently schoolkids have been tearing up the teargassed streets).

Where the public schools are literally collapsing (as in the ceilings falling in) because the rich all send their kids to private schools and won’t pay for state schools. Where the social security system has been privatized with disastrous results. Where the Indians and less White Latin Americans like Peruvians are treated with ill-disguised and fanatical racist hatred due to their Indian heritage.

Where even more upper class “Left” Chileans I have talked to harbored a class contempt for lower classes that would almost physically appall most Americans (the sort of thing you might at a Hamptons country club if anywhere). Where environmental regulations do not exist. Where the rich pay almost no taxes, and all the tax burden falls on the poor and the workers. Where the Pinochet miracle was nothing but mass income transfer from the bottom 2/3 (the working classes – who all lost money) to the top 1/3 of society (who made out like bandits).

You know what? Chile is a shithole! In my humble opinion. I don’t give a damn how rich that country is! I don’t want to live in a nightmare society like that.

We need to judge countries and societies on metrices other than money and stuff. Like what kind of a place is it anyway? Is it a decent society, or is it something else, something chaotic, amoral and Hobbesian?

13 Comments

Filed under Americas, Asia, Capitalism, Chile, Economics, Fascism, Government, Laos, Latin America, Latin American Right, Political Science, Racism, Regional, SE Asia, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South America, Thailand, Vietnam

Why Has No Bigfoot Ever Been Shot?

The question that never ends about Bigfoot is, Where is the body?

Answer, we have already had a number of dead Bigfoots, mostly killed by humans, often by being shot. Numerous Bigfoots have been shot and killed in the past century alone. In all old or foreign cases, the bodies were simply buried of left in the woods. In general, people did not know what they had shot.

A number of Bigfoots were shot in the Pacific Northwest in the 1800’s. Back then, people thought Bigfoots were “wild men” or a wild tribe of Indians. This was in the pre-scientific era, and most did not understand the differences betwween the various types of Homo sapiens, and Bigfoot is surely a type of Homo sapiens. People just thought they were some kind of weird wild people, and they buried them like you bury any human.

Four Bigfoots were killed in China in ~25 years. One was eaten, the rest buried. In China, the Bigfoots are believed to be “wild men.” Once again, they are seen as humans, so when killed, they are buried just like people are.

A Bigfoot, Zana, lived with humans in Abkhazia in the late 1800’s and birthed some children with human men. There was a search for her grave recently, but it’s not known if it was ever found. Her grandson’s skull was dug up and was judged to be “human,” but he was only 1/4 Bigfoot. However, some aspects of his skull were very primitive, and certain measurements were completely outside of the known human range.

Keep in mind it is hard to say what a Homo sapiens sapiens skull actually is. For instance, the Mongo Lake modern humans in Australia from 20,000 are further from humans than Neanderthal skulls are, and have many Homo erectus features. Modern Aborigines retain many of these Erectus-like features.

In the US and Canada, the Bigfoots killed have been abandoned in the woods or buried by the shooters. In three cases I am aware of, the bodies were buried or abandoned because the hunters feared they were going to be prosecuted for homicide.

In one case, one was preserved on ice and taken on a travelling show around 1967-1968 before it was replaced by a wax model. This Bigfoot was shot dead in northern Minnesota in 1960 and then kept on ice for nine years. The owner was terrified of the legal implications, including his Air Force job and pension. He was also very frightened of being prosecuted for homicide or illegally transporting a corpse. Moving corpses around is illegal in most states. On advice of his attorney, he replaced it with a precise wax replica.

However, first it was shown to two prominent scientists who said it was a real body with the smell of putrefying flesh. The hairs and many other features were normal and could not have been glued on or faked. The scientists stayed with the body for three days and sketched it. A report of the incident was written up in a scientific journal in Brussels. The researchers described it as Homo Pongides, or a relict Neanderthal. The general feeling was that the body was one of a Neanderthal. Actually, it was a Bigfoot. This is the tale of the Minnesota Iceman.

Many Bigfoots, “rock-apes,” were killed in Laos and Vietnam during the Vietnam War by both sides. In addition, Bigfoots killed humans on both sides during the war. The Bigfoots there are violent and dangerous and often attack and kill humans. The humans in the area are said to hunt the Bigfoots and even eat them for food. This may be why the Bigfoots are so violent. The war seems to have driven the SE Asian Bigfoots nearly or totally extinct.

A number of apparent Bigfoot skeletons have been found, often thought to be Indian bones, albeit the bones of “giants.”

Back East, mostly in the 1800’s, many skeletons of “the giants” were found and documented, often in Indian mounds. In some cases, there was a layer of giants and then a layer of Indians below or above. This was a pre-scientific era, so the giants were just thought to an unknown extinct Indian tribe.

After all, humans come in all forms. We have tiny Pygmies, and we have Shaq O’Neill and Andre the Giant. They’re all human. As late as the 1920’s, there were major wars over evolution in the US. Recall the Clarence Darrow monkey trial. 50% of Americans are still so stupid that they don’t believe in evolution. In the 1800’s and even into the 1900’s, any human like skeleton, no matter how odd, was assumed to simply be a skeleton of a human.

Keep in mind: Bigfoot skeletons and skulls probably look quite human.

The Nevada BLM is apparently in possession of a few intact Bigfoot skeletons of “giant Indians” from Lovelock Cave, Nevada and a dry lake.

The local Paiutes say that when they showed up in Nevada, a tribe of giants was residing in the area. The giants had boats for the lakes and had mastered arrows and arrowheads. The giants frequently attacked the humans, killed them, took them back to their caves and ate them.

A war broke out between the humans the giants. The giants were cornered in Lovelock Cave. One broke out and was hit with arrows, but it ran off anyway. The rest were cornered in the cave. The Indians threw bushes in and set them on fire. All of the giants were killed in the fire and the giants were gone from the region.

Excavactions later took place in Lovelock Cave, and under a large area of burned material, a giant skeleton 7-8 feet tall was discovered. It appears the Indian legend was true after all! Later two more 7-8 foot skeletons of the giants were found at the bottom of dry lake bed. These skeletons were all said to be “Indians,” and are now in possession of the Nevada BLM.

The local Paiutes said that when the first came to Yosemite Valley, a tribe of giants lived there. The Paiutes killed off the giants. Around 1880, a mummified giant woman was found at the base of Bridalveil Falls. During the Gold Rush, a miner found a skull deep underground in Calaveras County. He thought it was human, so he took it to a doctor, but the doctor said no human had an occipital ridge like that. The whereabouts of the skull and mummy are unknown.

J.R. Harrington examined a couple of Bigfoot skulls in Santa Barbara, California in the early 1920’s and thought they were some sort of bizarre and archaic “giant” Indians.

According to Grover Kranz, a Bigfoot skull was discovered in California in 1964 and was given to the University of California. They said it was “human” and threw it in their collection of human skulls.

I am almost certain that we already have Bigfoot skulls and skeletons in our possession in America in US university collections, catalogued as “human” remains.

There are reports recently of Bigfoots being shot and killed and others of Bigfoots killed in car accidents. In many cases, the authorities sealed off the area and took the bodies away, never to be seen again.

In Washington state in the early 1960’s, the body was actually lifted off by the proverbial black helicopter along with federal agents dressed in black.

After the Mount St. Helens eruption of 1980, helicopters airlifted many dead animals, including two dead Bigfoots, out of the area. The Bigfoots were found in a river canyon. They were lifted out with the rest of the animal carcasses to a makeshift landfill some miles away where all of the animals were buried. Once again, coverup.

In 1999, a Bigfoot was badly burned in a forest fire on Battle Mountain, Nevada. It was treated at the scene where a veterinarian and an MD (!) were both (!) called in, then it was taken off in an unmarked van so it would not be spotted to a university hospital in the Bay Area where it was studied and treated for a few days. Then it was released into the woods about 150 miles from where it was taken.

All personnel present were forced to sign affadavits testifying that they would not speak of what they saw on penalty of job loss, loss of government G-1, G-2, etc. status, and loss of government pension. One BLM firefighter spilled the beans anonymously to researchers, but he is still in hiding.

Bigfoots get shot all the time in the US.

Bigfoots have been shot or shot at ~20 times in the past decade alone. Most of the time, people just shoot at them, and no one knows what happens. Quite a few other times, the Bigfoots are hit, often with more than one bullet, but they just scream and run off. Sure, you can kill a Bigfoot with a gun, but it’s not so easy, and you will probably just make it mad.

It appears that some humans have been killed by Bigfoots in recent years, including multiple killings at a BLM campsite off Highway 395 in Inyo County.

All incidents describe a subsequent government coverup.

6 Comments

Filed under Abkhazia, Americas, Amerindians, Animals, Anthropology, Apes, Asia, Australia, Bigfoot, California, China, Government, History, Laos, Mammals, Midwest, Minnesota, Modern, Near East, Nevada, North America, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, US, USA, Vietnam, Vietnam War, War, Washington, West, Wild