Category Archives: Thailand

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

Did Blacks Split off from the Rest of Humanity 250-300,000 Years Ago?

8ball writes: No, I’m telling you, the latest data shows the human genetic tree split into two about 250,000-300,000 years ago. Sub-Saharan Africans on one side, the rest on the other.

That is a fucking long time ago. For comparison Neanderthals split off from us about 600,000 years ago.

I am not aware of this new data. Someone needs to link me to some proof of this if it is even true at all, which I doubt. I don’t see how it’s true. All non-Africans came out of Africa 65,000 YBP. Africans could not have split off from non-Africans so early because all non-Africans were Africans themselves until 65,000 YBP.

There were no Homo sapiens sapiens 250-300,000 YBP. Our species had not even been created yet. We were some prior form or Homo, I think Homo sapiens idaltu, but even he does not appear until 190,000 YBP. I have never heard that Blacks split off that early. Anyway, Negroids are a new race. They were only formed in the last 9,000 years. The oldest races are the Khoisan (52,000 years), and the Orang Asli in Thailand (72,000 years). Everybody else is way more recent. There are no human lines that go back 250-300,000 years and anyway back then we were not even the fully modern humans that we are today.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

32 Comments

Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Asia, Blacks, Khoisan, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, Thailand

Species and Subspecies in Current Races of Homo sapiens sapiens

We already dealt with the racist nonsense about Black people being a different species than the rest of us. By the way, this is just another way of saying, “Niggers aren’t human,” which is exactly what a lot of anti-Black racists say about Black people in precisely those words.

I hate to break it to these guys, but Black people are as human as the rest of us. We are all one species.

I did a lot of research on the question the other day because I wanted to see if there was anything to the racist argument. The overwhelming opinion, based on multiple lines of excellent evidence is that all races of human are part of a single species. I won’t go into the lines of evidence here, but you can go look them up if you want. And it’s good science too, not junk science.

One of the lines is that no human race has any particular type of DNA that is particular to its own race. In different species, the new evidence is that all species have areas of DNA that are specific to just them. This is true even in species that can and do interbreed.

In studying two types of butterflies in the Amazon that readily interbreed, it was found that one area of DNA in each species never transferred to the other. Obviously when you mate two different lines, you end with each line contributing a lot of its DNA to the offspring. This is the DNA that carries over so to speak in interbreeding. The areas of DNA that never carried over or transferred in interbreeding were two areas: one that gave it its blue flavor and another that deals with how the blue butterfly is able to recognize others of its kind. In the orange butterfly, the non-transferring DNA was also for orange color and for how the species recognizes its own species. This is where we get the notion that “species breed true.”

Another is that humans can readily interbreed with other humans. For an example of what happens when humans breed with other hominid species, we can look at the evidence of human-Neandertal breeding.

Human-Neandertal breeding was very difficult and most of the offspring did not survive for some reason. Neandertal males mating with human females was rarely successful. However, human males mating with Neandertal females apparently worked sometimes.

The example given that species can interbreed is dog and wolves. However, science now says that dogs and wolves are one species. From my study of birds, when two different bird species start interbreeding a lot, after a while, they usually merge them into one species on the basis that they interbreed.

Crossbreeds of different species often produce sterile offspring. Yes, a horse can breed with a mule but the offspring is a donkey and donkeys are sterile. I believe that ligers, the offspring of lions and tigers, are also sterile. There are other species that can interbreed, however the offspring are weak, sickly and fail to thrive.

If any human races were separate species, we would expect to see something like the results of the human-Neandertal interbreeding and we don’t see that. Blacks and Whites can interbreed just fine, immaculately, in fact.

The question then boils down to whether any races could be said to be subspecies. The German Wikipedia has done some work on that and they have concluded that based on geographic separation, Negritos, Aborigines and Khoisan (Bushmen/Hottentots) could probably be seen as subspecies. On looking at their work, I think the writers on the German Wiki are basing their argument on good, solid science.

I would also argue that these three could be seen as subspecies based on genetic distance. The genetic line of Negroid Africans specifically does not go back all that far. They are a new race that only arose 9,000 YBP.

However, the Khoisan are one of the oldest people on Earth with a specific line going back 53,000 years.

Previously, a type of Negrito Australoid in Thailand, the Orang Asli, had been found to be the oldest race of living race with a line going back 72,000 years.

The Aborigine of course are very ancient. They are quite distant from all other humans. In fact the two races with the greatest distance between them are Aborigines and African Negroids. If anyone would have a hard time interbreeding it would be them, but there’s no evidence of any problems. On the other hand, few if any of them have bred at all. African Negroids and European Whites are dramatically closer to each other than Africans and Aborigines. If Africans and Aborigines are one species, how could Africans and Whites be two species? Makes no sense.

It is important to note that by their nature, all subspecies can interbreed. They are only called subspecies because for whatever reason, they only live in a restricted geographical area. In addition, there are some anatomical and genetic differences in all subspecies. At some genetic and anatomical difference level, two types of a species are said to be separate subspecies. Since no humans are restricted to any separate geographical areas, we cannot use that metric for setting aside human subspecies. However, I would no problem with setting aside Aborigines, Negritos and Khoisan as human subspecies. There’s nothing derogatory or racist about that statement, at least to any rational person, which leaves out all SJW’s.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

5 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Animals, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Australia, Birds, Blacks, Canids, Carnivores, Dogs, Domestic, Genetics, Horses, Khoisan, Mammals, Negritos, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, Thailand, White Racism, Whites, Wild, Wolves

The Race of the Paleo-Indians of the Americas

Don: I heard that the Tierra del Fuego Amerinds were considered Paleo-Indians. ‘Luzia’ was found only to be 10,000 yrs. old and not Australoid, proven by a number of different institutions. Many scientists that work in anthropology all agree she is Paleo-Indian.

Luzia is 12,500 years old.

Your statement is a tautology because Paleo-Indians = Australoids, racially speaking, by skulls. They are probably looking at genes, and yes, on genes, they are Indians. It’s just that the Indians if you go that far back Indians look like Australoids, as did the NE Asian populations from which they derived. See for instance the Australoid Ainu, basically depigmented Veddoids originally from Thailand 16,000 YBP, then later to the Australoid Jomon 13,000 YBP, who also occupied Japan. These were and are very robust people. The Ainu are NE Asian by genes and Australoid by skulls.

Leave a comment

Filed under Ainu, Americas, Amerindians, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, East Indians, Japan, Latin America, NE Asia, Northeast Asians, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, South America, South Asians, Thailand

A Bit about the Hmong

David Duke Nukem: Turban sounds kind of Aryan. I’m most fascinated by Hmong. Most Asians I know are Hmong but I keep things light with them. I prefer skulls because genetics seem to mishmash, an Australoid and Mongoloid seem worlds apart but not always genetically. Not that I discount genetics, an understanding of both is ideal. Hmong are a mystery, I often ponder how they’d be if they defeated the Han or at least weren’t booted.

Hi David, I did a lot of ethnography work on the Hmong. The Hmong homeland seems to be in Xinjiang going way back a long time ago. This may be the Desert Clay Pottery culture the commenter is talking about. There is a single Hmong line that goes all the way back 42,000 years and is only found in the Hmong, just to give you an idea of how far back they go.

The turban may be from interactions with some Muslims or Turkic peoples. Turkic peoples have been wearing turbans for a long time. The Hmong may have had some interactions with Turkic peoples back in their Xinjiang homeland. The Hmong are partly Caucasian, possibly owing to their Xinjiang homeland. Periodically, Hmong babies are born with blue and green eyes and blond from pure Hmong parents. At one time, I had photos of such Hmong. This would not be possible unless they had some recessive genes for such things somewhere in their genome. The Caucasian genes probably date back to their Xinjiang homeland where Asians and Caucasians have been interbreeding for a long time. Check out the Tocharians, a completely White race that lived in Xinjiang long ago.

Skulls are by far the best way to determine race. Genes are not that good. For instance, the Mani Negritos of Thailand have genes that look Thai. The Ati Negritos of the Philippines have genes that look Filipino. But that’s not what either of them are. Both groups are Australoid Negrito types by skulls and the skulls line up well with Tamils, Senoi, Melanesians, Papuans, Aborigines, etc.

The reason that those Negritos have genes that look like that is because they have been genetically swamped by Thai genes in Thailand and by Filipino genes in the Philippines. On the contrary, Filipinos and Thais have few Negrito genes because they were such a huge group. When a huge group breeds with a tiny group, the tiny group gets swamped with the genes of the large group, but the large group hardly gets any genes from the small group. It makes sense if you think about it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aborigines, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Cultural, Filipinos, Genetics, Hmong, Melanesians, Negritos, Oceanians, Papuans, Philippines, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, South Asians, Thai, Thailand

No Conservatives Allowed on This Website!

We have had a few conservatives posting here in the past few days. These are US-style conservatives, which are the worst kind of all. US-style conservatives are absolutely banned from posting here in any way, shape or form.

Conservatism means different things in different countries, so conservatives from much of the rest of the world (except Latin America and the UK) can continue to post. Even Canadian conservatives can continue to post, as I do not mind them. It’s not conservatism itself that is so awful. Almost every country on Earth has people who call themselves conservatives, and there are conservative parties in almost every country on Earth. But being a conservative just about anywhere outside of the Americas is more or less an acceptable position for me. I probably won’t like their politics much, but I could at least look at them and say that this is an opposition I could live with.

US conservatives and their brethren in the UK, Latin America, the Philippines, Nepal and and Indonesia are quite a different beast.

I have to think hard about conservatives in Eastern Europe, especially Estonia, Latvia and the Czech Republic. These fools had such a bad experience with Communism that they went 180 degrees in the other direction. I would have to see the positions of these conservative parties in those countries to see whether they would be OK or not.

Just to give you an example, Vladimir Putin is considered to be a right-winger, and his party United Russia advocates a politics called Russian Conservatism. Looking at the party’s platform, this is not only a conservatism that I could live with but one I might even vote for!

Conservatives in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, and most other places in Asia are acceptable. The conservatives in the Stans, Georgia, Ukraine, and Armenia can be rather awful, particularly in the nationalist sense, but I will not ban them.

I dislike Indian conservatives, but I will not ban them.

Conservatives from the Muslim World are all acceptable. In the Muslim World, conservatism just means religious and sometimes nationalist. I can live with that. Even the ones in Iran are orders of magnitude better than the US type.

Conservatives in the Arab World are acceptable. They are mostly just religious people.

Turkish conservatives are awful, but I will not ban them. They are just religious and a particularly awful type of nationalist.

African conservatives are OK.

Conservatives in Ireland, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany,  the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Italy, Switzerland, Italy, the Balkans, Bulgaria, Greece, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, and Romania are sometimes good, sometimes pretty bad, but they are all acceptable here. Conservatism in Europe mostly means nationalism. I am actually rather fond of the conservative running Hungary, Orban. LePen conservatives leave something to be desired, but they are acceptable. They’re mostly just nationalists. Hell, I might even vote for Marine LePen! If it was down to LePen versus Macron, I would absolutely support LePen!

Conservatives from Indonesia, Nepal and Philippines are not OK. These are an “everything for the rich elite, nothing for anybody else” type of conservative. Some of them even hide under the labels of Socialist or even Communist.

The word conservative has no real inherent meaning. It means whatever people say it means.

Anyway, the conservatives in the US are pure garbage and recently they have become out and out fascists after moving in that direction for a long time. And a particularly horrible type of fascist at that, a Latin American/Filipino/Indonesian style fascist. I will not allow any US conservatives to post on this board. You all are lucky I even let you lurk here. That’s an idle threat as I can’t ban lurkers, but if they all stopped lurking, I would not mind frankly.

You all really ought to go back to the gutters you crawled out of.

PS This especially applies to Libertarians, the very worst of all the US conservative vermin. We shoot Libertarians on sight here, so you better watch out.

*This applies only to economic conservatives. If you are not an economic conservative, and your conservatism is only of the social variety or you are only conservative on race, religion, guns, law and order, respect for tradition, American nationalism, the military, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity issues, you can stay. I’m not crazy about some social conservatives, but I can live with them. I will probably even let patriotards post as long as they are not economic conservatives.

I am an American nationalist myself. I just don’t like patriotards. Of course, I very much dislike and even hate the country as it is right now, but I sure don’t want to make it worse! I have to live here too you now, and it might as well be as pleasant as possible as long I stay here.

I want what’s best for my country. I don’t want to harm this country or screw it over. That will be bad for me! And believe it or not, most US patriotards do not want what is best for the country! I have dreams of a greater and better America. It’s not impossible, but we will have to undergo some serious cultural changes. One of the reasons I am so against illegal immigration is because it is ruining my country and making this place even worse. Also illegal immigration is terrible for US workers and I am for the workers. I am against H-1B visas for the same reason – they are wrecking my country. IT workers are workers too, so they are my comrades. I want what is best for America and American workers.

I cannot live with economic conservatives. I like cancer way more than I like US conservatives. Cancer is much more decent and respectable.

5 Comments

Filed under Africa, Armenia, Asia, Australia, Belgium, Britain, Cambodia, Conservatism, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, Fake Guest Workers, Fascism, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Illegal, Immigration, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Islam, Italy, Japan, Labor, Latin America, Left, Libertarianism, Marxism, Middle East, Nationalism, NE Asia, Near East, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Political Science, Portugal, Regional, Religion, Romania, Russia, SE Asia, South Asia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, USA

An Antisemite of the Anti-Zionist variety

The Jews now say that there are all sorts of types of antisemites. They have a list of all of them, most of which do not apply to me. However, I am definitely an antisemite of a certain variety.  I am “an antisemite of the anti-Zionist variety.”

So the ((( ))) doesn’t mean Jew, it means pro-Israel. That’s why Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein don’t get ((( ))), and quite a few Gentiles do. Really a (((Gentile))) is just as bad as a (((Jew))), and a Gentile and a Jew minus parentheses are just as good as each other. Outside of Israel, I pretty much could care less about Jews.

I am progressive, and many Jews are a great part of our movement and always have been. I have searched for other reasons to hate these people, but honestly there is nothing there for me.

Sure, they are a bit aggressive, and there is the “loudmouthed Jew” stereotype, but they are not all like this. I grew up with Jews, and my family had Jewish friends who were not like this. They were some of the most honest people I ever met. Anyway the belligerent, somewhat sociopathic Jew stereotype (for which there is some validity) only applies to Jewish men. Most Jewish women are very sweet and nice and they are quite nurturing. They’re also good fucks contrary to stereotype. I had a Jewish girlfriend for 5 1/2 years, and I almost married her. I also almost converted to Jewdism due to her. Now I am not sure I want to convert, as Jewdism is all wrapped up in Israel, and when it comes to Israel, my views are not much different from Saddam Hussein’s.

Jews are all over the place. On any question, you pretty much have Jews all over the map on it taking every and any side you can take.

Antisemitism has always been rightwing.

The argument is the Jews are purveyors of filth and modernity, but Gentiles would do the same, and Jews don’t do it to weaken us, they simply do it to make a buck.

I asked a Jewish multimillionare (Bronfman) this question. I said,  “Are you guys putting out all this porn to weaken us? Come on, be honest. I don’t care what you think.” He laughed and said, “I’d admit if it we were doing that, but really we’re just in it to make a buck. My family runs hotels, and the porn channels in the hotels are extremely profitable.”

The decline in culture has hit the Jews pretty badly themselves, as many of them have fallen sway to the general degeneracy that they supposedly promote. So they are weakening their own if they are doing this.

The other argument is Jews as purveyors of Communism, socialism, Leftism, and in general of all of the progressive movements we now think of as the Cultural Left. These leftwing Jews have other motivations, mostly being a light unto nations to bring progress into the world for the Gentiles. It is a bit insulting, as it implies that we can’t do it on our own, but maybe we can’t, and we need their help. I mean Gentiles left to their own devices quickly end up electing Hitlers, Reagans, Trumps, Thatchers, Pinochets, Christianis, D’Aubussions, Banzers, Francos, Salazars, Mussolinis, Streussners, Quislings, Rios Montts, Trujillos, Bautistas, Alfonsins, Harpers, and other monstrosities.

I could care less if the motivation is somewhat insulting. If they want to lead the way to progress, so be it. As far as Jews as Commies, well I am pretty much one myself. As far Jews leading the modern progressive movements, I supported all of the various Liberation movements of the 1960’s and was a hippie, a movement led by Jews. So the hatred of progressivism and liberation and subsequent antisemitism is just reactionary crap.

Another argument is that the Jews are a bunch of crooks, white-collar criminals.

This is true to some extent, but the Jewish non-businessmen I have known were quite honest. In fact, I feel I could go over to their house, give them $300,000, assure them that holding it was not illegal, ask to come back in 4 months and get the money back, whereby I would give them $10,000 for their trouble. I am certain that when I returned, these Jews would give me the whole thing back without even stealing a nickel. Plus these Jews probably wouldn’t ask me how I got it, whereas these uptight Gentiles might freak on that.

At one point, there was indeed a split between Europeans (often Northern European) ways of doing business such as the gentleman businessmen of the Great Lakes region and the town businessman of early Germany who were honest if only to keep peace in the town.

These town businessmen reported that everything would be fine until some Jews came in, started being crooked and soon ran the Gentiles out of business and then monopolized the place.

The Germanic businessmen of say Minnesota in the late 1800’s simply had a sort of Germanic honor code for doing business where profits were often split up by various town businessmen, and there was not a lot of people running each other out of business. Instead of that, there was market division.

There was also a typical Germanic efficiency, politeness and decency where a man’s word was his honor, and a handshake was as good as swearing on Bibles. In fact, in these places, Gentile businessmen who acted like crooks were quickly outed, boycotted and even prosecuted. The family name became mud, and they were cursed and avoided on the streets as outcasts. The wealth of the family was often ruined, as they had more or less dishonored their family names similar to the Northeast Asian codes of moralistic honor, guilt, shame and outcasting.

These Germanic businessmen were appalled at the Jewish businessmen moving into their state because their business tactics were so low and cunning. Also the Jews tended to bring some Organized Crime. You can actually find old newspapers from the 1890’s Great Lakes Area discussing this sort of thing.

The problem with this Jews as White Collar liars, cheaters and thieves analysis is that modern business has become so “Judaized,”‘ particularly the New York businessmen like Trump whose style is “ultra-Jewish,” that the Gentile businessmen nowadays are as much liars, cheaters and thieves as the Jews or maybe even worse.

I would rather be ruled by the Jewish Rich than by the Gentile Rich. The Gentile Rich are Donald Trumps, the Jewish Rich by Sulzbergers, nasty but still preferably to the Trumps, as rich Jews are quite a bit more progressive than rich Gentiles and surely less inclined to fascism.

Another argument is that Jews are not alone in being lying, cheating, thieving businessmen.

Indians have the same reputation, and theirs is actually much worse than Jews, as Jewish crooked businessmen are often nevertheless politically liberal. Indian white collar crooks have all of the bad qualities of Jews and none of the good  qualities, which are considerable.

The Chinese also seem to be some pretty sharp and harsh businessmen. They seem to be just as bad as Jews or even worse, as when they obtain an elite status such as in the Philippines, they quickly destroy the country by turning it into a banana republic tin pot dictatorship. They are quite similar to Latin American White Rich. Actually they are worse, as the Filipino Chinese ruling class in Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines are actually out and out criminals. I mean as in Organized Crime criminals. Like that. Jews in the US don’t go in for that much these days, though they did 75 years ago.

So if Chinese and Indians have all of the bad qualities of Jews and none of the good qualities, why hate Jews? What’s the point? I suppose you could hate Jews, Chinese and Indians, but now you hate nearly half the human race, and for what Godly purpose? Capitalists are pretty much crooks the world over, as capitalism turning to Organized Crime is about as inevitable as the transformations to Fascism or Modern Feudalism that it is nearly a Law of Political Science as the other Marxist maxims are.

The main argument nowadays is a racial one and has been for some time now: Jews as destroyers of the White race.

First of all, I doubt if they are, as I know some pro-White Jews who call themselves White Europeans and wish to live in White European societies, as these are the best ones. They also think that it was Jews who substantially made White European societies as pleasant as they are, and they are correct. Jews I have known, especially from Detroit and New York, were quite racist against Blacks, much more openly racist than most Gentiles. I am not a White nationalist and I could care less about the White race, so I do not care about “Jews as enemies of the Aryan race” arguments, never mind the extremely nasty history of this argument. And this argument is extremely rightwing.

There are religious arguments against Jews purveyed by both Muslims and Christians. I am not a Muslim, so I could care less about their beefs with the Jews. Anyway, Muslims act as bad as Jews or probably a lot worse. Christian antisemitism has always stricken me as rather retarded. Why should I hate Jews because a bunch of Jews killed another Jew, my hero, who happens to be the greatest Jew that ever lived? I would have to hate my hero too. And for the first 100 years, my hero’s religion was open to Jews only.

My point here is that there is that antisemitism is a rightwing movement and has always been so. Leftwing antisemites are few and far between despite the hysterical rants of paranoid Jews. In fact, when Leftists or Communists go antisemite, they start going rightwing fairly quickly afterwards, either converting to a hardline form of Islam or becoming into or making alliances with rightwing White racist antisemites. It seems when people go hard antisemite, they naturally turn rightwing. The former leader of the Red Army Faction, an antisemite, has now gone extreme rightwing. There are many more cases of this.

Bottom line is there is just not much in antisemitism to appeal to any Leftist or progressive, so why should we move that way? Antisemitism is an inherently rightwing philosophy. Why shall the Left take this reactionary politics up then?

The exception of course being some shitty little country, in which case I am very much against that tumorous growth in the Levant and honestly would not mind if it vanished from the Earth. This makes me “an antisemite of the anti-Zionist variety,” a mantle I am quite proud to take up.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Asia, Asians, Capitalism, Capitalists, Chinese (Ethnic), Christianity, Conservatism, Crime, Culture, East Indians, Economics, Europeans, Fascism, Germans, Indonesia, Islam, Israel, Jewish Racism, Jews, Latin America, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Middle East, Midwest, Minnesota, Organized Crime, Philippines, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Republicans, Scum, SE Asia, Socialism, South Asians, Thailand, The Jewish Question, US Politics, USA, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites

An Ancient Link Between India and Australia

Halal Butcher of Lhasa: Aboringinal Australians and their dingo dogs are linked to Dravidians in S. Asia according to scientists at Max Planck Institute of Germany.

Wow, that is great information. Thanks for that. I have not even read the link yet, but a link between early Indians and Aborigines has been suggested before.

There is a theory about the peopling of Australia that the present day Aborigines are not even the aboriginal people. The Kow Swamp people were an earlier group, and they were even more primitive than Aborigines. Some think the Kow Swamp person is not even Homo Sapiens. The skull is quite Erectus-like. It is nearly a relict hominid. Anyway the old theory is that these very primitive folks got replaced in two waves.

One wave was called Murrayians. This is an Ainu or Vedda-like group from the Thailand area. Skulls from Thailand 25,000 YBP resemble Aborigines. We know that there are very primitive people in Thailand 16,000 YBP whose skulls line up perfectly with the ancient Japanese Jomonese who later become the Ainu. There is still a Veddoid group in Thailand today called the Senoi.

There are drawings of Jomonese types even from Korea that show them as very robust types that do look quite Ainuid. It’s now known that the Ainu are a cold-adapted Australoid type by skulls, although their genes look Japanese and Korean. There has long been thought to be an Austronesian-like layer in Japanese which would logically go back to the ancient language spoken by these immigrants from Thailand. In other words, quite a few of the Japanese came up from the far south from SE Asia long ago. These earlier people mixed by Yayoi from Korea who invaded 2,300 YBP and slowly conquered the Ainu up the peninsula to the Far North. This conquest was apparently still underway in the modern era. The Japanese gene pool is ~20% Ainu.

Around the same time, the traditional model said that a very Ainuid-looking people moved into the Philippines. Logically these would have been these ancient Thai on the way to Japan stopping off in the Philippines.

The Murrayians are said to have come to Australia between 15-20,000 YBP. Logically these could have been these proto-Jomonese types from Thailand.

The second wave to Australia according to the old model were the Carpinterians. They came 10-15,000 YBP and are thought to have come from India. Logically these were Indian Australoid/Veddoid types from the south. All Indians looked like Aborigines (Australoid) until 8,000 YBP. The transition towards Caucasoid only occurred in the last 8,000 years. It may well have been this Carpinterian group that brought the dingo digs along with themselves in a seaward movement to Australia ~13,000 YBP.

75 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Ainu, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Australia, East Indians, India, Japan, Japanese, Koreans, Northeast Asians, Philippines, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, South Asians, Thai, Thailand

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

Risks of Insertive Anal Sex

erikthered: Is anal with a woman safer than with a man?

You mean penetrating? I guess you mean being the penetrator and not the one being penetrated. Insertive anal sex is as risky with a man as with a woman, but no one quite knows even how risky insertive anal sex is anyway. Figures coming out of the gay community show that it does carry some risk, but it is far less risky than receptive anal sex. A friend of mine knows a gay man who says he did some research and now he has lots of gay sex with lots of men and he hasn’t gotten HIV yet. He said he only tops, and he never bottoms. He’s topped hundreds of gay men this way in recent years. Surely some of them were HIV positive.

There is at least one case in the porn world of a straight actor who got HIV from insertive sex on a porn set with some transsexual person or pre-op tranny or whatever the Hell it was. The actor got HIV from insertive anal with him/her/whatever.

There is another guy in porn who says he got it from a woman, but he doesn’t say how he got it.

Men are at risk of female-male HIV transmission in cases of penile and vaginal bleeding. The Padian Study in 1989 followed a number of HIV-serodiscordant heterosexual couples in which either the male or the female was HIV positive. Over a five year period through ~700 sex acts, 20% of the men had gotten HIV from their wives. This means that a man would have to have sex with an HIV positive woman 2,800 times in order to get HIV. Even after a man has sex with an HIV positive woman 40 times, he still only has a 1% chance of getting HIV. You have a 99% chance of not getting HIV even after having sex with an HIV positive woman 40 times for God’s sake!

In the Padian Study, female-male HIV transmission was highly correlated with episodes of vaginal and penile bleeding. Therefore it appears that the presence of blood during the sex act appears important in female-male HIV transmission. This makes sense as HIV is a blood-borne illness. Most people tend to forget that. Semen is only so transmissible because it is full of blood (little known fact).

I have studied titer levels needed to transmit HIV, and looking at HIV titers of HIV positive women in the US, I am a bit baffled at how it even transmits because the levels seem to low to transmit.

Vaginal titers are quite a  bit higher in HIV positive prostitutes in Thailand and this makes sense as female-male transmission is happening a lot more over there. But even in Thailand, most female-male HIV transmission was found to be occurring due to vaginal bleeding in prostitutes servicing too many man a day. Even with that going on, the recent introduction of condoms reduced nearly eliminated that transmission. So condoms appear to be effective even in the presence of vaginal bleeding.  This also makes sense if female-male HIV transmission is going via blood instead of vaginal fluid.

In addition, the urethra appears to be an inefficient vehicle to receive HIV. Anal and vaginal walls which may experience tiny tears are much better for transmission, especially the former. Anal walls are much more susceptible to tiny tears and microscopic bleeding than vaginal walls are, hence insertive anal sex would seem to put the insertive partner at greater risk due to increased chances of exposure to blood via the anus of the partner. This is probably the reason for the somewhat elevated risk from anal sex.

17 Comments

Filed under Asia, Biology, Health, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Illness, Pornography, Public Health, Regional, Science, SE Asia, Sex, Thailand