Category Archives: Sweden

Fake Controversies, Fake Settled Questions, and Ideological Authoritarianism in Modern Linguistics, with an Emphasis on Mutual Intelligibility and the Dialect/Language Question

There is a lie going around that the dialect/language question is controversial in Linguistics. It really isn’t. Most linguists have a pretty good idea of where to draw the line. If you don’t believe me, study the internals of the Summer Institute of Linguistics change request forms for languages. The field is a lot more uniform on this question than the cranks think. Hardly anyone thinks Valencian is a separate language. Romagnolo and Emilian were split with zero controversy. All it took was a few authoritative statements by the experts in these varieties to settle the question. There were 5-10 experts writing in on Valencian and they were all in agreement. In other words, the language dialect question is what is known as a fake controversy.

Really the only controversy about this question comes from nationalists and language activists.

Sadly, many linguists are nationalists, and their work has been poisoned by their ideology for a long time now. Some of the worst ones of all are in Europe. Linguistics in the Balkans and Poland has been badly damaged by nationalist linguists for a long time, with no sign of things getting better. Similar nonsense is going on in of all places ultra-PC Denmark and Sweden. Bornholmian and Southeast Jutnish should have been split from Danish long ago. In fact, Jutnish was split, but Danish nationalist linguists pathetically had it removed. The many langues d’oil have never been listed and probably never will be. No doubt this is due to the state of Linguistics in ultra-nationalistic France. There are easily 10-15+ langues d’oil that could be split off.

Greek linguist nationalists have raised their ugly heads over splits in Macro-Greek.

Bulgarian Linguistics is all nationalist and has been lost in retardation forever now. No, Macedonian is not a Bulgarian dialect.

There have been some ugly and ridiculous fights in the Baltics especially with Estonian and Latvian, neither of which is a single language. I doubt that Estonian and Latvian linguists are comporting themselves well here given the fanatical nationalism that overwhelms both lands.

There are easily 350-400 language inside of Sinitic or Chinese according to the estimate of the ultimate Sinologist Jerry Norman. The real figure is clearly closer to 1,000-2,000 separate languages. Chinese nationalism is mandatory for anyone doing Sinitic linguistics. No one wants to bring down the wrath of the Chinese government by pulling the curtain on their big lie that Chinese is one language. I am amazed that SIL even split Chinese into 14 languages without getting deluged with death threats.

Arabic is clearly more than one language, and SIL now has it split into 35 languages.  This is one odd case where they may have erred by splitting too much. That’s probably too many, but no one can even do any work in this area, since Arabists and especially Arabic speakers keep insisting, often violently, that Arabic is a single language. Never mind that they routinely can’t understand each other. We have Syrians and Yemenis at my local store and no, the Syrian Arabic speakers cannot understand hard Yemeni Arabic, sorry. Some of the Yemeni Arabic  speakers have even whispered conspiratorially in my ear when the others were not around that speakers of different Yemeni Arabic varieties often cannot even understand each other and that’s not even split by SIL. I have a feeling that the Arabic situation is more like Chinese than not.

A Swedish nationalist wiped out several well documented separate languages inside of Macro-Swedish simply by making a few dishonest change request forms. SIL pathetically fell for it.

Occitan language activists wiped out the very well-supported split of Occitan into six separate languages based on ideology. They are trying to resurrect Occitan, and they think this will only work if there is one Occitan language with many dialects under it. Splitting it up into six or more languages dooms the tongue. So this was a political argument masquerading as a linguistic one. SIL fell for it again. Pathetic.

No one has talked much about these matters in the field, but a man named Harold Hammerstrom has written some excellent notes about them. He also takes the language/dialect question very seriously and has proposed more scientific ways of doing the splitting.

SIL was recently granted the ability to give out new ISO codes for languages, and since then, SIL has become quite conservative, lumping varieties everywhere in sight. This is because lumping is always the easy way out, as conservatives love lumping in everything from Classification to Historical Linguistics, and the field has been taken over by radical conservatives for some time now. Splitters are kooks, clowns and laughing stocks. One gets the impression that SIL is terrified to split off new tongues for fear of bad PR.

As noted above, the language/dialect question is not as controversial in the field as Net linguist cranks would have you believe. SIL simply decides whatever they decide, and all the linguists just shrug their shoulders and go back to Optimality Theory, threatening to kill each other over Indo-European reconstructions, scribbling barely readable SJW sociolinguistic blather, or whatever it is they are crunching their brains about.

SIL grants an ISO code or refuses to grant one, and that’s that. No ISO code, no language. The main problem is that they refuse to split many valid languages mostly out of PC fear of causing a furor. Most of the opposition to splitting off new languages comes from linguistic hacks and cranks who exist for the most part on the Internet.

Most real linguists don’t seem to care very much. I know this because I talk to real linguists all the time. When it comes to the dialect/language split, most of them find it mildly intriguing, but hardly anyone is set off. You tell them that some dialect has now been split off as a separate language or two languages merged into one, and they just perk up their ears and say, “Oh, that’s interesting.” Sometimes they shrug their shoulders and say, “They (SIL) are saying this is a separate language now,” as if they really don’t care one way or another.

Linguists definitely get hot under the collar about some things, but not about the dialect/language question which is regarded more as a quizzical oddity. Most linguists furthermore care nothing at all about the mutual intelligibility debate, which at any rate was resolved long ago by SIL way back in the 1950’s. See the influential book by Cassad written way back then for the final word on the science of mutual intelligibility. Some enterprising linguists are finally starting to take mutual intelligibility seriously, but even they are being much too wishy-washy and unsciency about it. A lot of very silly statements  are made like “there is no good, hard scientific way to measure mutual intelligibility, so all figures are guesswork.”

There’s no need for these theoretical shields or hyper-hedging because no one cares. No one in the field other than a few nutcases and kooks  on the Internet even gives two damns about this question in the first place. The mutual intelligibility question is actually much less controversial in the field that the linguist kook loudmouths on the Net would have you believe.

We have more important things to fight about, like Everett’s resurrecting of the hated Sapir-Worf Hypothesis, Chomsky’s Universal Grammar (defended pathetically by the Old Guard and under attack by the Everett crowd who everyone hates), not to mention Altaic, Joseph Greenberg’s poor, regularly pummeled ghost, and mass comparison in general.

The field is full of many a silly and pretty lie. One for instance is that Linguistics rejected the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis long ago, and now it is regarded as a laughing stock. Actually that’s not true. Really a bunch of bullies got together and announced very arrogantly that Sapir-Whorf was crap, and then it become written in stone the way a lot of nonsense our field believes does.

If you back over the papers that “proved” this matter, it turns out that they never proved one anything thing. They just said that they proved Sapir-Whorf was nonsense, and everyone fell for it or just got in line like they were supposed to.

Not to mention that Linguistics is like an 8th Grade playground. Let’s put it this way. If you advocate for Sapir-Whorf in academia, I pray for your soul. You also damn well better have tenure. I don’t know how anyone advocates for Altaic these days. I would never advocate for Altaic or even any remotely controversial historical linguistics hypothesis without tenure. The field is out for blood, and they burn heretics at the stake all the time. We’ve probably incinerated more wrong thinkers than the Inquisition by now.

Leave a comment

Filed under Afroasiatic, Altaic, Arabic, Balto-Slavic-Germanic, Chinese language, Comparitive, Danish, Denmark, Dialectology, Europe, France, Germanic, Greece, Greek, Hellenic, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Indo-Irano-Armeno-Hellenic, Italic, Italo-Celtic, Italo-Celtic-Tocharian, Language Classification, Language Families, Linguistics, Nationalism, Occitan, Poland, Political Science, Regional, Romance, Semitic, Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan, Sociolinguistics, Sweden

Suicide: The Ultimate Enigma

Becoming suicidal is often but not always indicative of mental illness. Philosophically, it simply means that you do not want to live anymore, and you don’t have to be nuts to feel way. Life’s hard for everyone, and at some point, a lot of people just can’t take it anymore and want to bail out or end the pain. Indeed, a person certainly feels no more pain after suicide.

People kill themselves for all sorts of reasons. Only 70% of suicides are clinically depressed. A lot of people commit suicide simply out of boredom, believe it or not. Some people seem to do it for absolutely no reason at all. It’s as if they did it for shits and giggles or as a way of trolling the human race. I suppose in a way, suicide is the ultimate troll. Suicides are trolling the whole damn world, every one of us.

Suicide is a mystery.

We have been studying it forever, and we still hardly know a thing about it. A man wrote a big book on suicide a while back, and at the end of the book he said he didn’t understand suicide any better at the end than when he had started.

Some countries have high suicide rates, and no one seems to know why. Other countries have low suicide rates, and no one knows why.

Hungary had high suicide rates under feudalism, monarchy, fascism, communism and now democracy. People killed themselves at the same rate in all systems.

The Japanese have always had a high suicide rate, and no one knows why. Impoverished North Korea has an extremely low suicide rate while next door ultra-wealthy Japan has a very high rate. There is no good explanation for the difference.

 

It may be cultural. Some societies may be more pro-suicide than others.

Anti-socialists like to say that Swedes have a high suicide rate. They claim that Swedish socialism gives people everything they need and maybe want, but it leaves them bored and unmotivated and hopeless to improve their lot, so they end it all. But all places on Earth at that latitude have a high suicide rate. It is so dark half the year that the sun only comes out for a few hours a day, and it is cold all the time. There are high suicide rates in Norway, Iceland, Finland, Estonia, Russia (especially Siberia), Alaska, Northern Canada, and Greenland. Anyway, the Swedes had a high suicide rate even before socialism. Other countries have an identical system to Swedish socialism, and they have low suicide rates.

Actually, the suicide rate was comparatively low in the USSR and Eastern Europe under communism. However, with the transition to capitalism in 1990, suicide rates skyrocketed over the next 10-15 years as did forms of slow suicide such as drinking oneself to death. So the Communism/socialism causes suicide theory seems to be washed up. If anything, suicide seems to be linked to capitalism a lot more than it is linked to socialism or Communism.

Nigeria is one of the most hellish and nightmarish places on Earth at least from my perspective, and from any point of view, it’s basically a shithole. In fact, it is probably one of the foulest shitholes on Earth. Yet Nigerians typically among the happiest people on Earth. They’re smiling amid the stinking, crime-infested, ultraviolent ruins, while the Swedes and Japs are blowing their brains out in lavish apartments drowning in luxury.

Go figure.

Bottom line is that a lot of human behavior is either not easily explained or simply doesn’t seem to make much sense at all. People feel however they do for whatever reasons they do, and it’s often hard to figure out why.

At the end of the day, human behavior is largely a mystery.

5 Comments

Filed under Africa, Asia, Canada, Capitalism, Culture, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, Finland, Hungary, Japan, Left, Marxism, NE Asia, Nigeria, North America, North Korea, Norway, Psychology, Regional, Russia, Siberia, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, Sweden, USA, USSR, West Africa

Alt Left: Chaos Amidst the Ruins: The Insanity of Female Rule in the West

This is a repost of an older post with a slightly different title. I would like to point out that this is also a position statement of the Alt Left, that is, the Alt Left strongly opposes Female Rule (basically Feminism in Power) and urges a return to male rule. Females may serve in power as long as they do not impose feminism on society, but the record is not good and seems to indicate that any time women take power, they always impose feminism, which is always catastrophic and causes nothing but chaos. Hence, the Alt Left are MRA’s or even strong MRA’s. However, the Alt Left opposes the extreme misogyny that characterizes most of the movement.

Female Rule or Male Rule means simply whether society decides to set its norms and laws based on either male or female views of the world.

For example, in modern Western society, we now have cases of Female Rule. This means that female norms, rules and laws have supplanted male rules, laws and norms.

Female Rule: Western Society amidst the Ruins

Various insane things have resulted since Female Rule has begun in the West:

1. Domestic Violence. A man goes to jail if he ever hits any female for any reason, apparently even if she is threatening his life. A woman may strike a man as many times as she wishes, but if a man hits back even one time, he is going to jail. In other words, if a woman hits a man, he has no right to hit her back. If she hits him 100 times, he has no right to hit her back. If he hits her back, he’s going to jail.

2. Sexual harassment. Female geniuses have now succeeded in making it so that if a man flirts with, looks at, or asks a woman out at work, this is “sexual harassment,” and the man will be fired from his job. Apparently the goal here is to eliminate men flirting with, looking at and asking out women at the workplace.

3. Alimony. If a woman divorces a man after 5 years of marriage, she still gets 50% of his income for the rest of her life. Why should she have that right? This is insanity.

4. Rape. On California college campuses, males accused of rape incredibly are regarded as guilty until proven innocent. Men must somehow prove that they did not commit the rape. Every sex act must receive approval before it is done. If you want to touch her tits, you have to ask her permission first, and she has to say, “Yes.” If want to you kiss her, you have to ask her, “Can I kiss you?” and she has to say, “Yes.”

If you have sex with a woman and she never utters one single word of protest to your advances, then this still may be rape, as “silence is no longer consent.” So you can still be charged with rape even if a woman never said no because you could not read her mind and figure out that she was thinking she didn’t want to do it.

In the UK, all males charged with rape are now guilty until proven innocent. Silence is not considered to be consent; a man can still commit rape even if a woman never said no because he wasn’t able to read her mind and figure out she didn’t want to do it. See the lunatic Evans case for more, where a star footballer served 2.5 years in prison for having consensual sex with a drunken woman who was in the habit of doing such things.

Sweden now has the 3rd highest rape rate on Earth not because there are many rapes in Sweden. Actually there are few rapes in Sweden, and the true rape rate is low as it has always been. However, Sweden has now been taken over by feminist lunatics who have installed the craziest rape laws the world has ever seen. Hence many sex acts and behaviors which were once legal are now considered to be “rape.” Tell a woman you are going to use a condom and then have sex with her without one? In Sweden that is called “rape.” Many other behaviors that are neither rape nor even illegal in 99% of the world are considered “rape” in Sweden.

5. Pedophile Mass Hysteria, a moral panic whereby the normal male attraction to teenage girls that all healthy males experience is insanely conflated with pedophilia or attraction to little girls 12-under, has been directly caused by Female Rule. Because of this irrational moral panic, solid majorities of Americans now believe many an insane thing.

Apparently most Americans believe these things are true:

  • A man who is aroused by teenage girls is a “pedophile” who belongs in prison.
  • A man who has sexual fantasies about teenage girls is a “pedophile” who belongs in prison.
  • A man who says he thinks about having sex or feels like he wants to have sex with teenage girls is a “pedophile” who belongs in prison.
  • Sexually speaking, a 13-17 year old teenage girl is the same thing as a 7-11 year old little girl, a “small child.”
  • Being aroused by a 13-17 year old teenage girl is the same thing as being aroused by a 7-11 year old little girl.
  • Teenage girls are “children” who are somehow “incapable of making decisions” about just about anything, especially sex.
  • Teenagers shooting nude photos of themselves and passing them around is called “production of child pornography.” The teenagers doing this are “child porn producers.”
  • Consensual sex between minors is “pedophilia,” and if minors are caught having such sex with each other, they need to be arrested, charged and convicted of “child molestation,” and afterwards they need to go on the Sex Offender Registry for the rest of their lives.
  • It is apparently illegal now for adult males to befriend teenage girls. A man who does this is doing something called “grooming.”
  • A man who speaks to a teenage girl is guilty of something called “harassing a child” because the only reason a man would talk to her is if he is scheming to have sex with her.

In every case above, we previously had laws, norms and values based on Male Rule, which is the rule of Logic over Emotion. Now in all of the above cases, Male Rule or the Rule of Reason has been overthrown by women. In its place has been substituted various new laws, rules and mores based on Female Rule, which is the Rule of Emotion. In each case, flawed but rational and fair male rules, laws and mores were replaced by faulty, ridiculous and insane female rules. Society is not better as a result. Society is simply crazier and less rational.

This sort of mass chaos and idiocy is probably the typical and possibly even universal result of allowing Female Rule to supplant Male Rule in human society.

7 Comments

Filed under American, Britain, California, Crime, Culture, Europe, Feminism, Gender Studies, Girls, Higher Education, Jailbait, Labor, Law, Left, Lolitas, Man World, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Radical Feminists, Regional, Scum, Social Problems, Sociology, Sweden, USA, West

Cultural Left Lies about Homosexuality

We do not choose our sexual orientation. This is actually the official pronouncement of the American Psychological Association, and there is no basis whatsoever for making that statement, although for men there seems to be something to it. Plenty of women have obviously chosen lesbianism and then chosen to be straight again.

Sexual orientation is inborn. Then why do these lesbians date men for years and decades before they finally “wake up” and realize that they are lesbians? If they are born that way,  what happened? Did their true nature go into hiding until they were 40?

Male homosexuality is inborn or genetic. It is almost certainly not genetic, but it may be a developmental disorder, so in that sense, it may be inborn. And while it is fixed in adolescence or even before, we still do not know if or how childhood factors play a role in male sexual orientation. In other words, it’s not proven that prepubertal boys already have a preset sexual orientation.

Gay men are no more likely to molest children than straight men. On the contrary, they are 12X more likely to molest children than straight men, and we are talking little kids here, under 13, not teenagers.

10% of all people are gay. This is called the “10% lie.” It’s been disproven so many times that we should hardly bother to disprove it anymore, except that we have to because the gays keep lying about it.

The rate of homosexuality is not increasing. False. The background rate may be ~3%, but among the youngest generation in the UK, 6% of all men are gay. The same study showed that only 45% of men said they were completely heterosexual. Previous studies put it at 60-65%. Clearly the rate is increasing. This also calls into question the “born that way” theory.

The rate of homosexuality is the same all over the world. False. In Ancient Greece and Rome, rates approached 95% of men. Among certain groups in Afghanistan, the rates are extremely high. There are also societies where it seems to barely exist at all. Sexual orientation may not be up for grabs so much, but at least men can engage in homosexual behavior at vastly different rates.

Gays do not recruit or convert. False. Gay men continuously try to seduce straight men, with young, very handsome straight men being hit the hardest of all. It’s dubious whether straight men can actually be converted to a homosexual or even bisexual orientation, but they can definitely be converted to bisexual behavior.

The Gay Lobby does not have a subversive agenda. False. The Gay Lobby has long stated that one of its most important goals is to abolish gender, as they put it. That’s subversive in my book.

Everyone is at risk of HIV. Hardly. The vast majority of Americans either have zero to extremely low HIV risk. The HIV rate among lesbians is close to zero.

HIV does not discriminate. Like Hell it doesn’t. Gay men are 1.5% of the population and 70% of HIV cases. Sounds like a discriminatory disease to me.

Sexual practices play no role in HIV. Like Hell they don’t. The crude equation of HIV is this: Humans who get fucked in the ass fuck other humans in the ass (with their penises). Sure, a woman can practice receptive anal sex and get HIV, but there is almost no way to give it to anyone else as she lacks a penis full of semen to transmit it. Hence, as the New York Department of Health noted in the 1980’s, HIV goes from men to women and then it stops.

Gay men are no more likely to have sex with young teenagers than straight men are. False. 25% of all gay men over the age of 25 have had sex with a boy age 13-15 when they were over age 25. Only 6% of all straight men over the age of 25 have had sex with a girl aged 13-15 when they were over 25.

The only difference between gay and straight men is the PIV sex. Hardly. There are extreme differences between gay and straight men even outside the bedroom.

Effeminacy and masculinity have no relationship to sexual orientation. In fact, gay men are much more likely to be effeminate, and masculinity is deeply rooted in male heterosexuality. Perhaps ~70-75% of gay men are effeminate, and perhaps ~1-3% of straight men are effeminate. I have only see two truly masculine gay men in my life, both on Youtube videos. The rate of seriously masculine gay men must be vanishingly small.

Gay men are just as mentally healthy as straight men. Studies consistently show that gay men have higher rates of depression and anxiety disorders than straight men.

Increased psychological problems among gays are due to societal discrimination. Recent data out of Denmark and Sweden, as gay friendly as anywhere, show that the rate of psychological problems remain elevated even in perfect conditions. No one knows why psychological problems seem to be part of the package that male homosexuality comes wrapped up in.

Gay teens have an elevated suicide rate. Not true. They have a higher rate of suicide attempts, but the rate itself is not elevated.

Gays have a high suicide rate. Not so for gay men or lesbians.

Children raised by gays are just as psychologically healthy as children raised by a man and a woman. False. They have more problems and are about as psychologically healthy as kids raised by single Moms. The best environment for children is a man and a woman.

Children raised by gays are no more likely to be gay than anyone else. The latest studies show that ~12% of children raised by gays are gay themselves, which is vastly higher than the background rate. This calls into extreme question notions about sexual orientation as inborn.

Gays live just as long as straights. Nope. Their life expectancy is shortened by a full 20 years.

The shortened gay lifespan is due to discrimination. False. Gay men like 20 years less in Sweden and Denmark too, the most gay friendly countries on Earth.

Lesbians live just as long as straight women. False. Lesbians live a full 20 years less than straight women.

Gay men are not more promiscuous than straight men. False. A huge percentage of gay men have had 100+ sexual partners. Only 6% of straight men have.

HIV is not a gay disease – straight men can get it too. False. It is nearly impossible to get HIV from PIV insertive sex.

Reparative therapy does not work. False. It does not work for gay men. However, surrogate sex therapy for lesbians has been shown to work. Lesbians who were incapable of sex with men can become capable via surrogate sex therapy.

Gay men are no more likely to be serial killers. False. Gay men are 12X more likely to be serial killers than straight men.

5 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Anxiety Disorders, Asia, Britain, Crime, Denmark, Depression, Europe, Gender Studies, Health, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Illness, Mental Illness, Mood Disorders, Politics, Psychology, Psychopathology, Psychotherapy, Public Health, Regional, Serial Killers, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia, Sweden, USA

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

Look What Happens When You Let Women Run the Show

Yee: This is just male chauvinist nonsense. Either rule will work when you enforce it, people learn to adapt. Taliban and Saudi societies are so difference from the Philippines, still people in these places live a normal life.

As for the rulers themselves, as long as they’re good at organizing things, it’s will work. This is the main quality that required to run a society. Females actually are better.

Depends. Are the women ruling according to the rules and mores of women or according to the rules and mores of men. Look what happens when you let women make the law. Prohibition was put in by women. Women’s long-term activism was the only reason that Prohibition was passed at all. Although it came one year after women were given the right to vote, Prohibition was a societal change that was made by the rules and mores of women. All over the world, whenever alcohol is made illegal or restricted, it done most of the time by women.  The result of Prohibition? Total chaos.

That’s what happens when you let women make the rules. And in Communist insurgencies, typically Maoist ones, they often put women in charge of the local village and town governments. What’s the first thing they do? Over and over I have read that the first thing they do is make alcohol illegal. Result of making alcohol illegal?

Chaos.

Sweden is governed according to the rules and mores of women. That’s why it is a nightmare state for men.

Female rulers are fine. You can have an all-female government for all I care. But they must govern according to the rules and mores of men, not women.

Look what happened in California when we let women make the rules. The state of California just voted that on all university campuses, you must have affirmative consent for every sex act. Like you want to kiss her, you have to ask, “Can I kiss you?” You want to touch her tits? You have to ask her, “Can I feel your tits?”

Guess who put those rules in?

Women.

What is the result of this stupid-ass “affirmative consent” nonsense?

Chaos.

Those are the sort of lunatic rules and laws that you get when you let women run the show and govern according to the rules and mores of women. According to the rules and mores of women, that idiot affirmative consent rule is 100% rational. That’s how women actually think. They think a rule like that is completely reasonable and sensible.

19 Comments

Filed under California, Europe, Gender Studies, Government, Higher Education, Law, Left, Local, Maoism, Marxism, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Sweden, USA, West, Women

Female Rule Doesn’t Work, and Men Are Necessary for Any Societal Achievement

Betty: It’s right that the reaction of these women is exaggerated but to say that they are incapable of running a country is plainly wrong. All war, chaos and problems were and are caused by male presidents like Hitler, Erdogan, Trump, etc. So it’s rather males being drama queens.

Saying that all women would make these memes illegal just because SOME have that point of view is almost equal to saying that all Muslims are terrorists because ISIS members consider themselves Muslims.

On top of that, many years ago when women weren’t allowed to work they were controlling a whole household of like 10 kids while cooking and cleaning every single day without help. So I’d say women are very capable of running a society or country, as for example Maria Theresia reigned Austria instead of her husband, which went perfectly fine.

Women can govern in partnership with men but countries must be ruled by the laws and mores of men. Women are free to help us run countries only as long as those countries are run according to the rules of men.

If you let women govern according to the rules and mores of women, things will fall apart pretty quickly. A lot of Communist groups put women in charge when they took over small rural villages. It was always a catastrophe. The first thing women do when they get in charge is make prostitution, gambling and booze illegal. Those are the three things that men need to make like tolerable enough so they don’t kill themselves, and those are the first things women outlaw. Thanks a lot, ladies. This rule does not work very well. Men are not very happy, but really no one is very happy. Things rapidly become pretty chaotic.

Sweden is currently being ruled by women. It’s under Female Rule – I mean women ruling according to the rules and mores of women along with a bunch of Beta cuck men helping them. It is not going well. The men are leaving in droves to go to Thailand to grab Thai brides because they have had it up to here with Swedish women.

Maria Teresia, many queens, and Thatcher all governed according to the rules, laws and mores of men. That’s not even Female Rule. That’s called Male Rule with Female Rulers – Women governing according to the laws, rules and mores of Male Rule.

Female Rule is when women impose their worldview on society. As long as the male rules of society are kept intact, women are free to take any government position they wish.

There are societies in Africa that are essentially under Female Rule. The men have just said, “The Hell with it, we’re done, here, you ladies take over. Have fun.” Women hold most of the power in these places. There is little violence or crime and actually there are not even a lot of serious disputes. These are sort of peace love dope hippie- type societies.

On the other hand, not much gets done in this places. They tend to stagnate and cruise in stasis. In particular, there is not much education because I suppose most women are just not interested in that. A lot of stuff that needs to get done never gets done, and everything gets put off. So you have societies without a lot of serious conflict, but on the other hand, there is little advancement.

I think women want to find a happy place and just be relaxed and go with the flow there rather than deal with the sturm and drang of continuous progress.

Personally I do not believe women can run societies, or if they do, they have to do so in partnership with good men or according to the rules of good men.

I feel that men are essential for any societal advancement. Women are free to help us men in societal advancement, but if you put them in charge, it’s just not going to work. Women just can’t run societies. There’s nothing wrong with that. Women can’t do everything, you know. So there’s some stuff they can’t do well? So what? There are plenty of things that women are great at. They should focus on those.

85 Comments

Filed under Africa, Austria, Britain, Europe, Gender Studies, Government, History, Left, Man World, Marxism, Masculinism, Politics, Regional, Sociology, Sweden, Women

Countering Some Anti-Communist Lies

Actually Pretty Funny: I mean, damn it, you only want everyone to be dirt poor. You only care for the dirt poor, and treat everyone the same like you treat the dirt poor. Affluent Soviet citizens need ten years to afford a car, with all the paperwork. And crappy cars indeed. Your homeless man doesn’t even have the patience to wait in a line without drinking, why do you force Soviet people who can afford cars to wait 10 years?

And since the Soviets gave undesirable people too much money and power and installed them in position of power and management, the people who could efficiently ran the country secretly quit.

Your Communism only works in very homogeneous and secluded societies or else it would fail hilariously. Belarus is landlocked and the people are mostly Belorussians, so it couldn’t break free away from Russia and indeed now depends partly on military/ intelligence/ security know-how and support from Russia. And the dictator there routinely puts  people into jail because he needs to keep people homogeneous in their thinking. But Ukraine isn’t homogeneous, so they fled. They have their own seaports to export their goods.

One good attribute of the Socialist Man is that he doesn’t complain or protest much. So you don’t hear much about the problems of countries like that.

In this day and age, no one really starves to death anymore. Obesity is now an epidemic. All thanks to tech from the capitalistic West. The Chinese literally sold Chinese made Iphones at 100 USD, so I am not surprised that Belarussians could afford Belorussian cars. Those are cheaper than, say, German imported cars, but they work anyway so why not. But the technology for those cars were imported directly from Italy or Germany, and those cars were older models.

Rich Belarussians of course drive Germans and Italians imported from abroad. A Rolls-Royce model 2000 is a Rolls Royce too, just feels a bit weird. People in America begin to run Tesla electric cars already. Back to Belarus, they of course produce some machinery of all sort, good and bad. Just like China. But the most advanced technology always comes from the West. Belarus has lower cost.

Before China opened up to the world(the West), a Chinese household needed 800 USD to 1000 USD and political connection to set up a home telephone line, the same for North Korea for example. I bet the price in North Korea is much lower now. Mobile service providers now beg me to buy the newest(older) tech from America, I love that.

Ever wonder why Putin has been trying so hard to get sanctions lifted off? He needed tech from the West. Communism = sclerosis. And by the way, Sweden is the role model the Chinese want for themselves. Funny to see you bash it that much. You can’t have it all. Choose 2: Prosperity, Diversity, Free Speech.

Surveys across Eastern Europe repeatedly show that high percentages, often majorities, of people say that life was better under Communism that it is today under capitalism. I’m not sure what that means, but it sounds like a lot of people like Communism and even prefer it over capitalism.

Almost no one can afford to buy a car in the US. They’re too expensive, and the number of people having $20,000 sitting around to buy a new car is very low. So they borrow the money at high interest to buy the car. You miss a few payments, and they come take car away. I suppose if you want to make cars so that everyone can buy one, maybe people do have to wait in line. I mean could the US produce 230 million cars to sell them to every US adult at a price they could easily afford such as say $300-400? That’s what the USSR was doing. No wonder you had to stand in line.

I don’t agree the Communists always produce junk products.

Cubans have made many dramatic innovations in the nickel and sugar industries on their very own. Cuban cigars produced in state firms are still of excellent quality and are sought after all over the world. Cuba has a world-class biotechnology industry that must compete with capitalist firms in the international market. Hence their stuff has to be good, or it won’t be able to compete at all. Their biotech products are purchased all over the world, and they compete well with capitalist companies.

If you force state enterprises to compete in world markets, it’s sink or swim. If they produce crap, they go out. They will have to compete with capitalist firms, and that means making good stuff for competitive prices. Hence I like the idea of state firms being forced to compete on the world markets. That way they cannot produce junk.

It’s not true that Communist countries produced nothing but crap. A friend of mine has a radio made in Czechoslovakia in the 1970’s. It is of fine quality, and it still works to this very day 50 years later. It’s never broken. Chinese fans made 30 years ago still work to this very day.

The Communist attitude was that they did not want to produce crap that broke right away because that way they would spend all their time re-manufacturing the same products over and over. So with a lot of products, the attitude was “built to last.” The quality may not have been superb, but it was generally adequate. So they produced average quality products that were built to last decades.

I don’t bash Sweden. I’m not sure if Sweden is really the Chinese model.

After all, the Chinese are doing State Capitalism. 45% of the economy is made up of state firms. How is the Chinese economy booming if half the economy is state firms? Shouldn’t it be sclerotic? Shouldn’t every Chinese person be dirt poor? Shouldn’t all Chinese products be junk? The commenter says that Communism makes everyone poor, is sclerotic, and creates nothing but junk products. How come that’s not true in China?

I have a friend in Slovakia. His father told him that when Slovakia went from Communism to capitalism in the 1990’s, many of the father’s friends committed suicide in the first 10 years of capitalism. Now why was that? Did they do it too fast? How can the commenter support something that caused so many suicides? Is he happy when people die? The commenter is willing to more or less kill lots of people just so you can get he can get his cool stuff?

My friend also showed me Google Earth photo of his small town in Slovakia. It was very nice. The architecture, design and general layout was very nice, with this sort of quaint European style. I told my friend that, and he said, “Yes, and all of that layout, design and architecture was built under Communism. The capitalists are not building anything good here.”

In Slovakia, housing tracts were built consisting of family homes with small yards. They somewhat resembled a stripped down suburban tract in the US. I have seen photos of these homes. The homes and yards aren’t fantastic, but they are perfectly adequate. You probably had to wait in line, but the houses were priced at a low rate. In addition, there was really no way whatsoever that a family could lose its house. It wasn’t possible. Wouldn’t that be great to have a house where the monthly payments were quite affordable and not only that but you were guaranteed never to lose the house no matter what?

29 Comments

Filed under Asia, Belarus, Capitalism, Caribbean, Cuba, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, Latin America, Left, Marxism, Regional, Russia, Socialism, Sweden, USA, USSR

Equality and Inequality under Capitalism, Socialism and Communism

Hizzle writes:

Rob,

Two honest questions:

Are there different manifestations of capitalism just as there are of communism? For instance, the kind of “Capitalism for the rich, socialism for the poor” that has afflicted us for a long time along with crony capitalism (people in Gottfried’s managerial state helping each other out with no-bid contracts and quid pro quo) is pretty sick and poisonous.

But what about my local hardware store owner whose perception of capitalism is that he works hard for his middle-class lifestyle so he should live better than someone who doesn’t work hard? Why in any moral, sane system, would all people be rewarded equally when they don’t work equally hard? I understand plenty of wealth is inherited, and the reality of capitalism doesn’t fit the model, but there’s always a gulf between model and instantiation, isn’t there, even in communism?

Other question: I think humans are generally selfish or at least somewhat obviously motivated by their own interests, so what do you think would happen tomorrow if someone poured blandishments on you, and you woke up as a billionaire on your own island with your own mansion and jet, titty-fucking the supermodel of your choice, while two concubines fed you grapes? Would you rail against capitalism? The question isn’t rhetorical because I believe some leftists (like Lukacs) came from bourgeois to upper class backgrounds.

Thanks in advance.

Sure, there are all sorts of different capitalist models.

One I like very much is called Fordism, named after Henry Ford who is often called far rightwing and racist, but he really wasn’t. He wasn’t even much of an antisemite really. The Jews acted pretty bad here back then and he was appalled by their behavior. He said they were out for themselves and not for everyone. At the end of the supposedly antisemitic The International Jew, in which he forcefully condemns pogroms, Ford writes, “Come, Jews! I call on you to come join us to build a better America!” He wanted Jews to be Americans first and Jews second but Jews don’t tend to think like that.

Anyway Ford was hardly a reactionary. At the time, cars were quite expensive and out of the reach of most people. I would argue that they still are. He looked out at his auto plant and he thought, “Wouldn’t it be nice if the average worker could afford to buy one of my nice cars here?” So Ford said, “You know what? I am going to pay my workers high enough wages so they can afford to buy my cars.”

So that is Fordism. Pay workers good wages so they can afford to buy the stuff you make or sell. There was a strong Fordist element to our society for many years, but that went out maybe in the 1970’s and now there is a vicious capitalism that thinks only of profits and never asks itself if people can still afford to buy their stuff. It’s all about paying your worker as little as possible to maximize profits. Hell a lot of companies outsource all their manufacturing so they don’t pay US workers one nickel to buy any of their nice products that they import back here from their plant. I guess paying the workers to buy your overseas built stuff is someone else’s job.

There are many other varieties that I need not go into here. Anyway almost all if not all countries are a mixture of capitalism and socialism in some form or another. The “capitalist” countries of the world are usually not that capitalist, but one can argue that maybe they have less socialism than other places. The socialist or Communist countries are just places that have a lot more socialism mixed in with their capitalism.

So it’s a bit retarded to talk about pure capitalism and pure socialism or Communism but everyone does it really because people are not well educated and also there is a tendency to think of things in their most stripped down, easiest to understand form, which helps neural efficiency but also leads to many concepts being poorly or falsely understood. Humans don’t like to think much. They want to think as little as possible and most do a great job of it. I think maybe your brain wants shortcuts too. Why not? Most other things do.

Rich Communists are rare indeed. Carlos the famous terrorist had a millionaire father who was a Communist, but that is an exception. The rich are almost always conservative, and rich liberals are often not all that rich. The rich generally want to keep as much of their money as possible no matter how they obtained, which is normal. The thing is, let’s face facts, wealthy socialists are working against their own economic interests. We rail against the class-cucked poor and working class who do the same thing, but it’s a bit more noble for a rich man do it as it’s more rational for a rich man to want to share with poorer people than it is for poor or working people to advocate giving lots of their money to the rich. The former seems like a saint; the latter seems like a moron.

I’ve long been in favor of small businesses. They cause very little damage to society. Cuba is full of small businesses now. However, your hardware store owner is deluded because he will claim that he works harder than some field worker or ditchdigger, but he really doesn’t. In fact, those outdoor workers probably work quite a bit harder than he does.

There’s a lot of silly self-justification going on with people who have managed to make a fair amount of money. Somehow they deserve every nickel of it because they did such and such noble thing (work, study, whatever) and others didn’t. And capitalist fanboys often say that the rich work harder than poor workers. Bull. I guess they figured out how stupid that was so the latest one is that the rich “worked harder and worked smarter” than others. There’s no answer to that because no one even knows what working smarter even means.

I have never believed that everyone should be equal. Why should a ditchdigger be paid the same as a surgeon? It’s crazy. Why would anyone be a surgeon. Also the surgeon is obviously contributing more to society and he studied for much longer to be a surgeon. Should he not be monetarily awarded for that.

The problem in capitalism is not inequality, which is fine by me, but instead it is the degree of it. The inequality under capitalism is so vast that it is preposterous. Doesn’t Bill Gates have as much money as 40% of the planet? If aliens landed tomorrow and you told them that one guy owns as much wealth as almost half the 8 billion population, they would shake their heads, say they’re insane morons here, and there’s obviously no sign of intelligent life, so we’re taking off.

Only in this crazy planet could there be hundreds of millions of humans who actually nod their heads like that’s normal and even stand up and cheer for it. It’s absurd the way humans think here on Earth. I doubt if it is even normal either. Earthly humans are quite idiotic. Maybe it is all down to selfishness. Humans are incredibly selfish. It’s adaptive in a sense. If you don’t put your own interests first most of the time, you will soon be dead – but it is also one of the worst traits of this supposedly highly intelligent species.

How about a pay scale? Even in Communism, pay the surgeon say eight times more than the ditchdigger. Fair? Communist societies all had pay scales. In Cuba right now the average monthly wage is ~$25. But no problem as most everything is cheap or free. For instance your rent on that salary would be $1.50/month (!) and a bowl of ice cream costs 2 cents (!). However, IT workers are being paid $2,000/month in Cuba for some reason. No idea why. Maybe to encourage people to work in the field. So you see there is fair amount of inequality in Cuba. It’s just that there people are so much more equal and less unequal there than in most places.

Communist societies need not be so poor. Belarus has an economy that is 80% Soviet style, maybe upgraded for the times. Belarus and Ukraine always had by far the highest incomes in the USSR, and it seems those are two places where Communism sort of worked. Somehow those two places figured out how to make it work. On the other hand, much of the manufacturing in the USSR was located in those two countries. The average income in what is basically Communist Belarus is $16,000/year. Almost every family has a computer and a car. Does that sound like privation to you? Communism need not lead to privation.

And Swedish society is not as equal as you think. The Swedish rich have an unbelievable amount of money. Some are among the richest people in the world. The thing about Sweden is that just about everyone is afforded a decent living. There are few very rich in Sweden, but there are also few very poor. So most everyone is somewhat more towards the middle. And Belarus and Finland have wiped out homelessness. There are zero homeless people in either country.

12 Comments

Filed under Belarus, Capitalism, Caribbean, Conservatism, Cuba, Economics, Europe, Finland, History, Labor, Latin America, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Modern, Political Science, Regional, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, Sweden, Ukraine, US, USSR

Nazis and Communists Fighting in the Streets of Sweden

Fascinating. The real violent people here are the Left, honestly. They are attacking the fascists and Nazis, and the fash are mostly just fighting back from what I can tell. However, some of the Revolutionary Front fighters say that they have gotten death threats from the fascists, so it looks like both sides are ramping up the violence.

It’s fascists/Nazis and Communists/socialists, the Right and the Left, fighting in the streets of Europe. In other words, it’s 1920’s and 1930’s Europe (Germany especially) all over again. History is once again repeating itself.

A Marxist analysis would say that this situation of Hard Right and Hard Left always arises in any capitalist system during a time when the capitalist system is in crisis. They would say that capitalism inevitably leads to oligarchy, the rich inevitably get richer and the poor inevitably get poorer until sooner or later extreme inequality leads to a crisis. In other words, it is inevitable that capitalism will experience periodic crises.

It’s not even a bug of the system. It is actually supposed to work that way! Every time we have an economic crisis in this country, listen to Ron or Rand Paul talk about what is happening. They will simply say that this is part of the natural (boom and bust) business cycle that will correct itself sooner or later, since capitalism is a self-regulating mechanism. Do you understand what they mean when they say that? When they talk like that, they are saying that periodic crises are an unavoidable fact of the capitalist system and that these crises are not bugs at all, but instead they are features!

And in the late 20’s, Herbert Hoover spoke exactly the same way. My father said Hoover advocated doing nothing about the Depression because he did not want to upset the natural rhythm of the business cycle. In other words, the Depression wasn’t awful, it meant the system was working as intended!

In other words, when capitalism is in crisis, that is “how the system is supposed to work” – well, part of the time anyway.

So capitalism inevitably leads to oligarchy and a crisis, and Marxists would add that capitalism inevitably leads to fascism at some point or another, as a fascist response is one of the unavoidable consequences of a capitalist economic crisis.

So capitalism inevitably leads to fascism sooner or later. However, I would also add, optimistically, that capitalism inevitably leads to some form of socialism too. The rich get richer and richer, and the poor get poorer and poorer, and in addition to  the fascist response, there is also an inevitable Left, socialist or Communist response, the consequences of which are often welded into society via legislation.

Note that the Depression led to both socialist/Communist and fascist responses in the US. The fascist response was rather muted, but Father Coughlin and Mr. Lindberg sure were popular there for a bit. My mother remembers Father Coughlin on the radio. She says that every time you turned on the radio, there he was.

The Left response was melded into society as the New Deal, aspects of which continue to be part of our somewhat socialist society to this very day.

So the situation in Sweden at the moment is replaying Germany of the 20’s and 30’s all over again. If you want to understand the current fighting, go back and study the street fighting during that era.

I do not have much more to add here except that my political development is finally to the point where I not only understand this fighting, but I realize that it is actually normal, natural and inevitable given the economic situation. I shrug my shoulders and say, “Well, of course.”

It sure feels nice to have that sort of understanding of political reality. There is a real sense of mastery that comes with that. Further, you end up a lot calmer because you realize that all of these things are happening for logical reasons.

Whereas before, the world seemed chaotic, unpredictable and irrational. So many things seemed to happen for no reason. This feeling causes fear, insecurity and anxiety.

But with a sense of mastery over political developments, comes instead a feeling of peace that things are not happening for no reason anymore.

21 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Economics, Europe, European, Fascism, Germany, Government, History, Left, Marxism, Nazism, Political Science, Regional, Socialism, Sweden, US