Neo-Naziste Decapitare Video

The video has been removed following discussions with WordPress staff. Try here instead.
Note: Repost from the old blog.
This is a Romanian translation of the Neo-Nazi Beheading Video post that was so popular on the old blog. This excellent translation was done by Loghin Alexandru from Romania. This post has been translated into other languages. Italian version (traduzione in italiano). French version (en Frances). Bulgarian version (Българска версия). Spanish version (en Espanol).
I am looking for translators to translate this post into Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Dutch, German, Finnish, Russian, Estonian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, Portuguese, Greek, Turkish, Japanese, Mongolian and Bahasa Indonesia. If you are interested, email me via the Contact page at the top.
Regular readers, you really do not want to watch this video. It’s really horrible.
ATENŢIE! Acest video conţine imagini foarte oribile!! Dacă esti minor, nu te uita la acest video! Daca sunteti un parinte preocupat de vizualizarea acestui post de catre copilul dumneavoastra va rugam sa-l supravegheati sau sa-i restrictionati accesul la internet.
Reactii adverse au fost semnalate de catre cei care au vizualizat acest video.
Acestea sunt: vărsături, pierderea poftei de mâncare, furie, tristeţe, greaţă, dureri de stomac, cosmaruri, sentiment de sinucidere, tremuraturi, ameţeli, frisoane, dureri de cap, incapacitatea de a se misca ,insomnie, plâns, râs şi plâns în acelaşi timp, agorafobie (teama de se afla in spatii aglomerate, de a se afla departe de casa,), anxietate, depresie, pierderea conştienţei (lesina), incapacitatea de a se opri gandindu-se la acest video.
Un numar mare de spectatori au spus ca le pare rau ca au vizionat acest video de la inceput si ca-i avertizeaza pe ceilalti sa nu-l vizioneze.
Alte temeri: unii se temeau ca vizionand acest clip le va schimba viata definitiv. Majoritatea oamenilor au spus ca nu vor uita acest video cat timp vor trai. O persoana a spus ca nu va mai fi acelasi om dupa ce a vizionat acest video.
Aceste reactii adverse dureaza in mod normal ore, dar unele au durat si zile. Doua persoane au spus ca aveau cosmaruri saptamani intregi, alta persoana lesinase de la vizualiazarea acestui video dar in afara de acestea reactii nu a fost nimic serios sau de lunga durata.
Daca crezi ca ai putea reactiona in aceste feluri te rog sa te gandesti inaintea de a vizualiza acest video. Acest video a fost interzis in multe dintre site-uri de pe internet.
Postul a fost tradus si in alte limbi. Versiunea Italiana (traduzione in italiano). Versiuna franceza (en Frances).
Acest video oribil pare sa fie o reactie a nazistilor rusi catre filmarile groaznice facute recent de catre rebelii ceceni in care decapitau soldati rusi.
Una dintre cele mai oribile inregistrari facute vreodata Six Russian Conscripts poate fi vazut aici.In opinia mea e mult mai grav decat acest video.
Noi informatii tocmai au fost au iesit la iveala demonstrand ca acest video este REAL si nu un fals.
Kistaman Odamanov un Dagestan a vazut acest video pe Internet si l-a identificat pe acel om care a fost deapitat, ca fiind fratele ei, Shamil Odamanov, 23. Mai mult , restul familiei si multe cunostinte din sat l-au recunoscut in aceasta inregistrare.
Shamil a plecat in Moscova pentru a gasi ceva de munca si posibil o sotie in 2005. A disparut in aprilie 2007 si nu a mai fost vazut de atunci. Acest lucru implica faptul ca a fost tinut undeva timp de 3 luni inainte de a fi omorat in milocul lunii august.
Kistman l-a recunoscut pe Shamil dupa faţa si dupa imbracamintea pe care o purta. Politia rusa a descoperit locul in care s-a filmat scena , dar nu a aflat locul unde s-au desfasurat executiile si nici nu a gasit sange, trupurile barbatilor sau alte dovezi.
Cu toate acestea autoritatile trateaza acest caz ca homicid. Politia germana este de asemena incurcata in acest caz, implicand o legatura neo-Nazista. Barbatul persan din acest video, care a fost executat prin impuscare inca nu a fost identificat.
Numele melodiei din acest video este “Rus” si este compusa de grupul de muzica metal folk Arkona.
Acesta este video-ul neo-Nazist rus al executiei ce a luat cu asalt Internetul rusesc. Acest video este intitulat The Execution of a Tajik and a Dagestani. Este un video in care sunt executati doi “negri” adica doi oameni albi unul din Dagestan si unul din Tajikistan.
Pentru mai multe detalii despre etniile din Dagestan si Tajikistan click aici.
Acest video a starnit controverse enorme pe net pentru o scurta perioada de timp dupa ce a aparut. Un grup numit fie National Socialism/White Power fie National Socialists of Rus au revendicat responsabilitatea pentru acest video, dar autoritatile au spus ca nu au auzit niciodata de aceste grupari.
Rus este numele vechiului stat viking localizat in jurul Kievului – Rusia Kieveană. Acesta a fost primul stat rus si numele Rus este utilizat pe scara larga de catre nationalisti in loc de Rusia. Un grup neo-Nasist similar “Russian Nationalist Party ” poate fi vazut pe Youtube aici si aici.
Video-ul a fost postat prima data pe un website rus (gen Live Journal) de un user numit vik23. Rapoartele de stiri din vest spun ca initial video-ul a fost postat de un user numit “anti-Gipsy” dar el era doar unul din cei care au repostat mai tarziu. Ulterior a aparut pe mai multe site-uri in limba rusa neo-Naziste.
A fost repede eliminat de pe site-urile unde a fost postat initial, si site-ul grupului National Socialism/White Power (cei care au comis crimele) a fost destul de vizitat.
Video-ul incepe cu un steag nazist si un sunet de mitraliera pe fundal, apoi un strigat in rusă “Glory to Rus!”. Apoi arata o portiune de tara dintr-un oras rus. Camera schimba unghiul de vedere si arata doi oameni legati la picioare si la maini . Un barbat este in mod clar ingrozit , apoi ii arata pe amandoi speriati ce spun aparent cu un accent rus : “Socialistii Nationali Rusi ne-au arestat”, unde sunt ingenuncheati si legati la picioare si la maini. In fundal se vede un steag mare nazist.
Video-ul arata apoi un “călău” extrem de prost calificat – un om mascat in haine de lupta – venind din spatele unui prizonier, apucandu-l si in acelasi timp urland : “Glory to Rus”. Apoi incepe taierea capului saracului om, dar face o treaba destul de proasta. Bietul om tipa un pic la inceput. Cu toate acestea călăul incompetent petrece prea mult timp – 90 seconds – pentru ai taia capul omului.
In cele din urma reuseste sa-i taie capul si incearca sa-l puna pe corpul decapitat. Dar capul cade in repetate randuri de pe corp nefind fixat intr-un fel. Ar trebui sa ia lectii de la Al Qaeda din Peninsula Arabica care au facut o treaba excelenta in decapitarea lui Paul Johnson , un inginer de elicopter.
In cele din urma ne este aratat celalalt ostatic legat . Acelasi salut “Glory to Rus” apoi este impuscat din spate si aruncat intr-o groapa proaspat sapata. Video-ul ii arata apoi pe cei doi nazisti salutand in fata unui steag nazist.
Initial autoritatile ruse nu stiau daca acest video era real sau nu, apoi au decis ca este fals, dar recent exista dovezi ca este foarte real. N-am crezut niciodata ca acest video este fals pt ca nu poti falsifica asa ceva poate in exceptia cazului in care esti o companie de filme cu buget mare.
Un om a fost arestat pentru distribuirea acestui material. Pentru mai multe detalii aici.
Unii s-ar intreba cum ar putea rusii sai suporte pe nazisti, dat fiind faptul ca au invadata Uniunea Sovietica, o actiune ce a dus la 27 de milioane decese, mai multi decat in Holocaustul Evreiesc.
Incearca sa studiezi istoria sec. al 20-lea de la un adevarat istoric, nu de la un nestiutor, si o sa vezi ca nazistii si comunistii au avut una din cele mai sangeroase lupte din ultimul secol.
Acei 27 de milioane de sovietici nu au murit in Al Doilea Razboi Mondial pt ca URSS îi iubea asa mult pe nazisti incat le-au dat 27 de milioane de oameni. Acelasi exemplu a fost folosit in Europa in timpul celui De Al Doilea Razboi Mondial , de fiecare data cand comunistii si nazistii se confruntau pe terenul de lupta, cadavrele erau infinite si atrocitatile-din ambele tabere- erau prea numeroase pt a fi numarate.
Invazia nebuna a nazistilor din Rusia a fost necrutatoare in special fata de slavi, pe care Hitler îi considera a fi untermenschen (oameni inferiori).
Ei erau vazuti ca o rasa inferioara, o rasa slaba de sclavi care nu se putea apara singura. In special, Hitler în a sa lupta nebuna nebuneasca impotriva evreilor, a fost de parere ca slavi rusi si-au permis singuri sa fie inrobiti de evrei. El s-a referit la evreii comunisti bolşevici.
Proiectul nazist era clar : ca birocrati, ei l-au scris pe hartie. Slavii ( caucazieni, cazaci, turci, uzbekistani, tătari, arabi, armeni, georgieni) erau inferiori, si aveau sa fie inlocuiti de germani prin infometare, ucideri, deportari; pamanturile depopulate urmand sa fie cedate Germaniei pt lebensraum (in germana inseamnă habitat sau spatiu de locuit).
In timpul celui De Al Doilea Razboi Mondial, 6 milioane de polonezi (50% fiind evrei) sau 30% din populatie, au fost ucisi. Similar in Belarusia 25% din populatie era ucisa la sfarsitul razboiului. In Rusia , 27 mil. de oameni erau morti, 15% din populatie. Toate acestea erau natiuni slave pentru nazisti.
Inlaturarile nebune ale lui Stalin din anii 1930 erau la un anumit grad incercari salbatice de a intarzia amenintarea nazista prin inlaturarea su chiar executarea lui Trotskyites and Bukharinites care nu numai simpatizau cu nazistii dar si sustineau o invaziei a URSS.
Asa ca inlaturarile lui Stalin, criminale si nebune cum sunt ele, trebuie vazute in contextul procesului de aparitie a invaziei naziste.Totusi cele mai multe victime ale acestor inlaturari au fost oameni nevinovati.
Fara Stalin este nesigur daca am fi putut sau nu invinge Germania. De exemplu 89% din accidentele Germaniei din Al Doilea Razboi Mondial au fost la mâna sovieticilor.
Retragerile lui Stalin erau destul de sensibile. In spatele linilor ruse ocupate in Letonia, Lituania, Estonia, Ucraina si Rusia Alba nazismul a fost sprijinit de un numar mare de oameni. Ei s-au alaturat cu bucurie in uciderea comunistilor si a evreilor si au luptat alaturi de nazisti. Toate unitatile sovietice au napustit asupra nazistilor, in special in timpul asediului din Stalingrad, unde 50.000 de voluntari rusi au luptat alaturi de Germania.
Soarta natiunii si a multor din rezidentii ei era in joc. Nu era timpul pt o conversatie lacrimogena despre drepturile omului. Justitia a fost rapida pentru sovietici care s-au alaturat nazistilor, asa cum a fost si pentru colaboratori din alte tari. Si cum sovietici îi alungau pe criminalii nazisti inapoi in est, multi dintre tradatori au fost impuscati.
Cand Armata Rosie a sosit in Polonia de Est, erau primit cu bratele deschise de catre evreii polonezi, o actiune in care nationalistii polonezi au fost condamnati mereu. Dar evreii nu erau prosti. Ei isi stiau inamicul. URSS era un potential salvator pt ei si stiau asta.
Fiecare evreu stie acum cat de indatorat îi este lui Napoleon. Pacat ca nu simt asta si pentru Stalin.
Joseph Stalin probabil i-a salvat pe evreii de azi de nazism.
Inapoi la rusi neo-nazisti. Odata cu caderea comunismului miscarea neo-nazista a intrat in forta odata ce economia s-a prabusit si cautarea caprelor ratacite a inceput.
“Negrii” sau oamenii caucazieni sunt detestati in Rusia si exista crime regulate. Mai recent au fost atacuri asupra negrilor africani, asiatici. Autoritatile fac nimic sau deloc pentru a oprii aceste asasinate.
Neo nazismul rusesc este asa de mare in Rusia incat este greu de inteles intr-un context american. In august 2007 au fost peste 50 de crime rasiste , 25% mai multe ca anul trecut.
Iti poti imagina o miscare nazista asa de mare si asa de multe crime in SUA?
Fascistii rusi servesc ca trupe de soc pentru Vladimir Putin, ideea fiind ca el e un neocommunist, si demonstreaza ca el este doar o specie de fascist rus.
Alaturi de video era si un manifest ce facea apel la expulzarea tuturor “asiaticilor” si “negrilor” din Rusia si independenta tuturor republicilor rusesti din Caucaz precum: Ingushetia, Dagestan, Chechnya, North Ossetia, Cherkyo-Kabardino. Acesta este intreg manifestul (de la centrul rebel cecen Kavkaz):

Declaratia de la Partidul National Socialist din Rus

Suntem parte a unei factiuni armate a partidului

  1. Partidul nostru anunta inceperea unei lupte impotriva colonistilor negri si a tuturor oficialilor rusi care îi suporta.
  2. Consideram ca este necesara expulzarea caucazienilor si asiaticilor de pe teritoriul rus.
  3. Credem ca e o necesitate sa acordam independenta tuturor republicilor din Caucaz (incluzand si Chechnya) si expulzarea intregii populatii din Caucaz.
  4. Cerem eliberarea tuturor natinalistilor socialisti din inchisori si oprirea executiei lui Maksim Martsinevich.
  5. Cerem ca presedintele Putin sa demisioneze si sa cedeze toata puterea guvernului national socialist care ar trebui condus de Dmitry Germanovich Rumyantsev liderul Societatii Nationale Socialiste din Rusia.
  6. Recunoastem conducerea politica a Societatii Nationale Socialiste.Suntem o putere armata ce opereaza independent.
  7. Nu ne vom opri pana ce puterea nu va fi preluata de guvernul National Socialist.

Martsinevich este liderul grupului numit Format 18 (18 este o prescurtare nazista a initialelor lui Hitler).A fost inchis din iulie pentru incurajarea uri etnice si pentru amenintari cu violenta.
Violenta neo nazista in Rusia este scapata de sub control. De asemenea este foarte mare si in Polonia, Anglia, Republica Ceha, Slovacia, Germania, Ungaria, Estonia. Este mai multa violenta neo nazista pe capitala decat in SUA.
Violenta neo nazista care creste este o amenintare pentru unele parti din Europa. Ceva trebuie facut si repede.

Is This Galician?

I assume this is Galician? Here it is, from a Maoist list that I am a member of:

Ben-queridos camaradas:
Co motivo da celebracion do decimo tercer aniversario do Inicio da Guerra Popular no Nepal queremos felicitar ao PCN (m) ao heroico Exercito Popular de Liberación e ao povo do Nepal.
A Guerra Popular e o proceso revolucionario no Nepal son fonte de inspiración para os povos do mundo e centro dun importante debate para o desenrrolo da ideoloxia proletria.
A aplicación das teses da Guerra Popular do camarada Mao Tse-Tung a revolución no Nepal permitiu derrubar unha monarquia feudal e avanzar a actual fase da Revolución Democratica e suas tarefas. Tarefas que teñen que ser levadas adiante baixo a dirección do proletariado e seu Partido en alianza co campesiñado e as capas da pequena burguesia patriotica. Apartarse do maoísmo seria avandoar o vermello sendeiro da revolucion e adentrarse no negro pantano do revisionismo e do reformismo burgues.
Avanzar decididamente en prol da Republica Popular e do Socialismo coidandose das balas almibaradas da burguesia e do imperialsimo, que tratara de mercar a dirixentes e cadros con dadivas, sorrisos e prevendas tal é a grande tarefa que enfretan os comunistas no Nepal.
Estamos seguros que seguindo polo mesmo senderio vermello da guerra popular o PCN-U (m) lograra a victoria definitiva sobre as forzas que oprimen a os povos do Nepal.
Dende Galiza, unha nacionalidade sen estado que forma parte do Estado español os comunistas maoístas les desexamos os millores exitos pois a vosa revolución forma parte tamen da nosa.
VIVA A REVOLUCION NO NEPAL E SEU PARTIDO !
VIVA O MAOÍSMO, TERCEIRA E SUPERIOR ETAPA DO MARXISMO-LENISNISMO !
VIVAN AS MASAS POPULARES, ELAS FAN A HISTORIA !
VIVA A REVOLUCIÓN PROLETARIA MUNDIAL !
VIVA EL M.R.I.
Galiza Febreiro do 2009.
COMITÉ DE LOITA POPULAR “MANOLO BELLO”
COMITE GALEGO DE SOLIDARIEDADE CO NEPAL
CORREO VERMELLO

Obviously this is a Romance language, but it looked really weird to me. I ran some of it through Google but I wasn’t getting any hits for Portuguese sites. Plus, though I’m not an expert on Portuguese, that does not look like Portuguese to me. I got hits for sites in Spain, but no way is that Spanish. At first I thought it was Catalan, but the “Comite Galego” line strongly implies that this is in the Galician language.

Mao Messed Up

I think an assessment of Mao ought to be made on a scientific basis, beyond politics. Anti-Communists and rightwingers have an extremely poor record as far documenting this sort of thing, so I almost want to dismiss everything they say.
Probably the best sources would be leftwingers or even Communists who also happen to be some sort of China scholars. To the detriment of Mao, a number of Leftists, socialists and Communists who are also China scholars are starting to contribute some very negative things about Mao.
The good side is quite clear. Life expectancy doubled under Mao, from 35 to 70, from 1949 to 1976, in only 27 years. Supporters of fascism and Hitler are challenged to provide evidence that Hitler’s rule benefited anyone. Nazism was at core a death cult. Life expectancy collapsed in Germany under Hitler and in all of the regions that were occupied by Nazis. Nazism wasn’t about improving life for the common man at all; it was about war and endless war and endless extermination of the less fit.
Communism, with the exception of Pol Pot’s rule, where life expectancy collapsed in Cambodia and 1.7 million died, has been quite a bit different. Most Communist regimes have killed people, but at the same time seem to have saved many lives, often millions of lives. So it gets hard to tally things up.
I suppose pro-Communists would say that the many deaths were necessary in order to save so many lives. That’s an interesting argument and ought to be taken up. Was there a way to save so many lives without killing millions of people? I hope there would be, but I’m not sure.
Pre-China Mao was vastly deadlier than China under Mao. The life expectancy figures make this clear. Czarist Russia was 3 times deadlier than the USSR under Lenin and Stalin. This is where this “greatest killers of all time” crap runs into the mud. If the death rate was 3 times higher per year under the Czar than under Stalin, just how was Stalin the worst killer of all time?
Same with Mao. I don’t have good figures, but once again, it looks like Nationalist China in the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s was 3 times deadlier per year, or maybe more, than Maoist China. If the death rate collapsed under Mao, how was he the worst killer ever?
The truth is there are plenty of ways to kill a man. You can kill him with a bullet or by sending him to a camp, or you can kill him by disease and lack of food, the silent and uncounted method that the capitalists prefer.
Nevertheless, an accounting of deaths under Mao needs to be done. Just glancing at the data here, it’s already looking like Mao was way worse than Stalin. Way worse.
The initial consolidation of power in China was brutal. Whether the landlords were killed by the party or by the peasants is not that relevant. Mao said that 700,000 landlords were killed, and even he thought that was too many. China scholars think it is higher, from 1-4 million. I would dismiss the 4 million figure, but anywhere from 700,000-3 million is possible. Further research is needed here.
The Anti-Counterrevolutionary Drive of 1950 followed, an attempt to uncover supporters of the Nationalists and counterrevolutionaries. Tens of thousands were killed, or possibly up to a million, let’s call it 20,000-1 million. Further research is needed.
Anti-Christian Campaigns of the 1950’s. These were launched against mostly Christians, but also other religions. “Many thousands” are said to have died. Definitely some further work is necessary here.
Anti-Counterrevolutionary Campaign of 1953. Mao said, “95% of the people are good.” The Party assumed that this meant 5% were bad. Hundreds of thousands died.
The Great Leap Forward Famine happened between 1959-1961. Unlike the fake Holodomor of 1932-33, it’s looking more and more like most of the blame for this horrible catastrophe can be laid at the feet of Mao himself. The man was a fanatic. He was told that there was a famine, and in early 1959, he backtracked on some of his crazy ideas, while he blamed subordinates for the famine.
Then there was the Lushan Conference in May 1959. Mao accused Peng Dehuai, a critic of the Great Leap, of conspiring against him. Peng was purged, and the Great Leap went was ordered to go ahead full speed. If there had been no Lushan Conference, there would have been no famine. There followed two years of catastrophe, in which there was overprovisioning of grain from the peasants which was then stored in warehouses in cities, where it rotted or was exported for scarce foreign currency.
Much of the problem was that local officials were wildly exaggerating harvests, hence the overprovisioning at the state level. They thought that with bumper harvests, they could take grain from the countryside to the cities without problems. But there were no bumper harvests. Harvests had collapsed.
Finally in 1961, the state figured out that it had screwed up royally and started mass importing grain. Caravans of grain trucks flowed to the countryside, and the famine was over. But many were too weak to even walk to the trucks to get the food.
Mao is blamed for an atmosphere of terror that led underlings to fake bumper crops where none had occurred. With no democracy in the party, no one wanted to contradict Mao. Mao himself had some utterly idiotic ideas, which he was allowed to implement due to lack of party democracy. After the Great Leap, the party realized it had screwed up bad. Even Mao knew that. The Cultural Revolution was in a lot of ways Mao’s attempt to regain face after getting egg on his face in the Great Leap.
As far as deaths during the Great Leap, this is still up in the air. Even Maoists admit that there were 15 million excess deaths in the period. Some of the higher figures use preposterous accounting techniques whereby people who had never even been born were counted as “deaths.” Tell me how that works. Nevertheless, the figure may be higher than 15 million. At any rate, it’s the worst famine in modern world history, and it’s a permanent blot on Mao’s record.
The Cultural Revolution was sheer insanity. Many received poor educations as schools were shut down. Many cultural relics and buildings were destroyed, and a good part of China’s cultural heritage was smashed up.
People were killed and hounded all over China for little or no reason. Red Guards rampaged all over China, torturing, humiliating, imprisoning and murdering all sorts of people, including local party officials, teachers and even university professors. When someone was hounded, the humiliation went on every day and there was no escape. No one would dare to come to your side, not even your spouse. Deng Xiaoping’s son was tossed out of a window and paralyzed from the waist down.
Red Guard factions battled each other in cities across China with weapons looted from local Army depots. Sometimes Army units joined in. Red Guards in one city would attack Red Guards in another city. Women and children were murdered and kids were even buried alive. Enemies were cannibalized in one area. Ridiculous, insane and anarchic, right? Sure.
In some parts of China, victims of the Red Guards are still angry. The Red Guards are still around, older now, but still living in the villages alongside their victims. Their former victims hate them. Lawsuits have been brought against former Red Guards, but the courts have thrown them out.
From a Communist POV, one of the most tragic things about all of these persecutions and killings, when one reads the details of the individual cases, is that many of the victims were not even counterrevolutionaries. Many were dedicated, hard-working Communists and revolutionaries, often devoted Maoists. Lord knows why they were purged and victimized.
The insanity and anarchy of the Cultural Revolution is one reason why the Party wants to keep a tight reign on power. China descends pretty quickly into wild and deadly anarchy.
Lately, I’ve been reading a lot of Chinese Communist Party publications and the theses and dissertations by students at Chinese universities, which tend to toe the party line. As a rule, the Cultural Revolution is regarded as a big mistake by ultra-Left forces, and the Party definitely wants to avoid such messes in the future. I’ve even some some Party critiques of the Great Leap, though not much is said about that. It’s clear that the high ranks of the Party regard the Great Leap as a disaster.
There continue to be some very serious human rights abuses in China, as this 89 page report from Human Rights Watch reports. Even from the POV of a Communist, some of the abuses of these petitioners seem just flat out wrong. There doesn’t seem to be any legitimate Communist reason to be attacking a lot of these poor petitioners.
Surely in a Communist system, petitioners should have the right to protest uranium pollution of rivers, corrupt officials abusing their posts and stealing land, etc. In what way are these folks counterrevolutionaries?
But it’s not true that everyone who protests in China goes to jail. There are around 100 public protests every single day in China, often involving large groups. Only a few of them get arrested, harassed, beaten, tortured or jailed. But I guess you never know when your card will come up.
The fact that some of the harshest critiques of Mao’s crimes, excesses and stupidities are coming out of the Chinese Communist Party itself shows that slamming Mao can be done within a socialist, Leftist or Communist framework.
Can it be done in a Maoist framework? This I’m not so sure of.
The Party will not come out and make public its findings on Mao as the USSR did with Stalin because the party continues to wave the banner of Mao and practically rules under his name and visage. It’s possible that slamming Mao would so delegitimize the party that it might be fatal for the CCP. It’s a tough call.
For the anti-Semites, I have a homework assignment for you. Since Mao was a Communist and Communism is Jewish, obviously Mao was a Jew. Please uncover the secret Jewish connections of Mao and his closest supporters in the CCP.

Hitler's Vienna Years

Was Young Hitler An Anti-Semite?* is the 5th chapter in a great book, Hitler’s Vienna: A Dictator’s Apprenticeship, by Brigette Harmon. Hitler arrived in Vienna at age 17 in 1906. He became homeless and lived in men’s shelters, trying to sell his paintings.
This fascinating chapter reveals that despite the virulently anti-Semitic character of much of Viennese society at the time, Hitler seems to have successfully resisted the prevalent anti-Semitism of the era. In fact, he had many Jewish friends, and Jewish art merchants sold most of his work. His worst enemy was a virulent anti-Semite, and one of Hitler’s Jewish friends had the man arrested for cheating Hitler. Hitler’s only statements on the Jews were ones of admiration. However, he already hated the Social Democrats.
In Mein Kampf, Hitler rewrites his Vienna years as a time of his anti-Semitic awakening. But many autobiographies are dishonest. No one who knew Hitler at the time noticed the slightest anti-Semitism in him. Those who knew him at the time and then recognized him later as an anti-Semitic politician in the 1930’s were flabbergasted – they could not believe their eyes.
There have been many silly theories of the genesis Hitler’s anti-Semitism – the Vienna years, an encounter with a syphilitic Jewish prostitute, run-ins with Jewish professors at the Arts Academy, a Jewish grandfather, a Jewish junk dealer who cheated him in Munich, but none of it makes much sense. People are just grasping at straws.
Harmon logically decides that Hitler’s anti-Semitism developed during the war and then afterward. Lying in the hospital for three months, nearly blinded from a gas attack, he read about the November Revolution that brought the hated Social Democrats to power. In Russia, the Bolsheviks had seized power in their October revolution. At Versailles, the Allies were were setting about to destroy Germany once and for all – in league with the Jews, the anti-Semitic press charged.
Hitler had an epiphany – it was all the Jews’ fault! And he resolved to get into politics. One sure-fire road to political success in those days was to promote anti-Semitism as a politician, because it was very popular with voters. So Hitler’s anti-Semitism was based both on his experiences during and after the war and on the cynicism of a political animal.
Later, his anti-Semitism became more and more crazed and rabid to where even his fellow Nazi authors worried that it was his sole, driving and gnawing passion. Towards the end of the war, he sacrificed the war effort to kill more Jews. His suicide note warns of the Jewish peril to mankind.
*From the website of the Porges family, a Viennese Jewish family who lost many members in the Holocaust.

References

Harmon, Brigette. 1999. Hitler’s Vienna: A Dictator’s Apprenticeship. New York: Oxford University Press.

Commies Killed More Than Hitler Redux

We went over this quite a few times on the old blog, but since this crap keeps recrudescing on the Right, we may as well continue to hammer away at it.
From an interesting, but disgusting, article by Steve Sailer, effectively ruined, as are most of his posts, by his inability to turn off the rightwing talking points no matter what he is writing about. Sailer is like the Christian kooks, who, no matter what the conversation is about, always manage to return the conversation to their evangelical bullshit within 10 minutes. Steve just can’t shut the rightwing trap.
Here is the poop:

Lenin, Stalin, and Mao slaughtered even more tens of millions in the name of equality than Hitler murdered in the name of inequality. And, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has pointed out, the doctrine of “class origins” transformed “egalitarian” mass murder into ethnic genocide since there is no sharp line between family and race.

Boy, rightwingers just can’t shut up about this, can they? Never mind that he’s quoting the fascist Solzhenitsyn (and he spelled his name wrong), but this whole line has a particularly nasty genesis.
After the war, in trying to prove that Hitler was no big deal and Stalin was way worse, Ukrainian Nazis (Excuse me! Ukrainian nationalists! Wait. Is there a difference?) developed a lie called The Holodomor, a lie that was originally started by the Nazi Randolf Hearst and his Nazi buddies in Germany in the early 1930’s.
The lie stated that Stalin deliberately killed 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, no wait, 7, 8, oh forget it, God knows how many Ukrainians by deliberate starvation. It’s not true. Nobody was deliberately starved to death. There was indeed a famine in all of the USSR, especially the Ukraine, in 1932 and 1933. The number of dead is not known. The state made many errors, including initially denying that it was happening, to a chaotic response to the tragedy.
The Ukrainians were rebelling against the state. They destroyed 50% of the livestock in the USSR and a large part of the grain crop in the Ukraine. They refused to harvest the crop, piling it in the fields and letting it rot in the rains, or set fire to their fields. The Ukrainians were trying to starve the whole country.
The USSR did seize the grain crop, because the country needed to eat and the Ukrainians were destroying everything in sight. Ukrainians were mass deported to Siberia, and 390,000 died. It was a bad time.
The people were weakened by hunger and there were disease epidemics due to primitive sanitation and lack of effective drugs. This is what killed most of the people, not starvation. Most of the pictures of “starving Ukrainians” were faked, and those photos were actually from a famine in 1921. Mark Tauger has also presented good forensic evidence of a wheat rust epidemic.
There was also a terrible famine in China during the Great Leap Forward that may have killed 15 million people, mostly due to disease once again. Once again, this was not intentional, unless idiocy is intentionality. The primary cause of the famine was overprocurement by the state.
Capitalism kills 14 million people ever year by direct starvation and attendant illnesses all over the globe. Shall we tally up these body piles and compare them to Hitler, Stain, Mao and whatnot? The chips are down, capitalist punks. That means you, Sailer.
Leaving aside famines, we really need to look at direct killings.

Leader         Deaths     Period      Years
Hitler          52M*      1933-1945   12
Lenin/Stalin    2.5M**    1921-1953   32
Mao             2.4M?***  1949-1976   27

*Figure from here. Hitler also started a war for no reason that ended up killing ~45 million people. Whether you want to count that or not is up to you. I count 12 million dead in camps and 40 million dead in a war that he started.
**See Getty 1993 for the most accurate estimate to date of deaths under Stalin. In 1990, the USSR archives were opened up. The Soviets had kept track of everyone who died due to executions, population transfers and in the camps, year by year. The deaths in the camps include 900,000 common criminals, but I guess the anti-Communists want to throw those in too. There is no academic consensus whatsoever for 20, 30, 40, 43, or 110 million deaths under Stalin. Furthermore, these figures usually include “10 million” for the fake “Ukraine intentional famine” that never happened. As noted below, capitalism starves 14 million people to death every year. If we can’t tally these against the capitalists, we can’t tally them against Stalin. The Sovietologists are currently fighting it out in the academic journals. Those arguing for a higher figure are basically saying, “Commies lie.” There never was any rational basis for the figures of tens of millions killed under Stalin. Those figures were produced by Nazis and Nazi sympathizers, the CIA and the MI6. They were just pulling figures out of thin air. By the way, that wonderful 110 million figure comes from the fascist Solzhenitsyn, a man lionized by the West.
Peacetime figures for political deaths in the USSR 1921-1953 are:

Executions:                 900,000
Deaths in the gulag:        1.2M
Dekulakization Ukraine:     390,000
Totals:                     2.5M

***2.4 million is my estimate for Mao, and those are just known deaths. The Chinese have not yet opened up their archives, and unfortunately it is possible that deaths under Mao were a lot higher. Mao himself admitted that 700,000 landlords were killed in the early years. The Party allowed the local peasants to put them on trial and the people sentenced many of them to death. Many were horrible criminals who had been abusing the peasants for many years, but one can argue whether they needed to die. There were 1 million excess deaths in the Cultural Revolution. We have no accurate figures for deaths under Mao from 1953-1966, although 700,000 is a good minimum. We also have no accurate figures for deaths in the Chinese gulags. We will have to wait until the Chinese open their books in order to find out the real number who died under Mao. The 77 million figure tossed around lately, the product of a lunatic new book, has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. Furthermore, it includes famine deaths in the Great Leap Forward, listed as an incredible 39 million. As I note below, capitalism starves 14 million people to death every year. Shall we count these deaths against the capitalists?
Ok, as you can see, the evil Commies absolutely did not kill tens of millions of people. Who did? No one, unless you count the European War that Hitler started that killed ~45 million or so.
Hitler killed 42 million in 12 years or 3.5 million/year. Mao, Lenin and Stalin combined killed 4.9 million over 59 years, or 83,000/yr. Ok, now who is the worse killer? Who killed more? Hitler. Mao, Stalin and Lenin combined were not able to exceed Hitler’s totals, and they had 10 times more years to do it again. Hitler was 42 times worse of a killer than Mao, Stalin and Lenin combined.
The crap like Steve’s above is usually followed by some jibe about “more being killed in the name of equality than were killed in the name of inequality.” Of course, rightwingers, lovable and cuddly folks that they are, just can’t get enough inequality. They consume inequality for breakfast, lunch and dinner and they’re still hungry.
What they hate more than anything else is anyone trying to even the score just a tiny bit. Making the world a little more fair than the cruel hand of fate fetishized by the Right supposedly “goes against human nature.” That’s dubious right there, and Adam Smith himself disagreed.
In his book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith noted that capitalism was incapable of providing for essential aspects of human society, such as compassion towards one’s fellow man, sympathy, mutual sympathy , and any type of fairness or justice in society. Since the market could not provide these things, their provision was left up to politics, or the state.
Politics is only unnatural; it’s deadly, genocidally deadly. Any attempts to create a little justice or fairness in the human jungle are apparently doomed to end up in mass murder. So don’t you dare mess with that invisible hand of the market.
If it’s market versus politics, the market wins hands down. The same market that starves 14 million people every year. The same market that kills 10 million kids a year. The same market that blew up the US economy and is threatening to take the world economy down with it. The blind faith of the Right boggles the mind.

References

Coplon, Jeff. January 12, 1988. In Search of a Soviet Holocaust. The Village Voice. Grover Furr’s website.
Coplon, Jeff. March 1988. Rewriting History – How Ukrainian Nationalists Imposed Their Doctored History on High School Students CAPITAL Region. Douglas Furr’s website.
Davies, R. W. and Wheatcroft, Steven G. 2004. The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Getty, J. Arch, Ritterspoon, Gabor T. and Zemskov, Viktor N. 1993. Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-war Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence American Historical Review 98:4, 1048-49.
Souza, Mario. Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union. North Star Compass website.
Tauger, Mark B. 1991. The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933. Slavic Review 50:1, pp. 70-89.
Tottle, Douglas. 1987. Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: the Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard. Toronto: Progress Books.

Do I Have Jewish Blood?

I am republishing this post with quite a bit of new information on Henry the Second, King of England, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Queen Consort of France, and the Lombard tribe and later royalty of Germany, Austria, Hungary and finally Italy.
The question has come up because some of the charming local anti-Semites are convinced that I must be part Jewish. They say that I look Jewish too. As far where I got the curly hair, I really have no idea. I think from my Mom’s side.
No, I am not Jewish at all, sadly. Though I wish I was;  in a way, I want to be a Jew. I’m just a Judeophilic Gentile. My parents are both extreme Judeophiles who grew up with Jews and went to mostly Jewish schools. A lot of my Dad’s best friends were Jews, and those were some of the family friends that I grew up with. I even went to some kid’s bar mitzvah when I was a kid, and I thought it was really cool.
Later I hung around Hollywood and LA for years with the music crowd, the artist crowd, the movie crowd and the writer crowd. All those scenes are swarming with Jews, and Hollywood in general has Jews everywhere. I worked in Beverly Hills for a while, and that place is full of Jews too. What’s weird is that even though I’m a Judeophilic Gentile, lots of folks keeping calling me an anti-Semite. So really, I’m a self-hating Judeophilic Gentile.
We have done our genealogy going back a very very long time, and there is not the slightest trace of Jewish blood. I am 5/8 British (English, Scottish, Welsh and Scots Irish), 1/4 German (Swiss German and Bavarian) and 1/8 French. Some of my relatives came over on the 2nd Mayflower boat and others came over from Bavaria in the early 1700’s and became Pennsylvania Dutch. Others were the early French in Canada. The Scottish side comes from the Isle of Uist in the far North.
Going way back, I am related to some royalty named Eleanor of Aquitaine who was related to Charlemagne. Eleanor was Queen of the Franks, and her son was Richard the Lionhearted. The Franks were originally a Germanic tribe in far western Germany,  but the Western branch, West Francia, later became the Kingdom of France.
She was a Capetian (Capetian Dynasty, Direct Capetians, otherwise known as the House of France), a large French family similar to the Carolingians, and was a Queen Consort of the King of France, in this case, Louis The Seventh, or Louis The Young. Queen Consort is not the same as Queen. The French did not allow Queens, so the high-ranking women had to be called Queen Consorts.
He later divorced Eleanor because they fought a lot, and she only gave him two lousy daughters and no sons. He had to divorce the biatch in order to keep the throne, so dump her he did.
Eleanor later married Henry II, King of England. This was a good marriage from his POV, since he gained 1/4 of France by marrying her. Henry is known in some English histories as “Good King Henry”, but this is controversial. Henry was a ferocious and hot-headed redhead, who was armed at all times with multiple weapons, moved continuously  and exercised maniacally.
Henry had a great sense of humor and did not put on airs. He mingled well with the ordinary people and never acted like he was better than they were. An early proto-socialist, he ordered that 10% of the foods delivered to the royal palace be given to the poor.
Later he conquered Ireland, initiating an 800 year period of English rule over Ireland, so to the Irish, I am sure this guy is evil incarnate. He also conquered all of the forts in southern Scotland, so the Scots probably hate him too.
This was during a 200-300 year period (around 1100-1400) in which the Scottish were engaged in continuous wars of rebellion against the English. Robert the Bruce is possibly the best known of the rebels. By around 1300-1400, the Scottish had pretty much secured their independence. The first thing they did was destroy all their southern forts so the English could not reoccupy them.
Henry II tried to get rid of trial by ordeal and trial by combat, the standard ways of trying accused criminals, which were not exactly fair trials. He initiated something similar to a Grand Jury as early as the 1100’s.
His intemperate language incited his friends to kill Thomas Becket, a priest who had been constantly thwarting Henry’s efforts to reduce the influence of the Church in the affairs of the state. This murder outraged Eleanor and most of Europe, and most people blamed Henry. This famous event was fictionalized in a play and later a movie called Becket, which I have not seen.
Late in life, his own son made an alliance with his worst rival and overthrew him. Henry was forced to pay homage to this rival, Philip Augustus. All of his kids except his illegitimate son abandoned him late in life when he was in poor health. Lying in bed, ill, at this time, attended only by his illegitimate son, he noted that his legitimate kids “were the real bastards.” He died in 1189.
Eleanor always fought with Henry, but she bore him 8 kids. She  encouraged her sons to rebel against her husband (What a bitch!) early on, and Henry appropriately sentenced her to house arrest for 15 years. Eleanor later assumed the throne after his death and pronounced herself Queen of England, and she expanded on Henry’s “grand jury” trials towards a more “ordinary citizens” type of trials.
At her court in exile in France, she reportedly held “love trials” presided over by juries composed of 12 peers, for couples in love. Eleanor was very beautiful, probably a redhead. At one time, a single heir to royalty with an extensive land claim in France, she was said to be the most eligible woman in Europe.
Henry and Eleanor were also portrayed in the Lion In Winter, a play and later a movie which I have also not seen. Peter O’Toole played Henry in both movies.
Before the Normans and Franks, we trace one of our lines all the way back to the Post Roman Empire to a royal family called the Lombards in northern Italy. This is another Germanic group that left southern Sweden about 2,500 years ago, moved to Germany, then moved down to northern Italy.
Initially, the Lombards settled in the Lower Elbe River Valley in northern German near Hamburg. They were pagans, initially having a fertility cult religion (the cult of Vanir), but later becoming worshipers of Odin (the cult of Æsir). Vanir was a typical agricultural society religion, while Æsir was a typical religion of a warrior society.
They grew their beards very long, which is where their name “Longbeards”, from Langobards, or Lombards,  is derived, according to Paul the Deacon in his Historia Langobardorum or History of the Lombards. The long beards were apparently a consequence of their Odin-worship, since the God Odin has a very long beard. They were also ferocious and fought with many of the surrounding tribes.
The first Lombard migration, from 489 to 493, was probably due to bad harvests. It took them south to the Danube, probably around Austria and western Czechoslovakia, place called Vergundaib (probably the ancient home of the Burgundes or Burgundy tribe). They stayed there for 33 years until they undertook another migration, this time taking them to Western Hungary, to a place called Pannonia. Map of Lombard migrations.
In Pannonia, the Lombards came into contact with the Sarmatians, an Iranian people (more probably related to Ossetians). From them, they added an element of religious symbolism, particularly a statue of a bird on the end of a long pole. When a warrior fell in battle and his body could not be returned for burial, his family would put this bird-pole in the ground near their home, with the bird’s head pointing towards the direction where the warrior was presumed to have fallen.
In 568, they moved again, this time over to northern Italy, where they quickly conquered most of northern Italy from the Byzantines. When they arrived in Italy, some Lombards were still pagans, while others had adopted Arian Christianity (see post on Arianism).
In the next 150 years, most Lombards had converted to Orthodoxy (Catholicism) and had taken Roman names, titles and traditions. Note that even after the Fall of the Roman Empire, it continued to exert influence both culturally and theologically through the Catholic Church.
The Lombards were completely converted to Christianity by around 650. Before then, in Italy they had practiced a nominal Christianity with many pagan elements.
The Lombards remained in northern Italy until 776, when they were conquered by Charlemagne.
In the 700’s, two Lombard kings, Aistulf and Desiderius, conquered almost all of Italy. Fullest extent of Lombard rule under Aistulf. Later the Lombards ruled a territory called the Principality of Benevento, in southern Italy. This lasted from 774-879. Benevento is now a town in southern Italy in Campania, 25 miles northwest of Naples.
In Beneveto, Lombard Catholicism reached its apex, shown by the archetype monastery of the period, the Monte Cassino. This abbey was destroyed during World War 2 where it was the site of a huge battle, the 5-month long Battle of Monte Cassino, between Nazis and Allied troops in the Allied invasion of Italy in 1944. The Allied forces thought incorrectly the the monastery had been turned into a fortress by the Nazis.
During this time Charlemagne (the Frankish Carolingians) was conquering much of Italy, but he was not able to conquer Benevento. At this time, Benevento was stuck in between two empires, Charlemagne’s to the north and the Byzantines to the east. During the 800’s, Benevento fought a series of wars against Byzantine-allied Duchys in southern Italy, eventually conquering much of Southern Italy.
In some of these wars, both sides hired Arab mercenaries called Saracens to fight for them. The Saracens soon went viral, splitting off from the men who hired them and attacking infidels all over Southern Italy. Islam eventually conquered all the way up to Capua, 16 miles north of Naples.
In 915, the Pope forged an alliance between all of the Christian forces of Southern Italy and Islam was defeated at the Garigliano River in Southern Italy. The Arabs,  and Islam,  were thrown out of Italy by the forces of the Cross.
Once again, mercenaries were to prove deadly. The Lombard states had called in Norman mercenaries to help them fight the Byzantines in Apulia. But soon the mercenaries had gone feral, just like the Arabs before them.  By 1058, the Normans had conquered the Lombard state of Capua. In 1078, the Salerno Lombard state fell. The Capuans rebelled in 1091 and formed their own state that lasted for 7 years until the Normans reconquered it in 1098.
The Normans were not very good rulers, and their states were largely independent and tended to decline under their lackadaisical rule. The Lombards regarded the Byzantines as oppressors and the Normans as Northern Barbarians. At around 1100, the saga of the Lombards seems to fade into history.
As you can see, with the Norman conquest of southern and central Italy in 1050-1100, a linkage between Normans and Lombard royals becomes possible. Hence, this may be the historical linkage of my Norman line via Eleanor and the royal Lombards of Italy.
I believe there is some linkage between the Franks and the Lombards.
The Lombards would be considered Dinarics, racially, and so would the Bavarians on the other side, so if you go back 1,500 years, my stock is Dinaric or possibly Noric (in between Dinaric and Nordic). Later on, the Norman branch is Nordic.
If you are talking about non-Whites such as Black, Indian or Asian, there is none of that in me either, although there is a 50% chance that I am related to Pocahontas, since we trace our ancestry back to the First Families of Virginia (pre-1700), and if you can do that, there’s a 50% chance you are related to Pocahontas. She had one kid, Thomas Rolfe, and that kid had like 14 kids, and they married into lots of the few White families of Virginia.

What is Arianism?

Arian Christianity is also known as Early German Christianity, because it went over best with ancient German tribes (Gregory of Tours) . Arianism was based on the notion that Jesus and God had not been eternally co-existent for all time. That is, according to the First Council of Nicea in 325, the Church held that when God created the world, Jesus was already there with him, alongside him, “uncreated”. Arianism was officially declared a heresy at this council.
The Arians, rationally in my opinion, held that Jesus was actually created by God at some later point. In other words, there was some period, probably a long time, when God alone existed and there was no Jesus. At some point, God created Jesus and probably soon sent him down to Earth. It’s hard to believe that this was one of the worst religious fights in the Catholic Church around the 300’s and that to this day, Arianism is considered a heresy in the Church.
However, there is a small Arian Catholic Church in England, with some home churches here and there around the world (website here).
Arians also reject the virgin birth, holding that it is a misunderstanding of prophecy. The prophets had merely held that Jesus would be born to a “virgin”, but that word really meant just “young girl.” Due to a misunderstanding of prophecy, “young girl” was mistranslated to “virgin”, hence the Cult of the Virgin and other nonsense. The Arians hold that indeed God can sometimes commit miracles,  but he cannot violate the very physical laws that He Himself has laid down.
Seems like a reasonable split in Catholicism. Too bad there isn’t an Arian Catholic Church near me. I might want to attend services.

References

Gregory of Tours. 539-564. Decem Libri Historiarum (Ten Books of Histories), or Historia Francorum (The History of the Franks). Translated by Earnest Brehaut. 1916. New York: Colombia University Press.

The Failure of White Nationalist Theory: The Case of California

White Nationalists (WNs’) like to throw around figures showing that nationwide, few Whites breed outside their race. But those figures are only for one generation. 8% outbreeding, over generation upon generation, is going to have some significant effects.
In addition, WN’s counter with various theories like Philippe Rushton’s Genetic Similarity Theory, which posits that humans mostly want to breed with their own like kind. There may be some genetic imperative to breed with your own kind, but it is easily swamped by other desires, genetic, cultural or otherwise.
Let us take the case of my home state, California. Let us look at the the Amerindian.
After 150, there are few pure- bred California Indians left in this state. They bred in very heavily with Mexicans at first (often Spaniards) and then very heavily with Whites. In most cases, it was a Mexican or White male breeding with an Amerindian female. If Genetic Similarity Theory is really all that, why didn’t these California Indians seek out their fellow Indians and only breed with them?
Presently, up to 50% of Asian females in the US are breeding out, mostly to White males. What’s up with that? What happened to Genetic Similarity Theory here? Is it lying down on the job?
Genetic Similarity Theory is interesting, but in the real world, so many other things are operating. Sure, people prefer to breed with their own kind, but on the other hand, the story of the human race has been one of endless outbreeding and miscegenation between races, ethnic groups and tribes. We want to breed with our own kind, yet we often breed out. Go figure!
One of the most notable cases of interbreeding in this state is the White and the Mexican. First of all, it is not really true that Mexicans are “non-Whites”. It’s more the case, from a White POV, that they are part of our White family. Most Mexicans have Mediterranean Spaniard blood.
This includes many Mexican Indian tribes. My research on Mexican Indians indicated that among the tribes studied, there were few pure-bloods. The tribe in question had about 18% White blood on average. It’s similar with “White Mexicans”. Most of them seem to have some Indian in them, usually a small amount, but they are often not pure White by any means.
After 100 years of White-Mexican interbreeding in this state, the number of Whites marrying out, in particular with varying types of Mestizos, is quite high. Keep in mind that although Mexicans are proud of their ethnicity like everyone, they are perfectly willing to miscegenate with Whites, as it is not seen as race suicide.
The reason it’s not race suicide is because there is no Mexican race. Mexicans are genetic mystery casserole, most of them have at least some White in them, and the ones in California have traditionally been about 70% White on average. So a Mexican marrying White is not committing race suicide in any way, shape or form. Hence they are more than willing to do so.
After 100 years here, the number of Californians with some Mexican ancestry (including many “Whites”) is quite high.
The truth is that once a state gets as mixed as California is, everyone is just going to start mixing, outbreeding and miscegenating like crazy. There’s no denying it. You can talk Genetic Similarity Theory until you are blue in the face, but on the ground, it’s quite a different story. From a WN perspective, the only way to keep Whites from miscegenating out is probably separation.

Thoughts on the Stimulus Package

Some thoughts on the stimulus package. First of all, it is a proven maxim of mainstream economics that government spending must go up in a recession. If not, you run the risk of a depression. During a depression, the state for sure needs to spend more money. Otherwise the depression never ends.
I assume that these Chicago School freemarketeer morons have thrown all this out, and believe insane things like in a recession or a depression, you should slash government spending. That’s simply madness. The Friedmanites are the equivalent of religious fundamentalists. I would say that what they are preaching is unscientific, except that the dismal science is not much of a science in the first place.
So the stimulus is a great idea. That the Republicans oppose it on the grounds of excess spending just shows how insane they are. All sane economists agree that a stimulus package is needed right now, and most think that this package is too small, if anything.
As far as the tax cuts are concerned, I am getting really tired of all this tax cut crap. According to Republicans, tax cuts are always necessary. In good economic times, we need to slash taxes. We can’t possibly raise taxes in an economic boom! That would ruin the expansion. Truth is that all sane economists agree that an expansion is the one time that you can successfully raise taxes without causing problems.
The Republicans are right that raising taxes in the middle of a recession or depression is a bad idea. So you don’t do it. Liberal economists agree with this too. So how to you increase government spending in bad economic times? Well, the state is supposed to borrow the money.
The tax cuts in this plan are ridiculous. As a socialist, I have little interest in tax cuts. if you defund the state, there will be little money for the socialist programs that we socialists love so much. It’s impossible to promote any kind of reasonable socialist project while one is continuously cutting taxes willy-nilly. There won’t be any funds to pay for the project. Defunding the state via tax cuts is a de facto anti-socialist project.
My main beef with this stimulus thing is that there needs to be a massive debt write-down. That’s all there is to it. This debt, in all of its forms, is simply unpayable.
Some readers may not understand what a debt write-down is. Say you bought a home for $500,000. With the collapse of housing prices, it is now worth $300,000. Ballooning mortgage payments mean you can’t pay your mortgage and you are going to lose your home. In a debt write-down, the amount you owe on your home would be written down from $500,000 to $300,000. True, the bank loses money, or at least does not get as much money in the future as it would have otherwise. So the banks take a hit on any write-down of debt.
So the debt now afflicting our society, in all of its multiple and nefarious forms, needs to be written down, particularly the mortgage debt. The banks hate writing down debt. They fight it with tooth and nail and never quit.
They lose money in debt write-downs and banks have corporate charters that demand that they function as profit-maximizing organisms. Failure to do so can lead to stockholder revolts and replacement of the bank’s top management.
So this stimulus, in not writing down debt, lets the banks off the hook. And unless a debt write down occurs, I’m afraid that the economy is going to go down hard. And take the world economy with it. So really, these bankers are maybe going to take down the US economy and after that, the world economy.
And no, I don’t believe bankers = “Jews”. On the old blog we went over the notion of whether or not the Jews run the banks anymore. They no longer run the banks in Europe, where they ran them for 100 years or so. The Holocaust, horrible as it was, insured that the Jews no longer ran the banks of Europe. European banks are now run by a deracinated corporate class of European citizens, with no ethnic group predominating.
Asian banks, also big players, are run by Asians. The Jews in the US did make a run for commercial banking in the 1920’s, but Gentile solidarity (anti-Semitism) stopped that plot in its tracks. Gentile bankers simply got together and decided to refuse to sell their banks to Jews. When Jews practice ethnic warfare in a society, the only way to fight back is Gentile solidarity, or anti-Semitism.
I do not think that the anti-Semitism should go beyond the ethnic warfare of the Jews. If the Jews are not killing or physically harming Gentiles, Gentiles may not kill or physically harm Jews.
So US banks are now a deracinated corporate mishmash of ethnic groups, with no group predominating.
Why does the debt need to be written down? Because it is unpayable. And when people are busy paying down frankly unpayable debt, there’s no money left over to buy things, invest, etc.

New Flynn Effect Study

There is an interesting new study out about the Flynn Effect (abstract here), which I have written about on the old blog. The Flynn Effect shows that IQ’s in the West have risen by 15-20 points in the past 80 years. In a new study by James Flynn, who the FE is named after, he has discovered that since 1979, British teens have suffered a 2 point drop in IQ’s, while British kids aged 5-10 have seen their IQ’s go up as much as 15 points over the same period.
White nationalists are ecstatic over this very depressing news, since they hate the Flynn Effect with a passion.
If ever there was a reason not be a WN or even a hardcore hereditarian, this is a great one. It has to be one of the most atavistic, depressing, misanthropic and pessimistic movements around. They’re overjoyed that people are getting stupider and furious that humans might be getting smarter.
This is because WN’s, like all racialists, are all about genes = destiny,  however much they lie and deny it. They hate the idea that the environment can have any positive effect on anything, but I guess they accept that the environment can have a negative effect. Whatever!
Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that the IQ’s of British teens are apparently 14 points higher than they were in 1942. They’re also higher than the Brits of the 1950’s, 1960’s and even 1970’s. After 1979, there seems to have been a 2 point drop at the high end of age range of the sample. So there must have been a 16 pt. rise from 1942-1979. From 29-66 years ago, British IQ’s rose at a very high rate. The British of today have higher IQ’s than the Brits of 29-66 years ago.
Now, since 1979, there has been a very modest drop of less than 1 pt per decade in the very oldest teens.
And! In the last 30 years, IQ’s of 5-10 yr old Brits have risen 15 full points!
The WN’s are going on and on about how the reason for this is because the UK is increasingly Black. Forget it. Britain is 2% Black. British Blacks are only 12% White. So much for the “Britain is turning Black” nonsense. Racial factors cannot possibly explain this slight decline, nor can miscegenation.
Nor can increasing Black % in the population explain rising IQ’s among 5-10 yr old’s due to early maturation, since Black IQ is lower than Whites at all ages. Furthermore, increasing % of Blacks cannot explain a 15 point rise in IQ’s of 5-10 yr olds and a corresponding decline of 2 points in 14 yr olds. Is there something about being Black that makes your IQ rise while you’re a kid but drop as soon as you hit high school?
This leaves us with Flynn’s explanation, which seems to explain things well. British teen culture is dumbing down, and race has nothing to do with it.
WN’s always says that Flynn refuses to admit that Blacks have lower IQ’s than Whites. Although he is a Leftist, Flynn readily acknowledges that Blacks have lower IQ’s than Whites.
Flynn has titled the study Requiem For Nutrition As The Cause Of IQ Gains Raven’s Gains In Britain 1938 To 2008. WN’s are chortling that this means that the entire Flynn Effect is nonexistent, since Flynn supposedly predicated it on increased nutrition.
Wrong again, racists. Flynn never stated that nutrition was the sole effect of the FE, and he has always been dubious about that. The Flynn Effect of a secular rise in IQ is a fact. What it means and what is causing it are what is up for grabs.

References

Flynn, James. 2009. Requiem For Nutrition As The Cause Of IQ Gains Raven’s Gains In Britain 1938 To 2008. Economics & Human Biology. In Press.

This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

Lots of Black Gay Men

I had heard that the rate of HIV is very high among Blacks and it is especially high among Black gay men. Some reports are saying that it is higher among Black gays or bisexuals than among some AIDS-wrecked African countries. I never really knew there were lots of Black gays. I used to hang around Hollywood all the time when I lived in LA because I was into the music and club scene. There is a huge gay community there, and it’s true, it was rather surprising how many Black gays you ran across.
It seems odd because the Black community is said to be very homophobic, and they especially hate homosexuality among males. So you get this phenomenon called the down-low where lots of Black guys who would otherwise be out and gay or bi have girlfriends or are even married and then have sex with guys on the “down low” or on the secret. Then they go home and give HIV to their women. This is apparently the source of the high HIV rates in the Black community, plus probably some IV drug use too.
I just got an incoming hit to the old site from Thugsforsex.com. Well, most of you probably do not want to go that site, but I decided to go it anyway, though I sort of figured what it was. The whole site is done up in gangster. There’s gangster talk all over the site, gangster graphics, gangster everything. You can search or browse and a lot of the categories are in gangster talk too. I browsed around and saw a profile or two, with tons of comments after them, then I left; after all, it’s not my thing.
The site’s pornographic and it’s gay pornography, so you’ve been warned. Most Black guys showing off their big Black dicks, which to me is about as sexy as a trip to the zoo looking at the elephant trunks.* Anyway, you look down at all the comments and a lot of these guys don’t even look or seem gay at all. Their photos look exactly like gangsta style Blacks from the ghetto, or Blacks who are trying to look that way. There were also some gangster looking Latinos on there too.
I started wondering…how many of these guys are really gay? How many of them are real ghetto types, except they will just screw anything that moves? And how much gay sex is there really in the Black community? It’s well known that there is tons of gay sex in prison, and the Black guys go in for it in a big way. The truth is that prison sex is mostly Black males raping White males, but you can’t say that because if you do, you’re an evil racist.
Seems like there might be a Hell of a lot more gay sex in the Black community than we think, no?
I’m also wondering if this is some kind of a gay trend? Some kind of “thug sex” thing, like the leather boys and drag queens and whatnot? Weird trend; gay guys are so effeminate and gangsters are so macho.
In case you type in thugsex.com by accident (More porn, warning!), don’t worry, that’s a straight porn site of White women taking on groups of Black guys. Let the fun begin! I put that link in there especially for you White nationalists. You guys just love seeing White women exploring their darker sides like that, huh? Teehee.
*Robert Lindsay is straight

Go Maoists Go

Well-armed Maoist rebels are rapidly expanding their insurgency in India. It has to be stopped now, or in two years, it will get out of hand, says the state. 22,000 fighters under arms. They mostly operate in the East, especially Chattisargh and Jharkand, but they are expanding all over. They are even starting to form cells in big cities. Good for them. Indian capitalism has failed. Time to try something new.
The Indian Maoists have deep links to the Nepalese Maoists, a very forward-looking group of Leftists who are now pretty much running the Nepalese government. Would be great to see a similar-looking group running India. The Indian Left makes sense on Kashmir and even supports separatism in India’s Northeast. I think they could make peace with Pakistan too.

Letter From Mexifornia

Well, the local wannabe Nortenos* just pulled a gun on the local wannabe Surenos* about 30 yards outside my front door, and someone called the cops. Now the complex is swarming with cops. I wish they would haul some of these idiots away. They’re all about 17-21 years old. When a town in California turns from White to non-White, things sure get a lot more exciting. Diversity is our strength!
*They are wannabes because none of them have actually “earned their stripes.” There are a couple of levels of gangs here, the wannabe kids and the real hardcores, who are often older.

Who Watches More Porn?

Great post from the very interesting Congenial Times blog on porn and who in the Hell watches that horrible stuff anyway. The author is gay, and he notes that gay men always have a big porn collection and are known to follow the careers of porn stars like others follow baseball. Hey, good for them! But he points out that the straight men* he knows usually don’t have any porn collections.
Reason for that is, IMHO, that straight culture, namely women, won’t let us collect that stuff. Our straight male friends look down on it too. They come over, see porn on the computer or VCR and right away, they make some snide remark about spanking the salami. Well, yeah? I guess this doesn’t happen in gay male culture because apparently slamming the salmon is viewed positively in that culture. Good for them.
It’s not really viewed positively in straight culture, even though polls show that 97% of all males prime the pump, and the other 3% are liars. The whole implication in straight culture is that strangling the monkey is a shameful act, and the implication is that you are not getting any sex, and that’s why you can’t stop choking the poultry.
Women think whacking the weasel is stupid, unless they are watching us do it on cam, which seems to be an increasingly popular pastime with straight women. Straight women also hate porn, pretty much. They don’t like it themselves and they don’t like that we like it. They steal our collections and delete them from our computers. They find it insulting that we look at chicks who are not them, which means they compete with the porn chicks and think they lost the race.
The whole flogging the log enterprise is regarded in straight culture with snickers and overtones of, “Boy, you sure are a loser, huh?”
There seems to be an age thing here, as young women 19-30 or so seem to be a lot more into porn than those my age or my Mom’s age, who pretty much hate it. I think the reason is that young women are free to watch the stuff, and it’s easily available on the Internet. Since they are free to watch it, a lot of them have, and  lots of them found that they like it.
I notice that most of these young women don’t watch lots of porn though. Just sometimes. I haven’t heard of many straight female porn addicts, but it would be interesting to find one if they exist.
Female sex addicts definitely exist. They’re usually about age 20-34 or so in my experience, but I guess there might be older and younger ones. My neighbor complains that he doesn’t mind having sex up to 5 times a day with his 20 yr old girlfriend, but dammit, she wants it 6-9 times a day. Poor guy. All of us guys should have such misfortunes.
Congenial Times finds that in a survey, bi men watch porn the most of all, then gay men close behind, and straight men way behind the others. This figures, as most of the bisexual men I have known are really extreme sex addicts of the worst kind who won’t take no for an answer. They’re often quite conflicted, lie a lot, deny the male sex part of their game, and have all sorts of issues with the women in their lives. Gay men always struck me as happier than these guys.
And yeah, they do try to seduce straight men. So much so, that friendships with them are essentially impossible.
On to the women. Straight women watch porn the least of all, and lesbians are 40% more likely to watch it. That’s really interesting, and Congenial Times discusses this a bit. Bisexual women watch about 2.5 times as much porn as straight women. This is not surprising, as bi women seem to be seriously oversexed for some reason. Maybe bisexuals in general are oversexed, males and females.
Anyway, it’s nice to see that gay guys are so positive about porn and apparently the attendant yanking and cranking. As a 1960’s style sexual liberationist “do it in the streets” type, I’m opposed to all forms of antisexual behavior. All forms of sexual expression, all the way from monogamy to as many partners as you want with whoever you want to swinging to celibacy, should be fully accepted, no questions asked.
Obviously there are risks with promiscuity, but it’s not a moral issue. Masturbation, like most kinds of sex, is lots of fun for both sexes and all ages, and condemning it is de facto antisexual.
As for me, well, I’m 51, and not only that, I’m on a drug that hammers my sex drive. It’s actually a good thing, because I’m such a sex addict that without those sexual speed bumps, I’d probably be surfing porn 12 hours a day and not getting a whole lot else done. Even fun addictions are a millstone, and it’s better to be free.
*Robert Lindsay is a straight male who couldn’t be gay if he wanted to.

Fastest Growing Religion

Muslims love to lie and say it’s Islam.
Forget that.
It’s Baha’i by a long shot.
Christianity is growing very fast too, but not as fast as Islam. And in Black Africa, Islam is probably losing millions every single year, all because Gulf Arabs are so racist they won’t spend money to keep up the mosques. Most of the loss is converts to Christianity. Probably 15% of Muslims who move to the UK leave Islam. Islam is not growing due to conversions. It’s mostly due to a very high Muslim birthrate.
Baha’i is supposed to be a pretty cool religion, but I doubt if “the Bob” or whoever he was really got shot to death in the mid-1800’s in Persia and then miraculously came back to life. That’s one of their beliefs.
Baha’is are mercilessly persecuted in Iran. The Shia just out and out kill them. They are considered the lowest scum on Earth because they are seen as Muslim heretics. You think Muslims hate infidels? Polytheists are worse, and the most hated of all are the schismatic Muslims who preach what mainstream Islam regard as overt heresies.
The Ahmadiya in Pakistan and India are similarly despised and mistreated. The fundamentalists hate the Alawi in Syria too as de facto heretics, but the Asad ruling elite has gone to great lengths to say that Alawis are just regular Muslims.
The Druze are also hated by fundamentalists, but they are so hardass, gun-crazy and suicidally homicidal in Lebanon that everyone pretty much leaves them alone. They believe in reincarnation, so they are not afraid to die. They were some of the most insane fighters of all in the Civil War.
The Sunni fundamentalist beef against the Shia is that the Shia are heretics. That’s a really hard to case to make, seeing as the Shia are practically the original Muslims. It’s like these idiot Protestant fundamentalists who say that Catholics are not Christians. Hell, they are the original Christians, come on. Them and the Othodox. One church, two branches, East and West, and they healed their schism long ago.

Typical Muslim Behavior

The Taiba, West Bank, pogrom in September 2005.
The Muslims always do this to us Christians, especially when we are small minorities.
It’s probably not that bad to be a Christian in Morocco, Tunisia or Libya. I had a Black African friend from Togo, a Catholic, who was living in Morocco for a while, and there were no problems. And I knew some Nigerian Christians who were in Libya. There were no real problems, but they said that the Libyan Arabs were openly racist towards Blacks (typical Arab behavior)  and they really hated Christians.
In places where Christian minorities are tiny, the Muslims just leave them alone as unimportant.
In places like Lebanon, the Muslims leave the Christians alone too, since the Christians are very well-armed and have lots of political power and numbers. The Maronites, for all their faults, have the reputation for being some of the baddest-ass Christians in the Middle East, and the one group of Christians who successfully fought off the Muslims for centuries.
It seems to be ok to be a Christian in Syria and Jordan too. Egypt is definitely not ok. It’s not a nightmare, but there are a lot of problems for Christians. Turkey and Pakistan are not secure for Christians at all, but Iran seems to be ok.
The Christians have been ethnically cleansed from Chechnya, and there is ongoing ethnic cleansing in Iraq. In Southern Philippines and the Moluccas, it’s “kill the Christians.” Anywhere you have a jihad against the Christian “occupiers” or “colonists” (Chechnya, Philippines and Iraq) the local Christians really get pounded. There’s typically ethnic cleansing and genocidal behavior of some sort.
There are real problems in places like Palestine where the Christians have more than tiny numbers, but not big enough numbers or power to be tough like the Maronites.

The Motto of the Holocaust Deniers

Contradictory agendas are pretty common with humans, conflicted critters that we are.
Back in my doper days I used to run across dopers who were adamant about how much they hated dope, but yet there was a punch line at the end. Their song went: “I hate dope! Dope sucks! Only losers do dope! You do dope? You’re a loser! You’re a scum!…Speaking of which … Dope … Hey! … Got any?
The Holocaust Denier sings a similar darkly humorous tune: “The Holocaust never happened, but let’s do it again, and this time let’s finish the job!”
Yeah right. You guys expect us to fall for that? How dumb do you think we are? You don’t even believe in Holocaust Denial yourselves. That’s just for the consumption of others, huh? You’re lying and you know it. SMH.

Mutual Intelligibility in the Romance Languages

Whether or not I am a reliable source for the question of mutual intelligibility has been questioned in a debate on Wikipedia. It’s been suggested that I am an amateur linguist – that is, I am not a real linguist. This is not true. I am in fact a real linguist. My credentials are that have an MA in Linguistics and have worked in the past as a professional linguist for an Indian tribe in a paid position.
Here is an excellent link on the question of mutual intelligibility between Spanish and Portuguese, the subject of a prior post.  If you Google the question, you get all sorts of hits for the question, so it is obviously something that people are very interested in.
But here’s a guy who actually tested it out experimentally. In the test, which used Spanish speakers from South America and Portuguese speakers from Brazil, Spanish had 58% intelligibility for Portuguese speakers, and Portuguese had 50% intelligibility for Spanish speakers (Jensen 1989). This stands to reason, given popular stories about Spanish speakers being able to ask directions of Portuguese speakers but not being able to understand the response. Portuguese is harder for Spanish speakers than vice versa. Combining the two gives us a figure of 54% intelligibility between Spanish and Portuguese in real life situations in South America today (Jensen 1989).
The test attempted to factor out exposure to the other language and decided that Spanish and Portuguese have about 45% inherent intelligibility or comprehension of those speakers not previously exposed to the other language (Jensen 1989). That sounds about right.
So Spanish and Portuguese have 45% inherent intelligibility and 54% in real life situations in South America involving some bilingual learning.
Keep in mind that Spanish and Portuguese have 89% lexical similarity. Based on that, you would think that they can understand each other or that they are dialects of a single language. But lexical similarity is almost always going to be higher than intelligibility, so that 89% figure is quite misleading. For instance, Frisian and English have 61% lexical similarity, but in the Frisian video in the prior post, I could not make out a single word in five minutes. It appears that 60% lexical similarity and $1.89 will get you a Slurpee at a 7-11 but little in the way of understanding another language.
We also learn, here, that no one can understand French except the French. Spanish, Portuguese, Italians, Romanians, no one can understand the darned French. This makes sense to me. I can’t understand a word of the local French-speaking tourists, and I had a semester of French. They always talk like they are holding their noses.
This is interesting in light of the fact that Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian have 89%, 75%, 75% and 75% lexical similarity with French. But all those similar words aren’t worth a hill of beans when it comes to understanding a Frenchman.
Spanish speakers have a better understanding of Italian. Italian and Spanish have 85% lexical similarity, and that is worse than the 89% for Spanish and Portuguese.
That’s for spoken communication. For written communication, French and Italian can understand each other a lot more. The same is true with Spanish and Portuguese. They can understand the other language when written much better than when spoken.
What is interesting is that everyone accepts that Spanish, Portuguese and Italian are separate languages, despite 54% intelligibility for Spanish and Portuguese.
However, in the cases of Austrian/Bavarian, Swabian (spoken around Stuttgart) and Mainfränkisch (Moselle Franconian, close to Luxembourgeois), these three languages are only 40% intelligible with Standard German. Their status as separate languages has infuriated lots of Germans who just consider them to be merely dialects of German, or “cheap slangs” of some type or other. Yet they have a better case for being separate languages than Spanish and Portuguese do.
Romanian also seems to have some understanding of both Spanish and Italian. Romanian speakers say that they moved to Italy, could immediately pick up a fair amount of the conversation, and picked up Italian very fast. Romanians have ~65% intelligibility of Italian when spoken and possibly 85-90% when written. They can understand written Catalan better than Spanish and spoken South American Spanish better than Castillian Spanish.
Vice versa, Italians living in Italy run into Romanians regularly and say that they can understand Romanian quite well. Spanish speakers say that they can understand a fair amount of Romanian, and Romanians can understand even more of their Spanish. Spanish and Italian have 71% and 77% lexical similarity with Romanian.
Catalan may be about 60-70% intelligible to a Spanish speaker, and that is with 85% lexical similarity. Oddly enough, Spanish speakers seem to understand Galician better than Portuguese speakers do. Spanish speakers can probably understand 85% of Galician. That doesn’t make much sense, but that’s how it is. Standard Galician is said to be pretty Hispanicized these days.
Looking for a nice dialect continuum across Europe where you can keep on understanding people everywhere you go? Try this, starting at Portugal:
Portuguese, Mirandese, Fala, Galician, Asturian, Aragonese, Spanish, Catalan, Gascon, Occitan, Auvergnat, Provençal, Franco-Provençal, French, Gallo, Picard, Jersey, Guernsey, Walloon, Romansch, Friulian, Ladin, Lombard, Ligurian, Piedmontese, Emiliano-Romagnolo, Venetian, Italian, Neapolitan, Corsican, Sicilian, Sardinian Gallurese, Sardinian Logudorese, Sardinian Sassarese, Sardinian Campidanese, Latin, Moldovan, Romanian, Megleno-Romanian, Istro-Romanian, Macedo-Romanian.

References

Jensen, John B. 1989. On the Mutual Intelligibility of Spanish and Portuguese. Hispania 72: 848-852.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Hard Tests Are So Damned Racist

Black firefighters are suing the city of Houston because they do so poorly on a test required to be elevated to the level of captain. It’s a multiple choice test, and the Black spokesman said that Blacks don’t so as well on high-stakes tests. So the Blacks are suing that the tests are discriminatory. This shows the utter insanity of Cultural Marxism. Any test that Blacks or whoever else do worse on must be racist or biased. Yeah, it’s biased because it’s hard. Whites do better on hard tests than Blacks do.
That’s racist right there. We need to get rid of all of these hard tests and requirements, all through our lives and society. We need to make all tests and requirements for every damned thing under the sun easy, because making stuff difficult is racist and KKK-like.
Later, they interview an “educational anthropologist” who acknowledges that Blacks do worse on high-stakes tests. No one quite knows why, says the article. Huh? What else don’t we know? That the Earth is round? One theory is that Blacks get inferior educations than Whites.
That’s possibly true (that they get a worse education) but the main reason for that is because when you have large numbers of Blacks in any school, typically just about everyone gets a lousy education, because the Blacks destroy the school. How do I know this? Direct observation and unfortunately experience. I taught in the LA schools for many years.
Another theory tossed is that Blacks get nervous before tough tests and screw up. This is the legendary “stereotype threat” that has been tossed out as a reason for all sorts of low Black test scores. We Leftists would love to believe in cool theories like this, or even, Hell, the eduction one, but they are both wrong.
Stereotype threat has actually been proven to be wrong in quite a few studies if you ask me, though it’s hard to test for. For one thing, Blacks don’t experience much anxiety period. I bet the Whites and Asians are probably more nervous before hard tests than the Blacks. I bet the Whites and Asians who get the highest scores (the nerds) are the most nervous of all. So much for that theory. Considering that stereotype threat has been disproven for about a decade now, it’s amazing that they are throwing it out there as a hot theory.
I believed in all this leftwing BS for most of my life. At one point, I started studying the issue. I wanted to believe all the leftwing BS, so I spent years testing it out. I think I studied this for around a decade or so, testing out all my crazy theories, and then I finally threw up my hands. None of my theories was working.
The reason that Blacks score worse on high stakes tests (or probably just about any test not involving a football, basketball or microphone) is that they are simply, as a group, less intelligent than Whites. Always less smart? Not necessarily. But they are at this point in time. We know this because IQ tests conclusively prove that Blacks are on average less intelligent than Whites right now.
I’m acquainted with one of the top IQ researchers in the world (in his case, a Leftist) and I assure you that the tests are not biased in any way, shape or form. Might Blacks at some point be just as smart as Whites, or surpass them? It’s possible; all we can say is what the scores are right now, but I would not bet on it. I do believe that Blacks have in the past and can in the future close the gap to some extent.
Are they born that way, is it biological or genetic? It’s possible, but I’m not willing to say that. Keep in mind that environment effects IQ also. IQ would not have been rising by 3 points per decade in both Blacks and Whites for the last 80 years if that were not true.
In the article, a Black firefighter compares a being a captain of a firefighting team to playing football. Forget it. I don’t necessarily support high stakes tests just to be a firefighter in the first place, but this is the test for captain. I understand that captain commands a team of men. You need to be smarter than your average firefighter to do that. He needs to make all sorts of snap, on the spot decisions and he holds the lives of his men in his hands. Damn right they need a hard test for that.
One final comment. It’s a multiple guess, excuse me,  multiple choice, test for Chrissake. How hard could it be? It’s not essay, problem solve or fill in the blanks. Come on, man.
This stuff is embarrassing for Black people. With so many fine examples of intelligent and accomplished Blacks in our land, like the President and First Lady, there’s no reason to dumb everything down. When you dumb everything down, everyone gets hurt, because you end up with unqualified clowns littering the responsible positions and holding the certificates of achievement in society. Certificates and positions which become increasingly meaningless.
Black IQ’s have risen 20 points over 80 years in the US. US Blacks today are smarter than the Whites of 1950. Black folks are getting smarter and smarter. There’s no reason to dumb everything down. What’s next on the dumb down agenda? Attorneys and physicians?
If I were going to be rude, I would say that the firefighter tests are biased all right, biased against dumb people, but I won’t say that.

"You Can't Be An Anthropologist Without a PhD"

When I was working as a linguist – anthropologist for an Indian tribe, my silly boss told me that a professor told her that you can’t be a linguist or an anthropologist without a PhD. At the time, I was working on salary as a linguist – anthropologist. That was my job description, and I received a check for doing that. Working as a cultural anthropologist meant working with Indian informants, surveying literature, etc.
It’s true, I didn’t have a degree in anthropology, but I had done lots of reading in the field and taken a course. I bought a book on how to do field anthropology and all the rest was what you call on the job learning. As far as being a linguist, I was doing that too. I had an MA in Linguistics, but had never taken a course in field methods.
No problem. I just got a hold of a bunch of books, called up a bunch of professors and field linguists, and figured it out on my own. I was annoyed at the guy’s remark (he was some kind of a PhD somewhere), but it was no big deal. The world is full of idiots, and some of them even have PhD’s.
My uncle had a PhD and he was one of the most arrogant people you have ever met. One time, he got into it with the department secretary and the department chair called him and read him the riot act. “Look!” the chair said. “Around here, PhD’s are a dime a dozen, but a really good secretary is damned hard to find! Now knock it off!”
My uncle was furious that he was considered less than a lowly secretary and was constantly repeating this story to everyone who would hear, expecting them to share his outrage. Mostly I think the listeners just agreed with the department chair.
Anyway, it wasn’t until recently that I caught on to what the professor with PhD fetish was all about. There are autodidacts all over the world, and I’ve been quite impressed by some of them. The ones who do best are the ones who follow academic consensus.
Let me elaborate. In any field, consensus is more or less arrived at by the experts in the field, and most of them have degrees or even advanced degrees. An academic consensus about a variety of issues and theories related to the field develops over a period of time. In other areas, disagreement persists. And if the consensus is theoretically weak, eventually it starts getting challenged by a few renegades.
One thing you notice about a lot of autodidacts is that they have a real scattershot education. They more or less gave themselves a degree or advanced degree, and they didn’t necessarily take the required courses. Upshot is that they are great at some stuff and terrible at other stuff.  Worse, they often lack the essential basic background that those with a degree have. The field has been set for a crank.
A scattershot education means the autodidact is often going off half-cocked and saying some really stupid things that no one with a real education would ever say. Really, if you want a seat at the table of debate, you need to prove to us that you deserve one. If you’re an autodidact, no problem, but shows that you’ve got the necessary background, either through formal or informal education, to get a seat at the table. If you can’t show us that, give us a reason why we should listen to you at all.
That may sound cruel, but autodidacts do tons of damage to good theory, mostly by contaminating it in the public square. In the field of history, broad consensus has been reached about the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide and many other things.
Yet the world is full of amateur historians who set out to prove that proven history never even happened. Sure, they are shut out of the academy. For damned good reason. So they contaminate the public sphere with very well-crafted nonsense designed to fool the gullible. I
It’s no secret why nearly all Holocaust Deniers couldn’t get a history professorship even with millions of dollars. In academia, we don’t tolerate nuts, loons and cranks. You either back up your stuff with some sort of facts, or we don’t even let you in in the first place. Sure there are Creationists running around. Some even have Biology degrees. Do you think they can get a Biology Professorship somewhere? Not on your life. Their views are going to land them on their ass before they even have a foot in the door.
There is consensus in meteorology about global warming. Outside the academy, the world is full of meteorological autodidacts whose great calculations show us that global warming cannot possibly be occurring.
There is consensus in biology about which animals are species, subspecies and whatnot. There’s even an organization to stick names on critters. Outside the academy, there are all sorts of amateur field biologists, many receiving large paychecks, who know more than the standards bodies.
Consensus in academia is criticized, but it’s not the bugaboo it seems. If it’s theoretically weak, some maverick will show up and start knocking over the furniture. He might make some folks mad, but they will generally keep it civil.
A requirement in academia is to keep your differences with other scholars respectful and civil. If you notice the autodidacts, they don’t seem to be capable of doing that. They’re often screaming and yelling in various public forums,  leaving nasty snail trails all over that are going to follow them wherever they go. Professors are not supposed to do that. If you do, you might get investigated, if not fired.
Bottom line is that when some egghead makes an arrogant comment like the one you see in the headline above, unfortunately, there is some basis for saying that.

English and Its Closest Relatives

In the last post, we looked at Scots, the closest language actually related to English outside of English creoles. That’s according to Ethnologue anyway. There are only three languages in the Macro-English section, English, Scots and Yinglish, which is Yiddish English.
From Ethnologue (note Fishman is Jewish):

Professor Joshua A. Fishman says, “‘Yinglish’ is a variety of English influenced by Yiddish (lexically, particularly, but also grammatically and phonetically). Any good English dictionary will now include 50–100 (or more) ‘borrowings from Yiddish’ (Yinglish)….
These forms are now used not only by Jews but by others, inversely proportionally to their distance from NYC. In the case of non-Jews the original Yiddish meaning may no longer be known and a related metaphoric or contextual meaning is intended….
Since the variety is only used… (by speakers who can always speak ‘proper English’) Yinglish is never a first language acquired by the usual process of intergenerational transmission. French, Spanish, and Russian counterparts (also a Hebrew counterpart) also exist, but are more restricted in nature, both in size as well as in availability to non-Jews”. Jewish. Second language only.

At first I thought this was a preposterous, but a commenter notes that “it is English with a heavy Brooklyn accent spoken by older Jews and peppered with Yiddish words and phrases.”  Ok, maybe that makes sense then.
Still, I don’t see how that gets in and Geordie (an extremely diverse English dialect) or Scouse (Liverpudlian, likewise), Scottish English or even AAVE (Ebonics) doesn’t make it. Hell, I’ll take Queens New York English before Yinglish.
We looked at Scots earlier. Listening to some Scots tracks, you can pick up a bit of it here and there. It’s hard to say how much you can get. 25%? Less? Who knows. Those of you who listened to the Scots audios in the previous posts, how much were you able to understand? At any rate, for all intents and purposes, Scots is utterly unintelligible to US English speakers.
There’s a lot of silly talk around about mutual intelligibility.
German and English are said to be slightly intelligible, and if German is, you know Dutch must be. It’s frequently said that the language Frisian, spoken in the northern part of Holland, is somewhat intelligible to English speakers.
Frisian is doing ok; it’s relatively secure at the moment. According to commenters at the end of the post, it even has some monolingual speakers. Wow, I never would have expected that.
Frisian been separated from English for possibly up to 1000 years, and if you listen to Frisian, this is what languages sound like after they drift apart for 1000 years. That massive dose of Latinate that went into English did not help matters.
Nevertheless, English and German share 60% lexical similarity, and it’s 80% for the most commonly used vocabulary. In a Swadesh list of 200 words, I think there are only 6 or 7 that lack German cognates. Frisian is even higher. Besides Scots, Frisian is the closest related language to English on Earth, with 61% cognates. So it ought to be interesting to listen to some Dutch and some Frisian to see how much of it we can pick up.
Here is an interview with a top Dutch model, Doutzen Kroes, for a promotional campaign promoting the use of the Frisian language. I believe it is all in Dutch. I could barely make out of a single word out of this 5 minute Dutch language tape. I got a few words, but that is only because I happen to know some Dutch words here and there. Obviously, that doesn’t count. I got about 2%, but that’s only because I know a bit of Dutch.
I will say that Dutch has a bit of a familiar rhythm to it, does it not? It’s not Spanish, French or Italian. The prosody has that English feel to it somehow.
The next video is an interview with the same top model in which she responds in Frisian to questions directed at her in Dutch and English. Don’t look at the Dutch subtitles, because you’ll pick up a lot more words that way. I got the word for “no” in Frisian and that’s pretty much it. But there was a lot of background noise. Comprehension was around 2%.
Let’s try another one. In this one two Frisian poets, Tsead Bruinja and Albertina Soepboer, are interviewed about their upcoming books of poetry. All dialect is in Frisian, clear of background noise, crisp and clear diction. Later Bruinja reads some of his poems in a playground. It was shot in Groningen by Omrop Fryslân, a group that produces Frisian shows on Frisian TV. They have Frisian TV! Cool!
In the comments there are some English speakers claiming that they could pick out enough of it to get the basic understanding. As for me, I could not make out a single damned word. Comprehension was 0%. However, I will allow that Frisian, in prosody, sounds a lot more like English than Dutch does. In fact, it sounds somewhat close to those Scots tapes.
If Frisian and Dutch are this bad, I’m not even going to bother listening to a tape of German. This bit about English and German having some intelligibility seems ridiculous.
A lot of language is about prosody and rhythm. Even if you can’t get a word of that Frisian or Dutch, the rhythm is there. If you have ever heard Old English or try to make it through Beowolf, you will hear that sound in Frisian also. This goes to show you what 61% lexical similarity in two languages gives you comprehension wise – often not a damned thing.
Keep in mind that Japanese and Korean supposedly have 65% or so of their vocabulary derived from Chinese via borrowings. Do you think speakers of Japanese or Korean can make out a word of Chinese, or the other way around? Forget it.
I got a weird and creepy sensation in my body as I watched that Frisian tape. Frisian is a look into our past as English speakers, back to the days before the Angles, Saxons and Jutes got on boats and took off for England long, long ago.
There was a fascinating show on the Discovery Channel a while ago in which the journalist takes a crash course in Old English and then tries to use Old English to buy a cow from a Frisian farmer. The Frisian farmer can actually sort of understand the Old English! Weird…

On the Scots Language

The notion that there is a language called Scots, separate from the English language, instead of just a Scottish dialect of English, makes a lot of folks hopping mad. There is a regular reader who is Scottish who refuses to accept this. The reason is that if you listen to Scots carefully, it does sound like they are speaking a grotesquely distorted and bizarre form of English.
But the thing we linguists keep hammering away at is that if you can’t understand people, they are speaking a different language. People just can’t seem to accept that.
It’s true that Scots is very close to English. Some say that Scots must be more than 90% intelligible with English. This is not the case at all. I don’t have any figures, but a look around the Net showed that the consensus is that Scots is simply not intelligible to many or most speakers of even “Southern English” in the UK (the English spoken in the southern half of the UK). I would gather that even a lot of Northern English speakers can’t make heads or tails of it either. Let’s just forget about American English speakers.
So, bottom line is that Scots is just flat out unintelligible to the vast majority of English speakers.
What does unintelligible mean? According to SIL, unintelligible means you understand less than 70% of what someone is saying. SIL says partially intelligible is 70-89%, and intelligible is 90-100%.
If you ever tried to watch Trainspotting, you know what I am talking about. I think it had subtitles when released her, and it sure needed them, because I could scarcely make out a single word they were saying. Keep in mind that intelligibility differs by individual. A good friend of mine said he watched that movie and figured out the lect about 1 hour into the movie and then was able to make sense out of it, but I never got it.
He’s also a musician, so that may have something to do with it. There’s increasing evidence that musicians are better at language than others. Polyglots are often musically talented. In a lot of ways, language is all about the ear.
To make matters worse, the lect in Trainspotting was not even the real deal, hardcore Scots. It’s just basic Scottish English, not even real Scots at all. It gets pretty hard to figure out where true Scots, Scottish English with heavy Scots interference, and Scottish English proper begin and end.
There are five main dialects of Scots: Insular Scots (Orcadian/Shetlandic),  Northern Scots, Central Scots, Southern Scots and Ulster. As the commenter below notes, intelligibility is quite difficult among dialects of Scots, and it looks like we are looking at more than one language here.
Lafayette Sennacherib,  a Scotsman, writes:

In Scotland, if you go five miles in any direction you encounter a dialect that no one else understands, roughly based on English, but as if there has been little population movement in or out of each little region for 500 years, which is quite possible. There is actually no broad Scots; the poems of Burns are in the dialect of the county of Ayrshire, spoken only there and then.
These days, I as a Glaswegian (from Glasgow, though living in London) find it really hard to understand Ayrshire people when they lapse into dialect, even though it’s little more than 20 miles away. The Edinburgh dialect in Trainspotting is also completely foreign to me, again from only 30 miles away.
As for Shetland or Aberdeen…I worked with a guy from Aberdeen for a year, and only picked out about half a dozen words in that time – if he spoke to me I’d just look philosophical and utter, “Ay mate.”
Funny that although there are lots of accents in the USA, the language is so uniform when there are so many people from so many places. But maybe that’s why – they have to learn a standard dialect to communicate with each other.

Here are some audio samples of Scots from a village called Rosehearty. Here is some more Scots, a 2 minute recitation of a New Testament story. Here are some samples of Ulster Scots, which is pretty much the same language as Scots. This is Philip Robinson reading from a novel called Fergus An The Stane O Destinie. This is clearly a foreign language! This is nothing like Scottish English at all. It’s simply another language altogether.

Mandarin and Putonghua or Standard Languages and Their Dialects

I recently received a comment, which I deleted due to tone, which asked how I could possibly state that Putonghua (Official Mandarin) is incomprehensible with “Mandarin”.
Truth is, there are 1,500 dialects of Mandarin. Putonghua is only an official form of Mandarin based on some of these dialects and instituted after 1949.  In time, Putonghua itself has changed so much that it is no longer intelligible with the pure form of the very dialect that it was based on! Furthermore, new forms of Putonghua have already developed that are incomprehensible to other Putonghua speakers!
The truth is that forms of a language may not be intelligible with each other. That is why I (with the assistance of some of the world’s top Sinologists) am working to redo the classification of Sinitic and carve new languages out of it based on intelligibility. As it stands, there are 14 Sinitic languages. Based on intelligibility, there are far more than that. The Chinese style of promiscuous use of the word “dialect” for both languages and dialects has been very destructive in terms of our understanding of what is really going on there.
Similar things occur in many large languages. Within Macro-Dutch, we probably have 14 different languages, Dutch, 10 forms of Dutch Low Saxon, Zeews and Flemish, and that’s just getting started. For one thing, Flemish is looking like more than one language. None of these lects are mutually intelligible. So there is “Dutch” and then 13 other languages under the “Dutch” rubric.
Within Macro-French, there are 4 languages, Standard French and three others – Cajun French, Walloon and Picard. None of these lects are mutually intelligible. Actually, there are quite a few more, but those are the only ones accepted at this time.
There are 20 different forms of Macro-German – Standard German, Eastern and Western Yiddish, Lower Silesian, Upper Saxon, Bavarian, Cimbrian, Mocheno, Hutterite German, Walser, Swabian, Colonia Tovar German, Schwyzerdütsch, Pennsylvania German, Kölsch, Limburgisch, Pfaelzisch, Mainfränkisch and Luxembourgeois. None of these lects are really mutually intelligible. Actually, there are more than that, but those are the only ones that are recognized. So we have “German” and 19 different languages inside of “German.”
Within Macro-Italian, we have Standard Italian and 13 other languages – Dalmation, Istriot, Neapolitan-Calabrese, Sicilian, Emiliano-Romagnolo, Lombard, Ligurian, Piedmontese, Venetian and four different kinds of Sardinian – Sassarese, Gallurese, Logudurese and Campidanese. None of these lects are really mutually intelligible. So we have “Italian” and 13 different languages inside of “Italian.”
These stuff drives laypeople and Internet cranks completely insane, but linguists look at all it and shrug our shoulders.
National chauvinists are particularly irked by this stuff. Italian nationalists say there is “Italian” and the other 13 languages are Italian dialects. Dutch nationalists insist there is one Dutch and the other 13 languages are Dutch dialects. German nationalists say there is German and the other 19 languages are German dialects.
There’s a tendency among these types to not accept that languages closely related to theirs are actually separate languages and not dialects. This is due to the consolidating, assimilationist, anti-liberationist agenda of the nationalist.
You can go around the Internet and see the wild debates ranging over whether Scots is a separate language or a dialect of English.
What’s interesting is that inside the field and especially in academia, all this stuff causes is just yawns and shoulder shrugs. But outside of the field, ordinary folks are driven mad by this.
This is one reason why people want you to get a degree in a field before you call yourself some kind of an expert. People who call themselves linguists, anthropologists and economists who lack degrees in Linguistics, Anthropology and Economics have a strong tendency to not know what the Hell they are talking about. Many are hacks, cranks and fringe nuts.
Within the fields themselves, especially in academia, there tend to be consensuses about a variety of things, a deep familiarity with the basics of the field and most importantly, a spirit of collegiality and professionalism.
I have nothing against autodidacts in principle, but they often lack all of these things.
Go to sci.lang on Usenet and look at all the autodidacts calling themselves linguists. They are passing themselves off as the world’s leading experts while having raging debates that you won’t hear one peep about in academia. None of these guys would last 10 minutes at a university.
It always pissed me off when people said, “You can’t be a [whatever] unless you have a degree.” But I’m starting to understand what they are talking about. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Interesting Piece on the Shining Path

Here from Al Jazeera. Includes a neat 11 minute minute. Here is Part 2 of the video.
It’s basically a bunch of propaganda crap, exactly what you would suggest. I have some serious issues with Sendero Luminoso, to put it mildly (I always supported a group called the MRTA instead), but this time around, they claim to be doing it right. As usual, Sendero is portrayed as some kind of narco-traffickers.
Barring the arrival of some sort of Chavez-type on the Peruvian scene, I can’t see why the vast majority of Peruvians have even one reason to support the Peruvian state. It’s a horribly racist society, with a completely evil socio-economic system. There’s only one way to get rid of it, I figure, and that’s through revolution. I don’t think the democratic road to power is going to work.
The Peruvian economy has been growing like gangbusters for 10-15 years now, but it has hardly touched poverty one bit. The population in extreme poverty is still around 51%. This reinforces my point about the potential meaningless about capitalist macroeconomics success stories.
Easily preventable deaths by children from obvious malnutrition are easily around 120,000/yr, minimum. That’s why I yawn when they say that Sendero’s war killed 70,000 people. Hell, the system kills more than in half a year, year in and year out. Why focus on Sendero? Who’s the real killer? The Peruvian state!
Sendero killed around 35,000 of those 70,000,  and supposedly the overwhelming majority were “civilians.” The “civilians” lie there is shown in the fact that almost all of those people were members of the rondas, press-ganged local militia that the state had directed to take up arms against Sendero.
Sendero says it realizes how it screwed up, and this time they are going to do it right and not kill the people (they did kill the people a lot last time around).
The US military is there, flying into poor villages and doing civic work, but that’s all counterinsurgency. The problems with the US military’s counterinsurgency civic ops is that they do some civic work here and there, but they never advocate the kind of deep structural changes that society really needs.
It’s like a guy is starving, you have loaves of bread to give him but instead you tear off a few pieces and throw them to him so he will shut up and put away the gun for a while. As soon as he puts the gun down, you won’t even give him crumbs and he gets to die.
That’s what civic ops is all about. Once the guys with the guns put them down, the counterinsurgency civic ops guys pack up and move on the next rathole threatened with armed socialism. The whole enterprise is just fake to the core. If the civic ops people were pressing the state to make deep structural changes to ward off revolution, that would be one thing. That might even make the guys with the guns put them down. But of course they never do it. That would be bad for business.
If Sendero proposed to fight an NPA-style war and advocated a project similar to the Chinese state or the Nepalese Maoists,  I could go along with it. But they were always so radical and extreme!

Don't Eat With Your Left Hand

What did people use before toilet paper was invented?
*Newsprint, paper catalog pages in early US
*Hayballs, Scraper/gompf stick kept in container by the privy in the Middle Ages
*Discarded sheep’s wool in the Viking Age, England
*Frayed end of an old anchor cable was used by sailing crews from Spain and Portugal
*Medieval Europe- Straw, hay, grass, gompf stick
*Corn cobs, Sears Roebuck catalog, mussel shell, newspaper, leaves, sand- United States
*Water and your left hand, India
*Pages from a book, British Lords
*Coconut shells in early Hawaii
*Lace was used by French Royalty
*Public Restrooms in Ancient Rome- A sponge soaked in salt water, on the end of a stick
*The Wealthy in Ancient Rome-Wool and Rosewater
*French Royalty-lace, hemp
*Hemp & wool were used by the elite citizens of the world
*Defecating in the river was very common internationally
*Bidet, France
*Snow and Tundra Moss were used by early Eskimos
Wow, impressive. Humans are so creative, always inventing new things. Sand? Snow? Coconut shells? Mussel shells? Straw? Hay? Grass? The Roman one, a sponge soaked in salt water on the end of a stick, seems like the best one of them all until Charmin came along 2000 years later.
Do it in the river? Terrible idea. In Africa, to this very day, they do it on the beach. Or maybe they wade out into the shallow water a little bit. They have some really beautiful white sand beaches in West Africa, but you really do need to watch where you step.
I believe that in Lagos, Nigeria, a so-called modern city, only 1% of the population has access to indoor plumbing. Where to go? I dunno. Sidewalk? Better watch your step in Lagos too.
In China they used to put it on the crops. I hope they composted it first. Farmers all over China where wheeling around wheelbarrows full of it 60 years ago. It was called “night soil.”
In the Middle Ages, you just went in a bucket. After a while, the bucket filled up. Then you went to the window and tossed it out into the streets. I’m not sure if you looked before you tossed or not.
To this day there is an expression in Mexican Spanish dating from Old Spanish from the Middle Ages – Aguas! means “Watch out!” Aguas means “waters.” This expression dates back to that period when someone was emptying their toilet bucket out into the street below. People down below would yell out, “Waters!” so they could get out of the way when the shit started to fly.

Response To Mike Campbell on Chinese Language Classification

An autodidact named Mike Campbell has issued a long critique of my Chinese language classification.
There are problems with his analysis.
First of all, Campbell says we need to defer to the Chinese on what is a dialect and what is a language. But top Sinologists in the West are saying that the Chinese are falling down on the job and not working according to the modern scientific definition of what is a language and what is a dialect.
The Chinese linguists operate, like Chinese medicine, according to a completely different format that is pretty much at odds with the one used in the West and in much of the rest of the world.
One element of this format is the fangyan. A fangyan has many meanings, but in Chinese it tends to mean “dialect,” or better yet, “topolect.” It also tends to mean the speech form of a given county. But the Chinese definition of the word “dialect” differs radically from the definition used by linguists elsewhere in the world. For one thing, questions of intelligibility with other lects are left out of the definition of fangyan.
Chinese linguists also use hua, which means something like “speech.” This tends to be more expansive than fangyan, but at the same time it can occur down to the level of dialect. Examples include Putonghua, Shanghaihua, Beijinghua, etc, but also Pinghua and Tuhua. It tends to be geographically based – the speech of a particular geographical location, however that geographical location can be expansive or very restricted. But this is not the case in Putonghua, which is just “average speech”, and is spoken all over China.
The third category is yu. Yu is probably the category that Western linguists would most commonly associate with “language” or even “language family.” Yu only refers to separate languages within Chinese. Outside Chinese, the word wen tends to be used. Examples are Wuyu, Minyu, Huiyu, etc.
No one seems to quite know exactly what the Chinese classification is at any given time.
According to Campbell, we must not do anything until the Chinese act first, but they only make a new language maybe once every few years, and they are failing even at that.
Campbell states that Scots and Bavarian are dialects, not languages. He says that Scots is a dialect of English and Bavarian is a dialect of German. However, Ethnologue says that Scots is a separate language and so is Bavarian. The intelligibility of Bavarian and German is only 40%. I lack figures for Scots, but clearly intelligibility is lower than 90%.
Ethnologue is run by SIL. SIL has been granted the task of assigning all of the new ISO numbers. An ISO number means that a lect has been officially recognized by the world linguistic community as a separate language. So SIL are the linguistic scientists who world community has given the task of deciding what is a language and what is not. Campbell is saying that SIL does not know what they are talking about.
Campbell states that mutual intelligibility cannot be determined by talking to speakers and simply asking them whether or not they can understand “those people over there.”
According to Campbell, this is inaccurate. He says the only way to determine intelligibility is through scientific testing methods looking for % in phonology, lexicon, morphology, syntax, etc. He also says that tonal differences are irrelevant for Chinese, because differences in tones do not impede communication, but I would beg to differ on that. Chinese speakers have told me that closely related lects with much different tones can be very difficult to understand, at least at first.
On Ethnologue’s Mexico page, extensive tests have been done on various lects spoken in small villages determining intelligibility between one lect and another. Intelligibility testing is commonly done by simply sitting a speaker of Lect A down in front of a recorded corpus of Lect B and see how much they can understand.
Campbell says that intelligibility testing on human informants is inherently erroneous because as speakers of Close Lect A hear more and more of Close Lect B, they can understand it over a period of time (the exposure factor). This is the problem of interdialectal learning.
Interdialectal learning (the tendency of closely related lects to hear each others’ lects and quickly learn to speak them and hence muddy the waters of intelligibility), trumpeted by Campbell as a reason that intelligibility testing cannot be done on human informants, is regarded by SIL as different from inherent intelligibility. Inherent intelligibility is best regarded as a test of the ability to use the mother tongue.
In other words, when two lects are said to be “inherently unintelligible” this appears to be referring to “virgin” speakers who have not yet had the opportunity to learn each other’s dialects.
Similarly, members of Lect A may simply be bilingual in Lect B, which also invalidates intelligibility testing. However, measures have already been developed to determine bilingualism and the degree of it. A favorite one is SLOPE. SRT is also used in bilingualism testing. Like other intelligibility testing instruments, they have been subjected to tests for reliability and validity over the years.
Further, testing has evolved to the point where we can begin to ferret out bilingualism from inherent intelligibility. In Casad 1974 the author describes testing done on speakers of Mazatec, a Mexican Indian language.
Intelligibility testing was done to see how well they understood Huautla, a related language. Three female speakers had scores in the 50-60% range, and three males had scores in the 90-100% range. Huautla is a local market language that is learned as a second language by many non-Huautla in the surrounding area. I would gather that 55% represents true inherent intelligibility and the 95% speakers represent practiced bilinguals.
At any rate, in the survey, the figures were averaged together so that Mazatec speakers had 76% intelligibility with Huautla and Mazatec and Huautla were said to be separate languages.
Campbell also throws out a red herring in the notion that certain members of a group may simply refuse to hear the language of another group and insist that they do not understand it. Although existent, this problem has little relevance in intelligibility testing. SIL does testing with cross sections of communities.
Furthermore, SIL notes that intelligibility is typically distributed evenly across a community with regard to sex, class and age.
The SD’s for inherent intelligibility in a community are narrow, less than 15%, whereas the SD’s for bilingualism are much higher. This is because in the case of bilingualism, communities differ. Some feel a strong need to learn the other language, others feel no need at all. Further, members differ in their access to an opportunity to learn the other language, even though they may wish to learn it.
This should throw out the notion that females, the aged, the young or the old, the wealthy or the poor, will automatically give us false data on intelligibility.
Campbell hints that intelligibility is poorly defined. However, SIL has listed a hierarchy of intelligibility. SIL says that intelligibility below 70% is “unintelligible” and intelligibility over 90% is “adequately intelligible” (this usually conforms to our ideas of a dialect). Between 71-89% is what SIL calls “marginally intelligible.” Lately, SIL throws most lects with under 90% intelligibility into separate languages.
Campbell recommends throwing out all intelligibility testing with informants as inherently inaccurate and focusing instead of measures of language similarity.
However, SIL notes that linguistic similarity is not an adequate single predictor of intelligibility. For instance, testing in the Philippines revealed pairs of lects with vocabulary similarity of 52, 66, 72 and 74% which had over 90% intelligibility (were inherently intelligible). Over 80% vocabulary similarity for lect pairs resulted in several cases of inherent intelligibility. So lexical similarity is not an adequate measure at all for measuring intelligibility.
In testing of Polynesian, Siouan and Buang, it was found that the higher the level of lexical similarity up to a certain point, the lower the intelligibility scores were. This is counterintuitive, but it shows once again that lexical similarity is poor measure.
Morris Swadesh was the founder of lexicostatistics, the study of lexical similarity. Lexicostatistics has its uses, but determining between closely related languages and dialects is apparently not one of them.
This myth seems to be dying a hard death. Robert Longacre and Sarah Gudschinsky were involved in long debates with Swadesh about the validity of lexical similarity measures, and they seem to have been proven right. The latest findings calculate that any study that uses lexical similarity alone to determine intelligibility of lects has a 4.5-1 chance of failing to do so with any reliability.
Word lists still have their uses. Where word lists show similarities between lects below 60%, odds are that we are dealing two separate languages, and there is no need to do any further intelligibility testing. And they have obvious uses in historical linguistics and in determining genetic relationships between languages.
Vocabulary similarity below 67%, though, typically reveals intelligibility estimates below 60%. Intelligibility below 60% is inadequate for all but the very simplest communication. Before any kind of even slightly complex or revealing messages can be conveyed, intelligibility usually needs to be over 85%. Casad found that 90% intelligibility on a narrative test was necessary before one could move to more complex kinds of communication. Here once again we get into the dialects.
Intelligibility is usually asymmetrical. In other words, Lect A can understand 80% of Lect B, but Lect B can only understand 70% of Lect A. There are arguments about the reasons for this, but one suggestion is that higher figures result from some sort of bilingual learning.
Campbell also points out that it is not uncommon that people speaking the same language cannot always understand each other. He asks how often we have heard a fellow English speaker of the same dialect say something and we did not catch what they were saying for some reason or other. The implication is that we need to throw out all testing with informants due to this.
SIL has actually examined this, and they often include a test called “home-town” in which people are presented with narratives within their own dialect and an intelligibility score is given for that. It is true that sometimes this is lower than 100%, but it is typically not much lower. Nevertheless, using the “home-town factors” of Lects A and B as controls in factor analysis helps greatly when moving on to actual intelligibility between Lect A and Lect B.
One thing to do is to throw out all sentences or questions that score less than 100% on home-town, since if the speakers can’t even understand these sentences well when their own people speak them, how can we measure how well they understand them when speakers of other lects speak them?
Campbell suggests that there are no tests available to use on human informants that pass the smell test of empiricism. This is not the case.
One test, the Sentence Repetition Test (SRT), has been used for decades, subjected to many papers and studies, and criticized and modified in many ways.
In this case of SRT, testing of group members individually has been shown to be superior to testing them in groups. The reason for this is because when you do intelligibility testing in a group of say eight people, you can run into a strong personality or high-ranking male in that group who might say he understands much more than he really does for some reason or another,  possibly to show off. The other less dominant group members then follow his lead and give false high readings on the intelligibility test.
Many linguists, led by SIL, have been leading the way in intelligibility testing for decades now. Some of the top figures in in this subfield are the couple Joseph and Barbara Grimes of SIL. Joseph Grimes is a retired linguistics professor from Cornell.
In addition, a number of computer programs have been created that help the researcher to test intelligibility.
Another charge, that intelligibility testing lacks adequate controls, has been shown to be false. Bias in both experimenter and subject has been shown to be a problem, as is the case in most or all science, and measures have been undertaken to deal with it.
The notion that this subfield of Linguistics, intelligibility testing, is unscientific should be laid to rest.
Ethnologue seems to place tremendous importance on mutual intelligibility, however defined. Mutually unintelligible lects are assumed to be separate languages by Ethnologue. Their criteria for splitting off a dialects into languages seems to be 90%. Below 90%, separate languages. Above 90%, dialects of a single language.
In conclusion, Mr. Campbell’s principal contentions in his critique are all incorrect.
First, he suggests that the very concept of mutual intelligibility between lects is impossible to define or prove. SIL has shown that the concept can be defined and tested by reliable instruments.
Second, he says that the use of human informants in mutual intelligibility testing is so prone to error that it cannot guarantee satisfactory results. This is not the case. SIL has proven, through decades of testing, that mutual intelligibility is best done, or possibly can only be reliably done, through intelligibility tests with human informants.
Third, he throws up a number of red herrings that supposedly prove the inherent unreliability of human informants in intelligibility testing. All of these are shown to be the very red herrings that I claim they are, although it is true that unrecognized bilingualism is a problem, but it can often be ferreted out.
Fourth, he says that the only way to reliably test for intelligibility is to compare lects via tones, phonology, morphology, syntax and lexicon. This is an extremely complicated process utilizing math and computer programs and can only be undertaken by practiced linguists. In truth, such elaborate testing, while interesting, is entirely unnecessary.
Fifth, he suggests that any Western reformulations of Chinese language classification need to first defer to the Chinese. The problem here is that the Chinese have completely fallen down on the job. We cannot defer to the Chinese without upsetting our entire system of language classification. The Chinese are entitled to their system, but it is at odds with that used by the rest of the world.

References

Casad, Eugene H. 1974. Dialect Intelligibility Testing. Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields, 38. Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma.
Casad, Eugene H. 1992. “State of the Art: Dialect Survey Fifteen Years Later.”‭ In Eugene H. Casad (ed.), Windows on Bilingualism, 147-58. Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington Publications in Linguistics, 110. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.
Grimes, Barbara F. 1992. “Notes on Oral Proficiency Testing (SLOPE).”‭ In Eugene H. Casad (ed.), Windows on Bilingualism, 53-60. Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington Publications in Linguistics, 110. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.
Grimes, Joseph E. 1992. “Calibrating Sentence Repetition Tests.”‭ In Eugene H. Casad (ed.), Windows on Bilingualism, 73-85. Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington Publications in Linguistics, 110. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.
Grimes, Joseph E. 1992. “Correlations Between Vocabulary Similarity and Intelligibility.”‭ In Eugene H. Casad (ed.), Windows on Bilingualism, 17-32. Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington Publications in Linguistics, 110. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.