Sunday, January 10, 2010 53 Comments

Public appearance

While I've learned never to announce these things until the comp ticket goes through, I'm fairly confident that I will be debating Robin Hanson at the Foresight conference in Palo Alto on January 16 - without my Sea Dragon Conqueror mask, which would provide an excessive advantage. Many thanks to Professor Hanson and Dr. Hall for arranging the occasion.

Unfortunately, because this was set up at the last minute, it is at the reception rather than the conference proper - an extra ticket. But if you weren't going to use that ounce of raw opium, why not sell it and come see the show? If you can't part with it, however, video is promised...

53 Comments:

Blogger sconzey said...

Any hints as to the planned subject of debate?

January 10, 2010 at 2:05 PM  
Blogger Zimri said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 10, 2010 at 2:06 PM  
Anonymous Peter A. Taylor said...

Is Mencius' email address posted at 2blowhards still working?

http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2007/04/_trial_version.html

January 10, 2010 at 2:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent Vance reference!

January 10, 2010 at 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Genius said...

SOMEONE TAKE VIDEO AND POST IT ONLINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

January 10, 2010 at 2:54 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

The original debate topic was supposed to be futarchy, and still is according to this page. I'd rather see Hanson debate Chris Masse (his most knowledgeable and persistent critic on the topic), but Masse doesn't usually go for the long-form and suggests Paul Hewitt.

January 10, 2010 at 5:32 PM  
Anonymous Dregs of the Ancients said...

Unrelated to this post, but for those who didn't see it, here is Patrick Moldbug Buchanan's latest column on democracy:

http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/100107_democratization.htm

January 10, 2010 at 7:12 PM  
Anonymous Dregs of the Ancients said...

http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/100107_democratization.htm

January 10, 2010 at 7:14 PM  
Anonymous Scule said...

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth TGPP.

January 10, 2010 at 9:55 PM  
Anonymous Quasar said...

What's the best laptop in terms of value out there right now?

I'm a student and my last laptop was a MacBook and I like Mac very much, but I just don't feeling like dropping a couple grand at the moment.

Any tips?

January 10, 2010 at 9:57 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

I worry that Hanson and Mencius will be having two different conversations.

MM is correct that futarchy will never be implemented, and if it were, it would be as a tool for bureaucrats to maximize their impact while minimizing their responsibility. His specific criticisms of futarchy qua futarchy fall pretty short.

Hanson is clearly prepared to address specific concerns about market manipulation, however, I doubt he'll address any concerns about the laws of politics other than to say in mock-outraged tone, "shouldn't we at least try to come up with something better?"

I wonder if either party would disagree with the following: Futarchy is fine, however, it simply can't exist.

January 11, 2010 at 4:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Buchanan misses the obvious point that democracy doesn't work here, either.

January 11, 2010 at 5:59 AM  
Anonymous Steve Johnson said...

Cannot exist?

Hanson has to disagree. Otherwise his position is "we should set up a government that makes good decisions". Not much of a position. On the other hand that position is anathema to the modern progressive. To make good decisions you need to accurately perceive reality. To do that you need to notice facts that progressives have declared immoral.

Sounds like there will be plenty of grounds for discussion; MM makes an excellent case for why our government is incurably insane and Hanson has to defend the position that it can make better decisions. He's defending a specific example of the general proposition: that it won't intentionally sabotage decision markets but it is still a defense of the current polygon. Meaty debate but Hanson is an awkward defender of the status quo.

January 11, 2010 at 6:07 AM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Scule, I'll admit it's better than nothing but it's still a good ways from optimal.

DregsofAncients: thanks for the link, but I have to nitpick Buchanan's quotation of Jefferson. It's bogus, one of Jefferson's biggest failings is that he consistently promoted majoritarianism (even if he also believed in a "natural aristocracy").

josh: Hanson's major goal is actually firing CEOs. That's what he'd do if he had a million dollars. His business so far has been with companies who want to use prediction markets for their internal decisions, the government freaked out over his "terrorism futures". It's Mencius who is focused on public policy, Hanson just thinks it's great way to make decisions generally and so could be applied anywhere ("Could Gambling Save Science?" is another example). He also agrees with Chris Masse's complaint that it should be used on small organizations before large ones.

It's quite funny that Hanson is being cast as the defender of the status quo here since Paul Hewitt claims he doesn't accept futarchy because he doesn't think the government is that broken!

Hanson agrees that the government is extremely unlikely to adopt futarchy: "they won’t change unless the public cares much more about outcomes than the appearance of “doing something.” At the moment, the public hardly cares about either."


Steve Johnson:
"we should set up a government that makes good decisions". Not much of a position. On the other hand that position is anathema to the modern progressive.
Why not really go out on a limb and say you're in favor of prosperity? As stated, that's completely uncontroversial. The only point where progressives stop off is your implicit premise that progressives have false beliefs that prevent good decisions from being made. A progressive who rejects such a premise could still hold the stated position.

January 11, 2010 at 8:14 AM  
Anonymous blue anonymous said...

I'd rather see Mencius debate TGGP.

January 11, 2010 at 9:18 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

Does MM care about firing CEOs? Seriously, what are they going to talk about?

January 11, 2010 at 10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd rather see Mencius debate TGGP.

Geez I'd rather have a root canal. Does TGGP's pedantic logorrhea have a verbal form, or is it purely a written art?

January 11, 2010 at 1:27 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

My logorrhea is indeed written rather than verbal. I have yet to discover a way to embed hyperlinks in the spoken word.

My defense of verbosity that I've given here previously: Mencius writes long posts. It is to be expected that a long post will have a long (for a comment) response. If instead he broke up his posts into seven smaller posts, nobody would think it odd for me to give seven smaller responses.

As for pedantry, the devil is in the details! Mencius himself has said it is imperative for the reactionary to be correct 100% of the time, and I am only holding him to his own standard.

January 11, 2010 at 1:57 PM  
Anonymous Peter A. Taylor said...

I'm deeply disturbed at how much sense Pat Buchanan makes in that vdare article.

January 11, 2010 at 5:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is to be expected that a long post will have a long (for a comment) response."

No it doesn't. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you don't need to debate EVERY SINGLE POINT to critically analyse an argument. In fact, it's completely pointless to do so (this notion of 'fisking' is incredibly amateurish from an argumentative standpoint, and before you start quoting random assed bloggers defending your point, go read an informal logic/critical thinking text, and then get back to me, not everything of value is on the internet).

If your aim is make Mencius' arguments better by refuting them, then you are doing an incredibly shitty job.

Take for instance if Mencius made the following argument:

A
B
C
Therefore D

You only need to do a few things to show that the argument is not sound. Either show that it is structurally invalid, which you never do. Or show that the truth of at least one of the premises are false, which is what you generally rely on but take it to a comedic level of analysis. Your responses are generally against A, B, C, and D. When all you needed to do was point out one premise that was wrong to make it unsound, not write out a 2000 word aspie-intensive essay linking to borderline crackpot bloggers.

I've also seen you reject entire arguments based on premises on numerous occasions, which is a fallacy in itself (the bad reasons fallacy), an argument's conclusion can still be true with false premises.

Anyway, I'm pretty much done giving any credence to you TGGP. I'll give it to you that you have pertinent questions for Mencius' arguments, but you also come across as a narcissistic, and dogmatively argumentative know-it-all.

January 12, 2010 at 12:21 AM  
Anonymous blue anon said...

Maybe you should skip his posts, as I often skip all the other ones except his.

Hitting an argument a third, fourth, fifth time is not redundant. Even the fifth criticism makes the argument even less likely valid than it was after the fourth.

January 12, 2010 at 2:35 AM  
Anonymous Leonard said...

you don't need to debate EVERY SINGLE POINT

Yes. And he doesn't need to post things on the net. Nor do you. And for that matter, MM doesn't read his comments.

So we're left with: you don't like TGGP's long posts. Boo hoo -- just skip 'em. Page down.

That said, you make a good argument in spite of arguing that we don't need to argue on the internet. You show promise, grasshopper. Get a handle.

January 12, 2010 at 6:44 AM  
Anonymous Patung said...

http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/100107_democratization.htm

"The Chinese suffered a horrible pogrom in Indonesia in 1965, when the dictator Sukarno fell"

Who was replaced by another sort-of dictator. Who unlike his predecessor was very pro-American. There was no pogrom against Chinese in 1965 at all, rubbish. But the rest of it is good....I guess.

January 12, 2010 at 9:14 AM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

TGGP, are you enjoying all the attention?

Certainly, if someone wanted to incite debate, following your example clearly works. You're hitting nerves even if nobody can agree you're hitting anything else.

On the other hand, you might not be enjoying it, which may mean that it's a self-defeating method.

January 12, 2010 at 9:51 AM  
Blogger Michael Anissimov said...

I will be speaking at this conference, and I look forward to your debate with Professor Hanson.

January 12, 2010 at 12:10 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

I don't think fisking is usually discussed in logic texts.

Mencius sometimes makes references to the rigor of logic and absolute certainty (which is fitting since he favors Mises praxeology over econometrics), but his larger posts hardly take that form. My personal opinion is that many of them are incohesive combinations of many ideas which could be separated into a number of smaller posts without doing any harm to the logic. Additionally, even if he were making a logical argument in the form you state I'd still probably list multiple false premises. For one thing, I could be wrong about any particular debunking. With a fallible system, redundancy is valuable. Further, I simply consider it beneficial to have errors corrected. We can see an example in this thread above: I don't dispute Buchanan's argument, but it was a mistake to attribute that quote to Jefferson, and doing so will give you a very wrong idea about his position on majoritarianism.

linking to borderline crackpot bloggers
Very funny, given this context!

I've also seen you reject entire arguments based on premises on numerous occasions, which is a fallacy in itself (the bad reasons fallacy), an argument's conclusion can still be true with false premises.
True enough, and I would hope that I avoid making that mistake. Could you link to some instances where I fouled up in that regard?

narcissistic
Surprised by that one, I've been accused of false modesty elsewhere. Our host tends to go for humorous false narcissism. My guess is that when discussing myself I go more for self-deprecation than self-aggrandizing.

dogmatively argumentative
I'll give you that

know-it-all.
I'm pretty sure I've admitted my own ignorance in a wide variety of subject matter here. But of course if I have something I think is relevant, I'll say it.


blue anon:
Thanks for making that point.


Leonard:
Agreed.


Patung:
Wikipedia lists 1965 Indonesia in their examples of pogroms. As in Malaysia, the Chinese were closely associated with the communist movement back then. The Chinese embassy was burnt down by a mob. Suharto also passed many anti-Chinese laws after he crushed the communists.


Alrenous:
There wasn't much of substance being discussed to distract from, so I don't mind this. I've stated before that I was seeking to get Mencius to respond, and I'll have to admit I've failed at that. On the other hand, I can't say he would have had I behaved differently. I can give an example of where I accomplished something with someone I pissed off.

January 12, 2010 at 1:02 PM  
Anonymous Patung said...

"Wikipedia lists 1965 Indonesia in their examples of pogroms. "

Great point. Wikipedia. Nothing to do with it though.

"As in Malaysia, the Chinese were closely associated with the communist movement back then."

In Malaysia there were anti-Chinese race riots, this does not mean there was a pogrom against Chinese in Indonesia in 1965.

"The Chinese embassy was burnt down by a mob."

They just don't make pogroms like they used to.

"Suharto also passed many anti-Chinese laws after he crushed the communists."

Irrelevant.

January 12, 2010 at 9:47 PM  
Anonymous Steve Johnson said...

Anonymous addressing TGGP:

If your aim is make Mencius' arguments better by refuting them, then you are doing an incredibly shitty job.

Take for instance if Mencius made the following argument:

A
B
C
Therefore D

You only need to do a few things to show that the argument is not sound. Either show that it is structurally invalid, which you never do. Or show that the truth of at least one of the premises are false, which is what you generally rely on but take it to a comedic level of analysis. Your responses are generally against A, B, C, and D. When all you needed to do was point out one premise that was wrong to make it unsound, not write out a 2000 word aspie-intensive essay linking to borderline crackpot bloggers.


That isn't what TGGP does this is more like it:

MM:

Conclusion.
Supporting evidence A, B, C, and D.

TGGP:

A

Your description of point A is inaccurate in a way that does not effect its use as support for the conclusion.

B

Irrelevant discourse on point B.

ad nauseum

January 13, 2010 at 2:24 AM  
Anonymous Michael S. said...

To reason

A
B
C
Therefore D

is not a correct syllogistic form, but rather is a sorites - merely a pile of premises. Such an argument must be sorted out into a chain of proper syllogisms, each consisting of two premises and a conclusion. Only upon determining the validity of each of the syllogisms may we know whether the conclusion of the sorites is valid.

January 13, 2010 at 10:33 AM  
Anonymous John Sabotta said...

Moldbug vs. Hanson! The Hanging Judge vs the Hu-man Ro-bot

Hopefully the two will battle it out to the finish among the flaming ruins of the wretched "Foresight Institute" Note to Moldbug - Hanson is big and boxy, but he's also kind of slow and not very well bolted together. Robin Hanson can be seen in action here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5UfdjQcw08

which should give you some hints.

(The Aztec Mummy suggests sacrificing your faithful servant Leonard to the dark gods of the underworld in order to insure success, but that's your decision)

January 13, 2010 at 10:48 AM  
Blogger newt0311 said...

While we are on the subject of the Aztec, readers may find this article by Monbiot insteresting: The Holocaust We Will Not See . Suffice to say that Monbiot no longer seems worth whatever infinitesimal respect MM saw fit to bestow on him. The article is so wrong, I cannot describe it in words. It must be read.

January 13, 2010 at 12:21 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

So if anyone wants to try government building, I recommend getting to Haiti as soon as possible. Preferably with a very large boat full of food, medical supplies, and cash.

It will be a blank slate very soon.

January 13, 2010 at 12:50 PM  
Anonymous Steve Johnson said...

newt0311,

That's a pretty amazing article.

January 13, 2010 at 1:11 PM  
Blogger newt0311 said...

@Steve

I know. What even crazier was that I found this article at HN with 60+ comments and no one had questioned the 100 million number yet. That itself is so outrageous a claim as to defy comprehension. How could Monbiot publish this with a straight face?

January 13, 2010 at 1:28 PM  
Anonymous Steve Johnson said...

I think this is the most jaw dropping:

When the Spanish arrived in the Americas, they described a world which could scarcely have been more different from their own. Europe was ravaged by war, oppression, slavery, fanaticism, disease and starvation. The populations they encountered were healthy, well-nourished and mostly (with exceptions like the Aztecs and Incas) peacable, democratic and egalitarian. Throughout the Americas the earliest explorers, including Columbus, remarked on the natives’ extraordinary hospitality. The conquistadores marvelled at the amazing roads, canals, buildings and art they found, which in some cases outstripped anything they had seen at home.

So:

(1) healthy, well nourished people dropped dead in the millions from disease
(2) they had superior public works and buildings (stated) but backward military technology (implied, because they were enslaved and conquered)
(3) they had amazing art that "outstripped" renaissance art but none of it survived to modern times

All mind boggling claims.

January 13, 2010 at 2:16 PM  
Anonymous Michael S. said...

The Aztecs and the Incas are pretty big exceptions to the allegedly "peaceable, democratic, and egalitarian" character of aboriginal American populations by themselves, but certainly not the only ones. Archeological investigation of the prehistoric Anasazi peoples of the American southwest, for example, gives strong evidence of cannibalism. The Mayan and Olmec peoples of Central America practised human sacrifice. Plains and woodland tribes in what we now call the upper midwest of the U.S. were in frequent conflict with each other, e.g., Chippewa (Ojibway) vs. Sioux (Dakota). Torture and sacrifice of prisoners taken during their wars were accepted practices, as were slavery and concubinage.

Monbiot appears to be playing variations on Rousseau's hoary theme of the "noble savage." It's easy to do if you know nothing about how the peoples in question actually lived.

January 13, 2010 at 2:55 PM  
Blogger newt0311 said...

The funniest part of the article is at the very end:

References:

1. David E Stannard, 1992. American Holocaust. Oxford University Press. Unless stated otherwise, all the historical events mentioned in this column are sourced to the same book.

2. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-miracle28-2009aug28,0,2804203.story

3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/09/amazon-man-in-hole-attacked

4. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/350fozta.asp

5. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2802155/Vatican-hits-out-at-3D-Avatar.html

6. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/opinion/26sat4.html


Only one book source for the entire article and some ancillary newspaper articles for filling. Surely an experienced reporter should know to double-check their sources. It makes me think the entire article is a bad joke.

Captcha: Faker. So appropriate.

January 13, 2010 at 3:22 PM  
Blogger dr kill said...

Sorry about the live gate, I'm sticking with the raw Op.

January 13, 2010 at 3:28 PM  
Anonymous potential volunteer said...

Reactionary audiobooks guys, can we get a list of titles ordered by importance and maybe with URLs and wordcount?

January 13, 2010 at 4:40 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Patung:
Great point. Wikipedia. Nothing to do with it though.
I'm a bit confused. If you're trying to say that Wikipedia is not a good source to cite, you could make that explicit. For what it's worth the World Socialist Web Site also makes that claim, though it uses the year 1966. As always, the Council on Foreign Relations says the same thing as socialists. On the other hand, I found some Indonesians claiming that there was a more general massacre in which the Chinese were not particularly singled out. They were posted under the name "Patung", is that you?


Steve Johnson:
Touche.


John Sabotta:
I should have expected such a video from you. For an actual video of Hanson in a debate, see Liberty vs Efficiency.


newt0311:
Monbiot has long been something of a joke. I think I've read more righties using Monbiot as a standin for leftie silliness than actual Monbiot.


G. M. Palmer:
It could be called Operation Red Dog 2.


Steve Johnson:
Claim 1 is actually not that implausible. Smallpox is serious business for people with no immunity. Claim 2 is really silly. He calls the Aztecs and Incas "exceptions", but they were the ones with what we would consider relatively developed civilizations. Which is not to say hunter-gatherers were peaceful, anthropologists consider some Plains Indian tribes to be among the most violent peoples we know of. At any rate, Amerindian civilization at its peak was still quite inferior to the Europe of Columbus' day.

January 13, 2010 at 7:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Monbiot needs closer supervision so he can't chew through the straps and get at the computer,

What a hilariously stupid article!

January 13, 2010 at 8:03 PM  
OpenID torontopm said...

TGGP:

It's quite funny that Hanson is being cast as the defender of the status quo here since Paul Hewitt claims he doesn't accept futarchy because he doesn't think the government is that broken!

TGGP, this is hardly my position. If you would care to read my post and comments, carefully, you will find that I do, indeed, think the government is "broken". I just don't believe that futarchy has any chance of improving the situation. Instead, I suggest reforming the institutions that deliver "bad" decisions and policies. Who could have a problem with that?

January 15, 2010 at 7:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To TGGP:

"John Sabotta:
I should have expected such a video from you. For an actual video of Hanson in a debate, see Liberty vs Efficiency."

I took a look. Albert Speer, Jr.

January 15, 2010 at 7:51 AM  
Anonymous John Sabotta said...

Sorry, that last comment marked Anonymous and that compared Robin Hanson to Albert Speer was mine.

I don't want to be confused with either the "Anonymous" Nazi or the illiterate Anonymous idiot who complains about any post or comment that has too many dang words (which, of course, he counts.)

As for TGGP, I've described his dark and mysterious website before:

The Chamber of Horrors is still going strong. It’s like a Twilight Zone episode, or maybe one of those Amicus 1970’s anthology horror films (ASYLUM is the best, DR. TERROR’S HOUSE OF HORRORS, etc.) TGGP is played by Burgess Meredith, kindly wax museum owner, who shows you each exhibit. Here in the first alcove is a wax statue of Mencius Moldbug, snarling, in judicial robes and wig, a placard showing him to be the “English Hanging Judge Moldbug”. And here is Hopefully Anonymous, frenzied expression forever frozen in wax, clad in blood-spattered lab coat, caught in the act of maximizing his persistence odds by cutting up Michael Allen Skocpol with a rusty hacksaw. And here, under a placard proclaiming them to be “Bloody Bolsheviks”, is a wax tableau of mtraven shooting Robert Lindsay in the back of the head for ideological deviationism.

“So lifelike” TGGP says “Why sometimes, late at night, I think they move around. But of course, that’s impossible.” TGGP chuckles reassuringly “They’re only wax“

January 15, 2010 at 8:23 AM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Sorry, Hewitt. I merely used the expression "that broken" without quoting the full text explaining that you take it to mean just about completely broken, producing far more bad decisions than good. Mencius claims he actually does believe the government is that broken, although he referred to the decision to reject terrorism futures as a rare example of sensible Congressional action.

January 15, 2010 at 6:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, I never noticed Sabotta before, what a great comment here! I'll look out for his name.

Moldbug and Hanson are certainly both extremely contemptablre charcters and one can only hope that this meetup will resolve in one less of them. Hanson is certainly less Hitlerian than Moldbug (Hitler too) but Moldbug is something of a precious resource for mankind. I mean he should definitely be locked up and any self-styled acolytes of his should be shot (particularly the awesomely stupid ones like Palmer) but by GOD do I love the guy!

So I hope he's victorious. Hanson can go. His organs may be usable for intelligent AI, I'll consult the Singularitarians on that.

Off to see what else Sabotta has to say.

mnuez

January 15, 2010 at 8:02 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

mnuez,

Don't threaten violence against me.
Thanks,
GMP

January 16, 2010 at 7:46 AM  
Anonymous Genius said...

Moldbug and Hanson are certainly both extremely contemptablre charcters and one can only hope that this meetup will resolve in one less of them.

One fewer. I'll put money on Moldbug.

January 16, 2010 at 7:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"potential volunteer said...

Reactionary audiobooks guys, can we get a list of titles ordered by importance and maybe with URLs and wordcount?"

YES, PLEASE!

January 16, 2010 at 4:55 PM  
Anonymous Silver said...

mnuez,

Sabotta's satirical take on TGGP's blog was great, wasn't it?

I guess mine would be "Where The Fanged Ones Are."

Hey, did you ever go by a moniker that included "Nik" in it? If so, and you're wondering what gave it away, it's the hysteria, man, the hysteria. If not, geezus, how many of you out there are like that?

January 16, 2010 at 5:38 PM  
Anonymous Billare said...

So I expect some of you apparently idle minds here went to this thing and recorded it and will upload to Youtube posthaste, no?

January 17, 2010 at 1:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

we want video!

January 17, 2010 at 4:49 AM  
Anonymous Patung said...

"Patung:
"Great point. Wikipedia. Nothing to do with it though."
I'm a bit confused. If you're trying to say that Wikipedia is not a good source to cite, you could make that explicit. For what it's worth the World Socialist Web Site also makes that claim, though it uses the year 1966. As always, the Council on Foreign Relations says the same thing as socialists."

I'm saying if you have to use wikipedia and googling then you don't know what you're talking about.

Wikipedia and the other links you provide are right. There were mass killings in 1965-66, and you might call it a 'pogrom'. However I would be surprised if wikipedia said this was pogrom was done against chinese people. Does it? Do any of your sources say a 'pogrom against chinese'?

I'd guess they don't, if they do they're wrong. There was no pogrom against chinese people, the victims of the time were primarily Javanese and Balinese peasants.

Pres. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Oct. 2004:

There is widespread myth ethnic Chinese bore brunt of killings. While true that Soeharto accused People’s Republic of China of backing “fifth column” of Indonesian Chinese, ethnic Chinese probably do not account for more than 2,000 of hundreds of thousands killed. Most were ethnic Javanese and Balinese.

He is right. The only possible dispute is over the number 2000, maybe more, maybe less. But, just because a chinese person was killed, does not mean he was killed because he was chinese.

This will give you a good snapshot of what happened, it is from a 'field report' by a military intelligence officer at the time:

In the Paree (Kediri) area there is a village in which the lurah [village headman] and Ansor [Muslim youth group] together took the initiative to protect the [PKI - communist] peasant farmers "who were only taggers-on" by giving them badges as members of Ansor or NU [Muslim group]. They were gathered together, and coincidentally, there happened to be an operation by the military and Ansor going on. Seeing many people gathered together, the soldiers and Ansor asked the lurah who all these people were. The lurah, nervous and panicked, responded that they were PKI.

Before he had finished speaking, every one of the approximately 300 people was killed, and their families were not permitted to remove their bodies so that they were buried where they lay.

Peasants.

January 18, 2010 at 7:16 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home