Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Another Plausible Eugenic Policy: Refundable Tax Credits for Home Schooling

Single parents tend to engage in dysgenic breeding. Research suggests a large percentage of the harmful results to personality traits of single parenting are due to genes, that is, terrible sex choices rather than the psychological absence of a spouse or most other in home environmental factors. Married couples much more often engage in eugenic breeding, at least when married, middle class whites breed.

The US educational mean amount spent per public school child is currently around $11,762. New York spends roughly $22,366. Special ed students cost much more.

Home schooling parents receive little help from the government. Basic fairness would require the government to provide help since societies gain the benefits of home schooled children while paying few costs. Home schools are not much different from being family based charter schools. Governments pay for charter schools, including charter schools that teach stealth jihad.

A refundable tax credit for home schooling would work like this: If a family with three home schooled children owes $32,000 in federal taxes, a refundable tax credit of $4,000 would reduce their taxes to $20,000. If a similar family owes $11,000, the tax credit would refund the family $1,000.

One counterargument is that home schooled children act a little odd, but that is because they inherited genes for eccentricity from their parents. Such children often inherited beneficial genes for creativity, intelligence, conscientiousness, self-reliance, and higher character in general. Such children also seem weird because today's normalcy is so depraved. In today's world, raising your hand with enthusiasm to answer a teacher's question is considered weird. But students bouncing off walls and raising hell is considered tolerable.

Another counterargument is that children would supposedly benefit more from exposure to public school education, meaning exposure to racial diversity and liberal arts. But exposure to racial diversity is massively destructive and the liberal arts are now devoted to banalities, psychobabble, and cultural Marxism. So this counterargument is bunk.

The other counterargument is the cost of the tax credit but if home schooling becomes more common, it should reduce costs since home schooling is much more economically efficient than today's schools.

First caveat: an only child who never socializes with anyone other than their parents will develop severe mental illnesses. On rare occasions, the media publish stories about vile parenting, locking an only child in a room or closet. So refundable tax credits for home schooling should apply only to families with two or more children, which more importantly, encourages good parents to have more than one child.

Second caveat: the tax credit must be large enough to encourage eugenic breeding and other beneficial results but not so large that some parents, especially single parents, view it as welfare and quit their jobs. A refundable tax credit of $10,000 would be too large. Those predisposed to dysgenics and free riding would have nine children, collect $90,000 per year, and stop working. Research could easily identify a near optimal size for such a tax credit.

Third caveat: home schooled children should be required to take standardized tests at the end of each school year. Children failing such tests should be required to attend public schools and their parents ruled ineligible for home school tax credits. This banning will also discourage such parents from further dysgenic breeding and encourage other parents to engage in competent teaching.

Thursday, September 6, 2018

The Lost Willingness to Accurately Read Between the Lines: a Look at the Anonymous White House Official

The establishments are going gaga over an anonymous New York Times editorial by a senior White House official. But where are the smoking guns? The author states "many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations." But the author doesn't list one specific example. Does Trump drown puppies? Does Trump ship plutonium to North Korea?

In short, the official basically implies that Trump's brand of neoconservatism somewhat differs from the establishment's brand of neoconservatism, a great scandal in establishment circles. "The root of the problem is the president’s amorality." If so, then that implies neoconservatism is amoral.

"Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people." Get real. Neoconservatives don't support freedoms, except the freedom to purge fact facers, the freedom to commit billions of evils of omission, the freedom to rig markets for the well-connected, the freedom to create police states, the freedom to create mutually destructive wars--the "bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more."

"President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations." So merely engaging in diplomacy with dictatorships indicates a "preference for" dictatorships, unlike other neoconservatives who subjugate us to totalitarian Southeast Asian nations and ideologies while trashing our allies as "surrender monkeys."

"But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective... he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back." No, that's not a reference to George W. Bush and his habitual willingness to pursue whatever the first adviser to reach him tells him, the advisers carefully placed by those best at bribery. Nor is it a reference to every other president for over half a century, though it should be.

"There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans." Uh, the ethical reason for having a government is to put the people and other conscious beings first, not the country. The anonymous author acts as if we should be blind to the fact that elites have a long history of "reaching across the aisle" to screw the people over.

"Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making." Every argument I have seen with the phrase first principles attempts to makes virtues out of vices. Establishment first principles are garbage principles.

This is what Trump gets. He surrounds himself with neoconservatives and supports most of their policies, then acts surprised and outraged when they keep stabbing him (and far more importantly us) in the back.

Meanwhile, Trump has never even so much as met with a single supporter of White freedom and self-determination.

Wednesday, September 5, 2018

Visiting a Psychiatric Hospital

I visited a friend a few times at a psychiatric hospital.

The hospital did not fit the One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest image or other Hollywood images. For starters, nearly every patient was a comparatively young adult, a large percentage were young, attractive women. Most seemed friendly. From talking to patients, I gathered that many were there for social media caused mental illnesses. Computers and personal phones were banned. The main connection patients had with the outside world were phone booth style pay phones in a hallway. And patients couldn't leave the building to use the internet. They were locked in. (Doctors and lawyers are also probably concerned about patients photographing other patients and committing suicide with charging cords.)

Visitors were surprisingly rare. Maybe some patients had ticked off friends and relatives. Others probably had few friends, other than imitation internet friends.

I don't know whether other psychiatric hospitals are similar.

Don't expect Mark Zuckerberg or other social media titans to pay these patients' bills, though Facebook admits that Facebook damages mental health. Facebook acts as if "connecting" people needs no justification--amazing what people believe when it benefits their wealth.

Though the hospital was less tragically weird than Hollywood style psychiatric hospitals, the great tragedy here was so much wasted human potential, mentally ill individuals who should not be mentally ill.

Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Starting Over with What We Should Know About Free Riding

A large percentage of contemporary jobs are harmful, parasitic (free riding) jobs or are designed to reduce the harm caused by harmful, parasitic jobs.

So we suffer a) the direct costs of parasitism, b) the opportunity costs of parasitism, and c) the costs of fighting and repairing the parasitism.

If the only jobs available to free riders are productive and free riders ruthlessly rooted out, they are stuck begging, stealing, being fired or being productive against their desires. We should also create incentives to keep them from reproducing.

Politicslobbying, and mass media rank among the most destructive parasitic industries on a per capia basis, creating serious character defects. Social media riddle many individuals with insomnia and other mental illnesses. Lobbying is the most common career chosen by ex-Congress persons, a career chosen by roughly half of exiting legislators, up from less than five percent of exiting legislators in the 1970s. Lobbying increases their incomes by a mean of 1,452 percent. Almost all the top lobbying industries act highly parasitic. Comcast and most of the rest of communications industry have corrupt monopoly or oligopoly power.

Big religion helped fight atheistic communism but now supports cultural Marxism and stealthy, avuncular communism or the Randian gospel. The number of DC based religious advocacy groups increased from 67 in 1980 to 211 in 2010.

Medical specialists spend much of their time trying to reduce or prevent damage from drugs, nihilism, vehicles, militarism, alienation, multiculturalism, junk food, sports injuries, destructive status competitions, and various forms of hedonism. Drugs include alcohol and tobacco. If alcohol and tobacco were invented tomorrow, even the corrupt FDA would not approve them. The fortune of "heroic" John McCain came from his wife's father--drug peddling in the alcohol industry. Nearly all the supplement industry is parasitic. The FDA requires producers of red yeast rice to remove the ingredient(s) that reduce cholesterol. Purchasers of red yeast rice often remain unaware their supplement is an expensive placebo. It's not clear whether reducing LDL cholesterol is particularly helpful anyway, since the taking of cholesterol lowing statin drugs has little correlation with cardiovascular health. Triglycerides, pulse rate, blood sugar, blood pressure, and c-reactive protein are much better indicators of health than LDL cholesterol levels.

The health insurance industry is entirely parasitic. It should not exist. Lobbies limit the number of American students studying medical fields--escalating costs and leading to the importation of incompetent nurses and doctors from developing countries.

The Department of Homeland Security is mostly parasitic, designed to reduce the harms elites deliberately created with multiculturalism, while doing little to reduce those harms.

Much of America's military exists to serve the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia, defense contractors, and other imitation allies. Western grand strategy seems partly based on Hollywood fiction. Any major war will likely turn nuclear. Russia's military is largely based on their massive nuclear arsenal, including tactical nuclear weapons. How many $94.6 million F-35s equal the military power of one tactical nuke?

Financiers--the self-described masters of the universe--provide small benefits, which they use to justify creating harms and opportunity costs dozens of times greater than benefits, costing several trillion dollars per year in economic harms alone. (If plumbers cost the nation several trillion in direct and opportunity costs every year, there would be mass outrage. Imagine getting a $29,000 bill to fix a clog.)

Most individuals in the education industry free ride. Administrators and support staff outnumber professors at some universities. Most professors in business, education, the humanities, and social sciences teach faulty worldviews. A large percentage of social science studies are not replicable. Most of the replicable rest are junk science due to small samples, unrepresentative samples, protocol violations, faulty study designs, failure to tease out alternative causal factors, etc. Instead of blaming themselves and colleges, graduates and drop outs in debt peonage support Marxism and blame the rest of society for failing to pay more for their miseducation.

Ethical individuals become alienated from parasitic jobs. But egoists adamantly assert that they serve the public, protecting society from people with pitchforks. It's astonishing how viciously smug progressives, Neoconservatives, New Democrats, and supporters of Hitlerism are.

Charles Murray estimated that affirmative action costs roughly $1 trillion per year many years ago. The direct and opportunity costs are far larger now.

Westerners working in low paying, ethically productive jobs are rightfully resentful, often having worse lives than individuals living in developing countries. It's easier to live on $3,000 per year in developing countries than $18,000 per year in the West, except for those living rent free with relatives.

Motor vehicles mainly serve to take individuals to parasitic jobs, to schools with harmful curricula, and to neighborhoods far from low functioning multiculturalism. The ethical costs of money sent to OPEC countries alone outweigh the benefits of internal combustion vehicles. It would be comparatively easy to design a society where only those working in rural areas would purchase personal motor vehicles.

Tragically, never before has so much beneficial knowledge existed, yet most of it is ignored or buried. If you search for the pros and cons of some medical procedures, most search engine results are ads or other propaganda, even if you reach page 15 in the results.

If a group wants to secede from a country or global system dominated by free riding, establishment economists would list costs, all else remaining the same. But all else shouldn't remain the same. The masses employed in parasitism should be fired and forced to get beneficial work, even if it means people with advanced degrees working in day care. Bans and strictly enforced regulations should eliminate many free riding jobs. Large taxes on negative externalities should rid most of the rest.

Brexit doesn't start over. It replaces globalist, multicultural power in Brussels with globalist, multicultural power in the UK. It has economic costs with few non-economic benefits.

If Texas secedes, it will be run by Rick Perry style multiculturalists in the short term. In the long run, it will be run by the likes of ISIS and La Raza. It would add a leaky border without ridding the free riding rot.

Evolutionary models point out that groups of altruists must separate from larger groups if they are to survive, as the percentage of individuals devoted to egoism increases. But we are human. We reason, sometimes poorly.  We can expel free riders. We can create eugenic policies to reduce the fertility of free riders and misplaced altruists while increasing the fertility rates of ethical individuals. Ethnocentric strategies out compete other strategies.

In short, ethical self-determination requires more than just separation from diversity. It requires a colossal re-ordering of societal priorities.

Saturday, August 25, 2018

Comparing So-Called Centrists with the So-Called Far Right

The one-dimensional political spectrum line is a fallacious fabrication by those supporting tyranny, but who see the advantage of having themselves labeled centrist and moderate. Individuals who tried to pass themselves off as moderates include Jon Chait, Karl Rove, Joe Klein, John McCain, William Kristol, David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan, Haim Saban, James Kirchick, Cory Booker, Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman, Chris Matthews, Ben Shapiro, George Will, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Joe Lieberman, Bill O'Reilly, Charles Krauthammer, Rachel Maddow, and George W. Bush.

Let's compare the contemporary acts of those labeled centrist with nonmulticulturalists, those slurred as far right.

So-called centrism: supports self-determination, except for Whites, Igbos, Tibetans, non-Muslims in majority Muslim lands, and many other weak groups, treating self-determination as contingent upon establishment self-interest and how much comparative power a group has. Some increasingly support self-determination for Palestinians. Others view Palestinians as not a real people, which is far more ethnocentric than anything most nonmulticulturalists believe. Centrism pretends to be "humanitarian" but that is merely cover for excessive self-interest and demographic warfare.
Nonmulticulturalism: most support self-determination, though some individuals do not.

So-called centrism: often uses the words democracy and liberal democracy but vehemently undermines real democracy. Supports legalized bribery and the importation of tyranny, using migrant ringers to vote for establishments in the short term--Marxism and Sharia in the long term. Any public, establishment figure who decides to oppose such ersatz democracy gets kicked out of the establishment.
Nonmulticulturalism: many individuals support real democracy. Some support fascism, some Hitlerism, some monarchism.

So-called centrism: almost always uses slurs and other irrelevant ad hominem attacks to describe real political opponents while pretending to be bastions of civility.
Nonmulticulturalism: often uses slurs, often does not. Sometimes unwisely refers to themselves using the slurs concocted by others.

So-called centrism: almost always one-sided and constantly distorts the views of opponents. It acts as if repeating fallacies turns them into a good points. It behaves as if no other alternatives to establishment worldviews should enter our consciousnesses.
Nonmulticulturalism: some media are as one-sided as establishmentism, but others tolerate a variety of views, for example, many of the articles on Amren, the New Right Subreddit, and many other nonmulticultural sites come from establishment, pro-multicultural media (much of it illegally copied and pasted).

So-called centrism: caused millions of unwarranted deaths over the past two decades from terrorism, overpopulation, unethical wars, extra pollution, etc. Uses nonwhites and multicultural whites as anti-white proxy forces, including useful supporters of Marxism.
Nonmulticulturalism: caused a handful of terror deaths over the past few decades, causes far fewer unwarranted deaths on a per capita basis.

So-called centrism: tends to overemphasize global warming at the expense of other important environmental issues--fanatically ignores dysgenic overpopulation.
Nonmulticulturalism: not much interest in environmental issues, except those caused by dysgenic overpopulation.

So-called centrism: supports ever more mass destruction by dysgenics, which they post hoc blame on factors other than dysgenics.
Nonmulticulturalism: supports eugenics.

So-called centrism: views arguments as good for one's causes or not, with the latter being deemed "offensive" and fit for demonization, no matter how ethically well-reasoned. Thus, dozens of individuals received Pulitzer Prizes and MacArthur Genius Grants, who seldom, if ever, wrote a well-reasoned argument. For them, persuasive power trumps evidence. Centrism uses a corporate-government alliance to spread fallacies and destroy free speech while pretending to be guardians of truth.
Nonmulticulturalism: some of the above, but also more likely to believe ethical evidence even when it contradicts one's causes. Strongly supports freedom of speech.

So-called centrism: Russia. Russia. Russia! They care little about whether they start World War III. The Democratic Party matters more to them than most of our lives. A few million dollars of Russian influence matters far more to them than billions in despicable influence by Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt, Turkey, Israel, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Nonmulticulturalism: recognizes that many other countries have and have had far worse influence over US elections and politics.

So-called centrism: willing to create or enter wars with almost no regard for long term consequences to nonwealthy individuals. It still supports contemporary counterinsurgency tactics despite their horrific track record. Believes utter nonsense such as the main mistake in Iraq was not having enough troops to secure Iraq, unaware that tribal humans despise the presence of foreign troops, unaware that insurgents play the long game and counterinsurgency surges only temporarily dent their efforts. Centrism is willing to tell almost any lie on behalf of their wars.
Nonmulticulturalism: wary about entering unjust wars, mutually destructive wars, and self-destructive wars.

I could go on for days.

But in general, so-called centrists are more supportive of tyranny, with the exception that supporters of Hitlerism and some other horrible ideologies are bigger supporters of tyranny, which helps explain why so-called centrists try to slur everyone who tells the truth about multiculturalism as a Nazi.

The good counterargument is that we should also compare best versus best, even if today's so-called centrists have abandoned such good beliefs and good belief systems have little chance against those in power.

If we compare the best so-called centrists (Richard Lugar, William Proxmire, etc.) versus the best nonmulticultural worldviews, as we should, then the best nonmulticultural worldviews are still better since the best nonmulticultural worldviews will also include good ideas from Lugar, Proxmire, etc. But multiculturalists such as Lugar and Proxmire would not face eugenic and ethnoracial facts.

But what about progressivism, libertarianism, and other isms? The same problem exists. Libertarians and progressives will not face facts on eugenics and ethnoracial issues without being expelled. But the best nonmulticulturalists will freely pick ideas from progressivism and libertarianism.

In the long run, New Dealerism also trended toward cultural Marxism and so-called centrism. (It would also be rejected by multiculturalists because it interned Japanese, included Dixiecrats in its coalition, etc.)

Economic Marxism is not included above because every major variety of economic Marxism has been a disaster. Scandanavian mixed economies in the 1970s were not Marxian. Economic Marxism is the attempt by the state to control all means of economic production and distribution, though black markets predictably arise. Other forms of progressivism all trend toward Marxism and Sharia in the long run.

In short, nonmulticulturalists have multitudes of different worldviews. Some support anti-whatever bigotry. Some support nonwhite rights but also demand that whites get their rights as well. Some are environmentalists. Some don't care about environmental issues. Etc.

Unlike so-called centrists, nonmulticulturalists are far less likely to be manipulated by groupthink and totalitarian power to spew one ethnoracial fallacy after another.

Monday, August 20, 2018

A Brief Look at Establishment Worldviews as They Are Practiced

A chasm exists between the rhetoric of many worldviews and how they end up being practiced. The poor performance often results a) because such worldviews are practiced by dysgenically bred humans, b) because many humans use ideology as bait-and-switch in the service of egoism, and c) because the ideologies stink--often such ideologies do not match human genetic predispositions.

The specifics of these ideologies stretch into billions of words, but if we seek a brief overview, this is one.

Libertarianism in practice: Let humans do what they prefer, except theft, violent crimes, and freedoms that conflict with the preferences of more powerful individuals. When humans do massively harmful acts permitted by libertarianism, too bad for you and others. It's a fake individualism that leaves you at the mercy of gangs of hostile thinkers, politicians, lobbyists, foreigners, and billionaires.

Neoconservatism in practice: libertarianism and Southwest Asian militarism plus self-aggrandizing, tokenistic or wasteful compassionate conservatism.

Civic nationalism in practice: a euphemism for a semi-neoconservatism with somewhat less migration and less one sided trade deals, a way for some elites to poke sticks in the eyes of other elites while pretending to be men of the people. It's neither nationalistic nor civic minded overall, doing little to reverse harmful trends.

Third wayism in practice: mixes some libertarianism and neoconservatism but supports somewhat more progressive taxation, somewhat more regulation, and much more education spending, much it it wasteful spending.

Marxism in practice: equality is mere bait. Those seizing power make the decisions, including everything from Chavezism, to Maoism, to Stalinism, to Unism, to Mugabeism. Though most ideologies make it easy for the rise of dictatorial power, Marxism makes it especially easy because of "no enemies to the left" cowardice and cluelessness.

Progressivism in practice: a euphemism for Marxism despite less Marxian rhetoric.

Scandinavian mixed economy in practice: a semi-third wayism with more taxation, more regulation, more public services, and less militarism. Doomed by dysgenics, feminism, and misplaced altruism.

Glass ceiling feminism in practice: one or more of the above ideologies plus an emphasis on the claims of wealthy, powerful women (acts as if ordinary women should live vicariously through the power and wealth and status of other women).

Marxian feminism: similar to other Marxisms but with more emphasis on the claims of women, except when nonwhites harm or manipulate women. The patriarchy they oppose is the now nearly nonexistent White, Western patriarchy.

Islam: crypto sharia plus mixtures of the above as alliances of convenience--alliances disposed of once Muslims gain enough power in a society.

What do all the above have in common: support for globalism, dysgenics, blank slates, crypto nihilism, nurture assumptions, evolutionary egoism, psychological egoism, bait-and-switch acts, divide-and-rule tactics, anti-white tyranny, hedonism as a lifestyle, and disregard for long term consequences. Cultural Marxism runs through all of them.

They are all simple ideologies for ordinary followers to understand. For the high priests, complicated writings exist to allegedly justify unjust acts.

Ethical reasoning and weighing the evidence on individual issues seldom matters for them.

Feel good narratives matter more to them than beneficial results. Communicating the fact that one is a sympathetic person by supporting early childhood education matters more to them than the fact that Head Start and similar early childhood interventions are a waste of money and efforts better put elsewhere. Signaling that one is tough on national defense matters more to them the fact that nonwhite immigration and contemporary, Western counterinsurgency warfare are national defense disasters. Self and the political team matters more for them than the citizens they supposedly serve.

They support freedom of political speech--for their perceived allies. For dissenters, social and government punishments abound. Some use corporations to restrict speech, making it appear as if some imaginary free marketplace of ideas exists. They narrow the range of acceptable political thoughts to official myths--ignoring or whitewashing evidence that doesn't fit their narratives while demonizing opponents with fallacies.

They support freedom of association for their perceived allies. For others, self-determination gets mistakenly labeled as discrimination.

They are all ethically terrible ideologies.

Thursday, August 16, 2018

The Most Important Broad Sense Issues

They are in no order:

  1. eugenics and dysgenics.
  2. courage, free speech, and ethical reasoning.
  3. migration, demographic conquest, developing country overpopulation, and the eagerness of some governments to eliminate their own people.
  4. non-demographic warfare, especially nuclear weapons and biological weapons.
  5. low probability, disastrous expected value existential threats, for example, super volcanoes or a collision with a large comet.
  6. pathogen evolution.
  7. economic free riding, destroyers-take-most economies.
  8. religions, especially religions supporting misplaced altruism, unethical escapism, and dysgenic, evolutionary egoism.
  9. self-determination
  10. kakistocracy and the ease with which the worst or near worst individuals influence or take over governments via bribery, Machiavellianism, divide-and-screw, and other methods.
  11. purpose, hedonism, and lack of self-respect--especially via TV, social media, mood altering drugs, politics as infotainment, and the increasing shortage of ethical, purposeful work, resulting in misplaced hostility and alienation or worse: desperate attachments to harmful acts and groups.

Many of these issues overlap, for example, dysgenics, migration, and overpopulation. Overlaps cannot be eliminated.

Multiculturalism, including Islam, isn't just wrong on all of these issues, it is spectacularly wrong, fanatically opposed to being right, willing to severely punish well-reasoned dissent and reforms. Many other belief systems are poor on these issues as well, but few are as horrendous as multiculturalism.

Contemporary establishments have more commitment to spouting insipid buzzwords than willingness to efficiently accomplish big, good goals. My Google search for "under cost infrastructure project," "under cost highway project," and "project finished under cost" produced a total of two results, both on minor projects. Many similar search phrases would likely produce similar results.

Bill Gates calls flu the biggest threat, yet he wastes billions on educational nostrums, managing only $12 million for flu research.


Tuesday, August 14, 2018

Meet the Elites

Man, I keep having incongruous, small sample personal experiences. I shouldn't conclude from small samples but holy hell. I'll read, talk to or work for wealthy individuals, many having degrees from prestigious universities, who describe themselves as Democrats or Libertarians or moderates or lifelong Republicans or something similar. The results aren't pretty. It's difficult to maintain more than basic human respect for them.

(I left the direct quotes below unedited, except for adding some periods, ellipses, cutting for brevity, bracketed clarifications, and turning some double quotes into single quotes.)

The elites on Whites: "We already have enough redneck hillbilly white trash cousin fuckers... we don't need to pile on with more toothless okies." And "All Trump voters are racists." And referring to whites "where's an Assad gas attack when you need one?" And it's "crazy how much white trash is in Ohio, how was Ohio formed north of the Mason-Dixon line?" And "Coonass in La and parts of texas is more like calling someone a hillbilly, redneck, or trailertrash. It isn't reference to race or color." And "A bunch of racist, white trash, trailer park, cavemen ,standing in a line on election day to cast a ballot." And the shooter of whites "should have done to Bill Goodmans gun and knife show and picked him up some real fire power. Could have been much more efficicient." And Trump voters are "shitheads" and "Trumpanzees." And they're glad they moved because "everyone back home is fat and stupid."

On foreign policies: "Please nuke the fuck out of us China." And Russians "control American power plants." And "2 of the 3 have pretty good reps (Mattis and Kelly) and they are in defense related roles." And "don't believe" any poll that says "Crimea wanted to be part of Russia."

On so-called activists: Antifa's "actions deserve labelling them as heroes." And "I love Antifa. Wish I could donate to them. Can I?" And "Love seeing them kick the shit out of nazi clowns with american flag pants." More incoherently and unaware that Antifa was the name chosen by Antifas "they're 'antifa' which is short for 'anti-fascist'. The people wielding that word will often insist that they are not racists, not Nazis, and are the persecuted ones. But they're fine with implicitly assuming the label of 'fascist. Weird."

On economics: workers "are bacteria." And "the big growth rates in the 60s fueled the terrible inflation in the 70s and 80s and was fueled by massive government spending and redistribution. Would you prefer going back to those policiies?"

On Trump: Trump is a "shit gibbon." Trump is "Der Fuhrer" of the "Alt Reich." And Trump is a communist "because his father-in-law" is a "card carrying commie." And it's "1939 Germany" again.

On politics: Jeb Bush and George H.W. Bush are "basically the same." And "When did the shitheads start using 'fake news' about reporting they think is biased?" And "The only way I can be happier is if [Trump] appoints Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court." And "I'm hoping Zuckerberg can be that kind of [good president] guy." One such individual claimed he have voted for Trump if Trump promised to eliminate daylight savings.

On immigration: the "chance of a being killed by a refugee terrorist in the US is one in 3.64 billion, according to a new report that studied the tangible risk posed by immigration,'' among the most blatantly false stats ever. And Melania's lucky her parents "aren't Muslim. They'd never be able to come to American."

On shootings: Nikolas Cruz "trained with a white-supremacist group." And "How come I am just now learning that the Kate Steinle death... was an accidental shooting?"  And there was a shooting--"probably a white guy" and the media "will cover it up" or say "he was mentally ill."

On South Africa: Some analogy is "like saying blacks in South Africa mistreated English and Afrikaan minorities."

On life in general: "Shooting to the top of my punch in the face list -- people who say 'How do I tell me child that....'." And "Love how these maudlin fat fucks with goatees are on the verge of tears when they burn their [sports] gear." And "[His] mom raped a retard and had [a baby]."

On police: "In my experience cops are pretty much the worst people in the world and Sessions is going to make it so much worse." If someone gets arrested, they'll assert "he's lucky he's not black." He would "have been shot."

On freedom of association: "Everyone in America" should be forced to watch the Abraham Lincoln film.

They'll spew one fallacy after another, spouting ethnoracial garbage roughly as bad as Stormfront and progressives. I almost never see a well-reasoned argument from them.

They're usually divorced or womanizers or have major marriage problems. They'll call women "cunts" and "bitches." They'll trash most women they're dating. One claimed, "Your body of work as an embarrassed Trump supporter makes you a racist cunt, obviously." Then they'll say they can't believe we have such a misogynistic president.

They'll incessantly complain about petty stuff: the weeds in driveway cracks, the faulty propeller on a yacht, the roommate who called his daughter a "spoiled, racist bitch" and now his daughter wants to transfer (the latter from a guy who frequently calls other whites "racists"). And the "muskets they were using during the Battle of Borodino last night weren't widely used until around 1815. Borodino was in 1812. Idiots."

They frequently refer to other whites as "Dunning-Krueger" political buffoons, regularly misspelling Kruger. They can name dozens of Trump administration officials. But ask them about their opinions on Pigouvian Taxes, Race to the Top, etcetera, and they have no idea what you're talking about.

One admits he "was duped" into supporting the Iraq war, as if most of his worldview didn't consist of a long series of dupings, plus unwillingness to find unwanted facts.

They support smug, self-aggrandizing tokenism: "My company is matching hurricane relief donations up to $1000. I just donated $100, most of my profit from the Mayweather fight, to the cause. I challenge each and everyone to do the same."

One financier brags about the Zig Zigleresque tactics he uses on clients: the Nazis apparently had a bunch of tanks sitting around. When they tried to start the tanks, the tanks wouldn't start because rodents chewed the tanks' electrical wires (an apparent warning to expect the unexpected and don't let assets sit).

I try to understand their minds. Maybe they think multiculturalism, neoconservatism, neoliberalism, and classical liberalism are forms of ethical altruism, a light unto the nations. Maybe they regard their jobs or former jobs in law, finance, medicine, and upper management as far more difficult than the jobs other whites have. They think they deserve every penny of their wealth. But those other whites are beneficiaries of privilege, who must be forced to sacrifice everything.

But the reality is much worse.

What our ruling classes peddle for mass public consumption is highly self-censored.

The odd thing is that if Trump self-censored more often, never said or wrote anything vulgar, never mentioned trade or immigration, many elites would have voted for him in the general election--or someone similar.

These are our elites.

Monday, August 13, 2018

A More Logical Look at Definitions, Including Definitions of Racism

It must be election season. National Review is again running bait-and-switch articles slightly critical of multiculturalism for the party partisans made "uneasy" by multicultural tyranny.

This poorly reasoned mess is about defining racism.

(After the November election, it will be back to the same old Randism, neoconservatism, and anti-white tyranny from the National Review.)

Contra the National Review author, definitions on ethical issues should not be authoritatively decided by dictionaries, communities or "how most people use" words. Academics have an ethical right to make good definitions, too. Everyone has an ethical right to introduce new, good words and new, good meanings. Everyone should have that legal right as well, but in some totalitarian places, individuals will be punished for blasphemy or political incorrectness for good definitions.

Let's look at what good definitions should be. Logically, definitions are degrees of good or bad. Many bad definitions are unclear, circular, too broad, too narrow, too unspecific or slanted. Slanted definitions are fallacious attempts to manipulate individuals into conclusions via definition. Some bad definitions are fallacious in other ways. Good definitions are none of those things. Good definitions sometimes list, give examples or accurately describe in other ways. The fact that people disagree about definitions is irrelevant.

Let's look at some bad definitions of racism I have seen over the past few decades:
Racism is privilege plus power or prejudice plus power: in practice, multiculturalists imply this means racism is being white, ignoring that multiculturalists have nearly all the power and that individuals can't be born with ontological guilt for beliefs. It's not white self-determinationist's fault that Marxian multiculturalists despise the results of William Kristol's or Mark Zuckerberg's more powerful brands of multiculturalism. This slanted, too narrow definition includes the false assumption that nonwhites are godlike since they are supposedly incapable of racism.
Racism is that which offends multiculturalists: another slanted, too narrow often implied definition. When some individuals read or hear something that offends them, they reflexively respond with "that's racism" or various anti-white slurs, no matter how ethically truthful the claims are. This is also a bad definition because being offended is irrelevant to arguments.
Racism is treating someone a certain way solely because of their skin color: this is slanted, too narrow, and a straw person. Ethical whites seek self-determination because differing races have very differing behavioral tendencies, not mere skin color differences. Nonwhites are fanatically committed to the long term subjugation and extermination of whites whether they admit it or not.
Racism is the belief that some races are superior to others: unfortunately, races are superior to other races in various ways. Some run faster. Some survive better at high altitudes. Some create better cultures. Some have more compassion. Individuals should ethically improve their races instead of attacking the truth. This is also a bad, slanted definition because facts shouldn't be described with dysphemisms like racism. Never mind the contradiction that most nonwhite races regard their own races as superior (while expecting racial immunity from racial criticism for themselves). Individuals should support eugenics and cultural reforms rather than attacking the truth.

A better definition of racism:
Racism is a worldview that individuals should be treated unjustly because of their race: This unslanted definition is neither too broad nor too narrow. Perhaps someone will come up with an even better definition.

Note that separation and self-determination do not treat races unjustly because no race has a right to cause massive, undeserved harms to other races. Nonwhites demand self-determination for themselves and self-determination is the only ethical living alternative for many whites, especially in the future.

When someone shouting anti-white racial comments murders a white individual, you'll sometimes see or hear many responses similar to, "Nuh-uh. That's not racism. Racism is prejudice plus power." Such rampant demagoguery is even more reason to stay far away from other races.