The Horrific History and Present of the New York Times:

In the 1860s, the Times demanded that wealthier men be exempted from serving in the Union army.

In the 1930s, Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for his fawning coverage of the Soviet Union. His articles included such gems as "Stalinism Smashes Foes in Marx's Name," "Red Army Is Held No Menace to Peace," and "Stalinism Solving Minorities Problem." Duranty ignored the mass murder and concentration camp enslavement of millions.

During the 1940s, the Times buried news of mass murders by Germans and Japanese.

Following Duranty's lead, the Times continued to ignore facts about the horrors of various forms of Marxism for many generations, including present day cultural Marxism.

In the 1970s, the Times published admiring pablum about Ayotollah Khomeini.

For several generations, the Times has demonized whites while ignoring atrocious behavior by nonwhites or blaming whites for nonwhite wrongs, ignoring massive evidence from genetics and nonwhite cultures.

Many editorial writers for the Times never wrote a well-reasoned argument in their lives. Instead, the emphasis is on narratives and repeating the forgone conclusions of ruling groups. The Times almost never publishes editorials from ordinary citizens. You must be a member of a think tank or New York York Times writer or a celebrity such as the late Paul Newman. The fact that think tanks are in the propaganda business does not dissuade the Times.

The only political ideologies the Times considers acceptable are Marxism, globalism, neoconservatism, and third wayism, leading to predictably horrible results.

The Times continues to push the imaginary virtues of third way Democrats devoted to militarism, cultural Marxism, and robber baronism. Democrats controlled Congress and the Executive branch in 2009 and 2010, yet governed as if they were honorary members of the Bush family. The major campaign promises disappeared because Democrats wanted to satisfy their wealthy friends. Contemporary Democrats make noise about populist policies mostly when populist policies have little chance of passing, that is, when Republicans control the House, Senate or White House.

But the Times continues to advertise the Democrat's narrative that Republican intransigence is the main thing stopping Democrats from doing right.

How soon they forget 2009 and 2010.

Genes and Parents

Genetic engineering of humans is here (maybe).

By imagining the world through the eyes of parents, given the present genetic and environmental influences on parents, you can come up with a probable list of traits parents will select for in coming decades (not in order of importance):

1. IQ and creativity
2. beauty
3. height
4. fast twitch muscles (sports)
5. absence of illnesses
6. strength
7. vocal and other artistic talents
8. lighter female skin in countries where whitening creams are big sellers
9. darker male skin
10. maleness
11. obedience of parents
12. altruism toward kin, especially parents
13. rent seeking toward non-kin
14. religious devotion (for religious parents)
15. arbitrary traits parents prefer as part of their cultures and personal identities
16. darker skin in countries dominated by affirmative action and antiwhite supremacism, especially the West

Many genetically engineered children will have ethically dysgenic traits. Traits 10 through 16 have great potentials for evil, yet billions of parents will prefer them. Multiculturalists, of course, will screech about any children engineered to have blue eyes and blonde hair, making fallacious references to Nazism, while ignoring 10 through 16. (Never mind that Nazism was dysgenic, not eugenic.)

Note that ethical character is nowhere on the above list list. Ethical goodness does not help parents or children in contemporary societies. No powerful individuals in the West have good moral character. It is difficult to succeed with good character. Imagine being a person of good character in 2060, telling gangs of multiculturalists their arguments are despicable and poorly reasoned.

Bam.

Life, career or other goods vaporized.

Also note that contemporary societies are already increasingly dysgenic for ethical character, even without genetic engineering. Islam, Randism, globalism, neoconservatism, multiculturalism and other ideologies increase dysgenic breeding (gene, culture co-evolution).

A few Bohemian types will select for hip traits, for example, purple hair and designs on ears. Some free thinkers will choose avoidance of religion. A few semi-enlightened parents might select for decision making and avoidance of sports, drinking, gambling, and passive entertainment.

It's difficult to determine whether genetic engineering will bring overall benefits. Modified crops are a benefit. But bioweapons rank among the worst threats.

Nonwealthy whites devoted to xenocentrism (most contemporary whites) will disappear, simply because such whites have few children. The few children they have get exploited or destroyed by nonwhites and the super rich. Such individuals may take the entire white race down with them, all the more reason for ethical whites to start seceding from contemporary societies.

Winning Hearts and Darts from Non-Westerners

One little noted feature of Western self-destruction is the absolute refusal of almost anyone in the ruling groups to defend the West.

Sure, they'll defend and promote Islam, Randism, globalism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism with ferocity, but those are anti-Western ideals, all forms of parasitism. Then "thought leaders" act surprised when ordinary individuals are unmoved by their "freedom agenda."

Our rulers won't mention that billions of non-Westerners owe their existences to Western science, technology, and generosity. Instead, leaders join the irrelevant, anti-Western, ontological guilt train. Why did Swedes acquiesce when Jesse Jackson hectored them with fallacious, genocidal rhetoric?

China prattles on about its "century of humiliation." Western leader dare not challenge the narrative. No leader mentions that Imperial China was a totalitarian, Malthusian hell. Women had their feet bound. Almost anyone in China could be murdered for almost any reason, including having the wrong hair style.

No leader states that the West saved Chinese from enslavement and annihilation at the hands of the Japanese in the 1940s, then again from Maoism during the past 40 years.

If the West were so evil and Chinese leaders so great, why did millions of Chinese flee to Western enclaves in Shanghai and Hong Kong?

Russians continue to play their victim games without mentioning the centuries of invasions and subjugations Russia and the Soviet Union engaged in. Russia didn't become the world's largest country by accident or free association.

Multiculturalists tell us the mass slaughter of the American Civil War was good and necessary to end the evil of slavery in America, but fail to mention the far more brutal slavery and tribal genocides practiced by Amerindians prior to the arrival of Westerners.

Barack Obama tells us the former United States is “one of the biggest Muslim nations” and thanks Muslims for "building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy.”

Great.

Thanks for the police state and all the legalized bribery on behalf of jihad and OPEC.

My mind is utterly boggled by the unmitigated failure of Western leaders over the past century. Their egoism and groupthink traits will bring continuing ruin.

And ordinary Westerners are starting to run low on available ruin.

Reader Question

Which multicultural contradiction below is the most despicable?

1. Multiculturalists claiming to promote tolerance while practicing massive intolerance.
2. Wealthy multiculturalists avoiding multiculturalism while using totalitarian force to impose it on non-wealthy individuals.
3. Wealthy multiculturalists pretending their political support for multiculturalism makes them morally superior while sacrificing nothing themselves, while creating massive costs for nonwealthy individuals.
4. Multiculturalists demanding open borders for white countries while encouraging or tolerating closed borders for nonwhite countries, including wealthy nonwhite countries.
5. Multiculturalists claiming to be promote equality while practicing anti-equality Randism, globalism, neoconservatism, third wayism, Islamic supremacism, anti-white supremacism, black supremacism, and cultural Marxism.
6. Multiculturalists demonizing eugenics as inherently harmful while supporting dysgenics, the latter causing far more harm.
7. Multiculturalists pretending to be scientific and enlightened thinkers while fanatically ignoring and suppressing  overwhelming counter evidence.
8. Multiculturalists demanding social and criminal punishments for moral fact facing, sometimes called "hate" speech, while spewing and funding billions of venomous slurs against whites, without demanding punishments for themselves.

Wealthy and Nonwealthy Multiculturalists

A CNBC Millionaire Survey of 500 wealthy individuals, nearly all of whom are multiculturalists, indicates that 71 percent prefer Hilary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie or Scott Walker for president.

All four of these establishment candidates support triple totalitarianism (militarism, cultural Marxism, and robber baronism).

On multicultural issues, wealthy multiculturalists prioritize support for legalized nonwhite invasions, which benefit wealthy individuals through cheaper labor. The two most important Congressional issues to these wealthy indivduals were "Corporate tax reform" (24 percent) and "immigration reform" (22 percent) meaning increasingly open borders.

The remaining 29 percent of wealthy individuals almost certainly support other candidates devoted to triple totalitarianism or other forms of totalitarianism.

Consumers of mass media demagoguery might assume policing is the most important issue for blacks.

But according to U.S. Census Polling of blacks in Maryland, the two most important issues to Maryland blacks, most of whom are multiculturalists and nonwealthy, are public education (30 percent) and jobs (26 percent). Immigration comes in at five percent, with many blacks likely opposing "reform."

Policing fits in "other issues" at only ten percent.

Seventy-five percent of Hispanics prefer a candidate for Congress devoted to "raising taxes on people earning more than one million dollars a year to help balance the budget and create jobs.”

Wealthy multiculturalists work to have wealth redistributed to themselves, with much of the remainder allocated according to ethnoracial spoils systems.

But wealthy multicultural support for nonwhites does not and will not keep pace with nonwhite demands, birthrates, and invasion rates. Trillions of additional dollars would need to be squeezed out of wealthy multiculturalists or nonwealthy whites. Squeezing umpteen trillion more out of nonwealthy whites might lead to open revolt against the stealth jihads and mass nonwhite migration.

Police issues are probably more important to blacks now than when the census was taken.

Blacks want a severe reduction in black killings by police. But white police killings of blacks will not plummet unless white police officers are fired or disarmed or the white race is eliminated. Better training, while beneficial, will not cause massive changes. Many applicants for police forces have a strong power drive and predispositions toward violence, a self-selection effect.

Individuals with wimpish inclinations seldom become cops.

Despite the antiwhite crusade in the mass media, police are less likely to shoot black suspects than white suspects.

When wealthy multiculturalists imagine racism, they picture poor whites in the Ozarks, who somehow magically manage to oppress blacks despite lacking power. Blacks picture racism coming from wealthy white multiculturalists—the Bush clan, for example. The Bushes cannot fathom why blacks would consider them racially unethical. George W. Bush seemed stung that he was considered anti-black during the Hurricane Katrina fiasco. The Bushes view themselves as part Hispanic.The Bushes support globalism, mass invasions, stealth jihads, massive trade deficits, OPEC cartels, worldwide legalized bribery and many more multicultural projects. In the Bushian view, what more could any multiculturalist want?

Far more.

Neither whites nor nonwhites are genetically and culturally predisposed toward moral universalism. Contemporary multicultural whites prefer xenocentrism while nonwhites prefer ethnocentrism.

Any black man killed while attacking a white police officer matters far more to blacks than millions of whites assaulted by blacks.

It doesn't matter how many trillion has already bent on Medicare, affirmative action, and other multicultural economic policies. Nonwhites work to be treated as the master subspecies and to have their cultures treated as master cultures.

Expect a regular series of Trayvons and Fergusons. The media and wealthy multiculturalists profit from such events. The media specializes in straw person claims, abusive ad hominem attacks, and small sample fallacies. Do not expect wealthy multiculturalists to fire themselves or to hand over their own wealth to nonwhites.

Cops are just one more white scapegoat to distract attention from wealthy multiculturalists.

Empire Failure Watch

The cost for a pupil to sit in a classroom and misbehave or learn harmful information is more than I earn in a year at my jobs.

Hence the Some Animals Being More Equal Than Others Aphorism

The rough hierarchy of humans that cultural Marxism practices (so-called egalitarianism):
1. Sunni Gulf State men
2. wealthy secular and slightly religious Jews
3. blacks in the West
4. other Muslim males
5. Muslim females
6. other nonwhites in the West
7. light skinned Hispanics
8. wealthy white supporters of cultural Marxism
9. LBGTs in the West
10. nonwhites living outside the West
11. most other multicultural whites
12. very, very religious Jews
13. Southern whites and Evangelical, multicultural whites
14. minorities in Muslim countries (gays, Yezidis, Mandeans, Christians, Atheists, mixed race children kidnapped by their Arab Muslim fathers)
15. individuals who contradict the official myths of cultural Marxism (Jayman, John Glad, Thomas Jackson, James Kirkpatrick, JP Rushton, Jared Taylor)
16. whites in rape slavery (Rotherhams), multiracial prisons, multiracial public schools, and non-Western countries (Zimbabwe, South Africa)

Individuals in groups 11 through 16 are subhumanized by major institutions, fit for cultural, biological, and individual extermination. Non-whites, when facing aggression by blacks or Muslims, also become subhumanized.

Why are Sunni Gulf State men at the top? Note how working class whites were forced to make great sacrifices to fight, Sadam Hussein, the enemy of the Gulf States while the Gulf States barely did anything, except to bribe Western leaders. Notice how the OPEC cartel has been tolerated and supported with umpteen trillion dollars of unearned income. Look at how the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on jihad by Gulf States gets white washed by multicultural Western leaders. Thousands of libraries in the West subscribe to Aramco World, a propaganda magazine from Saudi Arabia, a state responsible for mass evils. Most Westerners barely raise an eyebrow at the sight of Aramco World in their local library. Now imagine if an sugary, imaginary North Korea World were displayed at local libraries.

Why the difference? Because Westerners have been propagandized into the falsehood that Saudi Arabia is "moderate" and our "ally."

Oddly, egalitarians do practice at least one equality: roughly equal, race blind opposition to ethnoracial realists. Thus, Jayman is eligible to be hated by them as much as the white JP Rushton. Even Thomas Sowell is despised despite being more of an assimilationer than an ethnoracial realist. Small deviations from cultural Marxism, no matter your race, are enough to get you equally demonized.

Note how the mass media bashes "ultraorthodox" Jews but avoids criticizing secular or slightly religious Jews as a group despite the fact that the latter groups cause dozens of times more harm in Hollywood, academia, Wall Street, and government. Supposedly, this is to avoid inciting violence, but then why criticize ultraorthodox Jews, who are easy targets of violence because of their fashions?

And why do major institutions try to incite violence against nonwealthy whites?

Note how blacks angry at whites get worshiped by Western institutions and often incited to violence, as if black anger at whites is a sign of well-reasonedness. But blacks angry at Wall Street get ignored or demonized.

Notice how Western countries keep Zimbabwe's whites from immigrating, though they are at risk of genocide in Zimbabwe, despite the fact that they would be beneficial citizens. Yet Western multiculturalists pursue open borders to import Muslims and other peoples who cause mass destruction.

Even if someone is illogical enough to believe in ontological guilt, contradictions exist. Scandinavians, Eastern Europeans and other Europeans whose white ancestors never owned a nonwhite slave are considered guilty and inferior to billions of nonwhites whose ancestors owned multitudes of white and nonwhite slaves. The descendants of the Conquistadors get to play the victim of the descendants of Latvians, as do Arabs whose ancestors owned millions of white slaves.

Multicultural purity is little defense for whites. Nor does multiculturalism protect white, multicultural Evangelical Christians. Evangelicals thinks they earn brownie points for supporting multiculturalism but most multiculturalists nevertheless despise them, no matter how great the evangelical kowtowing. The multicultural, antiwhite Westboro Baptist Church is reviled by the leadership of cultural Marxism and serves as a convenient straw person and small sample fallacy for multiculturalists unaware that the Westboro Baptist Church also supports cultural Marxism.

The mass media will frequently slur the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese in Asia as r*cist but will not dare call Northeast Asians in the West r*cist. Multiculturalists support the demographic invasion of Northeast Asia by blacks and Muslims, so that the divide-and-rule parasitism of multiculturalism can spread.

European (Ashkenazi) Jews are mixed race, roughly 45 percent Arab and 55 percent white.

The hierarchy varies among variants of cultural Marxism. For example, some multicultural neoconservatives put Jews first, other nonwhite non-Muslims second, Muslims third, and whites at the bottom. Other nonwhites put their own groups at the top. Some Muslim multiculturalists put gays at the bottom.

Moral character almost never matters to supporters of cultural Marxism. The leaders of Southwest Persian Gulf states are fawned over despite horrific behavior. Establishments seek to label almost any nonwhite, non-Christian a moderate as long as they support cultural Marxism. The Muslim majority, who supports the murder of infidels, apostates, heretics, blasphemers, and female adulterers, are labeled moderates. The liberals and neodemocrats at the New York Times tolerate David Brooks despite the difficulty of thinking of a single issue Brooks has ever been right about. All that matters is Brooks' support for multiculturalism. The same goes for Karl Rove, David Axelrod, and Grover Norquist.

Libertarian Friends

 If you support economic libertarianism and claim to support civil liberties, you don't support civil liberties.

Period.

Present policies in formerly Western countries are a result of the combination of economic libertarianism and cultural Marxism. Legalized bribery, which libertarianism vehemently supports, creates conflicts, destruction, ethnoracial diversity, divide-and-rule practices, and rulers hostile toward the individuals they rule over.

Rulers who despise the individuals they rule over have no qualms about destroying civil liberties.

Research indicates that nonwealthy Westerners have almost no say in public policies and that the rulers do what the wealthy prefer. The wealthy overwhelmingly support economic libertarianism, cultural Marxism, and severe restrictions on the liberties of nonwealthy individuals.

Just because the result of libertarianism in practice do not resemble the imaginary results of libertarianism in texts does not change the facts about libertarianism in practice.