Junk Social Science Watch

This study claims racial prejudice is driving opposition to paying college athletes.

Using a bad definition, the study, apparently, defined prejudice as having a negative view, but prejudice is judging without evidence, not having a negative view.

Why?

If negative views were a good definition of prejudice, the study would be self-condemning because it expresses negative views toward whites. Also every negative view would be considered prejudice. But negative views on ruling group actions are usually beneficial because almost all public policies are wrong or at least grossly sub-optimal.

Pew polls indicate large percentages of Muslims believe infidels, apostates, accused blasphemers, and accused female adulterers should all be murdered. Whites have negative views of such murders. Does that make whites prejudiced?

The study claims it controls for a host of factors. Did it control for genes? Beliefs about neoclassical economics? The evidence? Dozens of other factors that typically get left out?

(Some whites do deserve criticism because they believe college coaching salaries are decided by imaginary free markets while denying that freedom to athletes.)

(For the record, I think organized sports at public funded schools should be eliminated. As a second best alternative, I support paying athletes at universities with profitable athletic departments. I support eliminating athletic departments at every school that uses taxpayer money or student fees for athletic departments. The unprofitable represent the overwhelming majority of athletic departments. I also support stricter academic standards, a $60,000 annual salary cap on athletic department salaries, stricter restrictions on time spent on sports, and severe restrictions on money spent for facilities.)

The D Word

Demagoguery is poorly reasoned, emotively strong political language, especially slurs. The word demagogue is a slur, so those calling others the D word contradict and condemn themselves.

When the name Huey Long pops up, so does the slur demagogue. The frequency of the correlation indicates that demonizing Long as a demagogue is part of the establishment narrative. We should be skeptical of ruling group narratives because ruling group narratives are almost always poorly reasoned, designed to make horrific ideas pass as "centrism."

I read Long's much reviled speech, a speech made with no teleprompters or focus groups. Long's speech contains only one slur, the mild ad hominem "financial barons." Long's speech does contain numerous fallacious claims. It is not my point here to pick on all of Long's bad ideas. But the speech barely consists of demagoguery.

Contrast that speech with today's ruling group opinion makers when they write on ethnoracial issues. Their writings are packed with multitudes of super slurs "racist," "far right," "Islamopbobe," "bigot," "libtard," "right wing." Yet the ruling classes imagine that they are ethical and tolerant, almost never get fired or even criticized for spewing antiwhite super slurs. I have never heard of our rulers calling each other the D word.

Their heads would probably explode before they could write 3000 slur free words on ethnoracial issues.

Outright supporters of Marxism, self-described activists, are treated as somewhat mainstream, as if it were some accident that millions died and billions suffer from Marxisms, including multiculturalism.

The D word is usually reserved for ethnoracial fact facers or those labeled as economic populists, those who support capitalism but not crooked capitalism. To put it bluntly, you a more likely to be labeled with the D word for telling the truth to the ruling groups than for fallacious claims.

Trump and Sanders

Neither Donald Trump nor Bernie Sanders would produce much good if elected. They'd be facing, in courts, Congress, and country clubs, thousands of individuals devoted to various combinations of Randism, militarism, and biocultural Marxism. Ruling groups would gang up on Trump or Sanders to stop policies dead.

Mass media, already vehemently opposed to beliefs from outside the ruling groups, will gleefully blame Trump or Sanders for the inability to get things done. The mass media would demand fake "centrism" and "compromise," code words for more establishment totalitarianisms. Reporters would be dispatched to get the breathless "inside story," interviewing Congress persons devoted to fanaticisms. Expect scenes like this: "We tried to reach out to the president. It's his own fault he's isolated. I invited him to dinner. The president never replied," knowing full well Congress wasn't going to budge their fanatical behaviors.

Powerful individuals, in their wealthy bubbles, consider their beliefs be the most perfect normalcy ever, their monstrous contradictions blissfully ignored. In them, evidence is no match for intuitions.

Trump and Sanders are largely self-driven movements. They have millions of supporters. But negligible support from powerful groups.

Sanders' mask would slip. Sanders would fill his administration with individuals devoted to excessive self-interest and antiwhite totalitarianism, younger variants of Eric Holder and Morris Dees and Tim Wise and Ibrahim Hooper. Sanders ranks among the most well-meaning self-described socialists, comparatively speaking, but where would Sanders find other well-meaning individuals? Not in the armies of progressives devoted to self-contradictions and antiwhite totalitarianism. Almost all contemporary politicians devote themselves to bait-and-switch, but those who follow Marxisms are the worst at it.

Trump's mask would do likewise. Trump tends to agree with Randism or third wayism on most nonimmigration issues. Trump's past behaviors reek of excessive self-interest. On immigration, Trump would rely on signing statements and executive orders. A coup attempt or impeachment over a minor scandal would not surprise.

That's why individuals need to organize and create their own groups and fiercely protect their groups from rent seeking and from being co-opted by establishment totalitarianisms. Those engaged in rent seeking must be expelled from ethical groups.

The likely best result from Trump or Sanders would be decreasing the foreign policy destruction caused by neoconservatism and third way militarism.

Trump and Sanders have shifted Overton windows of acceptable thought but mostly among nonwealthy individuals. Research from Gilens and Page, plus mountains of other evidence, indicates this country hasn't been a democracy in a
long, long time.

Power, repetition, and organization still rule.

What If They Created a Fanaticism and No One Believed

While watching the barrages of slurs and straw person attacks being directed at Donald Trump, the following dawned on me: Our opinion makers would rather have those devoted to neoconservatism and third way militarism, to inciting a World War with China or Russia or both, ruling us.

In other words, they think opposing the invasion and destruction of the West is worse than courting a World War.

The antiwhite totalitarianism of the ruling groups is beyond astronomical, a fanaticism worse than cultish fanaticisms.

Uncivil Contradictions

Whatever one thinks about the American Civil War, there exists one massive contradiction I have never seen mentioned: those who praise the invasion solution to the evils of American slavery--the Ken Burns types in Western ruling groups--are also allied with dozens of Muslim countries where various forms of forced labor are widely practiced. 

Why the contradictions? 

Rulers agree with the mass slaughter of whites and more than a few blacks to end slavery, but take marching orders from Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other Sunni nations. 

Why the moral relativism? 

The least Western rulers could do is create a buyer's cartel and large Pigouvian taxes to oppose OPEC, plus bans on migration invasions and legalized bribery.

But Western rulers are Westerners only in a legalistic sense. And logical and ethical in almost no sense. No self-contradiction is too great for them to ignore.

Contemporary whites often ridicule their ancestors. But in 100 years, the few remaining whites will have a field day with today's totalitarian neo-Marxism, neoconservatism, and third wayism.

Social Science

There are good reasons for believing that almost all multicultural (read: anti-white) social science is junk science.

Evidence suggests that over half of psychology studies cannot be replicated. That percentage is probably much higher on ethnoracial issues where multicultural devotion to evidence plummets.

Studies that can be replicated have multitudes of other flaws. Many, if not most, studies fail to account for hundreds of alternative causal factors, especially genetic factors. Social scientists test for genetic factors on noncontroversial issues, then magically forget to test for genetic factors on familial, educational, and ethnoracial issues. Wonder why?

Studies often rely on self-reports but evidence indicates non-whites are many times more likely than whites to make false statements on self-reports.

Other studies fallaciously frame issues, for example, using leading questions.

Some social scientists have been caught fabricating data. Given how easy it is to fabricate data, the scientists caught probably represent a minuscule fraction of scientists fudging numbers.

Studies often rely on unrepresentative or small samples of participants.

Much research measures things other than things claimed.

Bad definitions abound in social science. Defining racism as "prejudice plus power" is garbage, and ironic as well, since multiculturalists have had power for over half a century. Ethical behaviors somehow get defined as discrimination.

Publication bias causes studies with desired results to be published more often than studies that find no effects.

Many social scientists call whites super slurs such as N*zi, r*cist, big*t, f*scist, white suprem*cist, and so on. We should be skeptical of any research coming such individuals, just as we should be skeptical of any social scientist throwing around the other n-word.

Many studies attempt to measure r*cism only in whites, a clear indication of bias.

Multitudes of other logical errors fill studies. Many scientists have never even studied logic, leaving fallacious ideas about reasoning to enter into voids.

Most social scientists support cultural Marxism and cultural Marxism demands individuals be willing to do almost anything for the cause. Predictably, multiculturalists have developed the habit of calling behavioral genetics and fact facing research "scientific racism." That habit, of course, contradicts where the real scientific racism dominates.

A Slur Thing

Among the most difficult problems fact facers face is the fact that the mass media almost always refer to fact facers with slurs: r*cist, b*got, N*zi, nat*vist, cr*zies, Isl*mophobe, cr*cker, r*dneck, extr*mist, f*r right, goose st*pper, white supr*mecist, right w*ng populist, and so on.

I can not remember ever once reading the mass media refer to non-multiculturalists with anything other than slurs.

It's as amazing as it is despicable.

Many mass media outlets, including the New York Times, have rules banning their writers from using slurs. Yet the media ignore their own rules when deluging whites with slurs. But, of course, we know they don't count nonwealthy whites as human beings.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that most humans have no idea what non-multiculturalists call themselves: Race realists. Immigration patriots. Real conservatives. Counter-jihadists. Pro-Westerners. Identitarians, Paleoconservatives. Traditionalists. Pan-Europeans. The Alternative Left.

That tells you how thorough the indoctrination into cultural Marxism is.

Some may consider the slurs no big deal. We've grown up with the slurs as some sort of warped normalcy. They're wrong. People who get treated as subhumans almost never get fair treatment. You cannot get fair treatment when powerful groups constantly respond to well-reasoned evidence with slurs, straw person attacks, small sample fallacies, and poorly reasoned arguments.

People with knee-jerk slur responses almost never accurately weigh moral evidence. They almost never even look for counter-evidence to their world views. Opinion makers, who are near certain in their fallacious opinions, cannot even tell you who JP Rushton was or who John Glad and Christopher Heath Wellman are.

The inability or unwillingness to give good evidence the weight it deserves is called fanaticism, especially when coupled with slurs and other dirty tricks. The most respected and articulate people in the world rank high in fanaticism. Unfortunately, most celebrity thinkers get judged on persuasiveness, halo effects, groupthink compliance and other poorly reasoned attributes, not on the logical content of their arguments.

Well reasoned arguments deserve belief, even when they are unpopular or cause anxiety.

We will have difficulty peacefully seceding from people who constantly call us slurs. Those who refer to outgroups with nothing other than slurs often support genocide, blaming the victims. It is imperative that the mass media get boycotted and excoriated for constantly calling whites slurs. We must keep pointing out the billions of contradictions involved in multiculturalism, especially among the ruling groups, who imagine themselves to be the most noble and tolerant while ranking among the least noble and tolerant.

After all, we are men and women, too.

Pic Problems

This picture exudes fallacious expertise, the type of thing novices fall for, then imagine themselves experts.

But almost everything on that list is unclear, too unspecific or otherwise fallacious.

There are hundreds of important logical principles, not ten.

1. Fails to distinguish between abusive ad hominem and circumstancial ad hominem claims, including when circumstancial ad hominem claims are relevant such as when character is the issue.

3. Unclearly refers to small sample fallacies, not hasty generalizations.

4. Arguments must contain some assumptions, otherwise they would be infinitely long.

5. False cause is failing to provide strong evidence for a causal claim, not merely stating a prior thing caused a later thing.

6. Alternatives, not "possibilities."

7. Unclear.

8. Unclear and unspecific.

9. Unclear. Most people have no idea what that first phase means or that non sequitur means irrelevant.

10. Appeal to popularity (bandwagon) is a fallacy of irrelevance, thinking the existence of larger, smaller, increasing or decreasing numbers of believers lends support to some conclusion, the exception being what should legally be law in a legitimate democracy (which no existing national government practices). It is not about whether the ad populum premise itself is true or false.

An important, if not the most important, principle of logic is to search thoroughly for arguments and counterarguments, then accurately weigh the good points of all sides, regardless of pre-existing inclinations, giving no weight to fallacies, that is, doing the sorts of things almost no one does, especially since most people fanatically repeat the arguments of powerful groups.

Any list of logical commandments must emphasize accurately weighing competing good points.

The 1,000 Dollar Moral Universalist Challenge

I will pay 1,000 dollars to the first person who finds a multiculturalist, who also is a moral universalist.

Hint: no such multiculturalist exists. Every multiculturalist mixes egoism with ethnocentrism or xenocentrism.

Paul Krugman Pushes Poorly Reasoned Narratives

One positive about Paul Krugman is that Krugman is better at economics than most Republicans and Libertarians.

But Krugman's multicultural and political views are atrocious. Krugman repeats ruling class dogma without the slightest bit of evidence.

A paragraph from his recent blog post:

People are people [circular]. They can achieve great things, or do terrible things, under lots of religious umbrellas [irrelevant]. (An Israeli once joked to me, “Judaism has rarely been a religion of oppression. [false claim] Why? Lack of opportunity [false claim].”) It’s ignorant [ad hominem] and ahistorical [ad hominem] to claim unique virtue or unique sin for any one set of beliefs [false and self-contradictory].

I won't paste the rest of his post and Krugman's other multicultural assertions for copyright reasons, but they are also riddled with fallacious claims and no good points. (If multiculturalists are so confident their conclusions are true, why the constant resort to rhetoric dirty tricks?)

Like our other rulers, Krugman operates as if incessantly repeating evidence free narratives makes the narratives true. Or will at least fool most of the people most of the time.

Another Krugman post features breathtaking self-contradictions: "The point is that at no point, as far as I know, have I relied on personal attacks as a substitute for substantive argument." (The post contains at least ten ad hominem attacks by Krugman.)

Yes, this is the same Paul Krugman who regularly calls whites slurs such as "crazies" and demonizes fact facers' beliefs, whether the fact facers be ethnoracial realists or modern monetary theorists. Krugman even slurs fellow Democrats as as "policy entrepreneurs" for failing to support the crypto totalitarianism of third wayism.

Krugman continues to push the virtues of the Third Way branch of the Democratic Party despite the fact that when Third Way Democrats controlled Congress and the White House in 2009 and 2010, they governed as if they were honorary members of the Bush family--ignoring financial crimes, bailing out the rich, promoting austerity, escalating the disaster in Afghanistan, etc. Contemporary Third Way Democrats make noise about reforming for the people only when reforms have little chance of occurring.

Despite viewing himself as an expert on evolutionary biology, Krugman's writings contain no evidence about human biodiversity.

Nevertheless, Krugman regularly scolds those who don't face facts (except himself, of course).

The Myth of White, Multicultural Moral Universalism

Human biodiversity writers often argue that multicultural whites are predisposed to moral universalism, with whites promoting multiculturalism and the destruction of the West because of their alleged moral universalism. HBD writers repeat the moral universalism assertion so often the assertion has become an official myth.

Moral universalism gives all conscious, feeling beings the moral weight they deserve.

But can anyone find large numbers of multicultural whites who practice moral universalism?

Or any?

Instead, we see psychological egoism mixed with xenocentrism in multicultural whites. Psychological egoism is a fancy term for personal selfishness, excessive self-interest that exceeds legitimate self-interest. Xenocentrism is unjust,
excessive favoritism toward out groups, the opposite of ethnocentrism, excessive favoritism toward in groups.

Almost every white multiculturalist supports freedom of association for nonwhites but denies it to whites. The same is true of nonwhite multiculturalists. A few white multiculturalists deny freedom of association for everyone in their
rhetoric. But in practice, deny only whites.

No one who tries to ban freedom of association deserves the title moral universalist, a freedom that ranks among the most important freedoms of all.

Multicultural whites constantly call other whites ethnoracial slurs without exhibiting the slightest bit of cognitive dissonance: b*got, r*cist, Isl*mophobe, white tr*sh, you name it. This behavior is xenocentrism. These same whites become outraged when anyone states facts that contradict the myths of multiculturalism, labeling such claims "offensive," often trying to have such speech banned.

In other words, anti-white slurs are glorified while moral facts are demonized. Offenders often face firing, demonization, and legal punishments.

White multiculturalists see nothing wrong with controlling almost all the mass media and bombarding the population with antiwhite slurs, straw person attacks, small sample fallacies, and other fallacious rhetoric to help their evil causes.

Our institutions, taken over by cultural Marxism, indoctrinate multicultural whites. Multicultural whites then reflexively side with themselves and nonwhites during arguments, without bothering to weigh the evidence accurately.

Multiculturalism is riddled with millions of monstrous contradictions. Among the more infamous is the shared sacrifice contradiction. Wealthy and upper middle class white multiculturalists flee from nonwhite containing neighborhoods, but use totalitarian government actions to force hellish diversity on nonwealthy whites. This is both selfishness and xenocentrism in action.

The most selfish and vehement supporters of hellish diversity, the rich, avoid diversity the most.

In fact, mixing selfishness with xenocentrism is seen in the contemporary West as a badge of respectability. Our rulers, who see nothing wrong with the millions of evils they practice, nevertheless gleefully excoriate and ostracize those who
tell the truth.

Individuals who act as if self-contradictions are unimportant are in no way moral universalists.

How anyone can call such behaviors moral universalism is preposterous.

I have read several hundred thousand political arguments in my lifetime. I can't think of a single single white or nonwhite universalist multiculturalist.

Maybe you can find an example of this mythical creature.

Crime and Groups

Let's examine a logical issue that few if any logic textbooks explain. (All current logic textbooks I have seen are not good but that's another issue.)

Many writers argue that massive disparities in interracial violent crimes result from the fact that the white population in the former U.S. is larger, thus having far more potential and actual victims.

But a larger group also has more potential perpetrators, all other things being equal.

To take another example, the number of inter-letter violent crimes between individuals with last names beginning with s and z would be roughly equal if almost all other things were roughly equal, despite the fact there are more individuals with last names beginning with s.

Imagine a fictional society having only 9000 esses and 1000 zees, both groups having twenty percent of their populations committing one random violent crime, all other things being equal. Both the eses and zees commit roughly 180 violent inter-letter crimes.

But in our world, all other things are not equal.

Random crime is almost nonexistent. Victims are chosen for their age, race, ethnicity, proximity, body language, and other reasons. Ethnoracial groups have differing genetic and environmental histories, causing them to commit inter-group crimes at differing rates.

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.

Poorly Reasoned Argument of the Hour

Victoria Chan excoriates whites for "casual racism," a few small sample fallacies of "microagressions."

The horror.

"These days, it's so taboo to call someone racist that most people get defensive when confronted over it and accuse the person complaining of hypersensitivity or lacking in humor."

Seriously.

Google returns this many results for the r-word in the past day.

Ms. Chan is deeply offended by slightly insensitive stereotypes. But thinks it is ethically acceptable to call whites super slurs such as the r-word. She even imagines doing so is somehow taboo, even as the mass media constantly calls whites super slurs.

Ms. Chan  blasts whites who make mild stereotypes while she makes far worse stereotypes of whites, a pile of self-contradictions.

The rest of her article contains no relevant evidence.

Why bother with Ms. Chan's article? Multiculturalists spew millions of worse arguments every month. Because naive whites and multicultural whites, prone to xenocentrism, get fooled by such rhetorical tricks. It is one thing for multicultural whites to choose self-destruction for themselves, but far more evil for wealthy, multicultural whites to create diverse hells for nonwealthy whites while isolating themselves in wealthy neighborhoods and institutions.
Whites must not allow themselves to be browbeaten by poorly reasoned rubbish.

Whites really, really must separate themselves from nonwhites. Most nonwhites and multicultural whites are simply incapable of or unwilling to engage in ethical multicultural living.

Patriotism and Triple Totalitarianism

In today's Russia, nationalism is supposedly the problem. But the largest problem is what I call triple totalitarianism. Triple totalitarianism combines militarism, cultural Marxism, and robber baronism, using bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw tactics to increase the global power of ruling groups.

Yeah, that's a mouthful.

Roughly speaking, you could say triple totalitarianism combines globalism with psychological egoism.

The ruling groups in China, Russia, and the West are all devoted to competing versions of triple totalitarianism. Putin and his friends think more power should belong to themselves. Chinese leaders likewise support themselves. And Western leaders believe wealthy individuals, who agree to a few rules, should be permitted to bribe their way to more power. In the West, we have two major competing forms of triple totalitarianism: neoconservatism and the third wayism of democrats and similar groups.

Western rulers think their their triple totalitarianism is egalitarianism and moral universalism, but their egalitarianism primarily consists of equality of legalized bribing opportunity for super rich individuals. Chinese and Russian leaders likewise think their beliefs are superior, which leads to disastrous consequences for all peoples of Northern Eurasian descent.

Our rulers excoriate patriotism while posing as if they were patriots. When aggression occurs, academics especially, start blaming the word nationalism. Like the late Larry Speakes, they act as if relentlessly repeating a claim makes the claim true.

But a little nationalistic sounding rhetoric doesn't make one a patriot any more than the populist rhetoric of third way democrats makes them populists.

To be a member of a belief system, you can't practice something completely at odds with those beliefs. Capitalists don't support state control of all economic activity. Followers of Marx don't support equality for whites and freedom of association for whites.

Patriots and nationalists do not support migration into their lands by ethnoracial outgroups. And they do not allow minorities devoted to rent seeking to outbreed the national majority. If you support those things, you are in no way shape or form a nationalist.

The world's number one destination for migrant groups devoted to rent seeking is the former United States. The second largest destination is Russia.

Surprised?

Don't be. Putin permits millions of Muslims to migrate into his lands, so he can engage in divide-and-screw activities. And, of course, the Muslims outbreed the native Russians.

In China, migration keeps increasing. The famous one-child policy applied to the Han majority. Minorities, including Muslim Uighers, were and are permitted large families.

What flaws existed with patriotism in some Western countries, Westerners fixed  after 1945. The fake patriotism of triple totalitarianism caused unjust conflicts in recent decades.

When a Bush or Putin engages in aggression, they do it on behalf of competing global cronyisms.

Sheldon Adelson and the King of Saudi Arabia have more say over Western policies then millions of working class natives. In fact, research indicates that when the policy preferences of nonwealthy Americans differ from the rich, nonwealthy preferences almost never become law. Thanks to dysgenic breeding and ruling group control of schools, mass media, and other institutions, most nonwealthy Westerners are simply indoctrinated into believing triple totalitarianism.

Everyone of Northern Eurasian descent must understand that their leaders are guilty of moral treason. We must realize that calls for militarism are on behalf of ruling group power and triple totalitarianism, not patriotism. We must not send relatives and neighbors to their deaths on behalf of rulers' egoisms, no matter how sneaky the propaganda. We must encourage defacto secessions and prevent fake patriotism from becoming the norm.

The alternative is self and mutual annihilation.

Diversity Versus Fact Facing: the Pros And Cons of Multiculturalism

Here is the strongest argument for multiculturalism, also known as diversity, neo-Marxism or cultural Marxism:

We are all born without getting to choose our genes and environments, including our lands of birth, therefore multiculturalists believe in open borders for nations currently having Northern Eurasian descended majorities.

Migrants from poor countries gain economic benefits from migrating. In 2011, the median household per capita income of U.S. immigrants was $13,937, the mean $20,295, including immigrants from wealthier countries. The mean purchasing power parity per capita income of Mexico in 2011 was $15,650, China $9,940, and India $4,840, the top three senders of legal immigrants to the United States. By 2014, incomes in China and Mexico were several thousand dollars larger than 2011. Migrants from India are higher IQ, higher status, and higher income individuals than other Indians, a selection effect, meaning their incomes in India were higher than $4,840. In India, the cream migrate to the West, causing a brain drain in India.

It is difficult to determine whether migrants gain health benefits from migrating because migrants adopt unhealthy lifestyles in the West, leading to severe, chronic health problems such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Rich individuals also gain economic benefits from cheaper labor, but at the cost of large losses for nonwealthy native workers.

In addition, multiculturalists believe Northern Eurasians still owe non-Northern Eurasians for slavery and colonialism.

The above argument is intuitively appealing to many individuals, but incredibly weak, colossally outweighed by counterarguments, especially by the fact that multiculturalism causes horrific long term consequences.

1. Better alternatives: the costs of migration to non-wealthy Westerners are astronomical, far larger than pro-diversity junk research estimates. The junk science leaves most costs out in their calculations.

Two hundred billion dollars per year in nutrition, health care, and family planning aid could help individuals in poor countries far more than letting migration lottery winners migrate to the West.

Policy by migration lottery is not justice. Lottery winners send money home to their friends and relatives, creating increased inequality and resentments in their home countries. Migrant money funds large increases in jihad, fossil fuel consumption, and other wrongs. The money migrants send home cause increased pollution in already polluted and overpopulated countries. Individuals put their efforts into migrating instead of reforming their home countries. Increased global power for cultural Marxism increases dysgenic breeding all over the planet, helping individuals devoted to rent seeking outbreed others. Completely open borders would be even worse, causing every country to become a chaotic, dystopian poor country.

Another better alternative: Given the extreme, unethical hostility migrants have toward Westerners and the massive harms they cause, any migrant to the West should agree to sterilization before entering the West. There is no right to breed in someone else's country, especially given the antipathy migrants have toward Westerners.

2. Pollution: by my estimate, multiculturalism has already caused at least 900,000 premature pollution related deaths in the U.S. and millions of additional deaths around the globe. Pollution harms rise exponentially with pollution concentrations. Additional migrants add to already horrific levels of pollution, especially migrants to places such as China. Since multiculturalists provide crucial political support to opponents of nuclear energy, multiculturalism causes massive increases in despicable coal burning. It is mind boggling that in supposedly advanced countries, coal is still burned.

3. Governance: it is almost impossible to have an ethical democracy, or ethical governance of any sort, in large ethnoracially diverse entities. Totalitarianism is proportional to ethnoracial diversity. Ruling groups act more treasonous than they already are, engaging in selfish bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw practices. Democrats practice the cultural Marxism strategy. Republicans practice both the Southern Strategy and the cultural Marxism strategy. Republicans deserve a special award for practicing cultural Marxism and the Southern Strategy at the same time. Deception becomes ever more rampant. Cultural Marxism increases self-righteousness about falsehoods, treating despicable fallacies as necessary for the cause. Democrats, in particular, seem willfully oblivious of their divide-and-screw practices, excoriating Republicans for the Southern Strategy while practicing cultural Marxism that is thousands of times worse.

Rulers spout platitudes about freedom, equality, and security while destroying them.

The main victims of diversity, working class natives, get demonized for resistance. Other citizens engage in ruthless struggles to gain favor from multicultural rulers. Some sink into apathy or hedonism as they realize they have almost no say in their own governance, seeing no future for their own cultures and posterity.

Nearly all rulers in large entities feel little bond with the individuals they rule over. Rulers are devoted to psychological egoism and often biological egoism. Multicultural rulers blame victims even more often. The New York Times has called whites the super slur r*cist at least 31,000 times despite having a policy banning its writers from using slurs. The king of Saudi Arabia has has more influence over U.S. public policies than millions of nonwealthy Americans.

The support that exists for multiculturalism exists mainly because multiculturalists control every major Western institution: schools, media, churches, corporations, and governments. Supporters of cultural Marxism "bore from within" and engage in the "long march through the institutions." Dissenters are sued, fired, unhired, assaulted, murdered, boycotted, ostracized, imprisoned, demonized or kept out of public view. Others are indoctrinated until they believe. The result is no recipe for democracy. Not surprisingly, Iceland may be the only remaining Western country that deserves to still call itself semi-democratic. Dissent would skyrocket if nonmulticulturalists were allocated 50 percent of mass media space, which is why fact facers are allocated nearly zero percent of the mass media. Western countries now exist as defacto colonies of global billionaires.

4. Unjust violence: multiculturalism has caused at least at least 32,000 unjust violent American deaths in the past 50 years. The future looks bleak. Unjustified violence rises exponentially with ethnoracial diversity, leading to genocides. Contemporary Northern Eurasians tend toward conformism. Mixing several hundred million individuals from nonwhite countries with whites puts Northern Eurasians at great risk. Individuals of sub-Saharan African descent are at least 40 times more likely than Western European descended individuals to commit stranger on stranger interracial aggression, at least 1000 times more likely to commit interracial rapes, and 140 times more likely to commit interracial armed robberies. The exact numbers are difficult to determine because governments often count Hispanics, North Africans, and Southwest Asians as white when they commit crimes but nonwhite when they are victims. Whites endure millions of assaults each year in schools and prisons, which are seldom counted in crime statistics. Individuals of Sub-Saharan African descent are 49 times more likely than whites to have the MAOA genetic trait that causes aggression. Yet the mass media demonizes whites for rare interracial crimes committed by whites.

5. Traffic: by my estimate, multiculturalism has caused at least 90,000 additional traffic fatalities to Americans and scores of additional injuries, often severe, chronic injuries, a fate worse than death. Untrained migrant drivers often drive without licenses and insurance. Drunk driving and hit-and-run rates among Hispanic migrants are much higher than natives. The economic costs of uninsured drivers are born by the insured. At least 80 million individuals in the U.S. are first generation migrants or descended from from individuals arriving in the past 50 years. Take them off the roads and most traffic congestion would disappear. Migrants settle disproportionately in areas that are already congested. The cities and road systems in the U.S. are not built for a driving nation of 340 or 600 or 900 million individuals. Migrant consumption of motor fuels adds to already massive trade deficits, causing thousands of lost jobs in a insufficient demand economy, transferring trillions of additional dollars to nations devoted to Jihad and cultural Marxism.

6. Philosophical diversity: cultural Marxism ruins philosophical diversity. Those making well-reasoned arguments on biocultural issues, can kiss their careers and other goods goodbye. Since multiculturalism is not supported by evidence, multiculturalists have relied on demonizing others with slurs, straw person attacks, small sample fallacies, and dozens of other fallacious tactics, especially super slurs such as b*got, r*cist, N*zi, r*dneck, sh*tlord, Isl*mophobe, white tr*sh, f*r right, and white supr*macist. The fact that nearly all multiculturalists see nothing wrong with antiwhite slurs spells serious trouble for whites. Many U.S. history texts mention McCarthyism as a great evil, yet seldom mention cultural Marxism, which is millions of times worse than McCarthyism.

Muliculturalists claim we are a nation of immigrants but that is a fallacious appeal to tradition.

Multiculturalists treat well-reasoned criticism of multiculturalism as a thought crime, harmful to community cohesion. Yet cultural Marxism itself causes far more community conflict and destruction.

The anti-reason habits taught by liberal and conservative multiculturalists spread to other issues. It is no accident that wealthy, multicultural leaders in the West chose austerity in 2009 despite overwhelming counter evidence. Why would they care? Multicultural rulers despise the individuals they rule over.

Thousands of whites have been and will be fired because something they said or wrote offended multiculturalists, no matter whether what they said was an ethical fact. But multiculturalists can write and say what they please without fear, no matter how untrue or despicable their assertions. The effects on millions of other whites who self-censor both their speech and private thoughts are chilling.
The specter of cultural Marxism hangs over Northern Eurasian descended individuals whether they realize it or not, especially thousands of future generations.

7. History and the present: one hundred percent of large, racially diverse societies have been long-term ethical disasters. One hundred percent of majority Muslim nations severely oppress non-Muslims.

8. The evils of the West: the West committed evils in the past, especially rulers. But any accurate accounting must include benefits. Billions of non-Westerners owe their health, daily bread, and existences to Westerners and Western technologies, especially medical and agricultural technologies. Only the West imposed the widespread ban on slavery and other forms of forced labor. Slavery was not a Western invention and was practiced almost everywhere humans lived. If not for the West, most non-Westerners would now be living in nonwhite slave kingdoms far more brutal than Western slavery. The allies of multiculturalists are now reviving slavery. Over 27 million individuals are now held against their wills, disproportionately in Muslim countries. Multiculturalists largely ignore contemporary slavery by multiculturalists while demonizing living Westerners for the sins of dead Westerners. Per capita incomes in many former Western colonies declined after Westerners left despite massive improvements in technology. Most tribal societies were not noble villages but cruel, dystopian societies. The most important causes of poverty in non-Western countries are low IQs, overpopulation, dysgenic breeding, terrible ideologies, and poor behavioral traits, not Western colonialism.

Imports from poor countries are not important for Western economic success. The overwhelming majority of Western economic activities take place within and among other Northern countries. Westerners would be wealthier if poor countries were on some other planet. Even oil helps little and costs far more in negative externalities. Western countries would be better off if most of the world's oil never existed. Cities would have been designed around walking, bicycling, and public transportation. Several trillion in yearly opportunity costs would be avoided. Trade deficits would be smaller, living standards larger. Millions of lives would have been saved from pollution and traffic accidents. Oil has provided several hundred billion dollars for slow jihads. Without oil, opposition to cultural Marxism would have increased because middle class whites could not have afforded the transportation costs of white flight. Instead of demonizing working class whites, middle class whites who experienced low functioning diversity every day might oppose it.

Whites who most support diversity the most experience diversity the least, whites in New England and in wealthy neighborhoods.

Multiculturalists say almost nothing about the historical fact that over one million white slaves were taken by Asians and Africans, especially Muslims. These white slaves were worked and beaten until they were dead or resembled skeletons. Nor do multiculturalists mention the many nonwhite invasions of Europe and colonizations of Western lands. When blaming slavery, multiculturalists do not mention that all living whites are also descendants of millions of white slaves and serfs. Living whites do not excuse their bad behavior by blaming the legacy of their ancestors held in slavery.

Many of the worst places on earth were never Western colonies, including North Korea and many Persian Gulf states.

9. Victimhood: multiculturalism causes various groups to jockey for historical victim status, allegedly deserving of extra benefits in the present, while whitewashing evils committed by their ancestors. Groups attempt to justify evils they commit now based on evils their ancestors suffered. Many groups look for any historical excuse to engage in rent seeking.

10. Character: multiculturalism makes most human beings worse beings than they otherwise would have been. Wealthy multicultural whites preoccupied with demonizing and destroying nonwealthy whites would have better things to focus on if there were no multiculturalism. Research by Robert Putnam indicates diversity causes individuals to not trust each other, both co-ethnics and other ethnics. And for good reasons: their neighbors of both the same and differing races have become less trustworthy and more unethical. Nonmulticulturalists must deal with the rent seeking of both white multiculturalists and ethnoracial out groups, creating massive direct costs and opportunity costs.

11. Gratitude and hostility: Westerners are hated more now, after letting in millions of migrants, than if they never let any in. Gratitude among non-whites for Western generosity is rare. Instead, more is constantly demanded. Grievances escalate. Scandinavians rank among the most gentle and generous individuals on earth, yet even they are despised and attacked by their immigrants.

12. Ideologies: non-Westerners bring horrific ideologies, especially Islam. Non-Westerners agree with these ideologies or acquiesce to them. The first generation of migrants is sometimes more motivated by economics. But following generations, accustomed to Western living standards, seek meaning in tribalistic activities. Worse, many whites alienated by consumerism and the declinism of the West, adopt horrific non-Western ideologies. Many whites want to be on the allegedly vibrant and cooler side, siding with triumphalism. Other whites are swayed by the onslaught of anti-Western propaganda.

13. Freedom of Association: freedom of association ranks among the most important freedoms. Multicultural writings on freedom of association revolve around businesses refusing to serve someone from an ethnoracial group, how horrible it would be for them to refuse service to someone. But such talk is about a trivial issue. Instead, the far bigger issue is wealthy multiculturalists who mistakenly think they have the right to destroy the jobs, lives, health, schools, wages, cultures, countries, and neighborhoods of nonwealthy whites with multiculturalism, preventing nonwealthy whites from choosing to live in peace together.

Multiculturalists seldom demand that most nonwhite nations open their borders, including wealthy nonwhite nations. Per capita PPP incomes in Qatar are nearly three times that of the United States, many more times that of some other NATO nations. Yet Christian migrants would have little chance of gaining citizenship in Qatar. Non-whites are permitted freedom of association in the West but not whites. Non-whites are able to form black only, Mexican only, and other exclusionary clubs. A 100 percent Mexican classroom is considered diverse, but a classroom with 100 percent whites is treated as something to destroy.

Wealthy multiculturalists demand that nonwealthy whites sacrifice almost everything ethically important for low functioning diversity while wealthy multiculturalists seal themselves off in private schools and wealthy neighborhoods. If diversity is such an imperative, why is almost every wealthy multiculturalist permitted to buy their way out of ethnoracial diversity?

Non-separated prisons are worse than many concentration camps. White prisoners endure millions of rapes at the hands of nonwhite prisoners.
Diverse schools are more horrific for white children than adult prisons in Japan. White children endure millions of unrecorded slurs and assaults. "Snitches get stitches." White girls are repeatedly raped or molested, many pressured into dating nonwhites for fear of being labeled r*cist.

The fanaticism of multicultural "thought leaders" keeps them from facing facts about life under diversity for nonwealthy individuals.

The brazen, despicable contradictions boggle the mind.

14. Other contradictions: establishments trumpet real or imagined hate crimes committed by whites, but ignore or bury far more common hate crimes committed against whites, even when audio recorded evidence exists of non-whites shouting slurs while attacking whites. Establishments insist crimes against whites are random despite counter evidence, yet assume interracial crimes committed by whites must have a racial motive, even when no evidence exists of a hate crime. Despite the equality rhetoric, multiculturalism destroys equalities. Multiculturalists demonize American white gentiles for allegedly having "white privilege," yet say next to nothing about about mixed race Jews, Asian Indians, and Northeast Asians, who have larger incomes America than whites.

Ethnoracial quotas are applied almost exclusively to white gentiles and Northeast Asians. Affirmative action policies at Ivy League universities exclude qualified white gentiles and Northeast Asians while allowing Jews to be vastly over-represented in violation of class, merit, and multiculturalism's own affirmative action principles, essentially quota systems against whites and Northeast Asians. But perhaps not as much as Unz states.

Multiculturalists support almost any equality that will benefit nonwhites or unjustly harm whites while opposing almost any equality that would justly benefit whites.

Mass media act as if publicizing harms against whites will cause an unjustified backlash, yet act unconcerned about inciting nonwhites into frenzies of unjust anti-white actions.

If economic situations were reversed, nonwhites would almost certainly not permit hostile whites into their countries, except as slaves.

15. Personal responsibility: liberal multiculturalists relentlessly blame bad behaviors by nonwhites on things whites must have done to them, for example, "the legacy of slavery." But multiculturalists don't provide any evidence for why this would occur. Like politicians, multiculturalists seem to think repeating a claim over and over makes it true. Black behavior gets worse with every generation. Evidence matters little to multiculturalists, especially evidence from behavioral genetics. Conservative multiculturalists incessantly chant personal responsibility. The primary audience for such rhetoric is other conservatives. Thirty years ago they were spewing the same personal responsibility schtick with no evidence that it makes much difference. Most nonwhites don't get their values and behaviors from personal responsibility commentators.

Neither group seems aware of overwhelming evidence from cultures, history, and genetics.

Behavior is difficult to improve in most human beings, especially when multiculturalists don't want to improve their behaviors.

16. Trade and empires. Those who support "free" trade are usually multiculturalists. Trade increases frictions, especially when some countries practice mercantilism.

Japan could not have murdered over 20 million individuals between 1931 and 1945 without the trade and technological help of multiculturalists, then called internationalists.

If Ukrainians had been permitted to have their own country, instead of being forced to be a member of the multicultural Soviet Union, it is unlikely five million Ukrainians would have been murdered in the 1920s and 1930s. The Soviet leaders then were not Ukrainian. They were mixed race and Southwest Asian. It's hard to imagine Ukrainian leaders doing that to their own people. Dozens of other ethnoracial groups endured horrors in the multicultural Soviet paradise. Solzhenitsyn titled one of his chapters "Nations in Exile" for a reason. Hitler might not have gained power if he did not have Jews to scapegoat. The diverse German, Russian, and Austro-Hungarian empires were the primary culprits in World War I.

Ethnoracially diverse empires drift toward totalitarianism. Rulers become power obsessed, playing various ethnoracial groups against each other. Today, the multicultural rulers of multiethnic China, Russia, and the United States are playing divide-and-screw games that could lead to catastrophe.

A great situation for a group of individuals is to not be salient, that is, for foreigners to not notice you. War becomes less likely when foreigners don't even know where you are on maps. Multiethnic entities are riddled with spying, defecting, and military rent seeking. Currently, the United States ranks among the most hated countries on earth. Pax Americana benefits neither ordinary Americans nor most other humans. Pax Americana puts Westerners at great risk of world wars, nuclear attacks, and bioweapon assaults. The multicultural lobbies pushing for American militarism are free riding, not allies of Americans. These lobbies think little of getting Americans slaughtered.

17. Equality: the more ethnoracially diverse a society becomes, the worse inequality becomes. Equality rhetoric from multiculturalists increases but equality itself decreases. Despite the equality rhetoric, nonwealthy whites are now treated as defacto subhumans, their beliefs having almost no influence over public policies. Even nonwealthy nonwhites have little influence over economic policies.

18. Social science: every social science study that allegedly supports multiculturalism turns out to be junk science upon closer inspection. These studies feature outright fraud, faulty controls, no controls, little replicability, unrepresentative sampling, survey factors left out (especially genetic factors), and faulty measures of test factors. Many use self-reports but evidence indicates nonwhites are far more likely to tell falsehoods on self-reports than whites.

Multiculturalism causes a fanaticism seldom seen outside of some religions and neoclassical economics, especially among social scientists, nearly all of whom are multiculturalists.

19. Economic benefits to the rich: additional economic benefits to the rich from migration are not an ethical benefit. They are an ethical evil, increasing hedonism, pollution, militarism, legalized bribery, cultural Marxism, and mutually destructive status competitions. The rich pay few taxes on their migrant employees, forcing nonwealthy Americans to absorb nearly all the costs of migrants, especially noneconomic harms. Additional money for the rich has almost no marginal happiness utility for them and is massively destructive to nonwealthy Westerners.

20. Other costs: many migrants collect SSI and sign up for Medicaid without ever paying a penny in payroll and federal income taxes, a form of legalized stealing: "Here I am in your country. Now give me your money and labor efforts." Productive, working class Americans with no health insurance coverage are forced to pay for the Medicaid coverage of unemployed migrants. Thanks to migration and health care oligopolies, millions of tax paying, working class Americans never get treatment for important medical problems.

Over fifty percent of households headed by migrants from Mexico and Central America receive means tested benefits (welfare). At the other end of the spectrum, only 6.2 percent of migrant headed households from the UK collect means tested benefits.

Mexico is a comparitively wealthy country with many wealthy individuals, including super billionaire Carlos Slim. Wealthy Mexicans sacrifice almost nothing for their poorer citizens while dumping the costs of Mexican migrants on nonwealthy Westerners.

Explicit and defacto affirmative action costs over 1.1 trillion per year. How impoverished will nonwealthy white Americans be in several decades when they are outnumbered by affirmative action eligible Muslims and nonwhites? Multiculturalists argue that nonwhites will willingly give up affirmative action once whites are minorities. The history of nonwhite peoples indicates this will never be the case. Nonwhites are far more predisposed toward ethnocentrism than whites. They oppress minority groups almost everywhere. They don't care how much advantage taking they engage in. The Malay majority in Malaysia does not care whether their affirmative action policies harm the Chinese Malaysian minority. OPEC countries don't care about the migrant slaves and near slaves in their midst. The mass media make massive efforts to bury mistreatment of whites and mistreatment of nonwhites by other nonwhites. Selective reporting will get even worse as nonwhite power increases.

21. Dysgenics: it is taboo to mention dysgenics in the mass media. But self-censorship does not change facts. Most contemporary migrants to the West have much lower IQs and much stronger predispositions toward unethical behavior than white gentiles. Whites have a mean IQ of 100. To meet diversity quotas, schools increasingly graduate nonwhite doctors and other professionals who simply lack the genetic and cultural abilities to do their jobs well, causing large harms to Westerners, no matter how well meaning the professionals may be. Despite the anti-eugenic indoctrinations of cultural Marxism, the fact is the human species would not exist without eugenic breeding and will cease to exist if dysgenic breeding continues.

22. Family oriented, decent societies: it is almost impossible maintain middle class societies under the current multicultural regimes. Wealthy and upper middle class individuals compete for homes in ever diminishing good neighborhoods, causing massive housing costs. Population increases from migration add to housing inflation. Competition for slots in non-diverse schools also drives up costs. Millions of working class natives are left behind in ever worsening schools and neighborhoods. The multicultural mass media demonizes goodness and lionizes egoism, hedonism, and antiwhite totalitarianism. The skyrocketing costs of housing, education, commuting, and health care, leave families unable to afford children. Migrants settle in low cost areas with their ethnic kin. They seldom hesitate to apply for welfare and other means tested benefits.

Diverse, low cost neighborhoods are dystopian no go areas for white families because of the antiwhite totalitarianism of migrants. As a result many nonwealthy whites decide not to have children or to have few children. Productive whites are ethically reluctant to seek help from the state. Many nonwealthy whites pay taxes to support the families of migrants, even though they can't afford to live in a decent neighborhood and have families of their own.

23. Happiness: happiness levels in poor countries are not much different from wealthy countries. People intuitively expect increased wealth to massively increase happiness but the relationship between wealth and happiness is weak. Ethnoracial diversity itself increases despair, alienation, and unhappiness, especially among individuals subjugated by ethnoracial outgroups.

Multiculturalism makes multiculturalists feel good, an almost religious feeling. But such feelings should be given no weight because they come at the expense of great harms to others. Such feelings are often accompanied by unethical feelings of hate, sadism, contempt, and moral superiority toward nonwealthy whites.

Multiculturalists claim that it's too late now. The transition costs of secessions are large. But the transition costs are small compared to the future costs of multiculturalism and annihilation.

Millions of whites would rather live in a poorer nondiverse societies than a diverse societies.

In the long run, future white only societies would have larger incomes than present day Western societies given the historical performance of nations populated exclusively by people of European descent. If whites are not permitted dozens of secessions, the horror of fascism could arise. Establishment political parties have all but banned the inclusion of ethnoracial fact facers in their parties. Many whites might flee to fascism as a last resort. Decades ago many American political parties tolerated some philosophical diversity on ethnoracial issues. Now every major political party tolerates only variations of cultural Marxism.

The assertion that unchosen birth conditions should lead to a requirement of mass migration is just that: an assertion, not an absolute rule. There is no such thing as an absolute rule. The open borders assertion is massively outweighed by counter evidence.

Additional economic benefits beyond those adequate for providing adequate food, water, warmth, housing, libraries, education, democracy, health care, self-defense, mutual defense, and prevention of multicultural environments should be given little or no ethical weight. All these benefits can be far better provided with aid, eugenic breeding, policy reforms, ethical philosophies, and civic minded citizens than the current regime. Instead, the current regime emphasizes the importation of unethical individuals and horrific ideologies to Northern Eurasian countries, primarily to create excessive consumerism and the destruction of Western peoples.

Children are better off playing with books, dirt, leaves, and neighbors than expensive toys. Adults are also better off without toys and mutually destructive status competitions. Large disposable incomes cause massive societal and environmental harms. Prolonged formal educations tend toward indoctrination and totalitarianism, likewise for mass media propaganda. Personal motor vehicles are an ethical disaster.

Though irrelevant to the above argument, I was once a multiculturalist. By following the strongest evidence, I finally realized how cruel, selfish, cowardly, and groupthink prone I was. I wan't a multiculturalist because of evidence. I was a multiculturalist because of social pressure and because multiculturalism made me feel good. It is a good bet that all current multiculturalists have not carefully and accurately weighed the evidence.

All humans matter, including white humans. Future harms from diversity will likely dwarf those in the present because harms rise exponentially with ethnoracial diversity. Thousands of future generations will endure astronomical direct and opportunity costs for the horrific decisions made over the past 50 years. Multiculturalism is slow warfare. No groups have a right to engage in aggressive conquest and annihilation whether by conventional warfare or demographic conquest.

Many secessions must begin. Individuals must have freedom of association. Secessions must not merely be states and provinces seceding from nearly identical central governments but must allow like minded individuals to pursue many different experiments in living (the diversity that matters).

About my beliefs:

To get a rough idea, see the writers below.

1. Writers I instantly stop reading as soon as I see their names. Almost all their arguments are banal, poorly reasoned or their few well-reasoned arguments are better expressed elsewhere. I don't have enough time left in life to waste life on atrocious arguments:

Jeffrey Sachs, Noah Smith, Andrew Sullivan, Fred Barnes, George Will, Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, Naomi Wolf, Robert Kagan, Noam Chomsky, Cornell West, Noah Millman, Paul Craig Roberts, Michael Moore, Daniel Larison, Walter Williams, Peter Beinart, Bill Gates, Charles Blow, David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Maureen Dowd, Gail Collins, Irving Kristol, William Kristol, Ross Douthat, George Soros, Ramesh Ponnuru, Ben Wattenberg, Joe Klein, Dennis Prager, Mark Ames, Fareed Zakaria, Max Boot, Aaron David Miller, Yasha Levine, Tim Wise, Morton Krondracke, Anrdrea Dworkin, Susan Sontag, Bruce Bartlett, Tyler Cowen, Charles Johnson, John Esposito, Stephen Moore, Rod Dreher, Theodore Dalrymple, Michael O'Hanlon, Mark Perry, Steve Chapman, Karen Armstrong, Mark Thoma, Pamela Gellar, Mathew Yglesias, Gary Becker, Erick Erickson, Frank Rich, Dinesh D'Souza, Francis Fukuyama, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Gregg Easterbrook, PJ O'Rourke, Philip Giraldi, Jonathan Alter, Understanding Society, Allahpundit, Bernard Goldberg, Ezra Klein, Jim Pethokoukis, Melissa Harris-Perry, Kriston Soltis, Kevin Williamson, Michael Moore, Michael Barone, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Matt Drudge, David Broder, Michelle Goldberg, Ed Morrisey, Philip Klein, Rich Lowry, Nick Gillespie, Robert Samuelson, Tim Carney, Richard Cohen, James Carville, Martin Peretz, Jeffrey Goldberg, Karl Rove, Chris Matthews, Juan Cole, James Kirchik, Amity Shlaes, Samuel Goldman, Jonah Goldberg, Florence King, Richard Florida, Dick Morris, Malcolm Gladwell, Leon Wieseltier, Kevin Drum, Fred Kagan

In short, nearly all Green, Republican, Libertarian, Democratic, and Constitution Party politicians and supporters, plus nearly all celebrities. It's astonishing how many well-paid writers can write upteen thousand words without a single good idea. But it's no accident. They are part of our ruling groups bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw practices.

2. Writers sometimes worth reading:

JP Rushton, Thomas Jackson, James Kirkpatrick, David Cay Johnston, Michael Hudson, Jayman, Timothy Taylor, Jared Taylor, Gregory Hood, Christopher Heath Wellman, Joseph Stiglitz, Glen Roberts, Soren Kern, Paul Krugman, Steve Sailor, Robert Reich, Eamon Fingleton, Stephanie Kelton, Joe Firestone, Bill Black, L. Randall Wray, Jim Goad, Michael Lind, Nick Rowe, Dan Froomkin, Robert McIntyre, Joel Slemrod, Greg Palast, Yves Smith, Dean Baker, Judith Rich Harris, Martin Gross, HBD Chick, Matt Taibbi, Goerge Monbiot, Ed Rubenstein, Robert Frank, NerveAgent, Willem Buiter, Meng Hu, Fjordman, Jerry Mashaw, and writers whose names I don't recognize.

Many more I can't think of now. The lists above will be updated.

To summarize: ethical reasoning, anti-militarism, anti-globalism, self-determination, pan secessionism, environmental fairness, ethnoracial fact facing, and pro-producer economics (beneficial consequences mixed with retributive justice, not neoclassical economics).

Since I have no editors or helpers, every post is a draft, subject to revision.

I will write and post as part of my ethical duties.