On Conspiracies

The word conspiracy means to plot in secret, often to harm others. Companies, political parties, and other organizations regularly do it. We aren't invited to their meetings. Yet we are subtly urged not to use the word conspiracy to describe such activities.

During just wars, just groups have good reasons for plotting in secret. Some other groups also have justifiable reasons for plotting in secret.

The phrase conspiracy theory is a combination straw person and circumstantial ad hominem attack used to dismiss opponents and treat them as mentally unhealthy. The phrase is used equivocally, meaning crazy, preposterous or a secret plot (or all three), often by establishments to associate critics with those who believe in alien abductions or other preposterous ideas. Calling alien abductions a conspiracy theory has little ethical importance. But the conspiracy theory phrase is a big deal when used to demonize well-reasoned political criticism.

Today, many facts get treated by establishments as "conspiracy theories." To name a few:

1. Marxian states failed to return some allied POWs.
2. Cultural Marxism not only exists, it is the major form of Marxism, with 71 percent of college freshmen opposing speech freedoms, but not their own speech freedoms, of course.
3. Fast jihad is Islamic and is done by Muslims.
4. We live in an intellectual climate far worse than McCarthyism. (The linked list is a fraction of those punished or threatened with punishment.)
5. Nonwhites have worse ethnoracial behavior than whites and their behavior gets worse when their numbers increase.
6. Words have more than one meaning: Jihad means both inner struggle and anti-Infidel totalitarianism, though the former meaning is used for equivocation to fool infidels.

Conspiracy matters are riddled with ironic contradictions. Writers pointing out plots by establishments get slurred as conspiracy theorists by establishment writers whose opinions are, in fact, preposterous.

Which Group Is More Ethnoracially Unethical? A or B?

A: Supports freedom of political speech for all.
B: Supports freedom of political speech for Muslims, establishments, and followers of Marx.

A: Opposes imperialism.
B: Supports anti-white imperialism.

A: Supports self-determination for all ethnoracial groups.
B: Supports self-determination for only Muslims and nonwhites not subjugated by Muslims.

A: Supports pan-Europeanism or pan-Arcticism.
B: Supports wars among whites, war against China, plus wars for egoism, cronyism, globalism, and cultural Marxism.

A: Supports evidence from science.
B: Supports scientism and junk science for the cause.

A: Allows philosophical diversity.
B: Acts as if humans must live in cultural Marxian ideological bubbles.

A: Uses slurs sometimes. Uses neutral terms sometimes.
B: Almost always uses ad hominem attacks to refer to ethnoracial fact facers.

A: Supports Austerity.
A: Supports Austerity.

A: Uses relevant statistics sometimes. Uses small samples sometimes.
B: Uses small sample fallacies for worldwide demonization of whites

A: Tolerates criticism.
B: Demonizes whites. Treats Muslims and nonwhites as if off limits to well-reasoned criticism.

A: Tolerates political dissenters.
B: Believes political dissenters should be fired, sued, assaulted, murdered or ostracized.

A: Supports eugenics.
B: Supports dysgenic totalitarianism.

A: Good, enforced fences make better neighbors.
B: Permits Muslims to do evils in infidel countries. Supports Muslim subjugation of infidels in Muslim countries. Permits nonwhites to do evils in white countries.

A: Supports self-reliance or ethnoracial self-help.
B: Sacrifices almost nothing themselves to help nonwhites but destroys the jobs, lives, wages, schools, nations, cultures, families, and neighborhoods of nonwealthy whites to help nonwhites. Demands cheap labor races to bottoms.

A: Sometimes supports merit. Often supports rent seeking.
B: Almost always supports rent seeking.

A: Sometimes democratic. Sometimes autocratic. Sometimes kleptocratic.

B: Almost always authoritarian kleptocratic.

A: Cares little about environment.

B: Pretends to care about environment.

A: Supports sustainable societies sometimes.

B: Supports dystopian hells in the name of equality and other buzzwords.

A: Capable of cognitive dissonance.

B: Seemingly unaware of thousands of self-contradictions.

A: Opposes cultural imperialism.

B: Supports cultural imperialism.

A: Sometimes acts as if claims should correspond with reality.

B: Acts as if repeating falsehoods turns them into facts.

A: Bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw.

B: Bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw more often.

A: Opposes genocide.

B: Supports anti-white genocide.

A needs some reforms. B does inverse weathervaning.

A List of Causal Factors and Other Ideas to Consider When Weighing Causal Claims

Let's say we plan to do a social science study or evaluate one or weigh an argument positing causes.

We should consider plausible alternative causal factors left out by a thinker.

I keep a book on my nightstand. When I read or think of a causal factor or other idea I should keep in mind, I sometimes write it in the first few pages of the book.

The list:
IQ, age, war, race, time, luck, laws, wealth, stress, fraud, zest, genes, diet, height, weight, BMI, wealth, income, culture, status, habits, power, gender, famine, crowding, apathy, egoism, altruism, anomie, placebo, nocebo (feeling harm from a harmless treatment), boredom, honesty, ethnicity, weather, fatigue, religion, diversity, seniority, incentives, geography, popularity, patience, hedonism, confusion, standards, novelty, naivete, sadism, nihilism, obeisance, anxiety, isolation, commitment, experience, solipsism, nationality, expectations, misanthropy, proximity, fanaticism, busyness, motivation, scientism, triumphalism, salience, replicability, ruminations, militarism, aggressiveness, suggestibility, masochism, desensitization, optimism, labor unions, obsessions, compulsions, groupthink, misandry, misogyny, careerism, xenocentrism, ethnocentrism, infrastructure, desensitization, self-loathing, nonbelief, corruption, ruthlessness, credentialism, cronyism, nepotism, competition, cooperation, victory, defeat, tax rates, tax targeting, participant compliance rates, street smarts, mortality rates, faulty study design, family size, tokenism, trustworthiness, skill level, arrival dates, leadership quality, overconfidence, underconfidence, one-sidedness, divorce rates, imitating others, democracy, non-democracy, self-pity, self-contradictions, noise levels, exercise levels, body image, employment status, confirmation bias, perceived weakness, career specialty, opportunity costs, pathogen load, educational level, youth bulges, genetic load, abortion rates, free riding, new discoveries, self-control, shared struggles, shared danger, unethical guilt, guilt proneness, shame proneness, false positives, false negatives, mutual causation, shell shock, Stockholm syndrome, witch hunting, misplaced loyalty, alliance quality, organization level, Hamilton's rule, educational field, absence of study controls, age at which a participant practiced a skill, perceived victimization, availability of distractions, feeling needed, perceived equality, unrepresentative sampling (including survivor bias and self-selection effects), ethical character, monocausal fallacies, body language, faulty study controls, voice tone, group polarization, development rates, job mobility, perceived fairness, drug use (including alcohol and smoking), improved police tactics, residential mobility, moral hazard, laziness, task persistence, hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen), crowd psychology, savings rates, monitoring effects (white man effect), study protocol violations, brain size, brain tumors, brain trauma, availability errors, halo effects, wedge issues, purposefulness, happiness, depression, despair, group cohesion, asceticism.

Plus some more: jealousy, anchoring (believing first claim heard on a subject), antinomianism, anthropomorphism, anthropocentrism, moral aestheticism, mechanical failures, math errors, hindsight error (easier to see errors after the event), chronic pain, acute pain, commitment level, conspicuous compassion, expected value, nutrient deficiencies, Duchenne smiles, political stability, single influential individual, repetition effects (believing claims repeated most often), other popularity effects, feeling entitled, celebrity worship, world weariness, legalized bribery, philosophical farsightedness, probability of success, belief in sacredness, small sample sizes, transitory situational factors, hyperbolic discounting, declining marginal utility, other cognitive impairments, enforcement or nonenforcement of standards, level of cognitive dissonance, perceived legitimacy, belief in karma, tit for tat, belief in ontological guilt (blood libel), inaccurate self-reports, tragedy of the commons, improved 911 service, substance poisoning (lead poisoning), publication bias, self-esteem, feeling superior, religious subtypes, the "big five" (openness to experience, agreeableness, neuroticism, extroversion, conscientiousness), framing effects (slanted questions, leading questions, and bad definitions), paradoxical effects, goal related effects, social skills, public policies, teacher quality, historical factors, teacher training, fatalistic beliefs, scaling effects (inaccurate extrapolation), relativistic beliefs, birth control rates, blood sugar levels, the dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), belief in scientism, peer group types, nation-state formation, divide-and-rule, time spent on activities, threshold effects (straw that breaks the back), social pressure, statistical insignificance, media influence, environmental aesthetics, study confederates influencing results, beliefs about hell, high, unstable self-esteem, chips on shoulders, faith in experts, length of employment, beliefs about grace, belief in authoritarianism, treasonous leadership, bait-and-switch, population increases, population decreases, faulty tests to measure alleged factors, study participants dropping out, fear of losing face, various other isms, chips on shoulders, non-parental environments, failure to ignore sunk costs, regression to the mean, ability to delay gratification, no causal relationship exists, perception of decay, follow the money, follow the power, errors due to random chance, belief in plausible deniability, homogeneous unrepresentative sampling, strength of will, time spent using electronics, browbeating and struggle sessions, viewing others as objects, reversing cause and effect, winner-take-all markets, results are statistically significant but too small to be important, swiftness and probability of punishment, monopoly and oligopoly effects, variance in genotypes and phenotypes, ratio of performance IQ to verbal IQ.

Wait.

I'm not done: number of working adults in a family or household, increased survival of big brained c-section babies, increased survival of small hip genotypes, belief in reciprocation, improved test taking skills, belief in exploiting weakness, belief that the feel good end justifies any means, belief that a feel good means justifies the result, ingroup and outgroup beliefs, improved emergency room medicine, economic opportunities in early adulthood, other technological factors, the probability of being caught, plus numerous other genetic and environmental factors I haven't thought of.

Good luck.

Figuring out causes is a pain in the rear.

"Correlation is not cause" is a banal statement. Correlation by itself does not prove cause is a better statement.

Most plausible study factors aren't looked at in most studies. Many studies are designed to fit the scientist's favored conclusions.

Six Loathsome Genres of Political Arguments

1. Trying to prop up atrocious ruling group worldviews by ridiculing something worse (the Westboro Baptist Church, for example).
2. The man or woman of "reason."
3. The team or party stands for [insert specious platitudes]. Popular among the likes of George Will, David Brooks, Paul Krugman, and party platform writers. Bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw.
4. Contradicted by reality: neoconservatives and Third Wayers pretending they support America and democracy, egalitarians pretending they support equality, neoconservatives and Third Wayers pretending to be pro-worker, multiculturalists pretending they own the moral high ground.
5. Fake centrism: mixing totalitarian ideas from left and right (Randism, neoconservatism, third wayism).
6. Pretending to defend the nation but in reality, more divide-and-screw profiteering, salami slicing, shoring up political support or escalating tit for tat.

More Contradictions

Helicopter parents fret about the miniscule probability their children will be abducted by strangers, but act unconcerned about the high probability their children will be indoctrinated with hedonism, nihilism, neoconservatism, third wayism or biocultural Marxism.

Almost nobody tells these parents that their childrens' phenotype IQs not vary much from their genotype IQs by adulthood, no matter how many faddish "enriching activities" parents provide. Children are far more likely to die driving to and from an enriching activity than die from abduction by strangers.

*********

We're supposed to believe white racism is society's greatest evil, yet any behavior multiculturalists don't like, including ethical behaviors, can get whites fired, sued, unhired, boycotted, assaulted or ostracized.

And far worse actions by multiculturalists get ignored by establishments.

*********

Multiculturalists demonize Westerners for refusing to take more "refugees" during World War II, but multiculturalists refuse to take white refugees at risk of genocide in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Those former refugees had moral duties to stand and fascism and Marxism. Instead, they left the fighting to others.

And Muslim migrants should not be labeled refugees.

*********

They think: "democracy is a certain way of thinking, a specific set of opinions, and if you do not share them, then you aren’t democratic, and then we condemn you and you ought to be eliminated. The People? That is not democratic. We the Elite, we are democracy."

Human Reasoning Tendencies

Some who easily change beliefs have little willingness to stand up for those beliefs. They change beliefs with social pressure and feel good fads more than ethical evidence. In other words, they act wishy-washy not because they are guided by good evidence, but because they are easy to trick with rotten ideas.

Others care little about ethical beliefs, except trudging forward or backward with their own egoism, hedonism or selflessness. Just do it might be their motto.

Still others, pretend. They say, "Bro, do you even science?" But they wall off most of the moral universe to good reasoning. They think of themselves as scientific, philosophical, and open minded, but in practice, they use intuitions on moral issues, often reserving good reasoning for self-interest or the natural sciences. Albert Einstein was a paradigm case of this type.

Many unconsciously anchor with what they heard first or float with what they hear often.

Then we have those with minds even more closed to ethical reasoning. They will fight hard for whatever horrible ideas they have. They are also easy to manipulate, but once they choose a belief system, or more specifically, a team, they will fight like hell for the team. In tribes, they team up for life, unless they are sold, bartered or kidnapped. Evidence on individual issues seems irrelevant to them. Team beliefs on an issue matter more. That's why Trump was loudly booed for saying there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (unless we define Islam, endogamy, and demography as weapons.) Trump's claim violated still existing team beliefs. And that team is no fan of Trump's team. Some switch teams for ideological reasons--David Brock and P.J. O'Rourke, for example--but devotion to a team often remains.

In tribes, even the most preposterous superstitions manage to survive.

The old witticism about a liberal being so tolerant that he will not take his own side in a fight now seems like a sick, cruel joke.

The fanaticism of establishments is so great that even societal or personal ruin might not change their beliefs. They attribute ruin to their political enemies and anything but their own egoism, militarism, and multiculturalism, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. Every Western city could be in ashes, and they would still chant the R word as the main cause.

The fact that contemporary mass media are able to create such fanaticism, combined with so much glitz, is both creepy and horrifying.

The above is neither an exhaustive nor non-overlapping list of tendencies. Some individuals move from one tendency to another. Many other tendencies exist, especially policing the boundaries of acceptable myths, keeping out unwanted facts with straw person and ad hominem attacks, plus searching for reasons to feel morally superior to others, without having to make any sacrifices oneself.

We could write thousands of books describing logical fallacies, psychological errors, and ethical wrongs.

But I will eat a roll of paper towels if anyone can show me an establishment donor, thinker or politician who gathers and accurately weighs the good points from various sides.

How do we teach and eugenically build better humans out of that mess? Contemporary logic and ethics textbooks are atrocious. Today's parents and thought leaders likely dysgenically engineer children to be worse.

But improving reasoning is even more important than increasing intelligence.

The Demonization of Eugenics

For those who demonize eugenics with ad hominem attacks or fallacious appeals to tradition regarding Nazism: Why the inconsistency?

Why not demonize the thousands of other sciences and technologies practiced by Nazism? No more physics, chemistry, medicine, agriculture, and so on. Why not demonize the Islam, atheism, occultism, Lutheranism, and Catholicism practiced by Hitler's supporters?

And don't say it is because eugenics is evil and the others good.

Eugenics is beneficial. Otherwise no ethical humans or other animals would have evolved. An earth with only single celled organisms would be a worse place, as would an earth filled with ISIS supporters.

Hitler didn't practice eugenics. Hitler's allies practiced dysgenics, murdering individuals smarter and more ethical than themselves.

Many other fields produce numerous benefits but overall worse consequences than eugenics.

Physics brought us nuclear weapons. Biology brings bioweapons. Automotive and petroleum technologies cause evils of sprawl, OPEC, diversity, lung cancer, corruption, collision deaths, and jihad funding. Electronics technology helps indoctrinate billions with Islam, Randism, Marxism, Nazism, neoconservatism, multiculturalism, and third wayism.

Islam spread the hyper tribalism of Arabia to hundreds of countries.

Demonize dysgenics instead. Should we believe it better for individuals devoted to rent seeking, often with justified criminal convictions, to outbreed ethical citizens? We shouldn't help those with genes for aggression breed with gusto, yet we do.

Do liberal opponents of "idiocracy" not realize they're criticizing dysgenics and providing de facto support for eugenics?

Is cowardice so great they can't bring themselves to believe ethical facts that establishments oppose, even when there is little cost and many potential benefits? What will the establishments do? Hunt us down because we read about eugenics on the internet? Establishments have plenty of more self-interested reasons for wanting to crush us. We can keep eugenics beliefs to ourselves if necessary. We can also politely argue with acquaintances and their fanaticism about eugenics. Acquaintances may dump you, but big deal. Do you want to be acquainted with those who will not face easy facts?

Multitudes of individuals have been assaulted or murdered for telling the truth to multiculturalists or their Muslim pals, but has anyone been assaulted or murdered in the West merely for having eugenic beliefs?

The Return to High Growth: What Would Do It

Recent arguments focus on the preposterousness of returning to high growth with Democratic and Republican Party prescriptions, raising the question of whether any set of policies would achieve high growth.

Yes, they could by:

1. Enacting large Pigouvian taxes on negative externalities.
2. Stopping migration to the West.
3. Reducing one-sided, totalitarian trade ("free trade").
4. Sending most secondary students to work or vocational schools.
5. Enacting eugenic policies.
6. Eliminating the U.S. Army, Marine Corps, and the Department of Homeland Security. (No army, no COIN. Less temptation to pivot to Asia or elsewhere. Let fake allies pay for their own armies. And less temptation for the ruling groups to use the military against American civilians.)
7. Providing fiscal stimulus equal to shortfalls in demand.
8. Strictly regulating finance.
9. Slashing government spending on post-secondary schools, bringing back civil service exams.
10. Increasing taxes on the super rich.
11. Eliminating most tax entitlements.
12. Eliminating payroll taxes.
13. Paying Muslims and other individuals of mass destruction to leave the West.
14. Implementing thousands of other reforms.

But these are policies establishment parties will not do.

Big Ben and the Benjamins

The late Ben Wattenberg claimed neoconservatism is about reducing crime. Yet Wattenberg's articles were devoted to promoting cultural Marxism and the career of Joe Lieberman, the former senator devoted to militarism, Wall Street, cultural Marxism, and grandstanding on minor issues. (Don't wait too long for that tough on Wall Street crime article from neoconservatism.)

Wattenberg also said neoconservatism would be more popular if it were called chocolate.

**********

Tough on crime Democrats and Republicans are surprisingly pro-rich and anti-worker, as if the tough on crime stance is a pretext to increase establishment power. Crime reduction and pro-worker policies are a double movement of the soul the modern politician dares not enact.

Principles of Democracy

At a minimum, a democratic country must contain all of the following:

1. a self-determined group of individuals with each individual member capable of roughly equal voting influence via direct vote or party list proportional representation or both.
2. roughly equal meritocratic opportunity for individuals to have well-reasoned media influence.
3. swift, severe, highly probable punishment for both illegal and legalized bribery.
4. no media ownership by non-citizens or pseudo citizens.
5. speech freedoms for all political speech by all citizens.
6. mass media forced to act in the public interest of citizens.
7. eugenic policies for IQ and character since non-eugenic policies will destroy the democracy and the people.
8. freedom for splinter groups to secede when the above conditions, especially freedom of association, are not met.

The former United States is not democratic, and no current Western land is adequately democratic, no matter how often establishments use democracy as a buzzword to cover their evils, though Iceland shows democratic tendencies in fighting the financial industry.

The United States had a few democratic traits during the 1940s through the 1960s when minor checks on establishment power existed,

mostly via private sector labor unions. Unfortunately, unions are now increasingly public sector, adding to corruption and anti-democratic tendencies.

Studies comparing democratic versus other governmental systems are junk science since no nation states in history has been adequately democratic.

No form of governance is an end in itself. All governments should exist to serve the citizens.

Why democracy?

Almost everyone in Western ruling groups is devoted to militarism, cultural Marxism, and neoclassical economics, including almost all the descendents of Western monarchs and other autocrats. In other words: official myths. Overwhelmingly, the people, despite massive indoctrination in militarism, cultural Marxism, and neoclassical economics, represent the opposition to those evils.

Elite rule will be worse since elites devote themselves to psychological egoism, at the expense of the people, for both genetic, cultural and other environmental reasons, no matter whether the the elites create hereditary autocracies, other autocracies or the currently common kleptocracies. Power corrupts. Elites use bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw policies.

For most of the past millennia, these non-democratic policies consisted of various combinations of Randism, slavery, dysgenics, extortion, austerity, polygamy, neoconservatism, debt peonage, sweat shops, tenant farming, paleo-Marxism, third wayism, caste systems, cultural Marxism, excessive usury, and various other forms of militarism, multiculturalism and redistribution to the top.

Various Thoughts

Wealthy establishmenters frequently toss the circumstantial ad hominem "whining" around, apparently unaware of the self-contradictions involved. If the claims of people being screwed are whines, what does that make the trivial complaints of establishments?

**********

From The Week on Trump supporters:

Kevin Williamson implies in National Review Online that I am indulging in “racial identity politics to help poor whites feel better about dependency.” Tom Nichols writes in The Federalist that I want to play the “bitter card of victimhood and entitlement that liberals use.” 

Williamson says that he’d rather poor whites “took the necessary steps to improve their condition in life.” Nichols outlines some of these necessary steps, saying these men need “to stop fleecing the disability system, to kick their addiction, to be fathers to their children, to get a job no matter how low or unappealing it is, and to stick with it until you get a better one.” He implies that I’m against this kind of virtue. That’s wrong.

When confronted with the fact that the Republican establishment did little more than engage in treason and rent seeking for decades, the establishment replies with irrelevant, circumstantial ad hominem attacks against their supporters.

A demographic look at Trump supporters:

Slightly over half of Trump supporters are female, about half are between 45 and 64 years of age with another 34 percent being over 65 years old and less than two percent younger than 30. One half of his voters have a high school education or less compared to 19 percent with a college or post-graduate degree. Slightly over one third of his supporters earn less than $50,000 per year while 11 percent earn over $100,000 per year.

Those demographics don't look similar to fleecing and child abandonment.

This leads to a more massive contradiction: the way you get fleecing, addiction, and child abandonment is by supporting the dysgenic, rent seeking, and cultural Marxian policies of the Democratic and Republican establishments. Personal responsibility rhetoric won't accomplish much in the face of those policies.

**********

Establishment political celebrity ranks among the easiest jobs, provided the celebrities are articulate and attractive.

They don't care about cognitive dissonance. Heck, they might not be capable of anything more than slight amounts. They don't have to carefully weigh pros and cons of competing arguments. They don't have to come up with ideas. They parrot the talking points of whatever teams they choose. Dead air time, especially awkward pauses to think, get them in bigger trouble than fallacious opinions.

Arianna Huffington raked in hundreds of millions from her sweatshop website while doing little work herself.

The danger is letting slip something critical of cultural Marxism as Rick Sanchez and dozens of others found out.

**********

Look how emotively powerful The American Conservative is in defending Yemen from Saudi totalitarianism--"wicked," "atrocious," "shameful," "disgraceful," "indefensible." Compare that with their pathetic defense of the West (if they are even defending the West). Perhaps a spin-off magazine, The Yemeni Conservative, is in the offing.

The American Conservative might counter argue that Saudi aggression is causing a large death toll in Yemen. But if you count suicide, pollution, and other deaths from issues largely ignored by The American Conservative, the Western death toll from Randism, globalism, third wayism, and cultural Marxism is much larger.

The American Conservative also tries to blame "the U.S." for Yemen as if we weren't under a non-democratic, occupation government dominated by wealthy global ruling groups, including the Saudis.

**********

Overheard at work
Worker: I met my girlfriend the night we was running a train on her. I hate her. I want to punch her all the time. I want to punch her most when I mix [two drugs I don't remember the names of]. I have a baby with her. I want to punch my daughter, too. But I don't punch them because girlfriend has a good job.

Rhetoric Matters

Rhetoric is any communication attempt to sway individuals, whether fallacious or non-fallacious. Today's outsiders have a very, very difficult time gaining adherents This is not to place most of the blame on outsiders. We live on a planet dominated by power rather than evidence. Most ethical blame resides with the mass media, wealthy multiculturalists, and establishment political powers. Attempts to undo their powers face immense difficulties.

But.

The SJW slur ranks among the most pathetic frigging slurs I have ever seen in my life, almost as if it were a neutral term. I doubt anyone will reevaluate his life after being called an SJW. Justice and warrior are regarded as positive terms. Combining them with the word social does not make an effective slur. Slurs from multiculturalists make whites feel unethical guilt. The SJW slur likely makes multiculturalists feel ennobled.

It is better to avoid fallacious rhetoric. Better to use well-reasoned evidence, to form alternative communities, to prepare for when things get so bad, establishment supporters will begin to open their minds. Well-reasoned arguments have rhetorical value, too.

A massive flaw with slinging mud is individuals become worse than their enemies. Karl Rove is a worse human being than most of the planet. Millions of young Marxians, quite certain of their own virtue, became far worse human beings than their enemies.

Why bother putting in massive effort to change societies when those efforts will produce rotten results? Political ideologies should be means to more important ends, not ends in themselves.

Jared Taylor and others in similar situations realize that slurs they use will be used against them several dozen fold.

Yes, it stinks to hell that establishments can dominate the world with abusive ad hominem attacks and other fallacious rhetoric while pretending to be paragons of centrism and respectability. It's infuriating that the mass media almost never calls non-multiculturalists anything but slurs, almost never calls outsiders the terms outsiders call themselves, almost never permits outsider arguments to appear in the mass media. It's grossly unfair that those with power use despicable tactics to punch down at those with little power while being rewarded for doing so.

Ecumenical rhetoric with establishments is not a good idea, except ecumenical rhetoric that permits secessions and other separations. Establishments are devoted to rent seeking and to our destruction. Such ecumenical rhetoric doesn't change establishments. It changes outsiders from feeling bad about mass destruction to feeling good about mass destruction. Outsiders sell out. What have ordinary Christians gained from Christian leaders' ecumenicalism with Muslims? Massive harms. Polls and other evidence suggest most Muslims still believe that infidels, apostates, blasphemers, and females accused of adultery should all be murdered. Groups practicing endogamy and totalitarian ideologies seldom give up their fanaticism.

What are the Rovian and cultural Marxism playbooks? One tactic is calling others what they call you. "I know you are but what am I." It's a fallacious, but it works on adults and children alike. Enron ally Bush attacked Democrats for Enron ties. When called a B-word, they call others a super B-word or worse slur.

Rove attacked alleged strengths. George W. Bush, of AWOL fame, was able to hammer John Kerry's far greater military accomplishments. Marxian regimes, in all their hellish glory, continually attacked Westerners on civil rights issues. They still do.

Rove's tactics worked because the neoconservative media machine aided him at almost every step. And because neoconservatives don't care about evidence, so even the most blatant fallacies were and are ignored.

Over-the-top slurs such as the C-word do not work, nor do other slurs that the mass media will not print.

More promising are some tactics from the so-called civil rights era. It would be great to see Rotherham victims and allies marching outside the establishment occupied buildings with "I Am Human" placards, daring the police to arrest them for thought crimes. A "Letter from a Rotherham jail" would be superb. Establishments would reply to the letter with their usual demonizations tactics, but all it takes is a few media moguls to face some facts.

The Bundy occupiers in Oregon failed spectacularly because:

1. they were armed and used the threat of violence not for self-defense.
2. they occupied a building.
3. they did not look downtrodden. They needed to be poor and look like dust bowl survivors.
4. they had few likely allies. They believed in Randism mixed with cultural Marxism, comparing themselves to Rosa Parks. Few outsiders look kindly at such beliefs and insiders reflexively oppose almost any opposition. The alternative right ignored them. They opposed the results of establishment Randism, militarism, and cultural Marxism with their own versions of the same three evils. They tried to play the establishment's game with millions of times less power.

Some might argue that it is worthless to point out thousands of contradictions to devoted establishment believers when devoted establishment believers act as if self-contradictions were nothing important or a good thing. "I'm so random." Whee!

But we are seldom trying to win over the devoted believers, we are trying to convert the victims of globalism, militarism, multiculturalism, neoclassical economics, and other establishment totalitarianisms. Individuals become astonishingly open to change when their hedonistic lifestyles take a hit.

We live in a uniquely desultory period. There are no easy, accurate, and guaranteed maps to get out of this mess. Beyond making well-reasoned arguments, there are multitudes of rhetorical tips here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here.  Here. Here. Here. Some of them more dubious than not.

Establishments persuade many by attacking opponents for alleged "extremism."

Alternative beliefs are increasing but so are beliefs in establishment totalitarianisms. Ordinary whites lack self-respect and have even less respect for other whites. Wealthy whites compete in conspicuous xenocentrism competitions, to see who can be the most anti-white. The self-degradation is astronomical.

Establishments focus on bogeymen. Our job is to focus on fighting wrongs using peaceful means.

Leave the aggression to the establishments. Avoid letting fallacious rhetoric dominate over well-reasoned rhetoric.

When Establishments Collide, Collude or Divide

One nasty side effect Western institutions colonization by free riding is that many plausible reformers are demoralized or have little interest in participating in those institutions. For ruling groups, this is a bonus, assortative mating in ruling class occupations, rent seeking teamwork. The road to ruin is long, the roads to reforms even longer.

The political realignments of the past 60 years played a major role in wrecking the West. Almost all political power was co-opted for the ruling groups.

No matter which groups win the upcoming Supreme Court nomination battles, non-wealthy Westerners will be the losers. The battles will be between multicultural third wayers and multicultural neoconservatives, who have more in common than most voters realize. Citizens will be baited into picking an establishment side. The fights will be distractions from important issues. No matter which sides win, various competing parties will end up aggrieved and highly motivated to cause more revenge ruin, that is, more neoconservatism, third wayism, and cultural Marxism, with both sides claiming they had no choice but to fight fire with fire.

It seems as if some establishment Republicans have realigned so far that they care more about cultural Marxism than redistributing income to their allies, as if they'd prefer Bernie Sanders over your neighborhood ethnoracial fact facer, perhaps because Sanders is little threat to their power. Sanders cannot accomplish much against courts and Congress filled with Republicans and Third Way Democrats. But the alternative right poses the threat of re-realigning the Republican Party. Establishment Republicans would rather risk the destruction of the West than lose the financial support of multicultural evangelicals and other multicultural conservatives.

The media treat the word indoctrination as if it were a taboo word, as if it were something that happens with only old timey totalitarianism.

But let's be honest, almost all of us have had thousands of fallacious ideas rattling around in our brains at one on time or another. And we didn't get those ideas by under rocks. We got them from peers, politicians, celebrities, and other influential individuals with help from our genes. At one time, those ideas sounded good to us. We were fooled by the persuasiveness of arguments rather than the well-reasonedness of arguments.

Most of those ideas came from the mass media, the same mass media that almost never delivers well-reasoned arguments. In other words, we were indoctrinated.

When visiting mass media sites, it almost seems as if parrots have been genetically engineered to type.

Time for Some Classic Links

Fear of an Erudite White by Jim Goad

The Elusive X-Factor, or Why Jonathan Kaplan Is Wrong about Race and IQ by Dalliard

Muslim Statistics (Shari'ah)

Cousin Marriage Conundrum by Steve Sailer

Solutions, Again by Jayman

Most Likely to Secede by Ron Miller, Rob Williams

OECD: Air pollution costs $ 3,600 billion and kills 3.5 million people annually (much of it caused by migration and commuting, the latter often caused by neighborhood ethnic cleansing)

But the middle-class and the poor are essentially unrepresented (unless they happen to share the preferences of the well-off)

A Success Story? by Jayman

The Koran Online Type in unbelievers and dozens of synonyms for unbeliever, including "right hand," a euphemism for captured rape slaves.

The Madonna or the Whore?

“Human Directionals”—The Cheap Wage/Expensive Land Economy Personified by Steve Sailer

The Political Violence of the Bible and the Koran by Bill Warner

Thomas Jackson and Jared Taylor at Amren back issues

The Color of Crime

Family Structure

An increasingly Muslim world will be, ipso facto, most likely, an increasingly less enlightening world by Geoffrey McArthur

Denmark: Muslims 218 percent more criminal in 2nd generation than first

Beliefs About Sharia

Opinion Polls

Persecution

Free Speech

Let Us Meditate About Bias

Noted philosophers and health experts Oprah Winfrey and Deepak Chopra launch a weight loss meditation challenge.

I saw The Oprah Winfrey Show only a few times, always while visiting.

One time, an activist showed a map of the world with the Southern Hemisphere on top, then hectored the audience with the usual pseudo profound accusations of bias. (But maybe, just maybe, the Northern Hemisphere should remain on top because there would be transition costs to turning the map upside down.)

To the best of my memory, no one asked Wile E. Activist, Super Genius why she used a flat map to represent an oblate ellipsoid and whether that might invoke some sort of bias self-contradiction. And no one stated that holding up a map at a talk show is a faulty measure of bias. Some might even call it a biased measure using a biased sample.

Another time, an attractive astrologer debated a physicist about the preposterous notions of astrology. The physicist had stage fright, and those present could barely contain their smirks.

But I won't judge Winfrey based on a small sample fallacy of two shows because that might be biased.

The Grave Threats

In the 1930s, the West faced many major, long term issues: China, Japan, Muslims, dysgenics, globalism, neoconservatism, super volcanos, cultural Marxism, Hitler's Germany, mass hedonism, legalized bribery, super pathogens, propaganda technologies, artificial intelligence, space impacts, nonwhite immigration, WMD technologies, neoclassical economics, fatalistic Armageddonism, the Soviet Union, low white birth rates, widespread, opposition to moral reasoning, the near absence of ethical religions or pseudo religions, and several other issues, plus some more, though few would have recognized all the issues at the time.

Few do now.

Luckily for the West, the ethnoracial groups mentioned above did not unite against the West. Instead, Japan sought to conquer China and Germany wanted to conquer the Soviet Union before moving on to the West. Both Japan and Germany might have bogged down fighting guerillas in China and the Soviet Union. We don't know. Eventually, American nuclear weapons would have changed the strategic calculations of Japan and Germany. But French and British rulers made matters worse by vowing to defend Poland without the fully mobilized will to defend Poland, not to mention themselves. Bedraggled British soldiers came back from Dunkirk to see university students playing sports. Poland itself refused to put in a fully mobilized effort.

Lives should not be wasted to defend a nation that refuses to put in a full bore effort to defend itself.

The threats from most of the above increased. Hitler's Germany and the Empire of Japan are gone. But globalism, neoconservatism, cultural Marxism, neoclassical economics, and creeping Sharia have conquered the West or are in the process of doing so.

White birthrates plummeted. Propaganda, wrapped in mass infotainment, became more sinister and insidious. Nonwhite immigration skyrocketed. WMD technologies keep developing. The mean genotypic IQ of the West keeps decreasing and the genotypes for moral character traits probably decline at faster rates. So-called Western leaders are puppets of Southwest Asians and wealthy, globalized citizens, who are citizens in legal terms only. Hard, moral work is taxed and punished while evils rewarded. The ruling class grandstands about global warming while refusing to implement far greater Pigouvian taxes.

Incentives matter. You get more of what you reward and less of what you punish.

Most intellectuals live in bubbles of fanaticism and obliviousness to facts that contradict their worldviews. Whites are at each others' throats for few good reasons--thanks to indoctrination and the divide-and-rule strategies of the ruling groups.

The funds provided for defense against comets and other rock strikes are pitiful. Against super volcanos, there is little defense but prepping and relocating. The era of antibiotics nears an end, and little work to find replacements exists. Even the prediction that by 2050 pathogens will cause 10 million more deaths per year, sparks little action. The oceans are overharvested, non-Western lands deforested.

Sustainability gets mentioned most often with the environment, but bigger sustainability problems result from Islam, dysgenics, militarism, ruler egoism, free riding, cultural Marxism, and nonwhite immigration.

The ruling class calls Russian and Chinese leaders nationalists, but like Western leaders, they are driven by egoism and cultural Marxism. Like multiculturalists much of the West, their subjugated peoples serve as useful for the ego cause.

Those who face facts about the threats are ignored or demonized with slurs and other fallacies.

So now here we are.

Fun times.

Wonk Brigade to the Rescue

Paul Krugman claims himself, Ezra Klein, Jonathan Cohn, and Jonathan Chait are part of a "wonk brigade," and that among "the differences between right and left in America is that the progressive infrastructure includes a contingent of genuine wonks—commentators on policy who really do make models and crunch numbers, and sometimes come up with answers that aren’t fully predictable from their politics."

I guess mixing varieties of third wayism and cultural Marxism doesn't qualify as being fully predictable, but not being fully predictable is a abysmal, irrelevant standard. No one is fully predictable. Being better than establishment Republicans is also a very, very low bar.

The wonk brigade writes mostly about politics, not policies, defending the deforms and token reforms of third wayism.

For years, Third Wayers acted as if major reforms were impractical, no matter the public support. At what point do reforms become probable? Or are we supporsed to accept endless decay? And why should we citizens accept being part of an empire that continues to get worse?

Krugman is right to criticize progressive overemphasis on Glass-Steagall, but this is what major financial reforms resemble, and the reforms have little in common with wonk brigade writings.

Krugman doesn't mention a major reason progressives and Third Wayers have more wonks: the groupthink situation in academia. Almost anyone who dissents from Marxism, third wayism, libertarianism, and neoconservatism is unlikely to have an academic career. Krugman spewed thousands of ethnoracial views over the years, but Krugman almost never provides good evidence for those views. Multiculturalists treat cultural Marxism as off limits to well-reasoned wonkery. Multiculturalism serves as a holy fanaticism, even among wonks.

If you asked the wonk brigade about which eugenic policies are best and why, you'd probably get ad hominem attacks and other fallacies in return.

Health and Exercise Ideas

Medical solutions that work better for me than the therapies recommended to me:

1. For excruciating lumbar disease and facet joint syndrome, raise your feet so your body is horizontal and have someone sit on your butt while doing plank exercises. Or hang weights from your butt or hips while doing plank exercises. Never do sit ups or crunches or torso twists. Avoid sitting. Have your feet and lower legs hang off the end of your bed when supining.
2. For knee osteoarthritis and bone spurs, use isometric wall sits, isometric lunges, and standing cable station leg kicks in addition to supine leg lifts.
3. For TMD, cut a mouth guard into a smaller mouth guard. No matter how well you wash mouthguards, they are bad for molars.
4. For neck osteoarthritis, use your fists and door frames to apply isometric pressure to the front and sides of your neck.
5. For metatarsalgia, wear soft soled shoes and shove massive amounts of cushioning in your shoes, including soft arch supports. Cut open the front tops of your shoes to make more room for the cushions and the balls of your feet if necessary. Do toe raises while your arches rest on an a narrow, exposed tree root or other narrow, upraised object. Resist the urge to stay off your feet. Keep walking when standing. 
6. For shoulder osteoarthritis, experiment with dozens of different free weight and cable station lifts until you find those that help more than hurt.

These exercises are also excellent preventative maintenance for anyone not having these problems yet.

The Rules of Ethnoracial Egalitarianism in Practice

The main equality of ethnoracial egalitarianism is equal opportunity of taking advantage of nonwealthy whites.

In conflicts among nonwealthy whites and nonwhites, ruling groups mostly side with nonwhites, no matter the evidence. Even conflicts among nonwhites--Syria or Trayvon Martin versus George Zimmerman--turn into opportunities to bash and harm nonwealthy whites.

In conflicts among ruling groups and nonwealthy individuals, the ruling groups almost always side with themselves, no matter the evidence.

In conflicts among nonwhites and other nonwhites, the ruling groups side with legalized bribery (wealthy Southwest Asians) or whichever group is more tribal.

The jobs, lives, schools, cultures, countries, families, and neighborhoods of nonwealthy whites may be given to or destroyed by multiculturalists, but the wealth of wealthy multiculturalists is off limits because wealthy multiculturalists earned their wealth via rent seeking activities.

This is no way to democratically govern, and it is no way to ethically govern.

Life in a Medium Bad, Medium Cool Multicultural Neighborhood

No multicultural social scientist (almost all social scientists) will do accurate research on this topic, so you are stuck with my small sample fallacy case study.

I live in a majority Hispanic neighborhood in the former United States. I have lived in poor neighborhoods most of my life. As multicultural neighborhoods go, mine is not too bad, though like most neighborhoods it gets worse with each passing year.

What is life like here?

Every morning the grounds are filled with trash (bottles, diapers, you name it). Porters and a few residents (me) clean up.

Young, adult white professionals sometimes move in. They don't last more than a few months. One day at the apartment office, I saw a new white neighbor in tears, begging to escape her lease.

I have never seen a white child living in my neighborhood. None. Even supporters of multiculturalism, somehow have an unconscious awareness that this is no place for white children. Multiculturalists blame bad neighborhoods on the mysterious power of poor whites and white r*cism. Johnny Knoxville made a documentary film about the wonders of living in Detroit for white professionals. I don't remember seeing a white child anywhere in the documentary. Knoxville's white professionals lived in urban islands, seldom experiencing much of Detroit, pursuing hedonistic dead ends.

Panhandling is aggressive here. Note of advice: panhandling relies on the foot in the door technique. If someone asks you for a quarter and you give it to him, he will pressure you for more. The tricks keep getting more sophisticated. I saw a man faking a seizure to get help from gullible whites. Another guy stumbles around in the middle of residential streets with a blind person's cane asking for help getting to a school for the blind. Woe to her who falls for the foot in the door technique.

Parked vehicles get dozens of mysterious dents. But I have never seen a nonwhite fess up. If you happen to ding a neighbor's vehicle and do the honorable thing by reporting it and paying for damages or having your insurance pay, you will still be berated by your neighbors. But don't expect your neighbors to report any damage they do to your vehicle. Fortunately, newer vehicles have flexible side mirrors, so mirror impacts seldom cause damage now.

Teenagers throw food, wrappers, and other objects at parked vehicles from balconies.

During my eleven years in my present neighborhood, I saw many crimes (fraud, thefts, assaults, and many property crimes). The rate of punishment for crime is less than one percent. Most crimes are not reported to the police. Football coaches say they want to hear the hitting. I hear the crime through my walls.

My neighbors know police seldom do much unless a serious crime occurs or someone gets caught in the act.

Unprovoked assaults: one night a car passenger threw a beer bottle at me. Another night, a truck passenger threw a partly frozen egg at me, yelling "Got 'em," hitting me below the sternum. I thought it was a slush ball until I smelled egg. While walking across a bridge, a teen punched me, almost knocking me in front of a passing car.

Law enforcement has little interest Wall Street crimes and the ongoing conquest of the West.

But law enforcement is interested in jaywalking in my neighborhood, passing out warnings and tickets with aplomb, as if facing the consequences of your own street crossing decisions were a serious matter. Police tell you that crossing at intersections is statistically safer. But the police don't tell you that intersections are statistically safer only for pedestrians who recklessly cross streets. I've been nicked twice by pickups making illegal right hand turns at intersections. I've never come close to being hit away from intersections because I make sure to never cross when vehicles are near. At intersections, you are at the mercy of drivers' decisions.

But leash laws go unenforced, fitting with the trend of ruling groups ignoring or rewarding creators of negative externalties but wanting to punish creators of positive externalities. I've been bitten twice by Hispanic's dogs.

Reddit tells you to wear headphones. Wrong. Headphones may reduce the rate of minor harassment, but headphones make you an easy target for more harmful crimes.

Hispanics throw nails and screws on lawns and parking lots. Lots of them. Leaf blowers and lawn mowers assist the great screw migration into tires. I had at least a dozen flat tires in the past 14 years. Despite severe osteoarthritis, I pick up hundreds of nails and screws each year. No matter the condition of this neighborhood, the land lords will not tolerate the abomination of leaves and grass clippings.

Nonwhite crimes directly cost me at least $1000 per year. Break ins alone cost me over $4200 during the past decade. The ethical costs are far larger.

Youths block stairwells and act peeved if you try to pass. "Excuse me," has a slow response time here, no matter how polite you are. Neighbors allow their dogs to defecate in stairwells. You must look down before you step out a door. Trash also ends up in stairwells, including slippery items.

Neighborhood pets and feral animals are infested with fleas. If you have no pets, your apartment will still have flea problems from fleas hopping rides on you as you walk toward your apartment. I spend over $80 every year flea bombing.

The stare. The ghetto stare. Whatever you call it. Non-white men and boys employ it. The message is difficult to mistake: "This is our land now, white people. You have no business being here. We don't care if you, your parents, and grandparents built this neighborhood."

Noise is constant. Sirens, music, fights, traffic, video games, you name it. I sleep with earplugs and a white noise machine. Surprisingly, I seldom hear gun shots.

Ambulances repeatedly visit the same apartments, an expensive sympathy seeking ploy.

Rents skyrocket thanks to increased demand from migrants and to multiculturalists trashing apartments. One nearby apartment was remodeled before a Puerto Rican family moved in. When they moved out, the place had to be remodeled again. The stench from their dogs was so rotten and embedded in the apartment, maintenance placed an ozone machine in the doorway for several weeks.

Traffic keeps getting worse. Left turns are death defying. Several cars have been T-boned in front of my apartment.

Several years ago a Mexican acquaintance told me I should rely on Mexican plumbers and mechanics because they (allegedly) charge less.

Terrible idea.

Mexican businesses see whites as prey. And you will pay for incompetence: My car mysteriously stalled one day, so I took it to a nearby Hispanic shop. The shop charged me over $800 for a new fuel pump, then incorrectly put everything back together. Later, at a white repair shop, I learned the real problem was the crankshaft position sensor (much cheaper to replace).

I asked a Mexican place for an estimate to change my fuel filter. They told me the old filter was rusted on and the fuel line around the filter would need replacing (very, very expensive). I took it to a white shop: No problem replacing the fuel filter. My brake lights stopped working. It took a Mexican shop eleven hours to find an open circuit. I watched the mechanic from the waiting room, and it was obvious he had little electrical training.

My right turn light stopped working. A Mexican shop found it impossible to repair and gave me my car back.

I asked a Mexican shop for an estimate on replacing my AC condenser. The estimate was nearly $900. A white shop replaced it for under $700.

I always take my car to white mechanics for repairs now or repair my car myself, no matter how far I must travel to find a white shop.

But Mexican shops are good for one thing: passing annual inspections. My car has flaws that should fail it every year. Yet hispanic shops keep passing it every year.

But wealthy multiculturalists might say, "My Hispanic maid and gardener are so nice." Some news: I have spent many hours listening to nonwhite service workers berate their white employers. Thanks to genes and cultural Marxism, nonwhites are devoted to anti-white supremacism from an early age. They see no good reason why in their view, an inferior white person should be the employer and they should be the employee. In some cases, they have a point. Why should white school teachers earn $60,000 per year teaching cultural Marxism and worthless information? Public school teaching is a very, very difficult job, but a job's difficulty is little indication of its moral benefit. Those sweet, obsequious nonwhite service workers change their tone once they get home and don't need to be nice for money. And they have many relatives with surly dispositions, who consider service work beneath them.

Migrant service workers are lose-lose-lose for working class whites. Migrants drive down wages. Working class Westerners lose their lives, schools, cultures, families, neighborhoods, and tax money. Migrants provide (mostly) status services to wealthy multiculturalists, who already have far too much status and power. Rich people need to clean up their own toilets. It's good for character. Rich people wrecked America with Randism, globalism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism. All the money the rich possess would pay only a fraction of the past, present, and opportunity costs of their actions. Not surprisingly, wealthy multiculturalists seldom pay the payroll taxes they are required to pay for their workers.

The benefits are for the rich multiculturalists and the costs are for the proles.

How do migrants find so much money to send home? One way is by violating leases and sharing small apartments with several migrants, apartments that supposedly prohibit more than two individuals, creating another negative externality for working class whites: increased water bills because water bills are often divided equally among apartments.

No matter how much the mass media desensitizes us to crime, when your friends and family are the ones being assaulted and burglarized vivid feelings of violation and degradation arise. Some days I have a lump in my throat and sinking feelings.

The media cite studies claiming non East Asian groups are no more likely to commit crimes than whites. Those studies use self-reports, where evidence indicates nonwhites are many more times than whites to make fallacious claims.

Whatever the thousands of pro-establishment fallacies whites tell themselves, most whites are comparatively scrupulous about telling personal life truths. This willingness to tell interpersonals truth may have assisted the rise of the West. But the unwillingness of millions of whites to tell political truths is behind the demise of the West.

The long-term white residents here have low wage jobs or severe physical disabilities. Or both.

I would move to Maine or Montana, except I get chronic sinus infections in cool weather and my wife has rheumatoid arthritis.

To wealthy multiculturalists, we're just white tr*sh. How do the wealthy know? That's what the mass media tells them everyday. And that's one way the wealthy sooth their self-contradiction filled souls--with fictional falsehoods and small sample fallacies.

Republican strategist Rick Wilson gained attention when he said alt righters "childless single men who masturbate to anime." Less remarked upon was Wilson's follow up totalitarian assertion: "These are not people who matter in the overall course of humanity." If they don't matter, why are the ruling groups so insistent about ruling over them and wrecking their lives? Wilson likely believes the same applies to anyone else who tells the truth about the Republican establishment.

I would rather live in an all white poor country with a median income of ten dollars per day and a maximum income of 20 dollars per day than this place. Land would be cheap or free to squat on. Without multiculturalism, there would be fewer long commutes. Nearly all our living expenses would be a fraction of what they are now. That's how nonwhites survive in nonwhite countries. They can support families on a few dollars a day because food is their only significant expense. It's easier to raise a family on five dollars per day in Bolivia than on 50 dollars per day in the West.

Many whites would prefer to live in an ethical society with an ethical espirit de corps, to build better futures. But what do our societies offer? Selfishness mixed with xenocentrism. Both forms of harm causing will create ethically worse future generations.

Peaceful secessions and other separations are necessary.

The Genetic and Environmental Path to Peace

An argument by Sarah Mathew uses unrepresentative sampling, Turkana tribes in Africa, to conclude that human alliances are often arbitrary and:

the moral sphere of humans readily extends to include culturally similar people. This is useful because it implies that we could possibly expand the moral sphere by creating perceptions of cultural similarity. Finding the common thread that connects disparate cultures may not be just a cliché, but an evolutionarily backed-up path to peace.

We don't need to look at the Turkana to see that alliances are arbitrary. Looking at history, we see millions of alliances that were self-destructive and ethically destructive.

More recently, we see billions of votes being cast for establishment political parties when doing so is against self-interest and ethical interests. Ordinary voters even donate massive sums against self-interest and ethical interests.

Looking for some cultural common thread or "perceptions of cultural similarity" is not a path to peace. It is a path to misplaced altruism and increased egoism, already known as cultural Marxism. The Turkana ally with ethnoracially similar allies. Put them with whites or Northeast Asians and the Turkana will instantly exploit weaknesses, no matter how much multiculturalists try to indoctrinate us that we are all the same deep inside.

The Turkana almost certainly have much genetic and economic competition within their own "egalitarian" societies that Mathews does not tell us about.

The better path to peace is self-determination, free speech, real democracy, just economies, ethical reasoning, ethnoracially homogenous populations, ethically eugenic breeding, lack of xenocentrism, avoidance of geopolitical salience, severe punishment for legalized bribery, severe punishment for egoism, and defenses that make aggression hugely reckless for those at the top pursuing aggression.

The Man or Woman of Some Sort of Reason

The most upvoted reply on a Reddit thread comes from a terrible genre of writing, the genre of imitation well-reasonedness, the fake voicing of reason. My comments are in brackets:

This post and OP are a perfect example of what is wrong with /r/politics right now [ad hominem and false claim]. No reasoned thought [false claim and straw person]. No civil discussion [false claim and straw person]. No critical thinking [false claim and straw person]. Sketchy sources to say the least [false claim and a self-contradiction]. Where has the intellectual debate gone [false claim]?
For example, this post. Fun fact, the New York Times Editorial Board endorsed Hillary Clinton today, not the New York Times [false dichotomy]. EVERY NEWSPAPERS' EDITORIAL BOARDS ENDORSE CANDIDATES [ad populum]. They have been doing it forever [appeal to tradition]. Hillary Clinton is the leading candidate for the Democratic Nomination right now [ad populum] and if you actually read the column, you would understand that they made a choice based on pragmatism [false claim], which is OK [false claim]! There are multiple points of view on every subject [irrelevant], unless you come to /r/politics [false claim]. As a long time political observer [faulty expertise], I was shocked to see in the sub outrageous statements made about the NYTs today [irrelevant]. For well over a hundred years, it has been the gold standard (along with the WSJ and others) for quality news and reporting [false claim and faulty expertise]. It is sad to see how some react to the paper as a whole when the Editorial Board endorses someone not named Bernie Sanders [straw person]. In addition, the article in question was a news piece, not an Editorial piece [false dichotomy].
Also, OPs like this are literally SPAMMING this sub [ad hominem]. Check it out, an account for like 8 hours that literally only posts pro-Bernie, anti-Hillary [ad hominem]. This isn't an isolated case. Look through these forums. They are everywhere [false claim]. Don't get me wrong, new voices and opinions are always welcome in the community [false claim], but when they are created solely for the purpose of pushing an agenda, while not breaking any rules, is still rather slimy [ad hominem].

The post was also gifted Reddit gold.

Most arguments in this genre end up supporting establishment totalitarianisms for some strange reason. Hint for would be social scientists: Do some research on this genre. But that runs into the problem of social scientists not being good at reasoning either.

The Great Filter

So what acts as the Great Filter? Why haven't we been contacted by alien civilizations?

My Guess is that at least one of the following applies:

1. Life is rare.
2. Intelligent life is rare.
3. Intelligent life is rare in environments having physical resources for interstellar actions. (Intelligent ocean life has a difficult time developing interstellar technologies.)
4. Most intelligent life stinks at moral reasoning and action, leading to takeovers by psychological and evolutionary egoists, preventing civilizations from ethically and technologically developing the ability to colonize or communicate long distances. This has already happened numerous times with human civilizations. Internal egoism and tribalistic outgroups destroy the civilizations. 
5. Technologies of nihilism or hedonism prevent sufficient advancement and interstellar activities. (For example, a few individuals in advanced societies can create bioweapons and other weapons of mass destruction.)

On the plus side, at least we haven't been destroyed or conquered by robots from elsewhere, yet.

Tips to Acquire Blog Readers

Just kidding. Look at my blog stats.

That's what happens when you're an actual independent rather than a party supporter disguised as an independent. Readers reject you because you don't fit their indoctrinated worldviews.

Or maybe not kidding.

Fanfare for the Salt-of-the-Earth Man, Woman, and Child

James Thompson has a solid post on welfarism, arguing that individuals on welfare, not surprisingly, increase dysgenic breeding. 

A few decades ago, writers would lump the top 20 percent in income together, though individuals barely in the top 20 percent had little in common with the top 0.1 percent, at least economically.

It's been standard practice for generations to lump those with lower incomes together in the working class, though many of those labeled working class have little in common besides income. Many individuals labeled working class receive means tested benefits or would if they had the opportunity. Others labeled working class react with horror at the idea of welfare, correctly viewing welfare as free riding.

I call this latter group the salt-of-the-earth working class. The salt-of-the-earth working class has been besieged for decades by the trash cultures spread by the top one percent--Hollywood!--and the trash cultures of welfare recipient groups. The salt-of-the-earth working class tries to avoid welfare groups but is often stuck in the same neighborhoods as the welfare class, especially with increased immigration and increased dysgenic breeding. 

Part of Putnam's hunkering down in diverse neighborhoods probably results from the salt-of-the-earth working class avoiding social interaction with welfare recipients. 

The salt-of-the-earth working class tends to have the highest moral character in societies, doing the most important jobs in societies. Unlike the rich and upper middle class, the salt-of-the-earth working class is more likely to reject the fallacious narratives coming from the top.  

The salt-of-the-earth working class is lower income for many reasons, including lower IQs, lower incidences of dark triad traits, preferences for productive professions, and because salters were raised in bad schools and bad neighborhoods, often experiencing the harmful effects of high residential mobility as their parents searched for decent jobs in the new economy.

Almost no one in the top one percent has qualms about their own free riding.

The salt-of-the-earth working class consists of reciprocal altruists while the wealthy and welfare recipients are prone to psychological and evolutionary egoism.

Little research exists on the differences among welfare receivers and the salt-of-the-earth working classes. Many in the the salt-of-the-earth working class view themselves as middle class, though their incomes are below the median.

Jayman remarked that white on white breeding in recently decades has been slightly eugenic for IQ but that raises questions about breeding for character traits. Intuitively, it seems breeding among the salters has plummeted because public policies have become disastrous while child rearing, decent schools, and adequate housing have become much more expensive--and salters don't want to burden others.

These distinctions are, of course, ignored by the economic and intellectual ruling classes, who tend to view their alleged inferiors as white tr*sh, their views about working class individuals formed from small sample fallacies--trash television and poorly reasoned rubbish they read in ruling group media.