Bernie Sanders' Mask Slips

The above statement gives insight into the character of Bernie Sanders.

Multiculturalists attend Donald Trump rallies to deny freedom of assembly and freedom of association--to push, chase, block, punch, heckle, and otherwise incite violence, then assert victim status if any Trump supporter retaliates.

Few Trump supporters would do the same at a Democratic Party rally. And if Trump supporters did so, multiculturalists would claim the Trump supporters got what they deserved.

Sanders' quotes give tacit approval to the behavior of multiculturalists, to encourage mild red guarding.

None of this reality appears in Sanders' statement.

Instead, Sanders pretends to be above the fray while practicing demagoguery, by engaging in irrelevant ad hominem attacks.

Sanders acts as if he doesn't live in a land where whites have been constantly demonized for decades. Instead, the totalitarianism of cultural Marxism is the eternal victim. Atrocious behavior by multiculturalists, caused primarily by their genes and cultures, gets ignored or excused.

While Bernie Sanders is a comparatively civil guy for a contemporary politician, a Sanders presidency would see the federal government hire thousands of progressive multiculturalists devoted to totalitarianism and rent seeking. As in every Marxian nation, they would cause dystopian results while fellow believers, including Sanders, would make excuses and blame victims. Sanders' statement indicates he believes the cultural Marxian worldview, where whiteness is alleged to cause most of the world's ills while ignoring or dismissing overwhelming counter evidence that other factors cause nearly all the world's ills.

In Sanders' administration, mass destruction would be deemed necessary for the cause. And major red guarding would almost certainly result.

Fighting for Contemporary Empires?

What would we be fighting for?

If Mexico or Saudi Arabia sent us letters, saying they were drafting us into their army, would we go? Then why fight self-destructive wars for the former United States? The rulers of the former United States are committed to replacing white Americans with Mexicans and other nonwhites. We would be fighting a war for nonwhites, who hate us, and their descendants--plus egoism and war profiteering, of course.

In war and peace, one goal should be to get yourself, your allies, and potential enemies to pursue ethical goals. Yet we keep rewarding unethical enemies while harming ourselves

In some just wars, another goal should be to maximize the ratio of destruction to the enemy's ability to fight over destruction of your own when alternatives are gone. We must seek to maximize benefits and minimize harms to ourselves. We must have thurough knowledge of self, allies, and enemies, avoiding glib and overconfident conclusions. We must explore worse case scenarios and potential countermoves by enemies. We must not assume enemies will fight the way we want them to fight. No one should be promoted based on bribery or halo effects. None of this matters to those devoted to parasitism, that is, almost everyone with power in the West. Self-interest and ethical interest are assumed to be the same by establishments.

Situations where you should fight on behalf of peoples seeking to destroy you are historically almost nonexistent, yet we keep fighting on behalf of those working to destroy us.

Almost every war Western establishments entered during the last several generations produced worse long-term consequences than the establishments expected, in part, because the people being ruled don't matter to the people doing the ruling.

If establishments bumble into a nuclear war with China or Russia or both, surviving whites would likely find themselves in a civil war with the nonwhites the multicultural establishments rashly imported. The dead and wounded would be killed or wounded by technologies multicultural establishments permitted China and Russia to steal because establishments didn't want ethnoracial profiling.

We should seldom ally with contemporary establishments, no matter how tear-jerking their propaganda.

Frontiers in Cultural Marxism

Now that cultural Marxism is on the verge of spreading open female bathrooms for crossdressing men through most of the West, what will be the next fronts for the unconventional war? Churches deemed discriminatory for refusing to hire Muslim pastors? More Fergusons? More aggression at Trump gatherings by multiculturalists? Car insurers deemed discriminatory for car insurance rates for reckless nonwhite drivers? Rural zip codes, having high percentages of whites, ordered to pay, to make make zip codes more inviting to migrants and nonwhites?

The Muslims for pastors thing sounds like crazy talk. But think about where we are now. We have, against overwhelming ethical evidence, establishment demonization of eugenics and immigration patriotism. We have schools spending six figure lifetime sums to educate lower IQ individuals, the main thing these students learn is to hate whites. We have foreign billionaires with more political influence than millions of nonwealthy citizens. Muslims for pastors is comparatively mild compared to the anti-white aspects of cultural Marxism.

Gradual mass destruction is part of the new normalcy.

The establishments are wrong about almost every important issue. More wrongness doesn't matter to them when they can profit from it.

Minor wedge issues distract and divide populations from taking on the militarism, robber baronism, and cultural Marxism of establishments. And major wedge issues indoctrinate nonwealthy white multiculturalists to assist in mass destruction.

Some Thoughts

Every cultism looks creepy as hell to outsiders, yet normal to insiders. Too bad campaign contributors seem oblivious to the cultisms of various establishments.

**********

To tell whether a multiculturalist believes race exists, you merely look at the situation and time of day. Multiculturalists act as if race exists when it helps their causes, not when it hurts their causes.

**********

America would have turned out better if sixty years ago all ethnoracial realists migrated to the Democratic Party and all multiculturalists migrated to the Republican Party. In the Republican Party, realists had little leverage, giving Republican politicians votes and money but getting little in return, except destruction. In the old Democratic Party, Dixiecrats and other realists might have have been able to take over unions, using that power to supply or leverage Democratic politicians. Doing so would have required some effort and backbone. Republicans would have been out of power and forced to make strange bedfellow offerings to African-Americans.

But practitioners of divide-and-rule wouldn't stand for that, so now we have a political oligopoly devoted to smiley faced militarism, cultural Marxism, and robber baronism.

Or better yet: broke America up into smaller nations and implemented proportional representation years ago.

**********

Hundreds of multicultural, tough on crime rulers existed throughout history, their methods often brutal. But once greater tribalisms gained dominance, it was over. The tough guys kept the peace for themselves and others devoted to short term self-interest, but their descendants inherited horrors. Multicultural tough guys (Rudy Giuliani) are short term thinkers devoted to helping wealthy, living adults maintain their lifestyles, with little concern for posterity.

**********

We pay taxes so people who work to destroy us and keep us from spreading the truth can have nice things we can't afford.

**********

Marxism in practice historically emphasized three things:
1. redistribution of power and money to insiders.
2. anti-white supremacism.
3. class rhetoric as a pretext to support the first two.

Stalinism, Mugabeism, and other Marxian systems vary from each other and from Marx on economic issues, caring little about fidelity to Marx. Western supporters of Stalinism and other economic heresies excused them as a necessary stages on the way to communes.

So the economic malleability of neo-Marxism should be no surprise.

Everyone from Bill Keller to Grover Norquist to Al Sharpton can join the club for cultural Marxism. And if you do not join, you face assaults, firings, boycotts, lawsuits, ostracism, demonization, and speech crime charges. Control of the mass media and major institutions is enough to get Northern Eurasian peoples to believe ideas contradicted by massive counter evidence.

**********

Just speculating, but there might be an evolutionary reason why some people notice and really, really dislike slight disturbances to nature settings. Historically, what often existed where nature is slightly disturbed? Ambushes. People who didn't notice potential ambushes often didn't survive to spread their genes.

The Alleged Superiority of Establishments

Establishments seem to believe they're automatically ethically superior, therefore the things they do to harm others or escalate conflicts don't matter because they're the superior ones, as if to say, "When establishments do something, that makes it ethical."

In their view, if outgroup X legitimately deserves part of the blame, then that outgroup deserves all the blame, including when harms or conflicts could have easily been avoided. If millions or billions of people die or suffer, that's little price to pay compared to sacrificing "humanitarian" establishment principles, or more accurately, establishment status, power, and profiteering.

"Multiculturalism is an unmitigated disaster? Too bad. We have the KKK boogie man to worry about."

"We expanded NATO and overthrew the government of Ukraine? So what. Putin didn't have to be paranoid and escalate that civil war."

"Working class incomes declining? Whatever. We'll just invent some quality improvement stats and blame them for taking meth."

"Saudi Arabia has been getting away with mass evil for decades? Big deal. Look at Iran."

"Tens of thousands die in car accidents every year? Come on. Don't we have another Trayvon to excoriate whites about."

"We constantly call our critics super slurs and control the direction of civilization with slurs? We're just calling them what they are. You better watch what you say or I'll have you fined, fired or arrested for offending me."

"Bioweapons and rapidly evolving pathogens? Too abstract. Let's shove some more antibiotics into cattle."

"Those islands are nearly worthless? Get a grip. We can't let China engage in land grabs. What about demographic conquest of the West? It doesn't matter. We are all the same inside. Forget the behavioral stats. We have an anecdote to tell you about evil whites. China has nukes? We have more. China has high IQ individuals? We have Dreamers."

"Oligopolies, tax havens, and Wall Street? That sounds antisemitic to me. We should focus on glass ceilings."

As for a beneficial posterity, that's utterly alien to contemporary establishments.

On Slight Politically Incorrectness

Individuals often try to be a little bit politically incorrect, as if a tiny bit of contrarian grandstanding makes them brave fact facers.

Some counter-jihadists, for example, criticize Islam, figuring Islam is chosen, which Islam is, therefore fair game. These counter-jihadists demand the mythical moderate Islam while continuing to support most of cultural Marxism. They urge mullahs to publicly condemn terrorism, as if that will make much difference.

Counter-jihadists should know by now that mullahs say one thing for infidel consumption and something else for Muslim consumption. Public ecumenical statements by Muslims have little effect on Muslim behavior. These statements primarily make white multiculturalists even more gullible.

Ideology matters, but genes matter, too, especially when individuals are genetically inclined to fanatically cling to evil ideologies.

Many counter-jihadists consider race off limits since race is unchosen, but crushing flaws with this view exist.

Cultural Marxism is wrong about thousands of issues, not just Islam. As we see in Zimbabwe, South Africa, and almost everywhere else nonwhites live with whites, nonwhites cause massive harms to whites--and whites cause harms to nonwhites and each other. Multiculturalism makes most individuals worse than they would have been, especially white rulers practicing bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw strategies.

Nonwhites from outside Northeast Asia practice inbreeding and polygamy. They politically support mass dysgenic breeding, plus demographic conquest and annihilation.

Many nonwhites have lower levels of empathy for outgroups. They more frequently have the lower activity variants of the MAOA gene, and they have lower IQs--all of which increase destruction for whites. Multitudes of other behavioral genetic differences exist, but have yet to be discovered because almost all social scientists support cultural Marxism.

The destruction rises exponentially as nonwhite numbers increase. The solitary nonwhite surrounded by whites behaves fairly well. White minorities in nonwhite countries face mass destruction.

All nonwhite groups seek to dominate, not assimilate.

Multiculturalists emphasize the allegedly humble Japanese in America during World War II. They don't mention the millions of Japanese fifth columning in Asia and the Pacific during the the same period. The Japanese in America were acting humble out of self-interest and their comparative weakness, not moral goodness.

Already, numerous Chinese have been caught spying in the West. Those caught probably represent a fraction of those spying.

We have ethical duties to face all important ethical facts, no matter whether the facts are a tiny bit politically incorrect or colossally politically incorrect.

Followers of Bill Maher and the late Christopher Hitchens seem to revel in their contrarianism and political incorrectness, but their dissent is mostly trivial, doing little to save Westerners from mass destruction.

Christian Neoconservatism Versus Secular Neoconservatism

The mass media tell us that Christian neoconservatism--the Elmer Gantry menace--is a great threat, yet the mass media also tell us Jeb Bush, David Brooks, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, and other secular neoconservatives are moderate and responsible.

What's the difference?

Both groups have few qualms about supporting kleptocracy, promoting cultural Marxism, and bumbling into world wars. Both groups are largely immune to ethical evidence. The big media difference: Christian neoconservatives believe in creationism, which is more a scientific issue than an important moral issue. Other differences revolve around school prayer and other minor issues. Clinton opposes many tax cuts for the wealthy but also lets personal enmity with Putin and others drive foreign policies.

Paul Krugman seems to relish commiserating with David Brooks, yet regularly refers to Christian neoconservatives as "crazies."

My head be scratched.

Labor in Union

Once upon a time some nations figured out a semi-solution to the fact that oligarchism caused mass destruction. Other nations were not so fortunate. They tried to fight oligarchism with paleo-Marxism, causing worse destruction, replacing one oligarchism with another.

The lucky nations fought oligarchism with labor unions, but the labor unions became corrupt. Some were co-opted by ruling groups, some taken over by rent seeking from within. Others were wrecked by the divide-and-rule practices of militarism and multiculturalism. A few become homes for organized crime. Workers needing unions the most didn't get them. Workers needing unions the least--public sector workers--did get them.

Unions helped nonunion workers by creating tighter labor markets, via the politicians unions supported. But now that private sector unions are rarer and less powerful, unions have less influence on the labor market. Witness the incredible political tolerance for loose labor markets for the past eight years, which seeks ever cheaper labor, no matter the ethical costs.

Many unions fought only for their current members, losing sight of their role in checking oligarchism.

Many became soft with hedonism.

Unions had comparatively little influence over the mass media. Most intellectuals and media celebrities, in their bubbles of unreality, favored variants of Marxism and establishmentism. The rare intellectual contradicts his institutions, especially when those institutions put money in his wallet. The mass media fought hard for oligarchism and cultural Marxism, known by such variants as globalism, third wayism or, even worse, neoconservatism. The techniques and technologies of propaganda kept developing. The media became dominated by the wealthy and individuals predisposed to idealistic sounding fanaticism.

Some tried to fight oligarchism with protests. But the ruling groups only budged when the protests agreed with the cultural Marxism of the ruling groups. Thus, Occupy Wall Street and similar protests accomplished almost nothing, but the University of Missouri protesters and related protests extracted concessions. The ruling groups probably laugh in secret at most contemporary non-ethnoracial protest movements.

Marxism adapted. It decided economics didn't matter as much, except when it comes to supporting the parasitism of multicultural leaders.

What mattered most for Marxism was being anti-white. Almost anything anti-white was tacitly or explicitly supported. White laborers went from being treated as subhumans by the likes of Andrew Carnegie to being treated as subhumans by wealthy multiculturalists and their allies.

Diversity lectures hectored whites with fallacious rhetoric and resembled paleo-Marxian struggle sessions.

Attempts to revive unions floundered due to ethnoracial conflicts and the past several decades of indoctrination in neoclassical economics.

In the establishment view, the rise of the American middle class had almost nothing to do with labor unions or pro-worker policies or anti-rent seeking movements or centuries of eugenic breeding in Europe or the fact that the United States was nearly 90 percent white. Establishments emphasized imaginary free markets, sainted figures, formal education, Southwest Asian religions, and, even more preposterously, the alleged benefits of ethnoracial diversity.

Bernie Sanders tries to market himself as a supporter of Scandinavian style mixed economies, yet refers to himself as socialist. Sanders' past behaviors, especially his Eugene Debs documentary, indicate Sanders has more in common with Marx than FDR. Sanders seems unaware that Scandinavian style economies work only with racially homogenous populations, practicing reciprocal altruism and eugenic breeding. Unfortunately, dysgenic immigration plus dysgenic breeding caused by the welfare state and the lack of explicitly eugenic policies, spells big trouble for Scandinavia. Even without outgroup invasions, egoism caused by dysgenic breeding would slowly ruin Scandinavia.

Even if he wins the presidency, Sanders faces courts and legislatures stacked against him, in some cases, rightfully so. The mass media will magnify every flaw, to bring back a neoconservative or third way president.

Though Donald Trump is mostly pro-establishment, Trump also faces a juggernaut arrayed against him for not being pro-establishment enough.

No matter who wins the presidency, working class workers will continue to suffer.

An Immodest Affirmative Action Proposal

White supporters of affirmative action almost never volunteer to give up their own jobs to nonwhites. Perhaps they think, "There is no contradiction. I support affirmative action in general, not affirmative action for my job. I have unique skills that cannot be replaced by a nonwhite."

Or some don't notice a potential contradiction at all. Multiculturalism requires that believers ignore multitudes of self-contradictions, and white multiculturalists aren't people who notice self-contradictions. Browbeaten into evil beliefs by establishments, careful thinking is anathema to them.

True, some white multiculturalists are irreplaceable by nonwhites, but millions of other white, affirmative action supporters are not, especially white, multicultural social scientists. We don't benefit from junk science. And let's not forget the rubbish taught in the so-called humanities.

Thousands of white social scientists and humanities professors should resign tomorrow.

The sight of upper middle class white professors hectoring working class white students about multiculturalism is more than a little despicable, especially when working class whites have grown up in diverse schools that are worse for white children than the camps the Japanese were sent to by FDR.

Affirmative action costs over $1.1 trillion per year. Its supporters should pay the costs.

Some libertarian multiculturalists don't directly support affirmative action, but they support invasions by millions of affirmative action demanding nonwhites, overriding their direct opposition.

Many older white multiculturalists have considerable assets. High asset, low skill older white multiculturalists could afford to give up their high paying jobs for low wage jobs, so nonwhites can have their old jobs.

White multiculturalists act as if nonwhites are better than whites, yet see themselves as superior. They mix anti-white supremacism with their own personal supremacism.

Multiculturalists ignore mountains of ethnoracial evidence and believe in neoconservatism, third wayism or full bore Marxism, indicating general inclinations to ignore evidence. They think the totalitarianisms of Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Jill Stein, John Kerry, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson are "centrist." Remember when Jon Stewart had that "moderate" Rally to Restore Sanity, inviting the Sharia supporting Yusuf Islam? Apparently, no one working at the Daily Show knew who Mr. Islam really was. People who ignore moral evidence make worse employees. No one should trust those who think Jeb Bush is a good guy.

Almost everything on television is garbage. Let's replace all the whites. Heighten the contradictions. Let nonwhites make worse garbage. Maybe whites would watch less television.

And Wall Street. Wall Street is roughly 31 percent white despite the mass media rhetoric that blames whites for Wall Street. Get rid of the remaining whites. Let's replace white Wall Streeters with Down Syndrome nonwhites. Making Wall Street less clever at rent seeking and destroying economies will be splendid.

In general, any white multiculturalist employed in rent seeking should either give their job to a nonwhite, or better yet, eliminate their job. The more rent seeking is competent, the more rent seeking costs most of us.

Many white multiculturalists who refuse to give up their own jobs have no business supporting affirmative action in general, especially when they use totalitarian methods on affirmative action opposing whites. That includes the de facto affirmative action corporations practice to avoid boycotts, lawsuits, and other activism.

Selfishness and loss aversion be damned.

Weighing Globalism

If wealthy individuals in country Y gain X dollars per year from globalism and nonwealthy workers in country Y lose less than X, that's not a net moral benefit.

That's a moral catastrophe.

Poorer workers lose money they desperately need. Wealthy individuals gain more money for environmental destruction, legalized bribery, and status competitions. Increased money for the wealthy deserves negative moral weight.

Globalism is primarily a moral issue. The moral consequences of migration, rent seeking, cultural Marxism, military spying, industrial spying, legalized bribery, status competitions, environmental destruction, ethical cultures destroyed, institutions corrupted by hostile foreigners, and trade caused military conflicts are greater than the moral value of the money involved.

Spot the Fallacies Hunt

This photo contains at least three fallacies.

Meth, Kevin Williamson, and Working Class Whites

In his paywalled, evidence free broadside against nonwealthy whites, Kevin Williamson mentions meth. Meth is made with pseudoephedrine and other products of globalization. Pseudoephedrine is worth little as a medicine and nearly impossible for most home chemists to produce.

A few decades ago, the burgeoning quaalude epidemic was crushed because its components required sophisticated chemical factories for production. Chemical companies agreed to stop producing that substance.

Now, destruction profiteering is so entrenched that corporations and politicians refuse to stop producing the crap medicine named pseudoephedrine and refuse to close the Mexican border, where much illegal pseudoephedrine crosses.

(Other stuff: Most of the National Review is an evidence free zone, a magazine that exists to provide rhetorical cover for ruthlessness. Williamson doesn't mention the massive amount of brain drain and dysgenic breeding that played a role in creating downscale communities. Meth is also a massive problem for Hispanics and other ethnoracial groups.)

Ethnoracial Fact Facing and Free Will

Free will, if it exists, occurs when we have thoughts that contradict all the genetic and environmental forces acting on us. Some free will spark in our consciousness says, "I will otherwise."

With all the evidence supporting genetic and environmental causes, if free will does exist, it exists only during a small percentage of our activities. We wake up and conduct most banal activities without engaging in acts of free will.

Psychologists conduct studies purporting free will does not exist, but since free will might exist a fraction of the time, free will's existence might be beyond the measurement errors of those studies. These studies employ faulty measures of free will. We cannot accurately measure something using the wrong tests for it.

The participants in those studies are likely college students, many of whom are victims of wantoness, no matter how large their IQs. College students become enthralled with favorite professors. They idolize Neil deGrasse Tyson and other celebrity intellectuals. They are easy prey for academic fads, mass media indoctrination, and other forces, including students who act with know-it-all behaviors. Free will might require high levels of mental and philosophical development.

Emergent properties often arise from objects not possessing those properties. Consciousness arises from brain meat. Consciousness is no illusion. It is through consciousness that we provide evidence for all arguments. There is no physical law that proves free will can not emerge from brain meat.

Research suggests that beliefs in free will are important for creating beneficial ethical consequences, whether free will exists or not. Individuals who do not believe in free will are more likely to be selfish or apathetic, more tolerant of evils by perceived ingroups since they view their perceived allies as not being able to act otherwise. Contradicting themselves, they treat their political opponents as if they do have free will. The history of Marxism is riddled with apathy or support toward ingroup evils, and demonization of non-Marxists. Marxian evils are almost always viewed as necessary for the cause. Opponents are viewed as disposable biological machines with no dignity and other human characteristics.

Contemporary multiculturalists seem oblivious to the fact that multiculturalism is anti-equality. Equalities that treat whites as full members of the human race are discarded. Orwell's maxim that some animals are more equal than other animals, meaning some are far less human, applies to both economic and cultural Marxism.

Nearly all whites live in environments where almost every political force pressures whites to support cultural Marxism. The punishments for not supporting cultural Marxism are severe, the rewards for opposition tiny. The indoctrination campaigns are carefully crafted.

Free will sparks might be involved in opposition to cultural Marxism.

Some might argue that Western patriots are simply rare individuals whose genetic and environmental influences force them go where the evidence leads, at least on multicultural issues, rather than where propaganda and other forces lead. No actions by Western patriots need free will as a cause.

I have no good counter to this counter argument and proof that free will exists.

But thank goodness for ethnoracial fact facing. The ethical greatness of properly opposing cultural Marxism is far more important than the fact of whether free will exists or not.

Quota Systems

Jews and Asian Indians don't say, "Oh, we earn much more than whites. We don't need our tribalism, ethnic networking, and anti-white quotas any more."

Muslims don't say, "We get trillions in welfare and unearned oil money. We should start doing our share."

Black college educated women don't say, "Hey, we earn more than white college educated women, even though we have lower IQs, worse credentials, and worse behavior. We can stop with the affirmative action."

Non-white millionaires and billionaires don't say, "I've got it made. Maybe I should cut back on playing my personal victim card about so many trivial things."

Black athletes don't say, "We're overrepresented in professional sports. We need some whites, Asians, and Hispanics in proportion to their populations."

Wealthy college coaches don't say, "I'm making out like a bandit by exploiting poor students at public universities." Coach Dale Brown once referred to college coaches as "whoremasters," but that was long ago when cognitive dissonance was slightly more common.

Wealthy white multiculturalists don't say, "I've benefited massively from other whites. Maybe I shouldn't try to destroy the West and White peoples."

Hell no.

And almost none of them ever will. They keep fighting like hell for poorly reasoned narratives. They will only get worse, especially as dysgenic breeding keeps increasing and the technologies of propaganda keep improving.

Few contradictions are so great that they can not be ignored or rationalized. They understand the word more better than they understand justice and cognitive dissonance.

Few nonwhites believe in giving away power for ethical or pseudo-ethical reasons. They excoriate dead and living whites while white washing the far worse behavior of themselves and their ancestors. And neither do whites devoted to egoism and cultural Marxism. They put that knife in deeper and twist harder.

And it's not just in Western countries. Malaysia has Bumiputera policies, giving racial Malays massive affirmative action benefits over minority Indians and Chinese.

Affirmative action cost $1.1 trillion per year many years ago. The costs will continue to escalate far more than most people realize.

Some whites act uninterested in the consequences of cultural Marxism, but cultural Marxism is interested in them--and their progeny.

Innocence Lost

Many experiences in life produce eerie sensations, including the sensation of deja vu and the sensation of walking after stepping off a high speed elevator.

The realization of innocence lost also seems to cause an eerieness, among other thoughts.

Each of the following, as well as many other events, can cause an innocence lost eeriness or experience:

1. Being victimized by crimes when young.
2. Marching off to war for allegedly noble reasons, then realizing we are nothing but a pieces of meat to individuals seeking wealth, glory or power.
3. Observing our parent's feet of clay, that parents serve our short term happiness or their own short-term happiness or other base motives more often than they do the long term good.
4. Realizing that all contemporary establishment gurus and politicians seldom tell the truth, that their willful ignorance is astronomical despite their overweening demeanors, that they are willing to believe almost anything to help their causes.
5. Discovering that the goals or careers or institutions we had devoted so much to have little moral value.
6. Finding out that the ideas that feel noble are often evil.

"For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand.”