When multiculturalists and their allies demand ever increasing fines, firings, imprisonments, and other punishments for thought crimes, Westerners increasingly either agree with the totalitarianism or offer milquetoast defenses of free speech, often repeating the slurs spewed by the multiculturalists, as if to say, "I hate #@#$, too, but we have this free speech thing for the time being."
Instead, a more robust defense of free speech must be argued, explaining why free speech is crucial and why multiculturalism causes mass destruction to speech freedoms and ethical societies.
A you first reply should be adopted. Those who demand punishments for "hate speech" should be told they should fire or arrest themselves and their allies first before they fire or arrest anyone else. Most establishment thinkers have spewed multitudes of anti-white slurs (big*t, r*cist, far r*ght, white tr*sh, white suprem*cist, etc.) When such writers demand arrests for whites for telling ethnoracial truths, we should demand they make an citizen's arrest of themselves first for their far worse rhetoric.
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
IQ Paradoxes in Warped Cultures
Individuals with extra low IQs receive compassion, protected by paternalism from states and families, for example, victims of Down Syndrome. But, oddly, individuals with IQs somewhat above that receive unmitigated contempt, especially if white, as if they were escapees from the set of Deliverance. The latter groups are sometimes worse off than the former, having few individuals to look out for them, often having severe behavioral problems. In both cases, they suffer from genes and environments they have little control over.
Yet establishment leaders keep working to make dysgenics and environments worse.
Hard working overachievers also face unexpected problems. They may choose a career beyond their IQ capabilities or other capabilities. Thanks to grade inflation and the college for everyone dogma, many ex-students end up fired or unhired, burdened by unused degrees and miseducation debt peonage. A would be scientist, for example, could find and mechanically memorize solutions to three dimensional wave equations (the internet contains many solutions manuals) while having little understanding of three dimensional wave equations. Despite the explosion in staff and costs, few individuals at colleges care about about the long-term interests of students. I don't know which is worse: administrators financially taking advantage of naive 18-year-olds or educators believing that almost any formal education is good education, especially non-vocational formal educations.
Some students may think their six figure educations are a ticket to the middle class, only to be undone in unexpected ways, being unattractive or performing poorly during job interviews, for example.
The pro-austerity, pro-parasitism, and pro-cultural Marxism policies of Republicans and Democrats add to the carnage
Students would often be better off performing an internship or apprenticeship before spending massive sums on careers they end up hating or failing to find employment in.
No one will sit down with students and say, "I love you, sister, but this career is beyond your capabilities to perform well. It's not a good fit for you." Instead, people tell students to follow their dreams and you can be good at anything if you work hard enough at it, then telling students if you're not good at it, you must work harder.
The brain regions responsible for scam skepticism deteriorate in elderly individuals, yet few powerful individuals do anything to prevent rampant scamming, leaving many elderly citizens destitute. Instead, leaders promote the scams.
Environmental semi-determinism and free will exaggerations rank highly among the causes. Maybe humans are capable of free will, but if so, humans do so on rare occasions. Most daily actions are driven by habits and other intuitions, especially among lower IQ individuals. Many individuals who fanatically dismiss genetic causes in the social world, nevertheless accept genetic facts when diagnosed with a genetically caused physical illness, that is, when their own health is at stake.
The future will be neither ethically easy nor pretty.
Yet establishment leaders keep working to make dysgenics and environments worse.
Hard working overachievers also face unexpected problems. They may choose a career beyond their IQ capabilities or other capabilities. Thanks to grade inflation and the college for everyone dogma, many ex-students end up fired or unhired, burdened by unused degrees and miseducation debt peonage. A would be scientist, for example, could find and mechanically memorize solutions to three dimensional wave equations (the internet contains many solutions manuals) while having little understanding of three dimensional wave equations. Despite the explosion in staff and costs, few individuals at colleges care about about the long-term interests of students. I don't know which is worse: administrators financially taking advantage of naive 18-year-olds or educators believing that almost any formal education is good education, especially non-vocational formal educations.
Some students may think their six figure educations are a ticket to the middle class, only to be undone in unexpected ways, being unattractive or performing poorly during job interviews, for example.
The pro-austerity, pro-parasitism, and pro-cultural Marxism policies of Republicans and Democrats add to the carnage
Students would often be better off performing an internship or apprenticeship before spending massive sums on careers they end up hating or failing to find employment in.
No one will sit down with students and say, "I love you, sister, but this career is beyond your capabilities to perform well. It's not a good fit for you." Instead, people tell students to follow their dreams and you can be good at anything if you work hard enough at it, then telling students if you're not good at it, you must work harder.
The brain regions responsible for scam skepticism deteriorate in elderly individuals, yet few powerful individuals do anything to prevent rampant scamming, leaving many elderly citizens destitute. Instead, leaders promote the scams.
Environmental semi-determinism and free will exaggerations rank highly among the causes. Maybe humans are capable of free will, but if so, humans do so on rare occasions. Most daily actions are driven by habits and other intuitions, especially among lower IQ individuals. Many individuals who fanatically dismiss genetic causes in the social world, nevertheless accept genetic facts when diagnosed with a genetically caused physical illness, that is, when their own health is at stake.
The future will be neither ethically easy nor pretty.
Thursday, December 15, 2016
War and Multicultural Peace
Just fighters often view unhelpful wars as worthwhile simply because justice is on their side, ignoring the individuals wounded or sacrificed and disregarding that a much better solution would have avoided the war.
Multiculturalists, especially, don't care whether their side engages in aggression. They care about winning and that their allies get labeled as victims.
In war, hate and vengeance escalate on various sides, no matter which side is more just or less wrong. Unjust sides seldom suddenly decide they were wrong all along.
Wars among super powers likely will escalate into nuclear wars. Too many individuals are infatuated with Hollywood and military establishment notions of conventional warfare, paying little more than lip service to the dangers of nuclear and biological warfare.
The "world's only super power" phrase seems less common now.
Good.
The nation with the world's most powerful nuclear arsenal is a super power, unless many of Russia's nukes are defective.
For generations, the rulers of what is now called Russia have played by their own rules, violating most international treaties they signed, obeying the treaties when it was in their perceived interest to do so. The proper response to these violations is to be wiser, not agitate for war. Remember too, that Western leaders frequently violate ethical rules and constantly choose actions harmful to the people they rule over. Ethical violations are far more important than international agreements. International law consists largely of poorly reasoned pieces of paper signed by rulers with no business being in power.
Like many other nonwhite nations and some white nations, China prefers to pursue unfair trade. Humans are loss averse. Losing $400 from a pockets irks us far more than missing an opportunity to gain $400. Chinese leaders get outraged at anything Western nations do to decrease unfair trade. That's another point against so-called free trade. If the West avoided trade with China all along, China would not become nearly as outraged at never having lost something they now view as an absolute right. China will pursue mercantilism and espionage until almost every important industry is in their hands. If the West avoided Japan and Japan's mercantilism, nearly 30 million individuals would not have been murdered by Japan between 1931 and 1946.
China is now the world's largest industrial power. If China wanted, China could build umpteen thousand fusion bombs.
Many note that diversity plus proximity creates wars.
Another important factor is salience. It is better to lie in the bushes and be unnoticed than to be a hamfisted, multicultural empire. Distant, powerful rulers seldom rant about the leadership in Uruguay. Many can't find Uruguay on a map.
Multicultural writers like to blame nationalism for many, if not most, ills because it suits establishment agendas of unethical egoism and anti-white genocide. But states engaging in aggression tend to be multicultural empires with rampant bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw oligarchism, so empires, unethical egoism, misplaced altruism, and lack of self-determination are bigger issues. Almost every ruler pretends to be a nationalist in times of crises, even globalists seeking global conquest. Soviet leaders appealed to Mother Russia to save themselves.
Any nation state without ethical nationalism gets conquered by others devoted to genetic or unethical egoism or, most often, both, whether by military means, demographic methods or ideological tactics or all three. Non-aggressive, non-free riding nationalism is a good. Globalists and other multiculturalists support aggression and free riding by themselves and their allies. Not surprisingly, they fight any force that opposes their depredations. Without ethical nationalism, nothing would have stopped world conquest by Maoism or Stalinism or Hitlerism or Hirohitoism or various other horrors. Ethical nationalism is the most potent potential force to stop Islam, Randism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism.
Christianity?
Doubtful.
Most of Christianity is now punked by various combinations of Islam, Randism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism. Pope Francis, the leader of the largest Christian denomination, has more thoughts in common with Saul Alinsky than with most white Westerners.
The major problem: letting those prone to unethical egoism take over groups. The bigger and more ethnoracially diverse an empire, the more likely it will be infected by egoism and glory seeking by rulers.
The current Western establishments devote great efforts to indoctrination, especially military, economic, and multicultural indoctrination, an indoctrination made more insidious because it is presented as the result of consumer choice or informed choices, not ruling group Machiavellianism.
Before and during any war, the question of what are we fighting for should immediately arise. Frank Capra made several documentaries devoted to that question during World War II. What would we be fighting for during a war with China or any other super power? A chunk of land that we are currently giving away to Somalis and other unethical peoples? Should we die to save a land from the Chinese when the ruling groups are working to give the country away to far worse peoples?
The people ruling the United States, having minds closed to ethical evidence, act as if they are engaged in a colonial occupation, despising the people they rule over, These rulers should not be trusted to do right for the people because they have track records of doing wrong to the people for several generations. The fact that they wrap themselves in flags representing people they oppose makes them more dangerous, not less.
Consider the fact that for generations our rulers seldom took civil defense seriously for the people. Establishment writers often claimed life wouldn't be worth living after a nuclear war, yet rulers themselves thought otherwise, building underground cities for themselves in the event of nuclear war. Even the Soviets, who murdered tens of millions, provided far more civil defense for their subjugated peoples.
Aggressive foreigners, explicit and de facto, dominate nearly all American mass media. Imagine if whites dominated nearly all the mass media in developing countries. Multiculturalists would scream bloody murder. Yet Americans accept foreign domination as part of the crypto-totalitarian new normalcy. Rupert Murdoch gets the most criticism of the foreign owners, partly because he is worse than most and partly because he ranks among the few whites with massive media power, making him fair game.
What is worth fighting for?
We need new, white religions or quasi-religions devoted to good works, that is, well-reasoned, hard working religions that avoid and punish both egoism and misplaced altruism while rewarding ethical altruism. The so-called universal religions are a catastrophe. Even the best among them eventually evolve in anti-white directions, making them anti-universal, supporting egoism and misplaced altruism.
Let's imagine that the new religions devoted to good works arise. If the existence of God(s) is fantasy, at least we have the good works. If it turns out that supernatural beings are evil and send good individuals to hells, those beings can go eff themselves. Better to be right and ticked off in hell than insipid in pseudo-paradise. Individuals with massive chips on their shoulders will find more purpose in their existences than even the most refined of pleasure seeking individuals.
Multiculturalists, especially, don't care whether their side engages in aggression. They care about winning and that their allies get labeled as victims.
In war, hate and vengeance escalate on various sides, no matter which side is more just or less wrong. Unjust sides seldom suddenly decide they were wrong all along.
Wars among super powers likely will escalate into nuclear wars. Too many individuals are infatuated with Hollywood and military establishment notions of conventional warfare, paying little more than lip service to the dangers of nuclear and biological warfare.
The "world's only super power" phrase seems less common now.
Good.
The nation with the world's most powerful nuclear arsenal is a super power, unless many of Russia's nukes are defective.
For generations, the rulers of what is now called Russia have played by their own rules, violating most international treaties they signed, obeying the treaties when it was in their perceived interest to do so. The proper response to these violations is to be wiser, not agitate for war. Remember too, that Western leaders frequently violate ethical rules and constantly choose actions harmful to the people they rule over. Ethical violations are far more important than international agreements. International law consists largely of poorly reasoned pieces of paper signed by rulers with no business being in power.
Like many other nonwhite nations and some white nations, China prefers to pursue unfair trade. Humans are loss averse. Losing $400 from a pockets irks us far more than missing an opportunity to gain $400. Chinese leaders get outraged at anything Western nations do to decrease unfair trade. That's another point against so-called free trade. If the West avoided trade with China all along, China would not become nearly as outraged at never having lost something they now view as an absolute right. China will pursue mercantilism and espionage until almost every important industry is in their hands. If the West avoided Japan and Japan's mercantilism, nearly 30 million individuals would not have been murdered by Japan between 1931 and 1946.
China is now the world's largest industrial power. If China wanted, China could build umpteen thousand fusion bombs.
Many note that diversity plus proximity creates wars.
Another important factor is salience. It is better to lie in the bushes and be unnoticed than to be a hamfisted, multicultural empire. Distant, powerful rulers seldom rant about the leadership in Uruguay. Many can't find Uruguay on a map.
Multicultural writers like to blame nationalism for many, if not most, ills because it suits establishment agendas of unethical egoism and anti-white genocide. But states engaging in aggression tend to be multicultural empires with rampant bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw oligarchism, so empires, unethical egoism, misplaced altruism, and lack of self-determination are bigger issues. Almost every ruler pretends to be a nationalist in times of crises, even globalists seeking global conquest. Soviet leaders appealed to Mother Russia to save themselves.
Any nation state without ethical nationalism gets conquered by others devoted to genetic or unethical egoism or, most often, both, whether by military means, demographic methods or ideological tactics or all three. Non-aggressive, non-free riding nationalism is a good. Globalists and other multiculturalists support aggression and free riding by themselves and their allies. Not surprisingly, they fight any force that opposes their depredations. Without ethical nationalism, nothing would have stopped world conquest by Maoism or Stalinism or Hitlerism or Hirohitoism or various other horrors. Ethical nationalism is the most potent potential force to stop Islam, Randism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism.
Christianity?
Doubtful.
Most of Christianity is now punked by various combinations of Islam, Randism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism. Pope Francis, the leader of the largest Christian denomination, has more thoughts in common with Saul Alinsky than with most white Westerners.
The major problem: letting those prone to unethical egoism take over groups. The bigger and more ethnoracially diverse an empire, the more likely it will be infected by egoism and glory seeking by rulers.
The current Western establishments devote great efforts to indoctrination, especially military, economic, and multicultural indoctrination, an indoctrination made more insidious because it is presented as the result of consumer choice or informed choices, not ruling group Machiavellianism.
Before and during any war, the question of what are we fighting for should immediately arise. Frank Capra made several documentaries devoted to that question during World War II. What would we be fighting for during a war with China or any other super power? A chunk of land that we are currently giving away to Somalis and other unethical peoples? Should we die to save a land from the Chinese when the ruling groups are working to give the country away to far worse peoples?
The people ruling the United States, having minds closed to ethical evidence, act as if they are engaged in a colonial occupation, despising the people they rule over, These rulers should not be trusted to do right for the people because they have track records of doing wrong to the people for several generations. The fact that they wrap themselves in flags representing people they oppose makes them more dangerous, not less.
Consider the fact that for generations our rulers seldom took civil defense seriously for the people. Establishment writers often claimed life wouldn't be worth living after a nuclear war, yet rulers themselves thought otherwise, building underground cities for themselves in the event of nuclear war. Even the Soviets, who murdered tens of millions, provided far more civil defense for their subjugated peoples.
Aggressive foreigners, explicit and de facto, dominate nearly all American mass media. Imagine if whites dominated nearly all the mass media in developing countries. Multiculturalists would scream bloody murder. Yet Americans accept foreign domination as part of the crypto-totalitarian new normalcy. Rupert Murdoch gets the most criticism of the foreign owners, partly because he is worse than most and partly because he ranks among the few whites with massive media power, making him fair game.
What is worth fighting for?
We need new, white religions or quasi-religions devoted to good works, that is, well-reasoned, hard working religions that avoid and punish both egoism and misplaced altruism while rewarding ethical altruism. The so-called universal religions are a catastrophe. Even the best among them eventually evolve in anti-white directions, making them anti-universal, supporting egoism and misplaced altruism.
Let's imagine that the new religions devoted to good works arise. If the existence of God(s) is fantasy, at least we have the good works. If it turns out that supernatural beings are evil and send good individuals to hells, those beings can go eff themselves. Better to be right and ticked off in hell than insipid in pseudo-paradise. Individuals with massive chips on their shoulders will find more purpose in their existences than even the most refined of pleasure seeking individuals.
Saturday, December 3, 2016
Boycotts
So we are urged to boycott Kellogg's now on behalf of Breitbart. And what will Breitbart do for us? Would it be too much to ask for Breitbart to actually support white self-determination more than the Republican establishment and various minor issues?
In general, we should boycott most global, multicultural corporations. Avoid the mass media, especially if you have a Nielsen meter. If there is a show you can't bear avoiding, leave the meter in its charging cradle while you watch it in another room. Television ad revenue in the former US is $73 billion in 2016. There are about 70,000 active Nielsen meters, so each meter carried by a boycotter can subtract a huge chunk of money from the mass media. And that's not including radio. When my wife and I did the Nielsen ratings, we watched fewer than one show per month. (I did watch part of a PBS show about logic. Not surprisingly, the show featured Boolean logic, which has little moral relevance, not informal logic.)
Buy more second hand and store brand stuff, though, unfortunately, some store brand stuff comes from global corporations. Many second hand goods are better quality than the new junk at the Walmarts of the world. Quality control at sweatshops seems to be plummeting in recent years.
In general, we should boycott most global, multicultural corporations. Avoid the mass media, especially if you have a Nielsen meter. If there is a show you can't bear avoiding, leave the meter in its charging cradle while you watch it in another room. Television ad revenue in the former US is $73 billion in 2016. There are about 70,000 active Nielsen meters, so each meter carried by a boycotter can subtract a huge chunk of money from the mass media. And that's not including radio. When my wife and I did the Nielsen ratings, we watched fewer than one show per month. (I did watch part of a PBS show about logic. Not surprisingly, the show featured Boolean logic, which has little moral relevance, not informal logic.)
Buy more second hand and store brand stuff, though, unfortunately, some store brand stuff comes from global corporations. Many second hand goods are better quality than the new junk at the Walmarts of the world. Quality control at sweatshops seems to be plummeting in recent years.
Fake Centrism
In contemporary empires, the self-styled centrists and moderates rank among the worst human beings, individuals such as Jonathan Alter, David Brooks, Hillary Clinton, Ben Wattenberg, John Kerry, Rand Paul, Tom Friedman, Joe Lieberman, Tyler Cowen, Olympia Snow, Paul Ryan, Harry Reid, Charles Krauthammer.
If you made a list of the most important 100 policy issues, the individuals who try to position themselves as centrists are right or close to right on probably less than five percent of them. And by right, I mean their actual policy positions and the long-term consequences of those policies, not policies they pretend to support for grandstanding reasons. For example, someone who claims to support punishing Wall Street crimes, but supports legalized bribery, does not support punishing Wall Street crimes. Wall Street bribes their way out of punishments when Wall Street is able.
A goal of the democratic and republican establishments is to indoctrinate the population with the view that their corrupt behaviors are centrist and moderate, then trying to tar every else as some form of fascism or communism.
If Ferdinand Pecora and Dwight Eisenhower were around today, they would both be demonized as too far out.
Some might tell me to look at the Barack Obama campaign promises kept website and the goodness of those promises kept. I have. Few of Obama's worthwhile promises kept would make the 1000 most important issues. And Obama is wrong on some of those promises kept. That is a major problem with pretend centrism. They are bribed on all the important issues. They trumpet trivial reforms, where no major interest groups exist to bribe them. When Bush and Obama both created large Pacific ocean nature preserves, there were no billionaires with much interest in the issue. If some individual or industry were earning several billion per year overfishing those areas, those preserves would not have happened.
If you made a list of the most important 100 policy issues, the individuals who try to position themselves as centrists are right or close to right on probably less than five percent of them. And by right, I mean their actual policy positions and the long-term consequences of those policies, not policies they pretend to support for grandstanding reasons. For example, someone who claims to support punishing Wall Street crimes, but supports legalized bribery, does not support punishing Wall Street crimes. Wall Street bribes their way out of punishments when Wall Street is able.
A goal of the democratic and republican establishments is to indoctrinate the population with the view that their corrupt behaviors are centrist and moderate, then trying to tar every else as some form of fascism or communism.
If Ferdinand Pecora and Dwight Eisenhower were around today, they would both be demonized as too far out.
Some might tell me to look at the Barack Obama campaign promises kept website and the goodness of those promises kept. I have. Few of Obama's worthwhile promises kept would make the 1000 most important issues. And Obama is wrong on some of those promises kept. That is a major problem with pretend centrism. They are bribed on all the important issues. They trumpet trivial reforms, where no major interest groups exist to bribe them. When Bush and Obama both created large Pacific ocean nature preserves, there were no billionaires with much interest in the issue. If some individual or industry were earning several billion per year overfishing those areas, those preserves would not have happened.