Thursday, March 9, 2017

Into Arcadia

Or as David Brooks puts it (along with a bunch of false analogies):
I can’t figure out why so many Republicans prefer a dying white America to a place like, say, Houston.
One reason is rural people, cultures, and environments. Though attachments to people and place diminished for decades, many remain. It's thousands of shared stories that become parts of ethical narratives, a strange concept to some, whose idea of a narrative consists of anti-white fictions. It's thousands of regional recipes such as grandma's homemade bread, the best you ever tasted. A good recipe off the internet is just something that tastes good, not a part of you.

It's rituals. It's doing specific activities during certain calendar dates each year.

A tree in a contemporary city park is a random tree, often a semi-dwarf cut to look the same as its neighbors. A tree in the woods behind your home becomes the special place where you had your first kiss with your spouse. These sacred attachments cannot be adequately conveyed by the mediums of film and television, which often reduce rural life to satire or mawkishness.

Big cities can be decent or excellent places, as long as they are racially homogeneous. They can be places deserving of great attachment. But not now.

Even those who believe nurture assumptions, have an inkling that moving to a contemporary big city results in handing children over to ghetto and Hollywood cultures, leaving parents with teenagers who seem like hostile strangers in the nest.

Rural areas are not immune to these destructive cultures, but they are better.

Many whites do move, including high IQ whites, causing brain drain in rural areas. Attend rural advanced placement classes and you will hear big city and big college dreams. It's quite unfair for city dwellers to mock country folks for low intelligence when big cities poached millions of bright, rural graduates. Farm boys make especially good engineers.

When poorer, lower IQ individuals move to big cites, they often end up exchanging one low paying job for another in a higher cost of living area, including the costs of being surrounded by hostile individuals. Fifty years ago, working class individuals could walk off farms and into decent paying factory jobs, even when they were unskilled. Now, it's often better to make $7.50 per hour in a rural area than $10.50 per hour in the big city.

The often unmentioned big attraction of contemporary cities is massive opportunities for semi-anonymous philandering, avoiding walks of shame. It's much easier to be abusive toward someone you probably will never see again anywhere. But philandering is usually reserved for high status men and is always accompanied by lies to self and others--and I do mean always. In a few cases, it involves the raping and trafficking of runaways. In places like Rotherham, the drugging, raping, and trafficking happens to non-runaways, not far from home. If you are predisposed toward guilt and other ethical traits, such philandering holds little appeal.

The "respectable" mass media seldom talk about philandering and its consequences.

Instead, the mass media emphasize their cultural activities, often claiming there is little to do in rural areas. But if you have a low paying job, many big city cultural activities are off limits anyway. Most big city cultural activities are overrated hedonistic behaviors, propped up by pedantry and advertising. Someone once called Los Angeles, with some exaggeration, the world's biggest city with nothing to do. Paintings can be viewed in books and on the internet less expensively. And much contemporary art should be ignored.

For most people, outdoor activities are more ethically and personally rewarding than didactic cultural activities, which often involve destructive status competitions.

One purpose of agitprop is to make us alienated from sources of purpose, except cultural Marxism, making us willing to psychologically flee and fill voids with cultural Marxism's lies and "activism."

Small towns are often sources of petty and malicious gossip, but often the individual complaining about the gossip earned the gossip through their own actions.

Big city work places have their own social treachery. You have to keep your mouth shut while your coworkers spout their political narratives, lest you get fired by coworkers who have never honestly studied and weighed issues. And nothing is quite like the horrors of multicultural, big city schools for whites.

Even if co-workers cared about finding more of the whole truth, well-reasoned arguments seldom turn up on the first few pages of Google results.

Some urbanites create more purpose with gentrification, community gardens, and other activities, but the result is hollow and ephemeral, often childfree and philosophically sterile. Gentrified children end up in expensive private schools, which have problems with spoiled children. And gentrification makes neighborhood nonwhites livid when they see their property taxes rocketing upward.

Economists, of course, will rightly lecture rural areas about wasteful farm subsidies, but they usually avoid the non-tax entitlement ways governments redistribute far more to big cities, especially the free riding financial industry. The economic vibrancy of some big cities is not driven by nonwhite immigrants, It's driven by crooked redistributions. Working migrants move to big cities to provide services to the free riding individuals. Other non-working migrants join in the free riding.

The better economies in certain coastal and sunbelt cities aren't due to neutral policies. They're due to deliberate corruption favoring rent seeking industries in those cities.

Rural individuals often underestimate the costs of driving.
The risk of injury death — which counts both violent crime and accidents — is more than 20% higher in the countryside than it is in large urban areas.
Long distance driving also causes cardiovascular disease and large negative externalities. But many whites seem to loath cities so much that they work in cities but drive over 100 miles per day to make a home in the country.

Rural areas have drug problems but those addicted would probably be addicted in cities as well. Alone in a city is not where you want to be if you have self-control problems. Selection effects are a bigger problem than people realize. High functioning, eugenically bred individuals know better ways of responding to boredom than drugs.

Most of all, rural areas provide better protection from nuclear wars and other human inflicted catastrophes, the sorts of disasters the establishments and defense industries are right now prodding us into.

David Brooks, the self-anointed social science expert, will never ever move to Houston's vibrant neighborhoods. Instead, he noted this about his $120,000 cosmopolitan vacation:
But sometimes money allows you to see too many things, too quickly. Sometimes if you seize all the opportunities your money affords, you may end up skimming over life and nothing is deep enough to leave a mark.

Friday, March 3, 2017

We Live on a Creepy, Evil Planet

The reality of this planet is worse than almost any horror movie. Imagine describing this planet to an alien.

We are in yet another Thucydides Trap. Good people should be screaming and doing their best to get the hell out of it, yet humans keep letting ego driven salami slicers rise to the top.

The threats of nuclear weapons, biological weapons, rapidly evolving pathogens, and potential space based calamities hang over the planet with greater ominousness than a Sword of Damocles, yet the latest social media outrages are treated with more seriousness.

Biting and sucking creatures, plus the pathogens they carry, have killed billions. Viewing these creatures under a microscope gives us shivers. Gut bacteria influence actions in surprising ways. Other organisms completely take over their hosts. Geological hazards add to the carnage. On much of Earth surface, humans seldom survive without protective technologies, in particular, weapons, clothing, and housing.

At our planet, the worse a powerful race or ideology behaves, the more off limits to reform or criticism it is.

With the exception of the Dalai Lama, Frank Salter, and a handful of other thinkers, almost every nonwhite public figure believes in freedom of association for their own races but not for whites. Few seem to notice the contradiction and its monstrous implications.

History books regale us with the horrors of McCarthyism, which harmed a handful of Marxians--individuals and ideologies that were and are waging aggressive, unconventional warfare against us. These books fail to enlighten about the thousands of whites fired, fined, imprisoned or ostracized for thought crimes against cultural Marxism.

The most admired individuals exhibit extreme egoism or misplaced altruism or both.

Powerful individuals are treated as if they have gravitas due to halo effects, when in reality, they are more articulate than wise. This also applies to military leadership, yet polling suggests more public trust in the military than other institutions. Let's hope the poll respondents meant they lower ranking military personnel. The jargon and banalities, especially multicultural, coming from military officers is nearly as bad as what exists in journals of neo-pragmatism.

Multiculturalists tell us nonwhites will treat us fairly when we become minorities in our own countries, even though nonwhites don't treat us fairly now and have relentlessly abused other minorities throughout history.

Professional ironists inform us (without irony) that reality (meaning truth) has a liberal bias (though there are millions of mutually contradictory worldviews calling themselves liberal), a self-contradictory claim. The truth cannot have a bias.

Those with long formal educations spent small fortunes to learn millions of trivial facts but do not face facts on the most important issues. Instead, they succumb to social pressures, availability biases, and other reasoning mistakes. And they aren't even dimly aware how skewed their worldviews are. If you point out their lack of accuracy, you will be demonized for anti-intellectualism. Almost every politician, intellectual, and wealthy individual born in the 20th century believed in one or more totalitarian ideologies. Almost. Every. One.

Billions form their unethical views based on how those views affect their own status and wallets. Multicultural billionaires, who acquired their wealth via inheritance or unethical activities, are viewed as admirable philanthropists merely for donating a small portion of their ill-gotten wealth to (mostly) crooked charities.

The results of economic models that weigh a small number of one-sided factors are treated as iron laws.

It is considered offensive to tell low IQ, low character individuals to have fewer children, even wards of the state and wards of international charities. But it is cool to tell productive Westerners to stop having children on behalf of the planet. Let's get rid of the people who saved billions of lives with their altruism and scientific revolutions (sarcasm)! Dysgenic supremacism cannot continue forever. At some point, individuals will become so bad off they will no longer understand the simple, fatuous slogans of cultural Marxism, then they will start breeding for worthwhile traits or their groups will become extinct.

The ruling groups think its wrong to make the world better by spreading better genes, as if things will get better as genes gradually get worse, as if the right environmental schemes will make things better, even though they haven't yet figured out such a scheme and even though doing right things contradicts their own perceived self-interest. Nevertheless, they are very, very careful about not marrying someone with genes far beneath them.

Fathers are often stripped of their children without an ethical process of law or even due process of law.

These realities must not induce fatalism. There are good things on this planet. The fight for good things is a good in itself. J.K. Rowling now finds herself facing a petition to make her mansion a home to migrants. This is a good thing. Hammer their contradictions. If she decides to invite a small, unrepresentative sample of obsequious migrants into her home and pronounce it a success, excoriate her for using small, unrepresentative sampling.

There are worse things than being socially ostracized. Multiculturalists hate whites for existing and many other specious reasons. Groveling doesn't eliminate their misplaced hatreds. They need their hatreds to give their lives purpose, to increase social status for themselves. While their expertise at many professions is abysmal, multiculturalists are experts at exploiting the self-loathing of whites. I write this so that we will find warranted confidence, so that we will not be browbeaten by the tactics and technologies of mass manipulation.

Our rights and duties do not disappear because others behave poorly or cleverly.