Five Simple Hacks to Improve Reasoning

1. Avoid using claims containing the words I or you in arguments for general conclusions. Such claims are often irrelevancies or small sample fallacies. Example: "I'm offended. I don't know anyone who voted for Proposition X." I  and you are often fine in non-arguments and arguments about individual circumstances.
2. Avoid claims starting with the word who, another inadvertent trap for irrelevancies. Example: "Who's to say?"
3. Possibilities are irrelevant. Probabilities and expected values are relevant. The expected value is the probability of an outcome times the value of an outcome. A 64 percent chance of gaining $10,000 has an expected value of $6,400.
4. Hear a media report about a social science study making political or parenting claims, especially causal claims, but know nothing about the study details? Treat the study as junk science until proven otherwise. The study probably failed to control for or tease out genetic causes and/or other causes that contradict the agendas of establishment social scientists. In addition, publication bias, replication failures, and many other flaws make most social science junk science. They have track records of consistently promoting totalitarian activism. They are paid comparative large sums of money to produce lies. Why should the burden be on us to spend thousands of unpaid hours ferreting out their lies?
5. Ignore early studies on rodents or studies of cells unless working in those fields. The probabilities that such studies will lead to something important in humans are tiny.

Kurds, The Letter, and Obama's Quote

I don't support Donald Trump or any existing major political parties. I would support a few minor parties as lesser evils.

But the mass outrage over Trump's Letter to Recep Erdogan, Turkey's ruler, is farcical. Yes, The Letter looks as if it were written by someone with the prose skills of a 14-year-old. The actual ethical content of The Letter is not worse than many other words spoken or written by Trump and other establishment politicians.

Kurds are not our allies. None of the large factions in Africa and Southwest Asia are our allies. Kurdish "refugees" in the West behave poorly, as expected from Southwest Asians devoted to horrible cultures and dysgenic breeding. Peoples with evil dispositions are often victims. That doesn't make them the good guys. There are over 30 million Kurds on the planet. With adequate efforts, they are able to defend themselves much more cost effectively than we can.

Recall Barack Obama's words from Dreams of My Father:

In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

What right lessons? Millions of Japanese migrated to Asia and the Southwest Pacific in the years before Pearl Harbor. Almost none of those migrants sided with the peoples in the places they settled once the Japanese invaded. When a Japanese pilot crash landed on the sparsely populated island of Nihau after the Pearl Harbor attack, the island's three Japanese residents rose up against Hawaiians on behalf of the pilot. The low percentage of sabotage by Japanese in America was due to economic opportunism. Had the Japanese military been superior and invaded, Japanese in America would have behaved as other Japanese did in Asia, Nihau, and the Southwest Pacific. Spare me the patriotic "Japanese-American" propaganda.

A popular email slightly distorted Obama's thoughts to "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." This distortion gave multiculturalists grist to excuse Obama and blast his critics, but the real quote was atrocious.

Not much is ethically uglier than what Arabs and Pakistanis currently believe. Large percentages of Arabs and Pakistanis have told pollsters that infidels, apostates, blasphemers, and accused adulterers should all be murdered. Millions more were likely Machiavellian enough to not admit such beliefs to pollsters.

"Some [estimates suggest] that half the [adult male] Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar [Afghanistan] and other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover." Many others likely rape young girls. While I could not find the boy lover stats for Pashtuns in Pakistan, the Pashtun population in Pakistan is nearly 33 million.

Those words by Obama are ethically worse than anything Trump has ever publicly said.

Counting Scandals

In contrast to the scandal ridden Donald Trump presidency, supporters of the Democratic Party establishment often assert Barack Obama had "no scandals" or "few scandals" or words synonymous with few scandals. Mass media make similar comparisons with other previous presidents.

Their scandal accounting is BS.

A scandal is an act perceived as illegal or unethical that gets noticed by thinkers, no matter whether the act is actually illegal or unethical. Simply because individuals in the mass media ignore or suppress big, everyday scandals does not make those acts less scandalous.

Every immigrant who entered the US since the passage of the 1965 Hart-Cellar Immigration Act, an act opposed by voters 58 to 24 percent, is a scandal. Every failure to punish wealthy financial criminals is a scandal. Every government hire of a devotee of Marxism, Randism, neoliberalism, multiculturalism or neoconservatism is a scandal. Every act of legalized bribery is a scandal. Every unethical law is a scandal. Every government policy increasing dysgenic breeding is a scandal. The rampant unethical behavior of mass media, from over publicizing various hairgates to trying label acts that might lessen tensions with Russia as collusion, is scandalous. Every president over the past two generations has unethical blood on their hands and has had millions of scandals.

Some of us have noticed.

Voting Strategies for the Next Presidential Election

Since many individuals are already writing about the 2020 election, it's time for an overview.

A legitimately non-establishment presidential winner will not be able to pass much non-establishment legislation, including beneficial reforms. Congress, the courts, and lobbying industries will still be dominated by the establishments. Thirty-four senate seats are up in 2020. Even if an improbable outsider wave occurs, most of the Senate will still be controlled by the establishments. On the good side, terrible non-establishment ideas such as the $1,000 per month universal basic income will not pass. An outsider president must act through appointments, executive orders, and their role as military commander. Presidents appoint roughly 4,000 individuals, 1,212 requiring Senate approval.

Trump is and was almost never an anti-establishment president. He tweets like a Breitbart commenter and governs like George W. Bush. If the country makes it to the next inauguration, we'll either be stuck with another bait-and-switch president or someone who will not sign many beneficial laws or both.

Below are some potential strategies for ethnoracial fact facers.

Voting for the lesser evil, that is, managing the decline at a slower speed: this strategy is selfish, trying to maintain one's status until death, letting future generations deal with the ever increasing free riding and cultural Marxism disasters. Right now, it's difficult to determine which Democrat or Republican is the lesser evil since all their announced contenders support neoconservatism, semi-neoconservatism or crypto-Marxism.

The worse in the short term, the better in the long term: such an individual would inadvertently cause the peaceful break up of the former US before it reaches situations such as Zimbabwe, Venezuela, South Africa or Northern Cyprus. The worse, the better should not be confused with the worse, the worst--getting us into an external or internal super war, leaving almost nothing for survivors--a strategy promoted by those who want to watch the world burn. A worse, the better strategy rules out the reckless militarism of all neoconservatives and semi-neoconservatives, including Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Beto O'Rourke, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Peter Buttigieg, and almost any Republican challenging Trump in the Republican primary. Occidental Dissent promotes Andrew Yang as an accelerationist. Richard Spencer supports Tulsi Gabbard. Given the overwhelming power of mass media, a Democratic candidate smeared as an "alt-right candidate" will lose more votes than they gain in the Democratic primary. Why bother publicly supporting Yang or Gabbard, unless the strategy is to deliberately sabotage them, especially considering their lack of support for self-determination? Establishments often demonize outsiders for the establishment's own rotten results. Let's not give establishments more opportunities to blame non-multiculturalists.

Avoiding mass evil with a protest vote: voting for an obscure individual or some other tiny third party.

I'm leaning toward avoiding mass evil.

Russiagate: an Example of a Heads They Win, Tails You Lose Belief System

Russiagate is a closed, contradictory fanaticism, that is, closed to most reasoning, a heads they win, tails you lose collection of views.

1. When Trump tried to improve relations with Russia, the media considered it evidence Trump colluded. When Trump then engaged in neoconservative, tit-for-tat escalations with Russia, the media considered it evidence that Trump was covering up his previous collusion by being tough on Russia.
2. If Mueller found Trump guilty of collusion, the media would believe it evidence Mueller was an honorable man, who did a great job. When Mueller didn't, the media considered it evidence Mueller was corrupted by Trump.
3. The media deem the consequences of Trump so horrible they believe almost any means of opposing him acceptable, including inciting a nuclear war.
4. When claims propagated by anonymous "intelligence community" sources can be independently checked, they have a high probability of being found fallacious. Yet the media treat anonymous intelligence community sources as highly credible. Never mind that engaging in deception is habit for the intelligence community, including false flag operations.
5. The establishments rely on unspecific "Russia interfered" claims, never mind that some Russians, whatever their unknown to US media motives, spent a mere couple million dollars on political advertisements and posted a few million seldom viewed Facebook political posts on the 2016 US elections, ignoring that there are billions of political posts on Facebook about the 2016 US elections. Never mind that the media promote globalism and connectedness with ill-reasoned zeal, yet if non-tolerated groups outside the nation use globalism and connectedness to make social media posts, the media consider it a grave violation of a nation. But the media  think it racism, bigotry, and xenophobia to point out the massively destructive influence African, Hispanic, Southwest Asian, and other nations have had on the US and the democratic process.
6. If you point out the evidence is lacking or provide strong counter evidence, then the media assume you must be a Putin shill.

Other such fanatical systems include Hitlerism, various forms of Marxism, and some religions. The left often calls Russiagate a new McCarthyism, ignoring the differences between McCarthy's situation and the new tyranny.

Such behavior is rampant in neoconservatism and multiculturalism.

Hundreds of examples from multiculturalism are too numerous for me to list today, but here are a few: if you provide strong counter evidence to multiculturalism, you receive a deluge of irrelevant ad hominem attacks, including those of the you-must-have-bad-motives-for-contradicting-the-narrative variety. Establishments rely on unspecific "racism exists" claims to justify imposing tyranny, failing to provide accurate stats and failing to give accurate weight to counter evidence, including strong evidence that most racism in the West is of the anti-white variety.

Russiagate Aftermath

Russiagate ended with a fizzle, "having uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia."

Domestically, Russiagate was an intra-establishment feud among neoconservative supporters of Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton, who prefer a kinder face on neoconservative ruthlessness, versus neoconservatives tolerant of Trump's and Netanyahu's vulgarities.

It served to a) distract individuals from establishment evils and b) harden the group polarization of establishments. Because most powerful individuals on this planet have dark triad tendencies, they will not self-examine and reform themselves after their Russiagate mistakes, just as they learned almost nothing good from the thousands of other neoconservative errors. Instead, establishments will seek other opportunities to spread their greed, militarism, and cultural Marxism.

It was minuscule compared to the influence peddling done by migrants and countries devoted to white destruction.

Internationally, Russiagate escalated Cold War II, a potentially disastrous result. It pushed China and Russia closer. It gave Putin more maneuvering room to spread his own brand of greed, globalism, and militarism within Russia, a rally to the big man, little matter how depraved.

Totalitarianism Watch: Anti-Defamation League Research Is Far Worse Than Reported

James Fulford reports that the ADL labels murders committed by conservatives and others they  consider enemies "domestic extremism" when no known political motive exists, even intra-family murders.

But the reality is even worse.

Here is the ADL's terrible definition of extremism:

A concept used to describe religious, social or political belief systems that exist substantially outside of belief systems more broadly accepted [appeal to popularity] in society (i.e., “mainstream” beliefs [appeal to popularity]). Extreme ideologies often seek radical changes in the nature of government, religion or society. Extremism can also be used to refer to the radical wings of broader movements, such as the anti-abortion movement or the environmental movement. Not every extremist movement is “bad”—the abolitionist movement is one example of an extreme movement that had admirable goals—but most extremist movements exist outside of the mainstream [appeal to popularity] because many of their views or tactics are objectionable [irrelevant].

Here is the ADL with more fallacies on what it call the extreme right:

The term “extreme right [abusive ad hominem]” is used to describe right-wing [abusive ad hominem] political, social and religious movements that exist outside of and are more radical than mainstream conservatism [appeal to popularity]. In the United States, the extreme right [abusive ad hominem] consists primarily of two large, slightly overlapping spheres. In one sphere is the white supremacist [abusive ad hominem] movement, including its various submovements, such as neo-Nazis [abusive ad hominem], racist [abusive ad hominem] skinheads, and the alt right, among others. In the other sphere are anti-government extremist [abusive ad hominem] movements such as the militia movement and sovereign citizens (collectively, this sphere is often referred to as the “Patriot” movement). Also in the extreme right are several “single-issue” movements, which each tend to be the extreme wing of a more mainstream conservative [appeal to popularity] movement; these include anti-abortion extremists [abusive ad hominem], anti-immigrant extremists [abusive ad hominem], anti-Muslim extremists [abusive ad hominem], and anti-public lands extremists [abusive ad hominem], among others.

Since the overwhelming majority of the US population consists of multiculturalists and since their views are objectionable to anyone who cares about the ethical truth and since multiculturalists commit the overwhelming majority of murders, logical consistency would require the ADL to count these murders as extremism.

But the ADL makes the false claim that "over the last decade, a total of 73.3 percent of all extremist-related fatalities can be linked to domestic right-wing extremists."

Since almost all multiculturalists, including Muslims and almost all nonwhites, deny the right to self-determination to whites, that is totalitarianism.

It sure would be great to have some more measures of rampant totalitarianism rather than poorly defined extremism.

The Colony We Live in: Homeless Edition

We now live in a land, many nonmulticulturalists call it a colony for lack of a better word in American English, where many homeless shelters have bed lotteries or waiting lists.

But a counterargument arises: a large percentage of the homeless engage in crime, drug use, and irksome panhandling. So screw it. They deserve to be punished until they change their ways. Let incentives work.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has an estimate from 2003 that 38 percent of the homeless were addicted to alcohol. Twenty-six percent abused other drugs. (The sites I found weren't clear about the amount of overlap in the two numbers.) I doubt anyone knows what percentage of the homeless engage in crime careers since that group is far more noticeable and interacts with others far more often, a likely availability bias. Some homeless individuals wake up in shelters and go to work. Another group of homeless tries to be invisible, living in vehicles, woodlots, and other less conspicuous places. Many have physical disabilities. Estimates of serious mental illness among the homeless range from 20 percent to 33 percent. Personal responsibility incentives often fail with the mentally ill. We don't punish everyone on Wall Street because a large percentage of Wall Streeters engage in legal or ethical wrongs. We seldom even punish the Wall Streeters committing crimes. But the ruling classes treat almost all homeless individuals as if they should be punished for the wrongs of homeless individuals committing crimes.

(It would be irrelevant to mention we have umpteen trillion for reckless, self-destructive militarism. We have umpteen trillion more for direct and opportunity costs arising from the financial industry. We have trillions for tax entitlements. We have payments for parents having children with minor disabilities, often the parents own fault for dysgenic breeding. We have billions to resettle conquerors, in all their horrific dysgenic glory. We have umpteen trillion more for monopolies, oligopolies, and affirmative action, including foreign oligopolies such as OPEC. We waste trillions on colleges and college prep curricula for marginal students, who often drop out of college with large debts.)

Alas, we don't have enough beds for the homeless in brutally cold weather.

So we have ruling classes promoting mass dysgenics, atrocious cultures, and massive economic redistribution to themselves, then when the products of mass dysgenics predictably suffer from harmful genes and rotten cultures, too bad for them.

The White Flight Spectacle

Ask white multiculturalists why they fled their formerly white neighborhoods and you get answers like: The neighborhood went bad. Or: The schools got rough. Nothing racial.

Ask them about race and they spew fallacies: There's only one race. The human race. Everyone's the same inside. Or the related: Everyone's the same once you get to know 'em. You must be some kind of r*cist.

But they didn't flee the old neighborhood when it had plenty of whites they consider bad whites.

There's also this: in warmer parts of the country, many inexpensive campgrounds have destitute whites living in cars, vans, tents or cargo trailers alongside upper middle class snow birds in six figure recreational vehicles. Why isn't this upper middle class fleeing from these destitute whites? These whites are poorer than people in tropical countries on a purchasing power basis. Many have no jobs. Some are disabled but too proud to apply for disability or have had their disability claims rejected. Some have mental illnesses. These whites are in the economic bottom five percent, many in the bottom one percent.

Instead, these campers and homeless wave and greet each other. They have friendly conversations. Sometimes they share food. They are more friendly toward each other than individuals in many gated "communities."

There are a few exceptions, for example, Slab City, California. But Slab City has a large population of anarcho-multiculturalists, whites who adopted ghetto and Hollywood values to an even greater extent than most.

White multiculturalists and self-contradictions go hand in hand. It would be amusing if it weren't so tragic and harmful.

That "Right Wing Authoritarianism" Study

PsyPost ran an article based on a recent study concluding that individuals high in "Right Wing Authoritarianism" score higher in meaning in life. PsyPost inserted a photo of individuals acting ridiculous at Unite the Right in case any reader did not get the hints.

A problem: here is a list of survey questions for such studies. The people who would score highest for Right Wing Authoritarianism are not nonmulticulturalists. Multicultural, neoconservative movement conservatives and probably some multicultural, philosemitic monarchists would score much higher, the sort of individuals who listen to Roosh V, Glenn Beck, Max Boot, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity or Dennis Prager.

For example, the first statement on the survey asks for agreement with "The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protestors are usually just 'loud mouths' showing off their ignorance." Nonmulticulturalists vehemently and ethically oppose "established authorities."

A bigger problem: governments run by multiculturalists caused more unjustifiable deaths over the past century than any other type of government. Nonmulticulturalist leaders committed to principles self-determination for all seldom commit aggression.

So why aren't social scientists more interested in studying why multiculturalists are so prone to unwarranted violence and tyranny, including multiculturalists who allegedly oppose hate and oppression?

Strange Partisans

If this were a film from generations ago, audiences would have rejected it for being too preposterous.

Donald Trump is president. Trump is on the same policy side as Never Trump Neoconservatives, but Never Trumpers hate Trump, partly because of Trump's slur filled demagoguery. Much of Trump's inner circle consists of individuals who would otherwise be Never Trumpers. Predictably, they stab Trump in the back once they resign or get fired. Witness the recent comments by John Kelly and Michael Cohen. Trump pretends to be on the rhetorical side of an assortment of non-wealthy conservatives, and they like Trump, but Trump has stabbed them in the back hundreds of times. Much of the former Alt Right has abandoned Trump. To top it off, Never Trumpers spew lots of slur dominated demagoguery themselves, albeit with differing targets than Trump.

Paul Krugman, no stranger to slur filled demagoguery, moved from lavish praise of Hillary Clinton, a New Democrat Neoconservative with a disastrous tenure as Secretary of State on her resume, to praise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, an individual prone to crypto Marxism, all without much apparent change to his own totalitarian ideology. The D next to Ocasio-Cortez's name matters more.

Barack Obama now claims his presidency was based on "facts, reason, and logic," though the percentage of his presidency based on logic was much closer to zero percent than 100 percent.

Meanwhile, George W. Bush, who produced a horrendous presidency, has had his "favorability" among Democrats go from "only 11% in February 2009 to a majority 54% now." One political but not ethical lesson: farm out many evil deeds to the likes of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz. Another: pretend to be altruistic with tokenistic acts. And another: act presidential even if it's only an act.

The ethical lesson: this colony has too many rotten cultures and dysgenic genes to produce rulers with well-reasoned political actions.

Break it up.

Nonmulticulturalism: Worth the Bother

Sometimes variations of the following question arise: why bother reading or writing nonmulticultural arguments when many forms of political participation are unavailable to nonmulticulturalists or produce counterproductive results? Almost all individuals who bribe politicians support dysgenics and anti-white tyranny. Similar views exist among the mass media and other institutions. They punish well-reasoned dissent. Street activism causes mass media to go into anti-white demonization frenzies, manipulating millions despite the onslaught of fallacies contained in mass media versions of events. It wouldn't surprise me if establishment politicians smile inwardly when street violence occurs.

So why bother?

Facing ethical facts has personal development value. Being in the habit of ignoring or rejecting well-reasoned ethical evidence tends to infest most of a person's worldview. Thus, Marxists, Neoconservatives, and various other establishments tend to be not just wrong about ethnoracial issues but massively wrong about the majority of issues.

Some research suggests that political participation increases happiness and boosts "participants' vitality levels."

What else should we do with spare time? Hedonistic activities are sometimes expensive. Even when not expensive, hedonism runs into the paradox of hedonism, where the direct pursuit of happiness produces long term unhappiness, not to mention alienation. (The pursuit of happiness through politics does not mean we should spend thousands of hours reading fallacious Alt Wrong memes for infotainment purposes.)

There's something grotesque about individuals who don't care about the well being of future generations. They are nihilistic and loathsome company.

We should help the millions of nonmulticultural newcomers make better choices. These individuals bring decades of intellectual baggage with them. If we don't provide them with good arguments, they will settle for totalitarian garbage such as Hitlerism or Civic Nationalism, the latter a euphemism for slightly altered Libertarian Neoconservatism. Some newcomers are cheap political dates. They settle for a slight improvements on a handful of issues. If we ignore the ad hominem filled Twitter distractions and focus on policy, the Trump presidency resembles a third term from George W. Bush.

It matters little to them that political opportunists have been betraying their voting bases for generations. These newcomers brought the my political team right or wrong mindset with them. That mindset has got to go.

What politicians have done for years matters, not what they say they will do once in office. What individuals did they hang out with? What individuals did they get money from? What individuals have they helped? How much time did they spend on shameless self-aggrandizement? Barack Obama choosing Joe Lieberman as a mentor and taking large Wall Street donations in 2008 were gigantic red flags. Donald Trump's donor class, choices of advisers, and refusal to knowingly meet with any nonmulticulturalists were also massive red flags. Not surprisingly, Trump rewarded his donor class. Trump likely pushed the Overton Window in one direction while campaigning and in a reverse direction while in office. Trump is on a nearly identical political side as Never Trump Neoconservatives, yet those Trump has consistently betrayed remain Trump's staunchest supporters, an astounding absurdity of the present situation.

It's not enough to recognize that races and cultures have differing ethical characteristics. If individuals keep falling for blatant con artistry, something is massively wrong with them, especially the ideas they permit to enter and dominate their brains.

The current establishments are so wrong that they will eventually cause disasters, not merely long declines. We must have millions of individuals already prepared to fill the void with good ideas, especially a willingness to fight off egoism. Human history is replete with free riders being replaced by new free riders pretending to be reformers. The U.S. constitution contains several excellent ideas, for example, the First and Second Amendments in the Bill of Rights. But the constitution left out dozens of ethically and legally important ethnoracial rules. In a future article, I will cover some ideas a constitution should contain.