Diversity and Western Militaries

A small sample video of a female sergeant criticizing her African-American colleagues emerged several weeks ago, but don't expect social scientists to do much well-reasoned research on these issues. Comments below the video include some wisdom. Fred Kaplan offers several studies suggesting low IQ recruits fail at simple military tasks, but Kaplan does not mention race and how diversity damages cohesiveness among lower ranking personnel. Nor does Kaplan mention how multicultural political influence creates militarism.

Neoconservatives wage war without paying attention to ethical, practical, and ethnoracial realities while pretending to be paragons of virtue. Note how they incite conflicts against both China and Russia while trying to accrue destructive or near worthless "allies." What the hell kind of grand strategy is that? Britain once had a grand strategy of allying with the second most powerful state on the continent against the most powerful. Sometimes that strategy paid off. Sometimes it didn't. But a strategy of one super power against two super powers is effing ridiculous, especially when contemporary Western ruling classes are deliberately incompetent at nearly everything ethically important.

Neoconservatives try to distance themselves from their disastrous practices, even claiming John Bolton isn't a Neoconservative because Bolton doesn't spew democracy slogans, despite the fact Bolton was a director for the Neoconservative Project for the New American Century. (The word American should be in scare quotes there.)

But few Neoconservatives support democracy in practice anyway. They seldom criticize gerrymandering and legalized bribery by Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson. They seldom excoriate anti-Western voting by migrant, ethically ersatz citizens. They abhor the idea of whites democratically demanding their rights to self-determination and an end to mutually destructive wars.

Let's speculate on why Western militaries readily adopt cultural Marxism, subject to further (unlikely) research:

1. Politicians and their donors demand cultural Marxism, and Western military officers seldom disobey non-military leaders to do the right things.
2. Nonwhites are good at manipulation and intimidation, making nonwhites useful as recruiters, drill instructors, and other positions where lying is rewarded and cognitive dissonance rare. But manipulation and intimidation are little substitute for technical skill and battlefield competence. As whites increasingly adopt African and Southwest Asian values, dysgenics increases while loyalty to worthwhile causes deteriorates.
3. Cultural Marxism makes senior officers feel ethically superior without them having to do ethical acts. Ominously, not only do they act as if might makes right, cultural Marxism makes them feel they are automatically on the sides of angels.
4. Small sample fallacies of heroic or pseudo heroic nonwhite soldiers.
5. Multiculturalism treats the harms created by multiculturalism as caused elsewhere.
6. Multiculturalism creates a larger pool of recruits, at least in the short term. In the long term, nonwhites almost always join anti-white sides, thus, creating the spectacle of Christian nonwhites in London helping to elect the pro-Jihad Muslim Mayor.
7. Cultural Marxism creates the illusion of fewer racial conflicts to officers. As with other wealthy individuals in sheltered neighborhoods, they seldom suffer the harms they create for others. They don't have to live and work in close proximity with low functioning individuals. Senior officers show up for macho posturing, then disappear to their sheltered retreats.
8. Critics of cultural Marxism are seldom able to rise up the ranks, resulting in disastrous egoism driven groupthink and strict enforcement of groupthink. Office politics trumps ethical decision making.

Whites resent being in the most difficult and dangerous jobs while rear echelon nonwhites pilfer desperately needed supplies. In World War II Tunisia, black U.S. soldiers had an STD rate of 451 per 1000 versus a US white rate of 34 per 1000, partly because they brought the STDs with them, and partly because they were exchanging stolen supplies for sex on black markets. George Wilson, given command of a black company of about 200 soldiers, wrote "Every day thefts were reported to me. Some of the men sold, traded, or gave away their personal equipment."

Counterjihadists often assert that Muslims in the U.S. military have killed more Americans than the number of enemy warriors such soldiers have killed, though accurately counting such data is unlikely in today's intellectual climate.

In the event of war with China and Russia, Western militaries would likely experience massive fifth columning by overseas Chinese and Russians.

If a major Neoconservative inspired war occurs, multitudes of non-white military personal would desert or announce that they are conscientious objectors, leaving whites to fight another nonwhite man's war. I wouldn't blame them. If such a war occurs, I would encourage whites to desert and not waste their lives for Randism, neoconservatism, third wayism, and cultural Marxism. Whites shouldn't suffer or die for the totalitarian ideas of those who despise them.

In the final stages of multiculturalism, the anti-white military will likely concoct plenty of excuses why white civilians need to be exterminated, as has happened in other multicultural lands where non-whites gain demographic and political domination.

Calexit and the Migrant Invasion

The Audacious Epigone writes that a several thousand person strong caravan of "alleged Hondurans are being ushered through the narco-state to our south with support from the Mexican government there and from 'humanitarian' groups here (groups that should be charged with criminal conspiracy)."

Jef Costello concludes this is a potential lose-lose situation: "the Left wins big if Trump caves and allows the migrants in... the Left also thinks it wins if Trump refuses to allow the migrants in. We will then see weeks of coverage painting him as cruel and heartless."

That's what happens when multiculturalists control nearly all the institutions. (Multiculturalists should never be permitted a toehold of control over a nation state.)

But a plausible lesser evil exists if Trump caves. The caravan seems headed for California.

It's ethically better if California quickly acquires third world status than for the entire country to gradually sink into third world status, with whites eventually being exterminated.

Paradoxically, welfare and sanctuary cities are less harmful if only California practices those acts--and the welfare is large enough to keep migrants from flooding into other states.

Multicultural Californians blame the rest of the country for its economic woes rather than the predictable failures of multiculturalism because hard core multiculturalists almost never ever blame multiculturalism for the harms multiculturalism causes.

Multiculturalists, especially fans of militarism, believe that somehow the Civil War proves whites don't have a right to self-determination. (Multiculturalists seldom argue we should revert to control by England or Amerindian tribes devoted to murder, torture, robbery, and mutilation. Nor do they often oppose self-determination by non-whites, except at Tibet, Taiwan, and a few other places.) They also act as if it is better for whites to be ruled by individuals who seek to destroy us than for us to be left alone.

If California secedes, it will be harder for multiculturalists to manipulate whites into thinking secession by whites is automatically wrong.

Yeah, it sucks to lose California, a land of fantastic beauty and outstanding coastal weather, but unless ethical white families regain control of institutions and start having eugenic total fertility rates closer to ten children per family rather than one child per family, little probability of saving California exists, except parts of Northern and Eastern California.

Radio and Television

I was wading through the trivia and junk science at Kevin Lewis' Findings blog when I found this study. During the John F. Kennedy administration, with "Kennedy's encouragement, the Internal Revenue Service audited conservative broadcasters to impair their ability to raise money while the Federal Communications Commission discouraged radio stations from airing their programs."

I doubt many individuals have read about this blatant partisanship before.

Not that political TV and radio are mediums for better politics. For every hour citizens spend learning political propaganda in schools, they spend dozens more learning sound bites from radio and TV. Repetition creates and increases belief. Tendencies toward hedonism and indoctrination are inherent in those technologies.

In an ethical nation, political discourse should take place primarily in print and on the internet. No political activists should own the electromagnetic spectrum--or TV and radio end up being dominated by terrible ideologies versus other terrible ideologies.

Politically driven oligopolies in print and on the internet should also face severe restrictions.

The domestic electromagnetic spectrum should be limited to military, emergency, cell phone, walkie talkie, and nonpolitical music uses.

In post America's case, TV and radio are a battle ground of Neoconservatism versus Marxism and Third Wayism, while more accurate worldviews get ignored. Restricting the uses of TV and radio violates the rights of politicians and billionaires, but there is no other ethical alternative. Political TV and radio are ideological weapons of mass destruction.

We live in Western lands, where millions of whites face firings and other punishments for telling the truth about cultural Marxism. Meanwhile multiculturalists ignore their totalitarianism and keep lecturing us about McCarthyism. In McCarthy's defense, communism waged violent, physical war against the West in addition to the far worse "boring from within." Politicians and billionaires used the media to goad us into focusing on economic Marxism while ignoring the more destructive cultural Marxism.

Whataboutism and the Establishments

Whataboutism is the quick raising of irrelevancies, often of the those guys also do terrible acts variety.

Examples:
Person one: Putin is a terrible leader.
Person two: What about Saudi leaders? They are more evil than Putin. Every ruler on Earth is terrible.

Person three: I can't believe Jarad Kushner is permitted in the White House.
Person four: Al Sharpton was permitted in the Obama White House.

Whataboutism infuriates establishment individuals more than expected because they don't want us to see or hear anything that contradicts poorly reasoned establishment political beliefs. Hence, their efforts to obtain total domination of mass media and all other major institutions. Even total institutional domination is not enough for them: they resort to totalitarian speech restrictions.

Seldom able to recognize and articulate the existence of logical fallacies, the shout of whataboutism is their way of saying some claims are unfair or irrelevant. Note how they are blind to the straw person, ad hominem, and other irrelevancies they bombard the rest of us with.

Masters of confirmation bias, they would prefer we talk about only their favored issues, framed in mythical ways.

How should we deal with poorly reasoned establishment narratives without resorting to irrelevancies: "Okay, let's argue about your issue. Then let's talk about other issues thousands of times more because other issues are thousands of times more important--dysgenics, migration, militarism, self-determination, et cetera."

Cohn Jobs

Donald Trump's former chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, bashed Trump on the way out of the White House, reportedly for Trump's steel tariffs and Trump's handling of Charlottesville. So great was Cohn's outrage over Trump's Charlottesville response that he waited over five months to resign. Notably, Cohn expressed no outrage over thousands of acts of terrorism and intimidation by "activists." Trump, in full kowtow mode, praised Cohn, but claimed Cohn is a globalist, thus attempting to distance Trump from his own globalism. Mass media, of course, went into hysterics over the word globalist because totalitarian thought policing is the media's gig.

Cohn was likely a source of some of Trump's redistribute to the top agenda, not that it mattered much. If not for Cohn, thousands of other Wall Streeters would have lined up to fill a similar role. Cohn likely took the the top adviser role merely as a temporary gig to boost his resume.

Most human beings believe they are ethically superior to most other human beings, so predictably, even the likes of Cohn grandstand about tariffs and Charlottesville, but serving the public interest is an utterly alien concept to Wall Streeters.

Cohn will probably now write about so-called free trade, not including such topics as tax entitlements, military spycraft, human trafficking, OxyContin peddling, industrial espionage, environmental destruction, currency manipulation, disastrous conflicts, downward wage pressures, international legalized bribery, rule by outgroup tyranny, militarism on behalf of crooked businesses, and excessively lengthy intellectual property rights.

Trump's tariff exemptions for Mexican and Canadian steel will help Mexican and Canadian steel producers compete in America. Maybe now Mexico will pay for the wall.

Or not.

The assertion that Mexico should pay for the wall was a clever tactic by Trump to leave him with an out for not building the wall himself.

The cost of the wall is comparative chump change for the US federal government, a government that wastes more money every month than the cost of an adequate wall. The cost of landmines behind the wall would also be minuscule compared to the benefit obtained. A fence behind the landmines to keep individuals from accidentally stepping on mines would also be inexpensive. The mass media would commence screeching, commenting with the "that's not who we are" irrelevancy. Defending America from demographic mass destruction is a job American politicians just won't do.

Trump surrounds himself with neoconservative multiculturalists and practices neoconservative multiculturalism. Trump has yet to publicly meet with a single nonmulticulturalist, but that doesn't fit the narrative, so our ever media keep calling him Hitleresque.

Nonmulticulturalist pro-Trumpers need to distance themselves from Trump. They're being set up to take the fall for Trump, though Trump gives nonmulticulturalists little but policy crumbs.

Reducing School Gun Violence Without Violating Gun Rights

Let's lower the age children may voluntarily drop out of school to 13, requiring students to have no arrest or expulsion record and be in the top 30 percent of their sixth grade class to attend seventh through twelfth grade public education. Let's require teenage public school students to remain arrest and expulsion free. Let's prohibit anyone above 13 from attending primary grade classes. Let's relax child labor laws for individuals above age 12.

For most students, public secondary schools are more propaganda shows and custodial institutions than important learning institutions.

Many severe behavioral problems begin during the teenage years. The above policies will rid many such problems, not to mention many students enraged because they are bullied or don't fit in. Some of these students will improve if they hang around adult groups and have adult responsibilities.

Most shooters of humans shoot themselves or acquaintances. Those who never attend high schools are unlikely to shoot up high schools.

Use media to spread knowledge of behavioral genetics, to change cultures from pretending that secondary education makes students much smarter or prepared for life outside schools. Help students grow up. Two hundred years ago it was common for teenagers to take on many adult duties--and they did them well. Adolescences that last decades are cultural and dysgenic creations. Globalist multiculturalists created a world with a demand for low skilled service workers. Teenagers should do many of these jobs.

Are any of the above policies probable? No. But so are most other worthwhile reforms. It's good to talk about policies that should be done, to shift the Overton Window and have ideas for newer, better societies.

Comedy

Mark Ramsey and many others assert, "Comedy tells the truth." But that is often wrong. Comedy thrives on the fallacious (and unexpected)--puns, exaggerations, small samples, bad definitions, false analogies, straw person attacks, false cause claims, and irrelevant ad hominem points, not to mention various other false or irrelevant or otherwise worthless claims.

Jaded by hedonism, some audiences demand ever more shock value.

A good sign of ethical growth is an ability to see most political comedy as banal or destructive, consisting of glorified talking points. In strident believers, the banal becomes humorous. Cliches become group identification symbols. In previous decades, saying "thanks Obama" hundreds of times would be considered a sign of a hackneyed, tiresome sense of humor.

The problem is not limited to multiculturalists. Many memes on Voat and other sites are terrible.

The talking point hammers increase while clever, subtle, and sophisticated humor declines.

Not laughing at political humor is seldom a sign of lacking a sense of humor, but a sign of seeing through the BS. Especially irksome is when comics pretend their pathetic attempts at humor are over your head.

Emo Phillips once had a damn poignant joke:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

(Monty Python had a similar joke. I don't know which came first.)

Now we're stuck in a country where Republican Neoconservatives for John Kasich and Jeb Bush act as if Republican Neoconservatives for Donald Trump are heretics, deserving of death via multiculturalism or World War III, along with most of us, despite the fact that Trump keeps kowtowing to their policy demands.

Truthful dissent from multiculturalism results in expulsion or other punishments.

It's hardly a laughing matter.

Ivy League Home Cramming

Many noticed when Ron Unz wrote his article noticing that people of African, Hispanic, and recent Southwest Asian ancestry and cultures were over represented at Ivy League schools, that Whites and Northeast Asians were underrepresented, based on academic performance. To the extent that the mass media noticed, they ignored the White part and emphasized how Northeast Asians were wronged (the mass media almost never notice anti-White wrongs).

Lots of noticing.

The strongest counterargument: Peoples of recent Southwest Asian descent live disproportionately in the Northeast and therefore should be expected to be a disproportionate number of Ivy League students. Also, Andrew Gelman claims Unz overestimated using nontransparent methodology. But Gelman's methodology is also nontransparent. For all we know, Unz, Gelman, and Gelman's allies are all making up numbers.

Whether Unz or Gelman is closer to the truth, that's still a weak counterargument. Ivy League schools demand affirmative action. Peoples of recent Southwest Asian descent rank among the most IQ and economically gifted peoples in post-America. They also benefit from massive ethnoracial networking. Given their gifts, affirmative action would require that Southwest Asians be close to zero percent of Ivy League students, not many times their proportion of the general population.

Another counterargument: Ivy League schools are private. They should admit those they want. Despite being allegedly private, Ivy League schools receive massive infusions from student aid and tax entitlements. We're paying for our own tyranny. Universities are increasingly "hedge funds" with indoctrination centers attached. Harvard had an endowment of roughly $38 billion in 2016. And the individuals managing those funds make fortunes from allegedly non-profit institutions.

Difficult to get into but also difficult to flunk out of, decent educations seldom happen at Ivy League schools. Many community colleges have more difficult classes. They are instead places where unjust elites make connections with each other and reaffirm their fallacious, groupthink worldviews--finishing schools for  totalitarianism.

To the extent that the Ivy League looks like post-America, it looks like psychological and evolutionary egoism, especially from parasitic sectors of the economy: finance, insurance, multiculturalism, and real estate. Future ruling classes shouldn't come from among those already devoted to bribery and tyranny.

In addition to antitrust actions against tech and other oligopolies, we need antitrust actions against the Ivy League.

If a Jewish individual genuinely has a goal of winning a Nobel Prize in chemistry, she can do it elsewhere.

Self-Control: Let Them Smash Cakes?

Here's a what the hell thread: young children enter a store and start smashing expensive cakes on the floor. Guess how the threadsters explain it? MrNogi's parental "ripple effect" gets over 1,000 upvotes.

Well, it just so happens a new study suggests that 64 to 75 percent of variance in self-control among seven to 12-year-olds has genetic origins, with the rest caused by non-shared environments, but the study relies on self-reports, so that's a caveat.

Of course, the study stats don't tell us about the smasher's specific situation, so we shouldn't rush to causal conclusions about them, although I know what I would do if they were my kids, and it wouldn't be pretty.