Pathogen Preparations: Another Failure of Fake Meritocracy

In the past, I read a few PDFs on pathogen preparedness, policy recommendations written by establishment groups. I don't remember much about the PDFs or who wrote them. What I do remember: the PDFs were filled with the vapid generalities groups driven by groupthink and opportunism write.

For specifics, the PDFs had many so-and-so will be in charge of such-and-such claims. B should take orders from A. X should get training from Y. The type of thinking befitting a nation dominated by oligarchal neoconservatism. Some organizational stuff is helpful, but far more was required.

To be fair, obscure websites likely had better prescriptions that I, or most others, never found.

Nowhere did I read: We must stockpile thousands of ventilators. We must stockpile billions of PPE supplies, then rotate the stock. We should domestically produce far more nurses and physicians. We must take on the forces keeping supplies low. We must require the government to buy nearly all its supplies from domestic manufacturers to keep domestic suppliers viable. We must eviscerate the power of finance, health insurers, and other parasitic oligopolies. We must improve BSL safety.

Those would have been bridges too far or too painful for elites--Operation Cronyistic Market Failure.

Three More Simple Reasoning Hacks

1. Fallacious premises fail to support conclusions. Fallacious premise recognition is a rotten reason to auto reject a conclusion. We have a duty to weigh the good points of an argument against the good points of other arguments on an issue. Arguments with many fallacies sometimes outweigh arguments with fewer fallacies because the former sometimes have good points worth more weight than the other arguments' good points. 
2. The word not is sometimes a warning that a claim is a straw person attack, especially the phrase not all. The words perfect, panacea, and guarantee are similar warnings. Examples: "There's no guarantee that the policy will work. Not all Lutherans support that."
3. Criticizing the preposterous political belief of a stranger having almost no political power, even when quoted exactly and in the correct context, is a straw person attack. Our duty is to find important truths, not to entertain ourselves attacking easy targets or to attempt to fanatically defend poorly reasoned beliefs by comparing ourselves to worse individuals.

Screen Time Versus Paper Time: No Good Way Out for Now

Much research criticizes the amount of time humans spend staring at screens. Staring at screens for long hours, researchers suggest, has harmful effects independent of harmful words and images contained therein.

But contemporary paper materials stink. Ethically wise individuals must spend several hours searching to find one book ethically worth reading. They have to open dozens of newspapers to find one article ethically worth reading. Academic journals are written in poorly reasoned academese by authors more interested in career promotion than important truths.

Most arguments ethically worth reading are on obscure websites.

Our better current alternatives are to mitigate the damage of screen time by using F.lux or other programs to block blue light. Or reading on an internet equipped Kindles, though Kindles cannot download many websites and fail to replicate the look of paper. Kindles are also fragile. Somewhat ironically, if the deplatforming escalates, we will live in secret societies sharing fact facing paper writings while the masses continue to gorge on television, video games, social media, and other glitzy, hype-riddled mass media garbage.

If an accurate history of the past few hundred years is ever written, the catastrophic practices of  mass media, preoccupied with profits and totalitarian political agendas, will fill many chapters.

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.