Marriage Policies and Gay Marriage

Though many individuals have short political memories, if you're reading this blog, you probably remember the massive media coverage given to the government supported gay marriage issue a few years ago. By coverage, I mean the deluge of slurs and straw person attacks directed against anyone who criticized this new frontier of equality.

The short history: for decades, gays regarded marriage as an oppressive, patriarchal heterosexual institution. Then more gays discovered that marriage has financial benefits, including tax benefits and often health insurance for spouses. In a geological blink of an eye, heterosexuals went from being demonized for supporting marriage to being demonized for failing to support government funded gay marriage.

Given the gay desire for and gay availability of promiscuous sex, gay partners must be careful they don't get ripped off in marriage. Partners gain tax benefits and one partner often gains health insurance, but a potential cost is divorce, where one partner takes a large chunk of the other's assets. Many gays likely engage in assortative class mating to avoid financial pitfalls. Many have open marriages of semi-convenience.

But jealousy happens.

Gays often have excessive self-interest. That interior decorating doesn't get done for free. When physical anthropologist Greg Cochran argues, homosexuality is hell on genetic fitness, what he also states or implies is that gays provide little help to their breeding relatives. Gay estrangement from relatives results from more than intolerance on both sides.

What to do:

1. governments should get out the marriage tax entitlement business (along with most other existing tax entitlements). Marriage tax entitlements are an inefficient way to help families with minor children, especially since many married couples have no minor children. Instead, the government should use tax entitlements and other policies to promote eugenics. Eventually, governments should abandon the marriage business altogether, leaving marriage to private entities. Marriage has great value, but its value should not be based on government policies that encourage divorce and gold digging. Alimony and palimony must be banned.
2. health care within a society must not be based on who your relatives are.
3. "But without government run marriage, a hospital can keep my partner from visiting me as I'm dying." Simple solution: require everyone to put a list of those who can and cannot visit on their government ID and in their medical records.
4. Women are hypergamous, that is, they believe they deserve the partners they consider best, no matter how far from the best those men or women are. Government run marriage encourages women to divorce, legally steal a man's assets, and move in with supposedly better man. It requires men to pay child support when cuckolded. It also grants marriages quickly and with little thought. Private entities, especially churches, are more likely to require counseling and waiting periods before marriage, leading to better marriages and beneficial break ups before harmful marriages occur. Churches should be strict about marriage, willing to tell some couples they are not a good match. Some men are also hypergamous.

Compared to nonwhite invasions and other aspects of cultural Marxism, government supported gay marriage is of minor import. But the debate reeks, partly because it was yet another example of activists achieving their goals by demonizing opposition and excluding the best counterarguments from public consciousness. And also because some Christians incited counter-demagoguery, while maintaining their support for far worse aspects of cultural Marxism. Evangelicals continue to grandstand on gay marriage while lives and societies fall into ruin from ethnoracial diversity.

Activists should seldom be rewarded for despicable rhetoric, no matter which sides they belong to.

Multiculturalists Open a New Diversity Is Strength Rhetorical Front

Mike Males asserts, based on his false cause analysis, that "whites in predominantly white and Trump-voting counties are 50% more likely to die from murder, gun violence and drug overdoses than whites who live in the most diverse and Democratic-voting counties."

"Correspondingly, the white Americans who are safest from such deaths are those who live in racially diverse areas such as Los Angeles, New York and Chicago[.]"

"Rates of homicides, gun killings and illicit-drug fatalities are highest in counties where nine in 10 residents are white and where President Trump won."

Translated to truth instead of cultural Marxism: old, poor, lonely, unhealthy, alienated, lower IQ, lower conscientiousness whites are far more likely to die from drug overdoses and gun suicides than young, healthy, wealthy, connected, higher IQ, higher conscientiousness whites. Whites are less likely to die from murder in white areas, ceteris paribus, so don't conflate murder with the far more frequent gun suicides and drug overdoses. The overwhelming majority of interracial stranger on stranger murders involve non-white perpetrators. Many stranger on stranger murders in diverse areas go unsolved, adding to the disparity. Less than 40 percent of murders in Baltimore were cleared in 2016.

Males doesn't even mention the word suicide, the cause of 64 percent of US gun deaths overall and much more than 64 percent for whites. Many white gun deaths are justifiable euthanasia. Some situations are worse than death, including living with severe, chronic health problems. Healthy individuals fail to comprehend how horrible severe, chronic illnesses are. Many gun suicides occur after retirees move to cheaper, whiter rural areas or when ill individuals move back to their non-diverse home towns to receive help from white relatives.

Young, healthy, wealthy, high IQ rentiers and professionals in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles avoid the diverse, low functioning parts of those cities. They live in safer, wealthier low diversity areas such as Manhattan. And they form safer friendships with individuals similar to themselves.

Most violent interracial crimes against whites are committed against children, prisoners, and whites with male nonwhite partners. Those crimes are seldom counted in crime stats.

Much loneliness and alienation results from technology, plus multicultural control of media, schools, and other institutions, so there are even more factors to disentangle. Even whites living in all white areas face the destructive specter of multiculturalism hanging over them from their electronic gadgets. Multiculturalism makes whites alienated from most good beliefs, replacing them with consumerism and totalitarian multiculturalism, including Islam.

Males' analysis produced a 50 and a 90 percent stat. I'm instantly suspicious of stats that claim 50 or 90 or 99 percent of something because most such stats usually are fabricated, especially given the anti-white slurs in his argument.

Moving to a diverse area won't reduce ethical problems. Diversity makes them worse.

More important, as I recently wrote, nonwhite rule combined with nonwhite majorities creates tyranny and the genocide of whites. The harms of diversity will rise exponentially in the future.

Males provides fallacious grist for individuals who like to think white America outside their wealthy, pseudo-diverse enclaves is Deliverance.

Fortunately, some of us are not that gullible. Some of us know we should tease out IQ, age, race, health, income and other factors before jumping to conclusions.

Spurious Merit

Imagine we had multitudes of pipe wrecking, publicly funded plumbers claiming: "How dare you oppose our employment. Plumbing saved millions, if not billions of lives, from cholera and other dreaded pathogens, saving more lives than most doctors throughout history, while causing fewer harms. Our critics are guilty of insidious anti-plumberism." We'd probably mock and defund the harm causing plumbers while employing other (mostly) beneficial plumbers. Similar assertions could be made by other harm causing blue collar workers, and we'd defund them as well.

Yet we publicly fund multitudes of academics, spouting poorly reasoned ethical arguments, partly because a minority of academics provide large benefits by opposing tyranny, inventing vaccines, and other beneficial activities. We're supposed to fund the fanaticism and other wrongs of most academics because some minority of academics are beneficial, even when they ruin lives, leaving some students in debt peonage. At least in the latter days of the Soviet Union, millions of individuals didn't go into debt to be easily indoctrinated. And not merely in the humanities and social sciences. Many natural scientists demand we spend billions on trivial scientific advances having few benefits. Thousands of scientific journals publish newly discovered picayune facts, but we can't find enough money for killer asteroid hunting. Business schools crank out students devoted to extracting wealth by harmful means. Not surprisingly, billionaires made super wealthy by parasitic activities donate to their favorite business schools to create more such individuals. The proliferation of academic administrators is worse.

Academics resort to the false dichotomy bumper sticker, "If you think [formal] education is expensive, try ignorance." Never mind that contemporary formal education is an expensive way to end up wrong on the most important ethical issues.

Academics claim we need academic freedom with tenure to protect ideas. But academic freedom isn't the same as the legal and ethical rights to freedom of speech. Academic freedom with tenure is the privilege to be paid wealthy and upper middle class incomes by students and taxpayers for harmful opinions. It also includes the privilege of stocking colleges with politically like minded individuals, not philosophical diversity. Despite having more presumed supporters of equality than most other institutions, college campuses rank among the most unequal institutions, with students and grad assistants being exploited, with a parallel justice system where students can be expelled for thought crimes or unsupported accusations.

The overwhelming majority of academics born in the Twentieth Century support or supported one or more forms of totalitarianism--Sharia, Randism, fascism, globalism, neoconservatism, cultural Marxism, economic Marxism, new Democratism or similar ideologies. Worse, the more the evidence contradicts these belief systems, the more fanaticism increases. The greater the contradictions, the more they ignore the contradictions, walling themselves off from decent counterarguments. demonizing those providing good evidence.

While a few academics claim they want to add more ideological diversity, what they mean by ideological diversity is more libertarianism and neoconservativism, which is no improvement. They sure as heck won't knowingly hire me or some other nonmulticulturalist.

Imitation meritarianism by irrelevant association applies many other white collar professions as well, often worse than secondary and post secondary education:

1. We need a small financial industry, but then the industry gains more power to bribe, leading to specious justifications for "masters of the universe," "too big to fail," and thousands of other rent seeking activities. The financial crises alone cost at least $20 trillion.
2. We benefit from health care, but now free riding dominates the industry, especially by insurers and various medical monopolies and oligopolies. Our medical system costs 750 billion more dollars per year than it should.
3. We benefited from some military officials, but others devoted to militarism and war profiteering took over and assert they "fight for our freedom" when, if fact, they mostly act to destroy our freedoms. The more ruling groups uses fallacies and totalitarian force to create ethnoracial diversity, the more force is needed to keep a little peace and the more freedom disappears. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone cost $2.4 trillion and counting.
4. We benefit from a small legal profession, but now unelected and unaccountable judges imagine they have a right to decide laws in utter violation of ethical governance. The fallacious appeal to tradition known as precedent gets treated as sacred, depending on whether the precedent agrees or disagrees with judges own whims. Legislators seem proud of the fact they know little about public policies.
5. We benefited from the printing press and the invention of paper, but now we have mass media pursuing profits, ratings, and indoctrination while ignoring the public interest.

The above numbers do not include most opportunity costs and non-monetary costs, which are even greater than the monetary costs.

Steve Sailer criticized a recent article by David Brooks promoting the rise of today's alleged meritarian class but for the wrong reasons. Sailer regards Brooks' take as "pretty reasonable," asserting that Brooks uses meritocratic "as a euphemism, basically, for 'Jewish'." Sailer downplays the fact that the new establishments are extremely anti-meritarian, worse than the old "Protestant establishment," Neoconservatism is far worse than Vietnam era counterinsurgency failures. Heck, neoconservatives seem hellbent on starting World War III. Technology advanced and wives now work outside the home, yet nonwealthy incomes declined, if you replace one sided hedonic pricing and other misadjustments to the Consumer Price Index with more accurate measures. More important, cultural Marxism will exterminate the West and white individuals if permitted to do so, making it much worse than the old establishments racial flaws.

How meritarian can today's establishments be when they will expel or otherwise punish individuals for telling unwanted ethical truths?

Come on, man.

David Brooks isn't merely cheerleading for his teams. Brooks likely believes that his own mixture of Randism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism is the greatest ideology ever created, the ultimate in merit, the evidence be damned.

Establishments pretend they create great value.

We know better.

Hugh Hefner: Dead

My father had a subscription to Playboy magazine against the wishes of my mother, and I viewed them.

I could understand why nubile women flocked to a rich, famous, powerful man, but I couldn't understand why others fawned over Hefner. Halo effects are bizarre. There was almost nothing fascinating about him. In the interviews I saw, he kept spewing his hackneyed shtick about 1950s "sexual repression." (He should have spent a few years in Saudi Arabia to see what real sexual repression looked like.) I doubt Hefner was particularly well-read. Most political commentaries in his magazine were poorly reasoned despite having his pick of thousands of writers sending in submissions, each hoping for a good payday and a bit of recognition.

The magazine had a page or two devoted to photos of Playboy parties, a disproportionate percentage showing African-American men with white women. The intended or unintended message: you pay for worthless paper images of attractive women. Look who gets the real thing. So his was a girly magazine that had more photos of black men than black women. Hefner worked to eliminate the peoples and white beauty his life and wealth depended on.

In older issues, the Playmates had a variety of attractive looks, to fit a variety of tastes. After the mid 1990s, more Playmates displayed dyed hair, orange skin, heavy makeup, breast implants. Yes, the supposed classy, highbrow porn magazine specialized in the b*mbo look. It was likely based on research. Hefner's fan base was likely the same as Howard Stern's. Behind the glitz was the reality of lonely male subscribers living purposeless lives. The morality of the cool comes to liberate, yet takes prisoners, looking for love and purpose in the wrong places. Among the less lonely, hedonism contributed to an epidemic of philandering and broken homes. The one night stand is not an act of liberation. It is an act of contempt. It says I can screw you and maybe give you a pathogen, but you are not good enough to be around me ever again. I'm going to pretend to be gaga about you, but only for a few hours, then switch it off.

Philosophies of hedonism give the impression that many whites in the 1950s were "squares" or worse. Having met thousands of individuals who came of age in the 1950s or before, I keep wondering where the squares went. Did they morph into non-squares by the 1980s? Many were great story tellers with fascinating life experiences. For the unfamiliar, it was once common in American society for friends to frequently visit, sitting and talking about thousands of topics for hours on end, sometimes playing cards while talking.

Writers complain about magazines setting impossible standards, but magazines are more about escapism than setting standards.

Like some other wealthy promoters of hedonism, Hefner seemed devoted to his children, yet such promoters seldom care about the consequences of hedonism to individuals in more difficult circumstances. Hedonism is a luxury that many can financially afford but few can ethically afford.

History, Multiculturalism, and the Near Certainty Principles of Nonwhite Rule

Let's imagine the centuries old Arab, Mongol, and other brutal nonwhite invasions of white lands have no relevance today. Let's focus on the current and last century when nonwhites became more civilized, listing the last six times nonwhites ruled large numbers of whites (leaving out smaller groups of murdered or kidnapped whites around the planet):

1. Zimbabwe (1980 to the present)
2. South Africa (1994 to the present)
3. Japanese Empire (1942-1945)
4. Ottoman Empire (1900-1922)
5. Russia-Soviet Union (1917-1953)
6. North Korea (1950 to unknown by Westerners)

If one of these cases involved the mass slaughter of whites, it would be enough to condemn multicultural goals, yet in all six cases, nonwhite rule over whites resulted in tyranny and the slaughter of whites, often involving sadistic acts of torture and murder thousands of times worse than the acts of torture at Guantanamo Bay.

That is why self-determination is sacred and non-negotiable. It is inalienable, meaning it must not be taken away. Any person on this planet who opposes the right of self-determination, and billions of multiculturalists do oppose self-determination, is massively unethical.

The rainbow political platitudes of nonwhites are worthless at best. Nonwhites do not and will not protect us from their co-ethnics when they have power. Their ephemeral support for progressive humanitarianism does not include most whites. They blame victims of their racial depredations. Whites can engage in trillions of acts of misplaced altruism toward nonwhites. Years later nonwhites remember mistreatment, no matter how petty, not the altruism. Few multiculturalists care that whites saved billions of nonwhite lives with vaccines, other technologies, and charitable activities.

Al Jazeera supports multicultural progressivism because multicultural progressivism serves them as a divide-and-conquer strategy, until Muslims can implement sharia in the West. Note how the owners of Al Jazeera have little interest in implementing multicultural progressivism at home in Qatar.

Among multiculturalists, few enemies to the anti-white exist, especially when their allies rampage through streets and punish dissent. Trust but verify is a rule for chumpism. The verification usually proves faulty. History indicates nonwhites are capable of being decent citizens in white countries only when their power and numbers are tiny (and when whites don't act with abject cowardice).

Wealthy whites are mainly capable of egoism and treason, so whites should, ethically speaking, live only in nations that are nearly 100 percent white, including white foreign diplomats. A handful of near whites, who do not self-identify as nonwhite, are unavoidable and should be tolerated. Allow more nonwhites in and the wealthy begin to see the possibilities of cheaper labor, militaristic empire, multicultural grandstanding, pitting worker against worker, and other divide-and-screw practices. The slightest bribe of a wealthy white individual by nonwhites or white multiculturalists should result in draconian punishment of the bribed.

Now if some whites want live in diverse lands, they should have a legal right to do so, provided nonwhites want them. (It won't last long!) But such whites have no moral right and should have no legal right to force diversity on the rest of us. They also have no moral right to preach diversity since no one has a moral right to spew unethical, poorly reasoned arguments.

The ''what about white rule over people of color'' counterargument is irrelevant. Almost no one living today supports white rule over nonwhites. Separation has transition costs, but the costs of today's multiculturalism will be many times greater to multitudes of future generations.

As I wrote before, 100 percent of majority Muslim countries were and are totalitarian. One hundred percent of lands with large amounts of racial diversity became long-term unethical disasters.

No genocultural engineering by multiculturalists will ever create good, diverse, sustainable countries. Multiculturalists promote ideas that have failed multitudes of times before with ever more clever propaganda techniques, as if they assume we are all incapable of facing facts and as if they assume new packaging changes the moral facts. Most higher IQ individuals with comparatively less bad motives are too lazy and evidence averse to create decent political philosophies. Being forced to live in nonwhite ruled societies, surrounded by lower character fanaticisms is far worse, a prescription worse than death, a norm beneath the dignity of any white individual.

The above is merely a matter of being logical and ethical, not "white supremacism."

Elements of Racial Supremacism

I dislike posting on Fridays because many readers are too busy to read, but I'm hankering to post today.

What makes up racial supremacism:

1. Unsupported belief that a race is superior to another, combined with an unsupported belief in a right to rule over another race, that is, freedom of association for one race but not for another, including denying the latter's right to exit a society and form a homogeneous society.
2. Unsupported belief that a race should be off limits to criticism, no matter how well-reasoned, combined with free fire abusive ad hominem attacks on another race, plus assuming the motives of a race are pure while relentlessly assuming bad motives among potential critics.
3. Unsupported belief that genocide is permissible.
4. Unsupported belief that a race inherits ontological guilt while behaving as if past and present evils done by another race must be white washed, plus assuming one is the racial victim while victimizing another race.
5. Unsupported belief that economic and other goods within a self-chosen multiracial society should be distributed according to power and race, not in proportion to economic productivity, combined with a belief that racial harm doing and free riding can almost always be justified as good for the cause, including spewing fallacies to see whether they stick, especially straw persons and small sample fallacies. It includes treating probabilities and expected values as irrelevant or worthless while treating assertions of specious rights as sacred.
6. Encouraging members of a race to engage in dysgenic breeding to increase the demographic power of a race, no matter how poor the character of those individuals, plus a belief that the triumph of a race over another race is inevitable.
7. Unsupported belief that those who oppose a harmful racial cause must be fired, fined, jailed, murdered, assaulted, ostracized or exploited, that thoughts contradicting the racial cause must be taboo.

The phrase mixed race can also be inserted wherever you see the word race above.

The above describes most whites before the 1950s and many self-described national socialists today. It also describes almost every nonwhite and white multiculturalist.

Counterarguments?

Only white people can be [insert bad traits]. Hmm. That sounds like another aspect of supremacism. Please show me the evidence that that only white people blah, blah, blah. Because it doesn't exist.

But that's not what dictionaries or social science glossaries say. Dictionaries and glossaries are not authorities on ethical definitions. Their definitions on ethical issues consist mainly of ad populum definitions or rhetorical definitions concocted by activists.

Multiculturalists Sacrificing Their Jobs

We almost never see good jobs having White or Jewish or Asian supporters of affirmative action volunteer to donate their good jobs for the cause, thus allowing their employers to hire less wealthy nonwhites. Why should they have good jobs if humans and human races are interchangeable?

They could reply that they are in favor of affirmative action for society as a whole. Their own jobs are supposedly irrelevant. They could claim they are desperately needed at their jobs, that no one else has the skills. But if humans are interchangeable, why can't replacements be found or trained?

Maybe they believe the r*cists in their trailer park centers of power are the ones keeping nonwealthy nonwhites down, not genes, not multiculturalists on Wall Street and elsewhere. (Please don't hurt yourself laughing.)

No rhetorical trick eliminates the contradiction of telling others to do something one is unwilling to do when no relevant differences allegedly exist. If necessary, affirmative action supporters could train their replacements, as Whites often do for the H1-B invasion.

But as I mentioned before, almost no multicultural contradiction is too great for multiculturalists to dismiss or ignore.

Millions of potential candidates to donate their jobs exist, for example, Paul Campos, a professional opinion maker and law professor from Colorado. Campos isn't competent at opinion making, especially his ethnoracial arguments. His recent New York Times article lambastes "white privilege" and racial economic inequality without even attempting to tease out alternative causal factors such as IQ, age, conscientiousness, marriage status, felony record, education level, education choices, relevant experience, and number of working adults per household. Campos criticizes white privilege without mentioning other racial groups with higher incomes than whites. He also cites junk science.

The best thing you can say about Campos is that he noticed we have an oversupply of lawyers but so have millions of other unemployed and underemployed nonwhites.

Campos posts on this pro-totalitarianism message board as poster Paul, where he frequently calls whites super slurs. And in terrific irony, Campos often invokes Dunning-Kruger when demonizing whites. Oh, where or where is the mirror for Paul Campos to look into? Where is his cognitive dissonance? Campos lived his life fleeing from low functioning diversity and should have donated his jobs decades ago.

But for some odd reasons, multicultural sacrifices keep getting shifted onto nonwealthy whites.

The Disastrous Politics of Hobson's Choices

Multiculturalism creates a politics of Hobson's choices, of choosing only among harmful alternatives, pressuring voters to choose between crooked, pro life, somewhat less antiwhite establishment Republicans or pro choice, more antiwhite, somewhat less crooked New Democrats.

In both cases, redistributing income to the powerful ranks above other priorities.

When establishment Republicans are in power, few federal pro life policies result. Research suggests that in the past few generations, millions of pro lifers threw away their previous beliefs on thousands of issues merely so they could be on the "pro life" team, an ultimate litmus test. The study concluded as "individuals realigned their party affiliation in accordance with their initial abortion views, their other political views followed suit." I wonder about other reasons though, since these "race blind" pro lifers arrange their lives to be far from low functioning diversity. They also arrange to not notice that most abortions are spontaneous, seldom recommending policies to reduce the likelihood of spontaneous abortions. Many muticulturalists ignore the abortion angle and imagine the Republican appeal rests mostly on ethnoracial "dog whistling," though establishment Republicans harm whites far more than they help whites.

Congressional New Democrats talk about the minimum wage most often when they know it has no chance of passing, leaving local governments to pass sometimes excessive minimum wage increases. Federal Democratic officials often fail to promote immigration restrictions, tighter labor markets, payroll tax cuts, and other policies that would be more efficient at helping lower income workers. Presumed egalitarian Barack Obama oversaw levels of inequality not seen for several generations. Donald Trump works to expand redistributions to the top, regarding the expansion of play money for Carl Icahn and wealthy individuals as more important to him than the lives of ordinary Americans.

Some call it tribalism, but ordinary voters have little role in the so-called tribes, except as useful voters and minor donors, gaining massive harms while misusing their votes and money. Tribalism relies on close kin. Contemporary Western multicultural politics emphasizes non-kin gang tyranny in the short term, although some kin nepotism exists alongside, as with the Bushes and Clintons. George H.W. Bush would not state the obvious: that his sons were unfit for office. The Clintons won't admit the obvious about Chelsea. In both, egoism rules, forcing altruists or ethical individuals to splinter or figure out ways of reducing gang power. With multiculturalism, bait-and-switch and divide-and-screw are even more rampant than in small tribes. In small tribes, usurpers are seldom far from overthrowing the chief's power.

When multiculturalism reaches its end state, kin gangism takes over.

In many free rider problems, ordinary individuals opt out of reform attempts because their individual efforts contribute so little. The larger the polity, the less influence most individuals have. We now have a nation preoccupied with politics, or at least political infotainment and demonization mongering, but the establishments seldom change, except to increase rent seeking and to become more anti-white. Progressives wonder why Hillary Clinton didn't step aside to let the more electable Sanders run. They fail to understand that genetic egoism functions on individual genes and psychological egoism functions on the individual organism. The party is not an individual. Congresspersons would much rather keep their seats and have the other party in control than lose their seat and have their own party in control, which is why establishment politicians support gerrymandering to protect their own political offices, even when it hurts their party. Ordinary partisans sacrifice for parties dominated by egoism, but the party insiders sacrifice primarily for themselves.

Neither party cares about fiduciary duties to future generations. Both support dysgenics. Both rely on technology, faulty stats, and increased workforce participation by women to maintain the illusion of normalcy. Both support non-white overpopulation. Both support reckless militarism on behalf of profiteering, grandstanding, and rallying tactics, not to mention as distractions from domestic wrongs. Neoconservatives try to distance themselves from Bush II and Paul Wolfowitz, even as they promote similar policies.

George W. Bush attained a 90 percent approval rating in the aftermath of 9/11, the best in Gallup's presidential polling history, despite having zero major moral accomplishments in his life. It's chilling to think what some other present and future multicultural politicians will do to rescue their popularity with voters or their colleagues and the donor classes.

Progressives eschew the foreign interventions of neoconservatism, preferring other destructive interventions, plus much more domestic warfare on whites and other perceived enemies.

The seemingly thoughtful demand race blind policies, only to find themselves ostracized or the policies failing. They haven't thought carefully enough. The incentives for both evolutionary and psychological egoism are too great, the genetic and cultural differences among groups too huge, though they manage to believe the straw person of "only because of their skin color." Many of the seemingly race blind only pretend to be race blind. Barack Obama pretended to be above the fray, "acting presidential," while appointing the likes of Eric Holder and encouraging most of the mass media to demonize those telling the truth. George W. Bush did likewise, letting Karl Rove, Fox News, and talk radio do the dirty work.

Hobson's choice politics occurs in dysfunctional nonmulticultural societies as well, but multiculturalism amplifies problems.

The dynamics are somewhat similar but less worse for now in other Western countries, worsening as other Western countries breed and import more nonwhites. And as they replace nuclear families with dysgenic breeding by single parents. No establishment politician would dare say, "If you insist on being a single parent, please go to a sperm bank and get the highest character sperm you can find of your own race. Stop sexing it up with individuals devoted to con artistry," though saying so would be more ethical than anything most of them have ever said.

When individuals support lesser evils, lesser evils become more powerful, greater evils. Individuals capable of great but lesser evils have little difficulty transitioning to greater evils.

We must reject the pressures to choose bad teams. Most contemporary political parties in the West must end. Individuals must politically fight for their right of self-determination. Organize, then organize some more.

The Effing A**hole Gene?

On occasion, writers defend the low activity variants of MAOA, the so-called warrior gene, a phrase they consider a misnomer because individuals with the low activity variants are likely to lash out at perceived wrongs done to themselves. (Since warriors fight both just and unjust wars, the phrase seems generous.)

Isn't fighting wrongs a good thing?

Yes. We shouldn't create societies riven with immoral cowardice, easy prey for egoism, including psychopathy. But often a chasm exists between a real wrong and a perceived wrong.

At least one study suggests individuals with a low activity variant are more willing to physically punish others for a "provocation." But the study doesn't measure whether these individuals might consider other acts, especially beneficial acts by political opponents, as provocations.

A study of New Zealanders abused as children by Caspi and Moffitt concluded that 80 percent of males with a low activity variant displayed anti-social tendencies, more than than twice the frequency (35 percent) of anti-social tendencies among formerly abused males with the high activity variant. Abused children are noteworthy because they inherit genes for aggression from their parents and they grow up in cultures extolling aggression. If you date someone who was abused by a parent and they claim they would never do what their parent did to their own children, yet display other character defects, you probably should be skeptical about their claim. When children start screeching or misbehaving, there is a good chance they will pound the hell out of them, forgetting their previous promises.

Unless Caspi and Moffitt use a bad definition of anti-social tendencies, it doesn't sound as if the low activity variants cause individuals to fight the right fights.

We should create individuals who respond correctly to wrongs, stopping and preventing harms by those committing them and sometimes punishing those committing them. We should not create more individuals with a general tendency to lash out at the world or ethical outgroups. Most of us have met individuals who believe they have suffered a wrong in one place, then decide to get drunk, drive drunk, and start fights elsewhere as a response. Hollywood audiences love anti-heroes with rotten causes.

We should have an explosion of research on MAOA, but studies on MAOA variants don't seem frequent in the past few years. Not surprisingly, social scientists are busy crafting and rigging studies on behalf of cultural Marxism. We must find out how beneficial or harmful the variants of MAOA are.

Groups more likely to have the low activity variants, including racial groups, have consistently supported one totalitarianism or another throughout their histories, no matter how IQ they are. They pretend to be opponents of totalitarianism mainly when it helps their agendas, then look the other way as their allies implement tyranny. Their intuitions of right and wrong on important political issues are wrong the overwhelming majority of the time, often thinking it right to assault anyone who tells a truth they don't want to hear, even while they support their own right to demonize others with scurrilous, fallacious language, not noticing or caring about self-contradictions. And if you point out the contradictions to them, they'll attack. They think it perfectly acceptable to have the entire mass media dominated by individuals in general agreement with their fallacious intuitions.

Now it could be the case that the low activity variants of MAOA are accidentally correlated with totalitarian behavior among those groups. But whatever the causes, we shouldn't be conducting experiments with the lives of billions in ways almost guaranteed to increase tyranny.

I sure would like to know whether the individuals who slur centrist nonmulticulturalists as Nazis, then then think they have the right to assault us and take away our rights, have the low activity variants of MAOA or what other genes predispose them to support totalitarianism.

Living Without Highly Visible Leaders

Richard Spencer is an intelligent and articulate man, but he has no business being in a position of leadership, especially after the aggrandization tour. Whatever he touches from now on will be massively tarnished with spurious guilt by association attacks from the media, if that wasn't the case already.

He is winging it. That's not how political pros do it. Contemporary politicians may look like the are winging it, because they sometimes commit gaffes. but they often carefully plot according to political science research and the demands of their donors. Advisers can often quietly recite politicians' talking points as politicians say them.

I haven't read all of Spencer's writings, but I have seen no evidence his street protest strategies are more beneficial than harmful. Various nonmulticultural causes were rapidly attracting followers long before Spencer's rallies started.

Despite recent growth, mostly arising as a response to the evils of diversity, Spencer at least unconsciously knows the current political position of nonmulticulturalists is extremely weak. That's likely why he seeks to "unite the right," to garner more followers under his umbrella, no matter the character defects of some. But there is nothing moral to gain by uniting with Hitler's followers or others prone toward unethical, reckless actions.

Wise men do not do desperate things. Why would Spencer try to unite with these types? To give a street performance venue for protecting their speech rights? They can do than on their own.

James Fields has a legal case for self-defense. He does not have a moral case for goodness. He had no business being at that rally. (Neither did the now dead woman.) It could have been worse. Spencer is lucky as hell that some attendee didn't open up with an automatic rifle. And if Spencer keeps holding political rallies, it will be only a matter of time before someone does, thus bringing the full weight of the multicultural media, military industries crashing down on nonmulticulturalists.

Spencer's political prescriptions are often vague, so we don't know what he really stands for. For all we know, he could support Hitler's ideas. Spencer should remove himself from the limelight.

Too much opportunism exists on this planet, it should not be supported merely because it opposes the establishments.

But who will lead? Right now, not having publicly visible leaders would be a good thing. Numerous belief belief systems throughout history have spread without having highly visible leaders. Famous leaders become targets of establishments. The spread of nonmulticultural facts on the Internet and elsewhere should eventually lead to self-determination.

Failing that, let the multiculturalists overreach. Let them conduct a slaughter worse than 9/11 against ordinary moms and dads, then liberate Western institutions from totalitarianism. But what about the innocents? Many moms and dads are not so innocent. Most are currently multiculturalists. Many of them gloat and cackle as multiculturalists spread tyranny and commit thousands of assaults per year. Them being hoisted on their own petard is sad but not our fault. I hope they change their ways for themselves and almost everyone else.

Whites will not be wiped out as long we stop supporting leaders devoted to bait-and-switch and divide-and-screw practices. Easy to say. Difficult to do.

Many Sides Now

Donald Trump received severe criticism from the mass media for saying "many sides" in his condemnation of Charlottesville, creating outrage among multiculturalists twisting his words and claiming he expressed moral equivalence.

They're slightly right.

There is little ethical equivalence.

We stereotype. They stereotype. Only the anencephalic and others with severe brain problems don't stereotype. Our generalizations are more ethically accurate. Not surprisingly, multiculturalists support or oppose stereotyping depending on who is doing the stereotyping and how, trying to prevent their allies from facing ethnoracial criticism while they excoriate whites, using totalitarian force often enough to keep populations compliant. Few self-contradictions are too great for multiculturalists to ignore.

For multiculturalists, it is more than the current year. It is the current week. And Charlottesville tells the story. They act as if we arrived on this planet a few days ago and have forgotten their billions of lies. The lies about Ferguson. The lies on thousands of other issues. Like every totalitarian force in history, they act is if repeating a fallacy thousands of times turns the fallacy into a relevant truth. (As if fallacy filled news weren't enough, they spread umpteen thousand examples of sadistic and nihilistic art into living rooms.)

Muslims, Antifas, Neoconservatives, New Democrats, and other multiculturalists committed millions of acts of political violence during the first 17 years of this century, most of them unjustified. On a per capita basis, they commit dozens of times more unjustified political violence than contemporary nonmulticulturalists.

They have few qualms.

Nonsense rules. They claim that if a Muslim had rammed a car into nonbelievers, the media would be more strident. Oh, really. Like the dozens of times Muslims have already rammed nonbelievers and received a fraction of Charlottesville's coverage.

For years, multiculturalists heaped praise when multiculturalists assaulted peaceful nonmulticultural and counter jihad protesters, blaming the peaceful protesters for the assaults multiculturalists committed. They saw little wrong with not condemning multicultural aggression, but now Trump must be further demonized for including many sides in his condemnation. Little Trump could have said would have placated them, except demanding that everyone who opposes cultural Marxism in any way be treated as if they committed terrorism. And we know what types of downward spirals that leads to.

Fact facing whites seek self-determination, a most important right, a right most nonwhites grant to themselves but deny to outgroups, including Copts and Tibetans. A small sample fallacy of a few individuals in Charlottesville carried the despicable symbols of Nazism and the KKK. To multiculturalists, that indicates nonwealthy whites must have their rights stripped. To them, factual criticisms of multiculturalism must be ignored and straw persons created. To them, anyone who voted for Trump or opposes cultural Marxism now believes in Nazism. Seriously. Go read what they are writing. Twenty years ago writers would often be ridiculed for overusing false Nazi analogies. Not anymore. They act as if labels and analogies are evidence. No one taught most of them otherwise. And they aren't interested in finding the truth on their own. As their narratives shift in ever worse directions, dissent from their narratives receives even less tolerance.

They called themselves fair minded even as they destroyed America and excluded almost all well-reasoned counter evidence to their views. They denied the realities of logic, ethics, dysgenics, behavioral genetics, developing country overpopulation, irreconcilable cultural differences when doing so benefited own causes.

We warn about the horrors that will ensue if the present multicultural paths continue as has happened in thousands of previous societies. They reply with irrelevancies: stop whining, get a life, get a better job, light candles in the dark, and so on.

Oh, yes.

Get better jobs. So we can contradict ourselves as blatantly as they do. For multiculturalists in today's world, the primary point of having a better job is to afford a home far from low functioning diversity while trying to coerce low functioning diversity on others. And what if we all did get better jobs and all moved to decent all white neighborhoods? Then they'd complain about inequality and segregation, trying to undo such efforts. Their version of lighting candles in the dark is forcing others to make sacrifices of misplaced altruism on behalf those working to destroy us. Wealthy multiculturalists, who have never sent two cents of their own money to Oxfam, nevertheless feel ethically superior for using totalitarian coercion to ruin the lives of nonwealthy whites.

When cornered and forced to face their evil behaviors, multiculturalists then try to justify their totalitarian acts against living whites by citing now irrelevant evil acts done by long dead whites while ignoring far more evils done by their ancestors.

They spew billions upon billions of slurs at nonmulticulturalists and at each other. So ethically tone deaf are they that they do not even regard the slurs they spew as slurs, remaining self-unaware but automatically assuming the worst motives about any plausible enemy, which includes anyone who tells the moral truth more often than not.

Many on the Alt Right and Alt Light also have slur spewing habits but at least nonmulticulturalists have many writers who do not frequently resort to slurs. Even seemingly mild mannered multiculturalists resort to slurs when shifting to ethnoracial issues.

Many establishments assumed they could keep the population compliant and make more money if they allowed dissent but kept it in obscure corners, so that few ever read well-reasoned dissent, and the few that read it were hectored into regretting it. (Countries that murder anyone for any perceived thought crime have abysmal economies, even for many elites.) But too many individuals now know the real agendas of the establishments.

Paradoxes of hedonism fill their lives. They seek comfort by watching gossip and violence. Yet the dose must increase because their lives have few legitimate ethical purposes. Contrary to myth, for most individuals of various races and political ideologies, hate is a feel good emotion. They incite unjust wars for profits and to provide relief from the excruciating ennui of their lives. Now they want bigger wars with China, Russia or North Korea: anti-national multiculturalists in one country are supposed to kill anti-national multiculturalists in another country to eliminate the supposed scourges of nationalism and pan Europeanism. It doesn't matter to them that few contemporary individuals supporting militarism are actual nationalists of any kind.

They count on the wishy-washiness of present majorities. They don't need to devise pills to control the ideological majorities, although they could. Electronic technologies serve almost as well.

Like multiculturalists, many supposed white activists seem to be seeking excitement and escapes from boredom rather than building a decent future. Multiculturalists bait whites. Don't let them bait us. No matter how lopsided the aggression reality, they know they can still use a few small sample fallacies to increase the rhetorical power of their narratives. Frankly, many whites at Charlottesville were up to no good.

Instead of waiting for the multiculturalists to overreach, Richard Spencer overreaches. You'd think he'd learn a lesson from all the overreaching done by leaders in the past. All it takes is a few violent acts by nonmulticulturalists and the establishments pounce, destroying goodwill generated by more thoughtful nonmulticultural thinkers. When your allies don't control the mass media megaphones, little good comes from your street protests.

Donald Trump is not the last chance to save whites from unmitigated hells. And he has no intention of helping most whites anyway.

The focus on the Confederacy is poison. It is not present and forward looking. It has little spirit of beneficence. It opens old wounds and alienates potential allies. Multiculturalists seldom waste time protecting statues of Lenin and Stalin. They're busy expanding their global dominance. The New Right Subreddit features artwork of what looks like Kaiser Bill's soldiers. Right away, they've alienated many first time visitors. All loud on the wrong fronts.

We must not pursue self-determination while glorifying those who denied self-determination to others.

The Attack by the Driver in Charlottesville was despicable. No Further Words for Now.

Willingness to Accept All the Excellent Reasons

On occasion, a multiculturalist will treats it as acceptable to oppose mass nonwhite migration if you worry about decreasing wages or losing your job but unacceptable to oppose migration and multiculturalism for every other damn good reason.

So opposing migration and multiculturalism because of crime, dysgenics, genocide, corruption, ruined schools, congested roads, cultural destruction, increased pollution, wrecked nieghborhoods, anti-democratic practices, militarization of police, loss of trustworthiness, loss of speech freedoms, one-sided mass media, divide-and-screw practices, ever more hostile de facto colonial rule, multicultural incitement of antiwhite hatred, and so on is treated as inherently off limits for no good reason.

So let's say your daughter has a mixed race kid, then she is predictably abandoned. Your daughter then follows her next whim, leaving you with the mixed race kid, who will in many cases grow hostile toward you and other whites (peer cultures trump nurture assumptions). And while you are raising the grandchild, in all his insolent glory, you probably will be experiencing excruciating health problems. But only a "bigot" could oppose such dating and breeding, though you are harmed far, far worse than losing a job. And multitudes of other results are even worse than the grandparents being cuckolded scenario.

But all that ethical evidence is treated as worthless or offensive because most people care less about evidence once issues shift from the more pragmatic and technical to the more ethical.

Sanctions, Selling Out, and Salami Slicing

Trump signed the Russia sanctions today. Some evidence suggests sanctions fail, though some other evidence suggests while sanctions fail, the threat of them against some elites has some influence. Against Russian elites with a track record of paranoia the sanctions will likely lead to more tit for tat conflicts.

Almost every politician for over a century has sold out the people. It is difficult to think of a single one who has not. Even the politicians uninterested in personal wealth engaged in cronyism, militarism, kin nepotism, cultural Marxism or all four. A few preoccupied themselves with leaving admired legacies, never mind that when Muslims and multiculturalists take over, they trash perceived outgroup legacies. Being popular with professional historians and opinion makers is an ad populum fool's errand.

The sellout by Trump ranks among the oddest. On the important issues, Trump sold out to neoconservatives and New Democrats who publicly insulted and humiliated him millions of times. While neoconservatives don't call him "Fucko," "Shithead," "Trumpanzee," "Piss Hair," "Der Fuhrer" and so on as much as the multicultural left, they do it often enough.

Even after Trump's cave ins, neoconservatives continue to attack him.

Saudi royals likely hate the Western "leaders" they bribe and manipulate. That's what you get with Islam and dysgenic practices, but Saudi royals seldom publicly insult those they have bribed. Despite ranking with North Korea in the evil department, the Saudis royals try to act publicly cordial.

While the Overton windows for many individuals have been shifting toward facing facts despite social stigma and legal punishments, Trump's keeps narrowing his to the confines of Planets Pentagon, J Street, and Wall Street.

It wouldn't surprise me if Congressional leaders have subtly informed Trump to do what they say or they'll support efforts to impeach him. Salami slicing applies in the domestic arena as well as the international. We should have little interest in the Spratly Islands. And we should have no interest in World War III. But in the domestic arena, Trump has much more leverage, yet he caves repeatedly while reaping few rewards from the individuals he caves in to. Congress wouldn't consider impeaching him if he did the right things because Congress would face a backlash.

Trump seems big on family nepotism, but if he keeps this up, all his children and grandchildren will end up dead.

The John Kasich Based Base

If the establishments want to see whether I can turn purple with anger, they can keep promoting the John Kasich is the "voice of reason" horse crap.

Kasich supports guest worker programs but also opposes sending illegals back, whether by force or punishing employers. If he won't send illegals back, how willing will Kasich be to get guest workers to go home at the end of their guest period? Kasich won't.

Kasich claimed to support the border wall, then became outraged when Trump ordered a travel ban on some of the worst individuals on the planet. Kasich is a bait and switch master.

Kasich's foreign policy views are straight out of the failed neoconservative playbook.

Kasich supports balanced budgets mixed with policies that would make the balanced budgets disastrous due in part to an economics accounting identity:
(exports - imports) = (private savings - private investments) + (government taxes - government spending)

If an empire (Lord knows which one) has a trade sector of -$502 billion (trade deficit) and balanced budgets for a given year, it must have -$502 billion net in the domestic private sector (-$502 billion = -$502 billion + O).

So what's wrong with that?

If you have -$502 billion in the domestic private sector now, you get financial tumors, also known as bubbles, including in the auto, housing, and tuition loan sectors.

In a nation with no trade deficit or trade surplus, it's splendid to have balanced budgets and no net amount in the domestic private sector (0 = 0 + 0), as long as the economy does not suffer from demand shortages. But that is not our economy.

Kasich's website supports the repeal of Obamacare and the replacement of it with a bunch of vague mumbo jumbo about cooperation.

When contemporary politicians talk in vague platitudes, that's when we need to protect our lives and wallets. When contemporary Democratic and Republican establishments cooperate, mass destruction results.

Secessions Must Be on the Basis of Race and Beliefs, Not Existing State Borders

Secession at the state level solves few major problems. Huge divides exist within blue and red states. If California secedes, New Democrats will run it, or at least be the public face of power, until Marxian Hispanics take over, then Muslims take over, including Hispanic and other converts to Islam. If Texas secedes, Rick Perry's donors will run Texas until the likes of Hugo Chavez take over, then the likes of Ibrahim Hooper replace them, with much violence resulting.

It is more accurate to call the left a coalition of incompatibles than what Steve Sailer calls a coalition of fringes. The same goes for the right.

In the long term, the following will not live together harmoniously:

1. black firsters
2. Muslims
3. Amerindian groups
4. anarcho-Marxists
5. Greens
6. New Democrats
7. New Dealers
8. Mexican firsters
9. many others

The few remaining New Dealers will opt out or be wiped out.

On the so-called right, little harmony will exist among:

1. open borders Libertarians
2. neoconservative secularists and Wall Streeters
3. neoconservative evangelicals
4. Amish and Mennonites
5. nonmulticulturalists
6. multicultural counter jihadists
7. many others

Neoconservatives and Libertarians will import more nonwhites until the current red states are bluer than the current blue states.

There is little to gain from US state or county level secessions because of large transition costs combined with few policy reforms. The same problem faces the UK. It doesn't matter much in the long term whether globalist multiculturalists rule you from London or Brussels. The totalitarianism is similar, though economic policies shift somewhat.

The mass media play down within blue and red divides because they are invested in maintaining the power of establishments, including themselves. So when the mass media occasionally encourage states to secede, what they really support is the maintenance of present power arrangements without interference from the other major political party, at least in the short term.

They are too fanatical and hedonistic to give a crap about the long term.

The Seldom Quotable Koran

Among the conspicuous by its absence items of our time is the fact that our Islam loving mass media seldom quote the Koran (or Hadiths). They far more often dig up quotes from The Bible. Nevertheless, Pew claims over 70 percent of Muslims "across most of the African nations polled," believe the Koran "should be taken literally, word for word."

One beloved assertion the media do print: "If anyone slays a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people. And if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people," is unclear, misquoted, and quoted out of context. No matter the meaning, one does not equal multitudes. Mass murder is worse than one murder.

Years ago I put a few synonyms for unbeliever(s) into this searchable Koran. By my count, the Koran contains at least 161 despicable claims about infidels and probably many more, a preoccupation in a comparatively small religious text, including at least nine rotten claims of the "right hand possess" variety, a reference to the rape slavery of unbelievers. It is easy to see why individuals imbued with egoism and sadism support the Koran. For the rest of us? No.

It is a text in which an ethical individual will find exactly nothing worth putting in their ethical toolkit.

But to our mass media, the Koran is simultaneously sacred, off limits to opprobrium, and seldom worth accurately quoting for some odd reason.

Legitimate Propinquity: Caring More About Evils in the West

Someone once criticized whites because we care more about Rotherham than evils in nonwhite places.

Here's one reason why we should care more: because nonwhites seldom take ethical advice from whites anyway, so there's little point. (You might as well waste time ordering a volcano to stop erupting.)

Yes, nonwhites take practical advice, for example, planting a new strain of grain. They'll also take advice on how to exploit and destroy whites, but the latter is not ethical advice.

Ironically, if you start writing about Boko Haram or other evils in developing countries, they'll slur you as a troll, racist or Islamophobe. (In 2016, an increase of the troll epithet was used to ban or dismiss unwanted truths. Where once trolling applied to inciting mindless internet spats, the word is now used to fanatically dismiss political counter evidence.)

Rotherham is part of our civilization, something we have a little influence over.

When it comes to multiculturalists, you get what you tolerate when they have the power to implement it. The more we acquiesce, the more evils explode. If we ignored Rotherham, which the British establishment tried to do for years, you get more Rotherhams. Opposing the events in Rotherham is more than just protecting the rights of girls in Rotherham. It helps prevent worse.

Every federal elected official in the United States is, to put it in ad hominem terms, crooked. Each is also, to varying degrees, a multiculturalist. The 1.0 correlation coefficient is no coincidence. It is extremely difficult to get multicultural whites to see beyond themselves, their friends, their close kin, and their feel good xenocentrism. Even a few nonmulticulturalists seem to care more about lifeless confederate statues than living whites in South Africa.

Most nonwhite adults, and many whites, support anti-white supremacism, waging an unconventional, long term war of aggression. Even the uber multicultural War Nerd admitted it in "War of the Babies." It is ethically wrong to aid individuals, who support aggression. Misplaced altruism created multitudes of horrors in the past and will create horrors for future generations. "Common humanity" is an irrelevant genetic fallacy. Fighting just, nonviolent, unconventioanl wars should inspire us as much as just, conventional wars.

Simply because nonwhites suffered from genetic and environmental bad luck doesn't relieve them from the bare minimum of ethical duties to not support aggression, no matter how unconventional.

Adults who won't organize and fight for their legitimate claims deserve less compassion, too. I have little sympathy for Soviet citizens who tolerated Soviet invasions and other evils. Solzhenitsyn noted that Chechen gangs (predictably) stuck together while whites were solitary gulag sufferers with their immoral universalism. There's a world of difference between an ethical martyr and a cowardly martyr. The latter's self-pity and hope in eternal reward has almost no power to make the world better. If there is an ethical God(s), who judges after death, why would that God send cowardly, fanatical, xenocentric individuals to heaven? Bertrand Russell had a few scathing remarks about pious, feeble religiosity.

Over a decade ago, Slate published dozens of articles about the poor, wonderful Kurds, many with "Kurd Sellout Watch" in the title. Guess how those wonderful Kurds behave when they become refugees? Like you would expect Southwest Asians to behave.

Obama hectored us about being afraid of women and children. Damn right we should be afraid. Fact facers know what those women have between their ears and what those children will grow into. We know their devotion to evolutionary and psychological egoism.

The Cycle of Contemporary Ruin

1. wealthy, rent seeking multiculturalists run the country
2. wrongs increase
3. wealthy, rent seeking multiculturalists and their mass media affix blame
4. wealthy, rent seeking multiculturalists and their mass media support somewhat different wealthy, rent seeking multiculturalists
5. voters vote for somewhat different wealthy, rent seeking multiculturalists
6. back to step one, repeat for decades

The Hard Ways Out Are the Most Likely Ways Out of the Multicultural Catastrophe

After a this or that somewhat publicized evil by the multiculturalists, some whites announce that they have had enough. A few go into mad as hell Howard Beale mode. (Note that Howard Beale didn't offer specifics. That hurts movie sales. Most humans are so riddled with fanaticism they do not tolerate hearing specifics that differ from the official myths of their teams. And if Beale had offered specifics, he would have spewed Hollywood nostrums.)

So multiculturalism must end now, some say.

How? Or what?

Multiculturalists live in a massive ideological bubble but so do many nonmulticulturalists. We massively misperceive our power. We can't just stroll into institutions of power and force the present occupants out. They will arrest or murder us. Despite their wrongs over the past 50 plus years, multiculturalists are entrenched, controlling almost all the mass media and other Western institutions. Contemporary political violence increases their power.

Majorities or pluralities often tell pollsters they oppose mass nonwhite immigration, yet they won't vote for even Gert Wilders, Marine Le Pen, and other slightly edgy assimilationists. Millions did vote for Donald Trump's obvious bait-and-switch of mostly Randian neoconservatism.

The masses in the West have made it clear that they don't care enough about slowly escalating cultural Marxism to organize ethically and effectively, not wanting their work and hedonism interrupted with unpleasant truths. Multiculturalists figured how to manipulate us into a sickness unto death. Even evils committed by multiculturalists are followed by more demonizations of whites, attacking the moral and psychological weaknesses of whites, creating havoc and demoralization.

Our paths out of the cultural Marxism mess are limited. To wit:

1. Keep reasoning until at least one super rich individual converts to nonmulticulturalism and purchases a mass media outlet with quality commentators. It should eventually occur. And by conversion, I don't mean conversion to Nazism, empty counter-jihadism or crypto neoconservatism. Nazism and neoconservatism must be opposed wherever they appear. The problem is that almost nothing is sacred to most billionaires, except their own egoism. They despise the people they rule over. If their wives were murdered by a nonwhite, they would find a new model. Other humans are fungible objects to them. Piercing their bubbles will not be easy. But the increasing demands for economic Marxism by nonwhites could result in enough pearl clutching to change a few of their worldviews.
2. Build cities on a hill or in this case, villages on a hill. Organize a few whites to create model villages that say to other whites, "This is what you're missing." The villages must be religious to avoid government desegregation policies. They must be environments nonwhites want to avoid. They must have ethical bootcamps to weed out infiltrators, the lukewarm, and the indolent. They must be sustainable, not driven merely by a charismatic leader. Ideally, retirees and the independently wealthy would be driving forces since they can't be fired or boycotted into poverty.
3. Endure major disasters (epidemics, supervolcano eruptions, etc.) large enough to break the power of totalitarian governance. Famished whites won't support cultural Marxism. This is what is meant by a the worse, the better strategy, not the gradual infliction of ever greater cultural Marxism. Events like 9/11 are not large enough to change results for the better. Such events increase the power of multicultural police states, creating the worse, the worse. In an ethical society, 9/11 would have been more than enough to rid multiculturalism, but ethics left the establishment political houses long ago.
4. Encourage secessions almost everywhere. Let people separate by beliefs and genetics. A Calexit makes other exits more probable. Without separations egoism and misplaced altruism win.

Terraforming other planets and other radical alternatives are far beyond our financial and technological means.

The above requires hard work and imposes large short term transition costs but for greater rewards. Our ancestors made great sacrifices for us and many contemporary whites decided to repay those sacrifices by defecating all over the Western bed, rewriting history to fit only specious cultural Marxian narratives. There will be no great awakening from this or that small terror attack, no matter how many of them occur. And hoping for a spontaneous great awakening is a lazy fantasy that ignores the massive indoctrination power of the mass media and other powerful institutions.

We must be up to the challenges.

Traveling for Work. I May Not Post for Several Days.

Children in India Know Who General Dyer Was. Should we?

India is now the second or third largest source of legal migrants to the US and a fast growing source of illegal migration.

Establishments think little about the long term ramifications. The more Indians we import, the more political power they gain, the more they lobby for more Indian migration and anti-white privilege (as other nonwhite groups do). Instead of the comparatively high IQ Indian elites we import now, we will import more Indians having lower IQs and hypertribalistic behaviors, plus more of their increasing Muslim population. The estimated mean phenotype IQ in India is 82, probably a little lower than the mean genotype IQ because of the abysmal cultures and other environments in India.

Like other nonwhites, Indians are not shy about practicing egoism, kin nepotism, and racial nepotism. Stories abound of massive Indian cheating on tests, and of Indian workers taking over US companies, hiring kin, and firing non-Indians.

Something slightly similar happened before. The first Cubans to migrate to the US were whiter, higher IQ, and better working. The later Cuban arrivals, not so much. Much of Miami turned into hellholes, places many wouldn't recognize as part of the US, though other diverse groups deserve much of the blame.

A big difference is that India's population is about 150 times larger than Cuba's.

If China and India fight a war against each other, we face Indian and Chinese migrant populations fighting the war by direct or other means on our shores. If India and Pakistan fight, more imported destruction for us. If one or more have a nuclear or conventional war against us, even worse.

Most Indians cannot afford airfare to the US now, but as elsewhere, humanity movers will increasingly succeed with exploitative quid pro quo arrangements to deliver migrants. Some already have.

India has much potential for irrelevant historical grievance mongering, including the Bengal famine of World War II, though most of the blame for the famine belongs to Axis countries, Indian dysgenics, and Indian overpopulation.

Then there's General Dyer: "Every schoolchild in India knows the momentous effect this incident had on the course of nationalist politics in India [a somewhat exaggeration]." The fact that General Dyer was white matters more than the fact he wasn't American. And thanks to multicultural control of all our major institutions, grievances escalate via propaganda.

Some white children know who General Custer and Lieutenant Calley were, but they are sources of great white shame, not motivation to exploit outgroups. Few white children know who Lazar Kaganovich was. And it is probably best young children don't, at least until they are older. Because children are more easily manipulated than adults, who are themselves easily manipulated.

Good luck with importing peoples with culturally and genetically driven egoism and grievances, no matter how well they pursue the "bitch-goddess Success" in the short term.

But the establishments wouldn't be reckless enough to import several hundred million Indians, would they? Why not? Cultural Marxism hasn't lost a major political battle since the Eisenhower Administration.

Tangled Up in Blue Words

Words are symbols made by humans with meanings concocted by humans. If we wanted, we could replace the word apple with numbers or the word erteyu. Most individuals would reject or ignore our new apple word. Some words feel good and some feel rotten. Some start out feel good, then become dysphemisms--the euphemism treadmill. The word retard was once a euphemism. The  government once made compassionate postage stamps with the words "Retarded Children" printed on them. Other words start out as dysphemisms, then are reappropriated as neutral or euphemistic, often only in specific contexts, for example, the word infidel in They Call Me Infidel. Using infidel in a different context could result in violence. Even words as unimportant as first names acquire negative or positive feelings over time. Few parents name their children Ralph or Betty anymore.

Many words--shithead and scumbag, for example--will likely remain slurs in most English fluent minds for as long as English exists.

Establishments and many others are masters of language tricks, rebranding themselves with more euphemistic words, trying to attach positive feelings to terrible ideas. James Kirchik has a new book out. I bet it seldom contains the word neoconservative, though neoconservative was once a euphemism. Neoconservative became more neutral or dysphemic in many minds due to horrific neoconservative actions. Instead, Kirchick's book contains plenty of the phrase liberal democracy, though neoconservatives regularly destroy democratic practices and much else. 

One Third Way group calls itself the Progressive Policy Institute to attract unwary progressives to the Democratic Party.

Many individuals reply with demagoguery to innocently intended words. If an elderly person uses the archaic neutral word lady, colored or oriental, they can find themselves demonized. Activists don't care what individuals intend. They twist words and meanings to fit their own totalitarian causes.

A few individuals with alternative beliefs act as if they can turn dysphemisms into euphemisms. But they cannot turn them into euphemisms because they lack the media power to do so. Most whites will never support groups that label themselves white nationalist or national socialist, no matter the attached beliefs. Those two phrases are political poison. In most white minds, those phrases represent Nazism, meaning mass murder, economic cronyism, and pro-Hitlerism. It doesn't matter to political readers whether they actually support pan-Europeanism or nationalist universalism or Teddy Rooseveltism or neoclassical pan-Arcticism or self-determination universalism.

When you don't control the mass media, you should not describe your beliefs with dysphemic terms, unless you prefer losing or your beliefs really are evil. Our attachments to labels should be minuscule compared to our commitments to people and better reasoned beliefs.

Dear Europeans: Please Leave NATO

It's less you, mostly us. Our neoconservative and third way dominated empire brings you more military harms than benefits. 

Russia's decaying multicultural, "civic nationalist" empire cannot gobble large chucks of outgroup neighbors without risking guerrilla wars, plus massive social and economic losses. China is too far away to project large conventional forces into Europe.

You have your own problems with austerity, globalism, and multicultural invasions, but at least many of your leaders lack extreme militarism. While your rulers engage in domestic treason and throw you in jail or ostracize you for telling truths, you still have a bit of control over their foreign policy militarism. The knee jerk militarism of our colonial rulers rivals that of Muslims. We must be better friends than we are now--outside the alliance.

Ignore sunk costs and the inertia of the status quo.

You don't want to risk being caught in a nuclear war between us and the world's most powerful nuclear arsenal. The aftermath of nuclear war will not be pure survivalism. The history of wars past suggests increased tit for tat conflicts in the aftermath.

The Longer, Stranger Trip of Sixto Rodriguez

In the early 1970s, Sixto Rodriguez created two albums of abysmal, didactic folk-rock music. Few copies sold, though a few big timers in the music industry regarded Rodriguez's work as fantastic. After losing his contract, Rodriguez vanished into greater obscurity, reemerging to tour Australia in 1979 and 1981. The ruthlessness of the music industry is such that even unprofitable "justice" acts can't be spared cash for long.

Unknown to Rodriguez, a few copies of his work traveled to South Africa. Bootleg copies spread, creating a sensation "bigger than Elvis" among White, multicultural South Africans. Since Rodriguez disappeared, South Africans believed rumors of his death.

In the late 1990s, fans found Rodriguez living a working class life in Detroit, informing Rodriguez of his superstar status in South Africa. Rodriguez then performed before adoring White, multiculturalist crowds in South Africa.

A 2012 Academy Award winning film, Searching for Sugar Man, documented the events, a story so bizarre, skeptical viewers may be excused for thinking the narrative is a ruse, a subtle mockumentary, but, in fact, the story is mostly true.

Now why am I wasting time on this?

Because the film came and went without much comment on nonmulticultural sites, though it has some relevance to understanding multicultural whites. The film gives an unintended lesson in how naive, creepy, and feel good orientated multiculturalism is. The lives of white multiculturalists lack moral purpose, and they vainly try to find purpose in the evils of cultural Marxism. No one in the film stops to say, "This music is cliched demagoguery, lacking hooks."

I wonder how many of those screaming and sobbing Rodriguez fans in South Africa are still multiculturalists or even alive.

The film reminds us how multiculturalism evolves as its power increases. They talk about what they imagine is justice, then years later the justice talk includes far more kill the whites rhetoric and actions.

Sounds Like a Eugenic Plan for Schools

We somewhat improve the academic performance of nonwhite disadvantaged children by sending them to almost all white schools. In other words, one environmental factor that lowers the performance of disadvantaged nonwhites is being around other lower IQ nonwhites, primarily through increased concentrations of rotten values and those children wrecking learning environments via misbehavior, plus quality individuals not wanting to teach in those schools. Mass media, of course, ignore the disadvantaged harming each other. They imagine institutional racism and vaguely bad neighborhoods as if bad neighborhood vapors were rising from sewers.

So let's help by sending every disadvantaged nonwhite student in America to schools that are almost all white.

Oh, wait.

Then those schools overflow with disadvantaged nonwhites, recreating the same problem and creating the additional problem of nonwhite children wrecking the social and learning environments for whites.

The way the scheme could work is by creating several billion more high IQ white children.

It almost sounds good, except for the fact that by itself it doesn't reverse cultural Marxian boring from within, not to mention the difficulty of creating several billion more white children.

We're better off with self-determination and complete separation.

Migrants and the Immune System: a Sickening Study

An article about a new study asserts "strong feelings about immigrants are controlled by something as surprising as the immune system."

"The research also shows that hypersensitive people are completely indifferent to any good intentions that immigrants might have to contribute to society." Because good intentions are fleeting and done for grandstanding and conspicuous tokenism reasons. Nonwhites gradually make things worse, then when society collapses, they almost always side with their own kind and blame the victims of their invasion.

"Those who are very concerned about the risk of infection are those who are most reluctant to seek out social contact with immigrants–something that we otherwise know fosters tolerance," says Associate Professor Lene Aarøe. Nope. Nope. Nope.

"People with a hypersensitive behavioral immune system do not avoid immigrants because they are consciously afraid of becoming ill if they interact with them. Immigrants are not a source of infection." Oh, really.

"If some people see dangers in immigrants that others don't, it's difficult to reach a mutual understanding with reason-based, rational arguments." Oh, please. Apparently, evidence from the billions of horrors caused by diversity doesn't matter. Circumstantial ad hominem attacks on people's immune systems and abusive ad hominem attacks on "hypersensitive people" are what matter. This study is more scientism gone wild, part of a trend in studies used to promote political policies unsupported by the research.

But "if people are concerned about an entirely different risk–and perhaps one they aren't even fully aware of–it's difficult to achieve a mutual understanding of what is the right policy."

Moriori Man: Hey, these migrants are really effing us over.
Moriori Woman: Oh, don't worry. It's just your hypersensitive immune system. Just relax and make more contact. Those thoughts will go away. They're plenty friendly to your face.

(later)
Moriori Woman: Why are we the last Moriori? Why are we being tortured and why are we slaves?

The article provides no evidence of any direction of causation, if any even exists. And any direction of causation between migrant acceptance and the immune system is ethically irrelevant anyway.

Studies of why multiculturalists have such poor ethical character would be much more beneficial to society.

Context on the Murders of South African Farmers

The official murder rate of (mostly white) South African farmers is 313 per 100,000 population. Some argue that the real number is larger, that the South African government deliberately undercounts.

To those less familiar with statistics, the annual number does not look astronomical by itself, but it means over the course of their lifetimes those farmers have at least a 20 percent chance of being murdered if the stat were to remain the same and nothing else changed. But like neighboring Zimbabwe, that stat will likely skyrocket.

In Zimbabwe, the former bread basket of Africa, the black ruling group's forces murdered white farmers and gave the farms to allies. Lacking the character, intelligence, and conscientiousness for modern farming, the new black farmers sold the farm equipment for scrap, leading to famine. Some hungry blacks resorted to starting brush fires, then eating animals that died in the conflagrations.

For comparison, much less than one percent of Americans were murdered during World War II by Axis countries. We frequently see photos of burned out Japanese cities from that era, but roughly three percent of Japanese died from war related causes during the same period.

America's murder rate in 2013 was about 64 times lower than among South African farmers.

If those White farmers were to organize, arm themselves, and carve out a country for themselves, the global multiculturalists would be outraged, though they permit nonwhites to defend themselves from much lesser threats.

Multiculturalists treat all of South Africa as present or future Bantu property because Bantus are indigenous to Africa. though whites migrated to those South African farms well before Bantus, who arrived after expanding their population from around Cameroon. Of course, multiculturalists don't treat all of Asia as Chinese or Indian property because that would be an irrelevant and ludicrous property claim.

But the irrelevant and ludicrous becomes conventional belief when it involves Whites.

The Content of Ethical Character

An internet poster once claimed, as best I remember, that no one on Earth judges by the content of character, those most vociferous in saying they do so are often least likely to judge based on real character.

That poster did have a bit of a point, though many individuals do somewhat judge according to character. Pollsters asking respondents for their most admired person tend to get wealthy celebrities and politicians having atrocious policies for answers, hardly examples of good character.

Our rulers regularly portray nonwhites as pious, humble, innocent, and filled with goodness, much to the surprise of fact facers, who live among large numbers ordinary nonwhites. The film Elysium takes this portrayal to hilarious extremes.

The few multiculturalists who talk the content of character talk run smack into multicultural dogma, power, and groupthink, then acquiesce.

Multicultural nonwhites behave as if:

1. they have a right to colonize Western countries but that their own countries should not be colonized by outgroups. 
2. they have a right to genocide whites but would wage war if anyone tried the same on their own ingroups. 
3. they should have freedom of association but whites should not. 
4. equality should be supported when it benefits themselves or their perceived allies but seldom otherwise. 
5. excessive self-interest is good, except in whites. 
6. eugenics related arguments are automatically very, very frightening, but ally themselves with individuals spreading many copies of their atrocious genes, leading to disasters.

Polls hint that large percentages of nonwhite Muslims think infidels, apostates, blasphemers, and females accused of adultery should all be murdered. Given the reluctance of humans to self-report such views to pollsters, the actual numbers are probably closer to 100 percent. The unstated end game of multiculturalism is nonwhite, endogamous Islam everywhere humans exist.

Individuals having such beliefs do not have good character, no matter how polite or hard working they appear.

Ironically, nonmulticulturalists behave closer to the content of character norm. Nonmulticulturalists are willing to make exceptions for Frank Salter and other ethical nonwhites.

Nonmulticulturalists should separate themselves from nonwhites because nearly all nonwhites are unable or unwilling to walk the content of character walk. Everyone has a right to avoid massive undeserved harms from ethnoracial outgroups. We should not be deemed "racist" for wanting to avoid those who seek to exploit and destroy us. (Anyone calling others the R word condemns and contradicts themselves with their own ad hominem claim.) Lack of freedom of association is a form of servitude, of not owning your own life.

The Bigger Story on Straw Person Attacks

On Reddit, a heavily upvoted thread discussed straw person attacks. The posters repeatedly wrote about distorting others' words. But there's more to the story.

If some ordinary stranger posts something preposterous on Twitter and we attack their claims, a straw person exists, even if you quote it exactly.

Taking a blatantly ironic comment and pretending the writer actually has that belief is also a straw person.

In short, a straw person is:

1. twisting someone's quote or otherwise pretending others have beliefs they are unlikely to have.
2. attacking easy, unimportant targets rather than presenting the strongest arguments that differ from your own.

The exception is if powerful individuals--billionaires, national politicians, university presidents--post preposterous ideas. It is not a straw person to attack their arguments because atrocious ideas in powerful hands have disastrous consequences.

But if all we do is ridicule powerful political opponents without addressing the strongest counterarguments to our own views, then that is also a straw person.

A cottage industry of mocking Trump's tweets and speeches now exists. That's sometimes good, but the people doing the mocking believe in neo-Marxism, neoconservatism, and other horrific ideologies. They're often merely trying to bolster their own rotten world views.

We also have a duty to focus more on what politicians do than what they say because previous behavior is a better guide than political boilerplate.

The power of contemporary establishments rests on slurs, straw person attacks, small sample claims, and other fallacies spread through the mass media. The individuals who profit from and listen to the mass media often have no idea what the strongest counterarguments to their worldviews are because they haven't heard them and don't want to hear them. Fifty-four percent of respondents to a 2016 post election Pew poll claim to have never have heard of the "alt-right." Among those who have heard of the alt-right, many make no attempt to read the strongest arguments on the alt-right. Instead, they believe what the mass media tells them the alt-right stands for. In addition, most people seem to think the slurs they call their opponents aren't slurs or that they're just "calling them what they are," though that's seldom what they are. Such behavior is a recipe for unjust wars and extreme totalitarianism.

And if the strongest arguments that differ from our own, deserve more weight than our own, then we all have ethical duties to switch our beliefs.