Steven Pinker Peddles Rhetorical Bullcrap

I learned of Steven Pinker around the turn of the century after Pinker wrote The Blank Slate. He shot to pop culture fame. I took a look and thought: he's paraphrasing Judith Rich Harris among many others--fine if it were fascinating paraphrasing, but The Blank Slate was stupendously boring, at least it should be to the well-informed. Judith Rich Harris remained in comparative obscurity. In most bookstores, the mom and dad sections are riddled with the nurture assumptions of helicopter parenting while The Nurture Assumption remains difficult to find. Psychologists still publish multitudes of studies each year as if genes do not exist.

Imagine my surprise when I found out Pinker wrote, The Sense of Style, a writing guide--also stupendously soporific.

Pinker gained more fame with The Better Angels of Our Nature, based on a small sample fallacy of human history.

But those books had many good points.

Pinker's newest work, Enlightenment Now, is more poorly reasoned. It is filled with multitudes of slurs, straw person attacks, and false cause claims while plowing rhetorical ground Greg Easterbrook and many others previously covered. It contains few good points.

It promotes misleading, feel good buzzwords and catch phrases--"sympathy," "optimism," "cosmopolitanism," "classical liberalism," "liberal democracy"--that those who treat politics as infotainment relish. Cosmopolitanism is a euphemism for hedonism and totalitarian rule by remote billionaires, who despise us. Classical liberalism is a feel good phrase for a 19th Century egoism, also known as robber baronism or laissez faire economics. Today liberal democracy is a euphemism for ruling groups deciding among themselves what they will do to the rest of us, often Randian neoconservatism and third way militarism. Liberal democracy meant something different 70 years ago, but as Pinker knows, the meanings of words change with time. Upbeat rhetoric doesn't turn Randian neoconservatism beneficial. Sympathy is compassion minus the urge to help. Many times compassion is misplaced. Sometimes it is well-placed, but sympathy is a vapid substitute.

Pinker claims life is much better now than a few decades ago and provides statistics on that point, but provides no evidence that his ethical and political prescriptions were a cause of those improvements. Technology, high Chinese IQs, people who oppose Pinker's prescriptions, and other factors were far more important.

Pinker invokes "moral sense," which is about as accurate as saying chemistry sense. The field of ethics is not a sense. For many enlightenment figures, reason was mainly a buzzword. The same can be said for Pinker. The casual reader will likely come away from Enlightenment Now with little idea of what reason is. According to Pinker's acknowledgements, dozens of intellectuals helped Pinker with Enlightenment Now. I bet none of them said, "Hey, Professor Pinker. We have a problem here. Your slurs and irrelevancies aren't acts of reason." The individuals who benefit most from contemporary rule seem constitutionally incapable or unwilling to see and fix its flaws. So where is their "moral sense?"

Pinker warns us about numerous sorts of "extremists." But he doesn't warn us about his own glib fanaticism. Russia, China, and the West are all run by optimistic, cosmopolitan globalists despite the fact that elites like to call any globalism that conflicts with their own "nationalism," yet they are marching toward war. Studies have suggested that optimism and opportunism are two of the leading causes of unjust wars. Neoconservatism and classical liberalism are partly driven by optimism and opportunism. Books on wars are loaded with ridiculously optimistic military assessments of self and enemies, leading to disasters. Social scientists have also noticed the dangers of optimism. Pinker describes himself as "more libertarian than authoritarian," but that is a false dichotomy. Because in the long run, libertarianism leads to authoritarian rule by the likes of Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers despite libertarian writers sometimes emphasizing civil liberties.

Pinker claims to oppose tribalism, yet he politically allies himself with the most tribalistic force on contemporary Earth, that is, multiculturalism, including Islam. Pinker opposes the blank slate as a scientific matter but supports politics based in large part on egoism and blank slates. I doubt Pinker thinks he can browbeat nonwhites out of egoism and ethnocentrism. His book is for white individuals, who are already too xenocentric. Pinker claims "more people have been murdered to mete out justice than to satisfy greed." Well, then show us the evidence. The two run together. Greed is excessive self-interest. Humans think their murderous acts of excessive self-interest serve justice. Most humans have lived in tribes. As Napoleon Chagnon's research on tribes suggested, tribal humans fought for an excessive share of resources, especially access to fertile females: "Women! Women! Women! Women!"

More global individuals are more selfish, an apparently unpublished study for reasons I do not know. It appears to have flaws teasing out factors. But the study greatly understates the problem. Most ruling class individuals would not participate in such a study, But we don't have to look far. It is difficult to think of a single ruling class individual having good ethical character. They view others as sexual, financial, and ethnoracial prey. We see it constantly around us: Their idea of compassion is wrecking the jobs, lives, schools, families, and neighborhoods of nonwealthy whites while they benefit from cheaper labor and divide-and-screw politics. A paradigm case for the elite individual of generally horrendous character, who nevertheless thought himself ethically superior because he supported cultural Marxism, was Lyndon Johnson. Johnson stuffed ballots and rigged his way to a World War II medal. His presidency was a disaster of atrocious, Machievellian policies, the most notorious being the 1965 Immigration Act, which was opposed 58 percent to 24 percent by the people. In true low character, self-superior elite fashion Johnson not only signed the bill, but felt compelled to slur the American people as "cruel" for opposing it. Elites use the mass media to propagandize the people into supporting rotten policies and when that fails they do what they want despite democratic opposition.

Pinker criticizes "cynicism about the institutions of modernity." Let's see: Politics dominated by legalized bribery and mass deception. Ditto for national defense. Health care that costs roughly twice what health care costs in other comparatively advanced countries. Education systems devoted to propaganda and debt peonage. A financial, insurance, and real estate sector devoted to ever greater free riding. On the plus side, hard industries and cottage industries are more efficient than ever, but they make up a fraction of the economy.

When the subject is psychology, Pinker appears to somewhat weigh arguments. But as with most individuals, when it comes to ethics and politics, I never get the impression that Pinker sits down and carefully weighs the good points from various sides against each other, which is what we have an ethical duty to do.

Pinker doesn't spew hard demagoguery the way Hitler and Trotsky did. Pinker uses soft demagoguery reminiscent of motivational speakers--many emotively loaded generalities without specific arguments on specific issues. Like other motivators, Pinker's views are vague enough to not offend uninformed readers.

Steven Pinker also produced this essay:

Thomas Hobbes's pithy equation "Reasoning is but reckoning [false with reasoning defined as calculating]" is one of the great ideas in human history [false]. The notion that rationality can be accomplished by the physical process of calculation was vindicated in the 20th century by Turing's thesis that simple machines are capable of implementing any computable function and by models from D. O. Hebb, McCullough and Pitts, and their scientific heirs showing that networks of simplified neurons could achieve comparable feats [faulty measures]. The cognitive feats of the brain can be explained in physical terms: to put it crudely (and critics notwithstanding), we can say that beliefs are a kind of information, thinking a kind of computation [bad definition], and motivation a kind of feedback and control [bad definition].
This is a great idea for two reasons [false]. First, it completes a naturalistic understanding of the universe [false], exorcising occult souls, spirits, and ghosts in the machine [false and straw person]. Just as Darwin made it possible [irrelevant] for a thoughtful observer of the natural world to do without creationism [irrelevant], Turing and others made it possible [irrelevant] for a thoughtful observer of the cognitive world to do without spiritualism [straw person].

Nowhere in that essay does Pinker mention consciousness, that stunning state of being that somehow arises from brain meat. Whether empirically true or not, an overwhelmingly biomechanical explanation of human existence is profoundly dispiriting to most human beings, making it ethically problematic: rah, rah, sis boom bah--you're a bunch of matter-energy in an indifferent universe.

(Steve Sailer calls Pinker "perhaps the finest public intellectual of our time," which tells us something terrible about Sailer's own worldview. Sailer also dismisses The Nurture Assumption because it doesn't devote enough space to teaching how parents can teach vocational skills, pages 328 plus in The Nurture Assumption, though the book is about personality traits. A listing of vocational skills parents teach would be banal.)

Pinker's arguments don't pull us from unethical chasms, they push us closer to them.

Social Science Watch: Crime Sentencing Edition

A new study examines disparities in sentencing, finding that blacks receive three month longer sentences from Republican appointed judges than similar non blacks while women receive two month shorter sentences from these judges.

The authors write, "These differences cannot be explained by other judge characteristics." Cannot as in impossible? Social science authors who treat study results as certain have questionable expertise.

Then the authors seem to contradict that claim with, "racial disparities by political affiliation are largely driven by drug offenses.” So is the judicial characteristic of being tough on drug offenders an explanation?

Did the authors tease out other alternative causal factors for sentencing differences:

1. accurate accounting of criminal history.
2. miscounting nonwhites as white.
3. geographical differences. Republican appointed judges in white, close knit towns probably sentence softer than Republican appointed judges from neoconservative areas having more black crime.
4. differences in insolent behavior by defendants in court.
5. disparities in willingness to plea bargain. It seems likely that judges give harsher sentences when the evidence is closer to slam dunk. Maybe whites with more evidence against them have already plea bargained since whites are more likely to tell the truth on self-reports. It is well known in law enforcement that blacks serving long prison terms demand DNA tests even when guilty because admitting guilt would cause them to lose face and hamper their innocent victim narratives.
6. disparities in crime circumstances. It seems likely that a car jacker murdering a driver will receive a harsher sentence than someone murdering his brother in the midst of a family argument.
7. Democratic appointed judges giving softer sentences than sentencing guidelines recommend.

A probability also exists that the study results are accurate. That's another argument against races living together. Multicultural Republican judges feigning race blindness are still biased. Getting accepted into multicultural political establishments requires biases on thousands of issues. Truth telling gets ostracized.

(Not surprisingly, the authors did not investigate jury nullification, law enforcement nullification, and unjust civil trial awards by progressives and Democrats, so-called restorative justice. Such individuals barely give lip service to equal treatment before the law. The probability of being caught and punished for crimes in diverse neighborhoods is low. And the probability of hate crime reporting, investigation, and conviction for hate crimes against whites is minuscule, but good luck finding scientists to investigate anti-white tyranny. There should be a study on how many more times likely a social scientists are to look for racial biases in whites than nonwhites.)

Reason: Giving the Right Weights to Arguments

Reason, also known as logic, is the sufficient finding and creating of premises and conclusions on some specific issue, plus weighing of those premises with sufficient care and accuracy to figure out which conclusions are best supported by good premises, that is, most likely to be true. Both premises and conclusions are called claims. Anything that is logically insufficient, that should be ignored when weighing arguments, is called a fallacy. Combinations of premises and conclusions, the argument, in informal logic, most everyday reasoning, are degrees of strong or weak, depending on how well the premises support the conclusions.

Argument:
The moon no longer exists (conclusion). I looked outside the last three nights and it was gone (premise).

Counterargument:
The moon still exists (conclusion). It's been cloudy for over a week (premise). Only a dummy could think it's gone (premise). One hundred percent of astronomers believe the moon still exists (premise). Just because you watched the sky one night doesn't mean garbage (premise). The problem is the way your brain is wired (premise).

The conclusion in the second argument is better supported, that is, more well-reasoned despite the fact that it contains three glaring fallacies.

The cloudy and sufficient expertise of astronomers premises outweigh the premise in the first argument. The "dummy" abusive ad hominem premise, the straw person "one night" premise, and the circumstantial ad hominem "your brain is wired" premise should be ignored, treated as worthless. Those three fallacious premises are also irrelevant to the specific issue, so it doesn't matter to this issue whether they are true or not.

There are dozens of types of fallacies beyond false claims, ad hominems, and straw persons.

Individuals make fallacious claims because they want to persuade or because they're making a joke or because they don't know any better or because they know better but regard persuasion as more important than giving an audience logically sufficient claims. It is common for professional opinion makers to glibly reject arguments by saying, "I'm not persuaded." Being persuaded or not is irrelevant to the value of an argument.

It is also common in everyday life for an individual to reject or otherwise under weigh an argument because some claims offend them or some claims are fallacious. This is wrong. What matters is how good the conclusions are and how well the good premises support them. It is often ethically wrong to use abusive ad hominem attacks and carelessly use other fallacies, but that doesn't tell us how well-supported the conclusions are.

Reason is often dismissed as linear, uncreative thinking, but it requires a large amount of creativity and resourcefulness to find or brainstorm the best premises and conclusions. Most arguments omit the best premises and conclusions.

What Mr. Spock does often in Star Trek is not logic, as the show states. He spits out intuitive claims without arguments.

Reason is not the slave of passions, nor should it be. Differing cognitive states can help or harm our reasoning abilities, for example, our arguments might come out worse when we are bored, but our passions when creating arguments are irrelevant to their worth.

Science is one branch of reason. Ethics, technology, art criticism, and many other human endeavors also use reasoning.

Good reasoning is the only legitimate way to find out how likely claims are to be true. A true claim accurately describes something. Because many promoters of tyranny claim to be men or women of reason and science does not make reason to blame. Such individuals reek at reasoning and are throwing out reason and science as empty buzzwords to attach prestige to their horrendous plans. The ability and willingness of most human beings to reason well is extremely, extremely poor. Many individuals with prestigious degrees are abysmal at reasoning outside their areas of expertise. Some lawyers, physicians, professors, and other professionals are terrible at reasoning in every field. They managed to become professionals because they are smart, good memorizers, and hard working, not because of the quality of their their reasoning.

There is far more to the reason story, and those stories can be found is logic texts, ethics works, scientific reasoning writings, etc.

Learning from Abortion, Infidelity, and Legalized Bribery

I didn't follow much of the Roy Moore saga, but from what I remember, it consisted of certain mass media rampantly screeching that Moore was a pedophile and that his voters were depraved supporters of pedophilia. The position of Moore's supporters was more nuanced: Moore was guilty of statutory rapes, not pedophilia, the latter an attraction to or sex with pre-pubescent children. In their view, supporting Moore was defensible because the alternative to Moore was support for what they consider mass baby killings. It didn't matter to Moore's supporters that Doug Jones, Moore's opponent, was labeled "middle-of-the-road." In today's Washington speak, middle-of-the-road means stealthy support for Randism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism.

Jones supports neoconservative Mike Pompeo and "has voted with President Trump's position 63.6% of the time." Other Moore supporters were immigration patriots.

Research suggests a large percentage of pro lifers are single issue voters, who readily adopt the worldview of politicians on other issues as long as the politicians are pro life or pretend to be pro life.

Now we learn Donald Trump or Elliott Broidy, a Wall Streeter and former deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Commitee, had an affair with Playboy Playmate Shera Bechar, resulting in a pregnancy and abortion. Broidy paid Bechar at least $1.6 million in hush money, over ten times what Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal were each paid. Maybe Bechar is a better negotiator than Daniels and McDougal, but more likely, abortion accounts for the difference.

Whoever had the affair with Bechar, Broidy has motive to pay a large sum. It the potential child were his, Broidy avoids millions in child support and an awkward family situation. If it were Trump's, the indirect bribe helps Broidy's unethical business dealings through the Trump Administration--and helps Trump avoid the wrath of pro-lifers, not to mention saving Trump child support and family problems.

Since the 2016 election, an election Trump could not have won without nonmulticulturalists, Trump has betrayed nonmulticulturalists hundreds of times, yet nonmulticulturalists cling to him, with some exceptions. Because of this, Trump has little incentive to protect his nonmulticultural flank, other than reducing refugee numbers (while at the same time increasing the number of guest workers).

Trump dares not throw screw pro lifers with as much vehemence. Pro lifers will get pro life judges from Trump.

Trump's main agenda remains the agenda of his largest donor, Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino owner (a business that should be illegal). For $25 million, a comparatively small sum, Adelson was able to excessively influence Trump, billions of lives, and a roughly $20 trillion US GDP. Most comically, movement conservatives, many unable to even find Jerusalem or Tel Aviv on a map, were suddenly urged to care deeply about moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Adelson keeps Republicans loyal by promising more in the future. Sure enough, Adelson just gave another $30 million to the GOP a few hours ago. But tiny sums from nonmulticulturalists are treated as money with no strings attached by politicians who dare not even meet with nonmulticulturalists. It's shocking how much destruction tens of millions in legalized bribes can cause the formerly greatest nation on earth.

The lesson: Until nonmulticulturalists get more organization and more big donors, they will keep getting screwed, as they have for generations.

Satirical Headlines Unlikely to Appear in The Onion

Irish Import Nonwhites to Atone for Their History of Being Persecuted by Brits and Africans

Gentrifier Makes Sure to Buy Iron Window Bars from Corporation Committed to Diversity

Nonwhites Demanding Rule Over Whites Call Whites Wanting to Be Left Alone "Supremacists"

"I'm Tired of People Judgin' Me by My Skin Color," Says Man with 78 IQ and Long History of Crimes

Hate Crimes Up 201 percent According to Organization with No History of Rigging Research Whatsoever

If a Muslim Had Committed Toronto Van Attack, There Would Be Wall to Wall Media Coverage Say Muslims Who Committed Thousands of Unreported Jihad Acts

Germany Successfully Assimilates Millions of Africans and Southwest Asians Onto Welfare

Diverse Team of Scientists Impresses Everyone by Calling Themselves a Diverse Team of Scientists

Seventy-Two Virgin Goats with Anal Seepage Await Latest Suicide Bomber

Aggressive Descendants of Genocide Practicing Migrants from Cameroon Say Whites Have No Right to Live in Zimbabwe and South Africa

"There Is No Gay Agenda," Remarks Activist Professor of LBGTQ Studies

U2's Bono Applies for Handicapped License Plate, Declaring Himself Cognitive Dissonance Impaired

School Desegregation Plan Praised for Wrecking the Lives of 4,991 Local Working Class White Children While Improving the Education of Six African-Americans

Writer Obsessed with Russian Influence Calls Millions of Harmful Influences by Israel, Turkey, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia "Conspiracy Theories"

Humorist Made Famous for Making Faces in Front of Millions of TV Viewers Should Be Trusted for His Policy Expertise

White Man Divorced from Two Asian Wives Plans to Marry Another Because "Asian Women Are More Affectionate and Family Oriented"

George HW Bush Visits Pearly Gates, Becomes First Man Sent to Hell for the Acts of His Sons

Teenager Contemplates Whether to Continue Living in a Society Where Millions Casually Use the Word Maroon Without Being Aware She Considers It a Slur

Alzheimer's Victim Chuck Woolery Spends Final Years of Life Giving Progressives a Straw Person to Attack

Black Converts to Judaism Feel Discriminated Against by Jews Worried About Intermarriage: "We Ain't Gonna Marry None Them We Inseminate Anyway, at Least Not for Long."

Local Hitler Supporter Does Not Believe DNA Tests Suggesting Hitler Was Part Jewish or Berber: "How Could Der Fuhrer Be Part Carpet?"

Stoning Victim Requested Rock You Like a Hurricane for Final Song

The American Eugenics Society Proves the Evil of Eugenics Claims Scholar Surrounded by Billions of Dysgenic Victims

Catalonia's Secession Plan Postpones Date of White Genocide by One Day

Democrats, Progressives, and Republicans Responsible for Genocultural Totalitarianism Strategy Demand Republicans Apologize for Southern Strategy

Area Teachers Boycott Teaching Tenth Amendment Because Judges Ignore It Anyway

Multicultural White Flighter Says She Is Leaving Neighborhood for No Reason She Can Discern

Brexiter Happy to Be Ruled by Anti-White Tyranny in London Rather Than Anti-White Tyranny in Far Away Brussels

Adopted White Twin Reared Apart Envies Twin Sister with Hispanic Last Name and Cushy Affirmative Action Job

Museum of Lynching Reports That Whites Are Incapable of Being Lynching Victims

Globalist Multiculturalist Finally Admits His Ideology: "Fuck It. Everything Is Permissible for Me, Except Opposition to Diversity."

"Everywhere West of Manhattan Is Inhabited by Inbred Mouth Breathers" Reports Endogamy Practicing Wall Street Supporter of Randism and Genocultural Totalitarianism

Multiculturalist Who Never Read a Counter Argument to His Views Unsure Whether an Immigration Patriot Is Someone Who Opposes or Supports Mass Immigration

Philosophy Text Replaces Truth Value with Offended Value

"White Privilege Must Be Fought Everywhere," Reports Millionaire from Ethnoracial Group Off Limits to Mass Media Criticism and Higher Than White Median Incomes

Supporters of Globalism and Militarism Decry the Alleged Nationalism of Leaders Devoted to Globalism and Militarism in China, Russia, and NATO

Devil Plans to Kick John McCain Out of Hell for Having Sins Too Heinous for the Devil to Tolerate

Man with Gold Plated Bathroom Fixtures Whines About the Alleged Whining Everyone Else Does

Dog Is God Spelled Backward Says Supporter of Interspecies Multiculturalism

Man Claiming to be Universalist Admits He Says That Only to Fool Others and Serve His Short-Term Self-Interest

Sheep Reports Halal Meat a Pain in the Neck

Defense Industry Profits Win War on Terror and War on Their Own Poverty in Twilight Doubleheader

Multiculturalism Fails 171,582 Times in a Row, Only Common Sense to Keep Trying It

Job Interview with Last White Person on Earth Turns Awkward When She Reveals No Person of Color Will Give Her a Reference

Generalizing About the Ease of Miseducation

Many blank slate ideas from our thought leaders arise from small sample fallacies: "I took chemistry in high school. It was fun and easy." Or among science teachers: 200 or 300 level "astronomy, modern physics, and quantitative analysis were a breeze." Mr. X can "teach calculus to a spoon," the problem must be merely bad teaching by other teachers or other environmental factors. Ergo, they believe those classes should be not too difficult for most students not in special ed; more low IQ peoples of color should be scientists, engineers, and programmers. I've read and heard hundreds of similar comments extolling the massive power of teaching skill over IQ deficits, even from a psychologist married to a physicist!

Worse, our rulers have no awareness that some math and science classes are many times more difficult than the classes mentioned above.

Despite their ethical failings, our rulers generally have above the mean IQs. They are smart enough to manipulate, but not wise enough to face facts.

My theory differs: If you are smart enough to master many difficult 300 and 400 level classes despite terrible teaching, that's when you are cut out for STEM fields. Bad teaching in difficult classes is a great test of IQ, resourcefulness, and conscientiousness. (Note this is not an endorsement of bad teaching.) The student who can figure out differential equations simply by reading textbooks is more cut out to be a scientist or engineer than the student who passes because of great teaching.

Nearly as important: for most individuals, especially those struggling with subjects, those fields are no damn fun. What was fun for Richard Feynman would be a nightmare for most individuals on this planet. And even more important: lower IQ individuals will contribute little or nothing to scientific advances and some will be a burden on employers fearing affirmative action holy war from lawyers.

Many opinion makers come from fields where few differences in difficulty among 200 level and 400 level classes exist, not to mention graduate coursework, so they generalize from their own experiences.

One study focuses on reducing anxiety about difficult classes. But students sometimes have good reasons for being anxious. Anxiety is a warning that we are engaged in or about to engage in the wrong activities or that we are putting in the wrong effort or that something is wrong with our beliefs. Another study focuses on overcoming perceptions of difficulty. This study is better: It advises students to focus on their "strengths, enjoyments, and needs," though it should do more to emphasize ethics.

If you are reading this article, you are probably aware Bad Students, Not Bad Schools by Robert Weissberg is a classic in demolishing overemphasis on environments.

It is better for students to find out early that they are not cut out for certain fields than to suffer large financial and opportunity costs, then run into intellectual walls. Most teenagers should never see the insides of physics, calculus, and chemistry classes.

Diversity and Western Militaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calexit and the Migrant Invasion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radio and Television

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whataboutism and the Establishments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cohn Jobs

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

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

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

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

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

Or not.

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

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

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

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

Reducing School Gun Violence Without Violating Gun Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comedy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emo Phillips once had a damn poignant joke:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truthful dissent from multiculturalism results in expulsion or other punishments.

It's hardly a laughing matter.

Ivy League Home Cramming

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

Lots of noticing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-Control: Let Them Smash Cakes?

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

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

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

Scandals of the Century or Nanosecond

Dozens of new scandals arose this week involving somebody or others.

Sigh.

Scandals turn into bashathons while the media ignore or downplay bigger wrongs.

To wit:

1. trillions wasted for decades on overpriced OPEC oil because it almost never occurs to politicians and media types that we could create a buyer's cartel to counter OPEC. (Most opinion creators have probably not even heard of the phrase buyer's cartel.)
2. trillions lost because we tax productive work far more than harmful finance and negative externalities.
3. global warming treated as more important than deforestation, other pollution, ocean overharvesting, and dysgenic overpopulation. Several million dead each year from non carbon dioxide air pollution alone. 
4. mass invasions by nonwhites devoted to free riding and anti-white tyranny.
5. trillions wasted defending Asian and African states pursuing our destruction. Post-America's military: doing the jobs that no one else is wrong enough to do, including trillions wasted on no win counterinsurgency wars.
6. hidden in plain sight: ordinary Muslims and other multiculturalists have beliefs worse than individuals the media pretend are neo-Nazis.
7. financial tumors (bubbles) treated as legitimate measures of economic performance, trillions wasted on housing bubbles created by individuals fleeing the neighborhood diversity they shove down our throats.
8. few restrictions on modifying bird flu to murder billions. Freedom of political speech of gets damned by colonial occupiers of the West, but don't interfere with 'muh scientific freedom.
9. antagonizing Putin and risking a world war because he does rotten acts while billions of others devoted to rotten acts get praised. Great idea. Let's antagonize the one person who can cause us the most harm. What could go right?
10. trillions wasted on health care systems that serve profits better than health.
11. education systems increasingly devoted to indoctrination. In Soviet Post-America, students and tax payers pay fortunes for indoctrination. What a country. No two kopek struggle sessions for you.

Decades of scandal mongering have not been enough to reform the Green, Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian Parties. Perchance a new approach in this divide-and-screw near sleep of near death? Nah.

No doubt the winners of the scandal wars will turn their attention to doing the right policy things just as soon as they finish up the winning (sarcasm).

Remember the scandal involving Kimba Wood? Me neither.

The industries of media and legalized bribery lack senses of proportion, but they do have a sense of opportunism.

Ethnoracial Diversity Thought Experiments

Let's suppose we did some survey research of whites, asking which they would prefer:

1. being a convenience store cashier, living in an apartment in the most diverse neighborhood in Baltimore or being homeless in a 99 percent white, middle class neighborhood, assuming the police don't remove you.
2. owning a 5,000 acre farm in Zimbabwe or having a similar homeless situation as above.
3. attending 1970s Detroit Cooley High School or living in 1970s Poland, assuming you speak fluent Polish.
4. earning $100 thousand per year as a contractor in a Pashtun Afghan province or earning five dollars per hour in the white, middle class neighborhood.
5. living at frigid, isolated South Georgia Island or living in the US if diversity inspired Putin, Xi Jinping, neoconservatives, and Democratic Party interventionists incite World War III.
6. being an eighth grade teacher at a random middle school named after MLK or being unemployed.

It would be difficult to get honest answers, but I bet a majority of whites would select the second options.

Most whites would consider high levels of diversity to be worse than being homeless in brutal heat and cold, worse than living under 1970s Polish communism, and so on.

There's worse. End stage multiculturalism would be probably something like Somalia, without the foreign aid. Bad trends keep getting worse unless good individuals deliberately stop them. And multiculturalists almost always prefer ever more diversity over less.

(By the way, credible estimates suggest nearly half of Pushtun men sodomize young boys, so the next time a multiculturalist points at a middle aged white man and tells you he looks like a pedophile, tell her about our pashtun "allies.")

Book Observations: Invading Mexico: America's Continental Dream and the Mexican War, 1846-1848 by Joseph Wheelan

Not surprisingly, Invading Mexico contains much cultural Marxism, but some thought crime facts sneak through that don't fit the mere "land grab" story lines of today.

1. Mexico had no right to the lands that became part of the American Southwest, a claim more preposterous than a dementia patient claiming ownership of the moon. Most individuals living in those lands were non-Mexican. Mexico's claims violated inhabitants' rights to self-determination. (A major reason so few Mexicans lived in the Southwest was they were terrified of the Apache, Comanche and other hostile Amerindians.)
2. It was not a war between a slave holding nation and an anti-slavery nation. In Mexico, the slaves were females, often treated worse than farm animals while Mexican men drank, gambled, lounged, acted macho, and watched bull fights.
3. Mexico did not have the genetic and cultural abilities to effectively govern the lands south of the Rio Grande, let alone the lands north of it. Mexico's required retirement payments to its veterans alone were over two times its government revenues.
4. When Mexicans started losing battles, they would demand a truce--to regroup and continue the fight on better terms for themselves. When Mexicans surrendered during a battle and promised not to take up arms again, they lied. Like agreements with most humans, agreements with Mexicans were worthless. Mexicans lied whenever they saw some advantage.
5. Winfield Scott was a helluva general, except when he kept falling for multicultural assumptions about nonwhites and their leaders.
6. After the war, Texas Rangers quickly, brutally, and ethically stomped a nascent Mexican guerrilla movement. I shudder to think what would have happened if the likes of Max Boot and John McCain had been running the war. We'd probably still have umpteen thousand soldiers in Mexico.
7. Mexico engaged in numerous acts of murder and robbery in borderlands during the years leading up to the war, plus many acts of piracy in the Gulf of Mexico.
8. Mexicans constantly asserted their rights and demanded compassion while showing almost no concern for the rights of others.
9. Despising their own government, many Mexicans wanted to make Mexico part of the US after the war. Another shudder moment that would have created massive opportunities for multicultural, bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw practices by ruling groups.

Sound familiar?

Poor America. So far from God, so close to Mexico.

Ethics and the Human Biodiversity Movement

The HBD movement shows interest in ethnoracial facts mainly when the facts are trivial or IQ related or health care related, rejecting well-reasoned policies if the policies don't fit the above or the policies offend multiculturalists. HBDers cannot or will not break through multicultural fanaticism.

One writer at NotPoliticallyCorrect seemed perplexed and outraged that the multiculturalists at the so-called RationalWiki would try to demonize him, seemingly unaware that multiculturalists seldom tolerate dissent from their totalitarianism, including by multiculturalist HBDers. The writer then contradicted himself and wrote, "I don't care about politics."

Many other slightly edgy writers faced similar wrath. A few truthful mentions of race and IQ are enough to get ostracized.

IQ is important, but HBD overemphasizes IQ. Ninety-five percent of Congress members have academic degrees, an indication of well above the mean IQs, yet Congress seldom does the right acts. The donor class is likewise riddled with high IQ individuals, yet they too seem to be close to inverse weather vanes on important issues, favoring a mixture of Randism, globalism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism.

HBD often avoids ethical evidence and over relies on studies, but most social science studies are junk and most social scientists will not conduct studies that produce results in conflict with their political worldviews. HBDers know more about statistics than other areas of logic, so they seem not to notice their straw persons, false analogies, abusive ad hominim attacks, and other fallacies. HBDers commit far more wrongs of omission than wrongs of commission.

HBDers could retort that nonmulticulturalists include many people of rotten acts, so let's not go there. But excellent ideas do not turn into bad ideas simply because of who believes them. All political movements attract individuals with serious character defects (often people of egoism and misplaced altruism). Bill Frist and thousands of other individuals in government and corporations would make you feel as if you are the most important person in the world when talking to your face, then put knives in your back. Because the establishments control the mass media, they are able to create the illusion to many voters and donors that establishment figures have decent character when, in fact, almost all establishment leaders have horrible character. Establishment ideologies in every contemporary country are designed to extract short-term profits from decline.

If the establishments succeed in creating World War III, they will have proven themselves to be as low character as the likes of Mao, Amin, Stalin, Hitler, Mugabe, Hirohito, Mousilini, Pol Pot, Jong Il, and Jong Un. Even without World War III, multiculturalists commit nearly all the political violence on this planet.

It says something important about multiculturalists and multiculturalism that they commit disproportionately more unjustifiable violence than even the demagoguery at Stormfront incites. Consistency requires that if we reject Stormfront for being beyond redemption, we must also reject multiculturalism for being beyond redemption.

Any political movement that will not weed out egoism and misplaced altruism is doomed to ethical failure. Given their knowledge of how egoism and altruism evolve, HBDers should help weed out tyranny from nonmulticultural movements.

A few HBD followers seem to be looking for gurus, looking for deep truths and mysteries in biological jargon. But more important truths and mysteries reside in ethics than in HBD. HBD lacks proportion, a peculiar form of scientism that regards what hominids did thousands of years ago as more important than evils multiculturalists commit now. How good is HBD concern about IQ and health if they continue to support multicultural victories. IQs will continue to plummet and nostrums will replace Western science, as sometimes flawed as it is.

Merry Christmas to the Amish and Everyone Else

Outsiders see the Amish as a people primarily preoccupied with low tech, old fashioned living. That's not how the Amish see themselves. They primarily see themselves as Christians. So here's to the religious holiday itself and the non-hedonistic spirit of Amish Christmas, to Amish Second Christmas the day after Christmas and to Amish Old Christmas on January sixth.

May they and Christmas still exist 50 million years from now. Because when the Amish disappear, it likely means the multiculturalists have succeeded in their extermination campaigns against other whites.

Not Baited by Me Too Issues

The recent sex crime accusations involving celebrities are not big picture important, mainly matters for accusers, accusees, whistle-blowers, investigative reporters, and law enforcement agencies to sort through.

Almost all contemporary celebrities are people of terrible actions. Celebrities that do and do not commit sex crimes have other vices, especially hedonism, self-contradictions, and cultural Marxism.

Given the rates at which women make false accusations, some celebrities are probably not guilty of some alleged crimes, but the harms from cultural Marxism are and will be millions of times worse than any harms celebrities suffer from false accusations. Let's not waste time defending multicultural celebrities from accusations from multicultural accusers, including slightly edgy, alt light celebrities. If vibrant multiculturalists kidnapped a dozen children, chopped them up, and dumped their remains in a vat of sodium hydroxide, celebrities would care little, except to grandstand in favor of more cultural Marxism and perhaps to make a film about it with whites playing the villain roles.

Humans have the unfortunate, reflexive tendency to pick sides, even when several competing sides are terrible.

In the ghetto where I spent most of my childhood, the local library had dozens of shelves devoted to true crime. True crime is not a genre ethical individuals should be fascinated with. It is a genre for those who admire crime or those predisposed to wantoness. The librarians probably thought that if the local residents didn't read true crime, they probably wouldn't do much reading at all. Multiculturalists act as if almost any education is good education as long as it doesn't include unwanted political facts.

Better to be illiterate than deluge yourself with rotten ideas.

Hitting on coworkers reeks of desperation and lazy cowardice in approaching women elsewhere, unless you have such a rotten job you don't care whether you get fired or humiliated.

Long ago I adopted a policy of not talking about sex, looks, politics, religion, relationships, female attire or behavioral genetics with women coworkers. When coworkers talk about such subjects, I merely make pithy, banal statements--"Wow," "Yeah," "Uh-huh," and "That terrible." It prevents awkwardness and misunderstandings.

The last time I talked about sex with female coworkers: several women talked about why women have large breasts and nipples. I mentioned that a social scientist had the bizarre theory that large nipples evolved as large eye spots to scare away predators. They thought that hilarious. Then I said large breasts were sexually selected and maybe large breasts also evolved for fat storage. Not so hilarious.

Maybe it is because I'm happily married, but I have no desire to have glib sex related conversations with female acquaintances.

Cognitive Impairments and the Establishments

The current Senate is the oldest in the history of the former United States. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both behave as if they have serious age related cognitive problems.

Research hints that the part of the brain responsible for skepticism (the ventromedial prefrontal cortex) suffers severe decline in the elderly, leading to the elderly falling victim to even the most obvious scams by self-proclaimed Nigerian princes and others.

This is the way grifting industries--energy, defense, finance, lobbying, globalism, multiculturalism, education, insurance, mass media, health care--like it. They don't want law makers with skepticism. The don't want mental flexibility. They don't want anyone in the establishment making the effort to accurately weigh arguments. They want their thousands of lobbyists to write laws, then walk them over to Congress for approval.

Unlike many older individuals, George W. Bush earned his brain damage from drugs and the establishment cultures he lived in. Studies suggest drug addiction causes lifelong cognitive impairments. Bush's advisers raced to be first to reach him since Bush often implemented the first idea he heard. Condoleezza Rice claimed Bush was not his own "fact witness," meaning Bush allegedly had a right to lie with impunity because he didn't know what the hell was going on and didn't want to make the effort to know. Close to being an inverse weather vane on important issues, Bush remains unrepentant.

Dick Cheney, a man without a pulse, almost certainly had and has vascular dementia.

Growing old sucks. Ethical older individuals realize this and exhibit the moral character to step aside when their brains start having severe problems.

Imagine an unmitigated skeptic, who pays little attention to politics, a person who unthinkingly assumes everything said by our rulers is fallacious. Such a person would be closer to truths than the true believers who spend thousands of hours watching political infotainment and pretending such indoctrination leads to wisdom. Mass consumers of political infotainment have little sense of proportion, having more concern over minuscule levels of Russian influence over elections than the threat of nuclear super wars, treating Russian influence as worse than far more egregious influence by Israel, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia.

Though we should not be unmitigated skeptics, most humans would do well to have much more skepticism of what they see and hear from propaganda industries.

To be able to recognize important contradictions, an individual must be sufficiently smart and have logical habits. Trump doesn't see anything wrong with his bait-and-switch rhetoric because he doesn't see complex self-contradictions at all.

Despite his Randian neoconservatism, Trump gets little credit from neoconservatives, part of their Br'er Rabbit strategy of plausible deniability. When the mess collapses or blows up, they will claim Trump, Clinton, and others were not one of them despite Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban being the largest donors to Trump and Clinton respectively. Neoconservatives will blame the Alt Right for the failings caused by Trump's neoconservative policies, another reason nonmulticulturalists should avoid getting in bed with Trump.

Young and old members of the establishments alike are carefully vetted for their unwillingness to reason well. None of the younger members of Congress show deviation from their donor classes. Hundreds of memes excoriate Mark Zuckerberg, a billionaire testing the public mood for a presidential run in 2020, for being a robot. Remember when 1990s crowds cheered Chelsea Clinton as if she were some precocious guru? Quite a piece of work she turned out to be.

Fanaticism redistributes to super rich globalists and calls it freedom, supports anti-white totalitarianism and calls it equality, engages in self-destructive militarism and call it security.

I call it lying.

The Logical Inescapability That Some Genes, Cultures, and Personal Beliefs Are Better

Let's say an individual wishes to pass on her or her relatives' genes, cultures, and personal beliefs to future generations because:

1. variety merely for variety's sake is good (false). 
2. genes, cultures, and personal beliefs are equal, so it makes no difference who procreates (false).
3. everyone has an ethical right to spread their seed (false).
4. that's the way she rolls (circular).
5. some future environmental fixes will make life superb even if people who do terrible acts do most breeding (false and almost certain to lead to worse environmental changes).

Every other claim that does not rely on some things being better is likewise fallacious.

We now have a large percentage of the population inconsistently willing to avoid procreation to prevent inherited genetic disorders on behalf of eugenics but who reject eugenics where eugenics would be massively beneficial.

So calling better things better isn't supremacism. It's simply facing facts. Supremacism is demanding logically unjustifiable preferential treatments for groups, for example, bombarding some groups with slurs while demanding some other groups be off limits to even well-reasoned criticism or supporting self-determination for some groups while denying self-determination to other groups. White self-determination is both a right and duty supported by overwhelming evidence, not supremacism. Demanding a group be enslaved or otherwise exploited is supremacism.

Research on Stereotype Accuracy: Dubious

Social science research claims stereotypes are generally accurate (narrowly defined as "beliefs about groups").

But such research is easy to rig. If you ask participants for generalizations on easy questions, they'll give accurate answers. If you ask harder questions, accuracy plummets. Important issues generally have difficult answers.

That is not a major knock on stereotyping itself. We should stereotype when we have the evidence, even when the probability of harm is low. Being wrong about con artistry even once in 20 times over a long period of time will cause major harms.

If stereotypes were generally accurate, cultural Marxism would be almost nonexistent. Instead, most adults on this planet believe in some form of cultural Marxism, with its multitudes of inaccurate ethnoracial stereotypes. Most individuals believe false stereotypes about the secular or avuncular groups they belong to. Etc.

Some probably doubt me because stereotype accuracy has the edge-o-sphere seal of approval. Below are some questions. Most humans would not produce remotely accurate stereotypes.

Origins of Ashkenazi Jews?
probable stereotypes: white or Khazar or Middle Eastern.
more accurate stereotype: Mixture of Southern European and Middle Eastern ancestry

Multicultural groups?
probable stereotype: tolerant
more accurate stereotype: intolerant with ever increasing totalitarianism

Black-white interracial aggression in US?
probable stereotypes: whites are more likely to attack or blacks are somewhat more likely to attack
more accurate stereotype: "a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa"

Serial killing?
probable stereotype: disproportionately a white thing
more accurate stereotype: disproportionately a black thing

Reducing ethnoracial injustices?
probable stereotype: reduced once individuals proclaiming equality have total power
more accurate stereotype: multiply once individuals proclaiming equality have total power

Racial supremacism?
probable stereotype: a white thing
more accurate stereotype: concentrated among nonwhites who believe they have rights to mercantilism, self-determination, affirmative action, speech freedoms, terrorizing nonbelievers, while denying speech freedoms, self-determination, and other rights to whites

We could sit around for years creating millions of questions about groups that humans would answer with false stereotypes.

If we switch to a broader, everyday definition of stereotypes, meaning any generalizations, the general inaccuracy remains.

Cause of changing seasons?
probable stereotype: distance from sun
more accurate stereotype: tilt of Earth affecting length of days and amount of solar radiation striking earth per square meter

Tobin Tax?
probable stereotype: tax on something
more accurate stereotype: taxing spot conversions of currency

Congressional Franking?
probable stereotype: legislators naming kids Frank
more accurate stereotype: legislators mailing "informative" propaganda at little cost to themselves

Pigouvian tax?
probable stereotype: something pigs
more accurate stereotype: taxing harmful activities to reduce their frequency and harms, making harm causers pay the costs they create for others

Div, grad, curl?
probable stereotype: American football receiver jargon
more accurate stereotype: vector calculus

Stop Corporate Inversions Act?
probable stereotype: something inverted
more accurate stereotype: would ban corporations from re-incorporating outside the US to avoid taxes

Minamata Convention?
probable stereotype: something Minnesota or Japanese
more accurate stereotype: regulation of mercury usage

ACHE Act?
probable stereotype: something indigenous tribe
more accurate stereotype: would ban mountain top destruction

Truman Committee?
probable stereotype: something nuclear weapons
more accurate stereotype: investigated corruption and inefficiency during World War II

Davis Bacon Act?
probable stereotype: mmm... bacon
more accurate stereotype: required prevailing wages on federally funded projects, including contractors and subcontractors

Instead of focusing on whether individuals' current stereotypes are accurate, we should focus on how to make stereotypes more accurate by teaching reasoning, improving cultures, and breeding individuals with a strong tendency toward extreme cognitive dissonance when they get stereotypes wrong, especially generalizations about ethical issues.

Eugenics for Defense

In my previous post, I covered factors and principles important in war.

I will now cover specific eugenic traits we should encourage for defense of a nation or a species from asteroids, pathogens, super volcanoes, expanding stars, and other threats to existence. Character and IQ are obvious and important answers.

Though beauty has no direct ethical value, it seems probable that individuals fight harder for beautiful wives and fiancees, ceteris paribus (all else being equal). Many ugly animals fight hard, but they have genes and environments extolling aggression. Reasonable men would not fight hard for a society filled with Andrea Dworkins. War stories are replete with mentions of soldiers or sailors being inspired by letters, memories or photographs from attractive wives or girlfriends.

Monogamous hypersexuality (nymphomania or satyriasis) would be another worthwhile trait. Individuals are not inspired by dead fish. Officers charged with censoring letters for military information often remark how "filthy" the letters are. (Don't expect those letters in books by Tom Brokaw.) If all a soldier has to look forward to when coming home is leftover potato soup, he might commit suicide directly or by acting recklessly. Genes that encourage couples to feel good in long term monogamous marriages should be spread. Genes that encourage falling in love, followed by falling in hate should be avoided.

Aggression should not be bred for because a) such individuals are a massive ethical problem during peacetime, and b) they are not trustworthy in war, often creating or sustaining unjust wars. Those convicted of serious crimes should be sterilized.

Cowardice must also be bred out and ethically punished.

Hypergamy can be good if redirected. Though not often mentioned, millions of men and women find bad boys and bad girls repulsive. We admonish, "Don't stick your dick in crazy." Genes tend to make copies of themselves. There is no requirement that bad boy genes make copies at a faster rate. We simply must change the environmental incentives. In well-functioning societies, a man should have to prove himself to an ethically attractive woman and her parents with virtuous actions. Ethical societies can not survive without them.

A society devoted to single, childfree hedonism will not last long. Individuals with good genes should find video games boring and insipid. The same goes for splenetic, fallacy filled mass media. Individuals should find ethical and family life entrancing. Parents with children seem more likely to help just causes, especially if they have children eight to twelve years old, ages when children seem more highly beloved by parents. But unethical familism and tribalism must also be prevented. I will cover Hamilton's Rule in a separate essay.

Xenocentrism must be bred out and ethically punished. Individuals of egoism, narcissism, and Machiavellianism must not be rewarded for grandstanding ("virtue signaling"), for altruistic acts toward unethical individuals. We must stop rewarding unethical treason and every other major form of free riding. Laws, constitutions, and standards of citizenship must be changed so that such individuals are weeded out long before they get anywhere near positions of power. Individuals should have a large, ethical retributive drive but not a drive for random revenge. Apathy, a trait best left to farm animals, must be bred out. Almost everyone in contemporary establishments should be assumed dangerous until proven otherwise.

Citizens must be bred to be able to reason well enough to recognize the differences among puppetry, pacifism, worthy patriotism, and flag wrapping parasitism (read: John McCain), along with the ability to recognize the ethical and unethical in general. They must not fanatically and reflexively resort to a political team right or wrong. Unfortunately, humans need massive genetic and environmental changes in the reason arena. In the aftermath of 9/11, George W. Bush had an approval rating of at least 90 percent, though Bush had done little in his life to be considered ethically trustworthy. The first casualty in war must not be the truth. Blind obedience sucks. Individuals should be bred to feel extreme anxiety when failing to tell the truth. Too often, contemporary individuals feel more anxiety for flirting with an unpopular truth than believing lies. Humans should see through official myths.

Though many high IQ individuals have unethical tendencies, intelligence is essential for ethical reasoning. Good reasoning requires high levels of argument comprehension, levels not obtainable by lower IQ individuals. Lower IQ individuals will also not be able to figure out how to stop asteroids and other major threats to existence. The most valuable members of society are both high IQ and high character. The least valuable are high IQ and low character. Use policies to breed the former, not the latter.

A Wider Summary of General Military Principles

Contemporary lists of military principles do not account for ethnoracial and other supposed offensive factors, as if rulers can make unwanted facts go away by ignoring them. Establishments deem it acceptable to kill individuals in unjust wars, but mention any unwanted truths to them and you will be ostracized or worse.

Below I list both well-known and seldom known military factors or principles. So for free, I'm summarizing Sun Tzu and dozens of other military works, including some of my principles, more concisely than others have. What a bargain!

Well-known factors or principles, though often adhered to in lip service:

1. Logistics.
2. Training.
3. Range, especially of weapons.
4. Accuracy, especially of weapons.
5. Science and technology.
6. Reconnaissance range, numbers, and accuracy.
7. Concentration and dispersion to match situations. Forces should not be so close together that they get destroyed easily but not so far apart that they get defeated piecemeal or cannot provide mutual support.
8. Cover (armor, bunkers).
9. Readiness, including early warning preparations.
10. Destructiveness (mass or weapon lethality).
11. Military efficiency, also known as economy of force. Don't spend trillions to destroy enemy forces worth millions. Exhaust enemies without exhausting yourself.
12. Economic efficiency, productivity, and GDP.
13. Morale and efficient organization.
14. Flexibility and resilience.
15. Terrain and Weather. Take unoccupied high ground or other advantageous ground. Travel the less unexpected way. Use fog and other weather to advantage.
16. Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative when advantageous. Deny assets to unethical forces, especially assets an enemy cannot afford to lose. Be unpredictable.
17. Have one overall commander, who is easily replaced if someone else is more competent.
18. Hire the more competent. Delegate to them. Hold them accountable. Fire the less competent.
19. Speed and maneuver, including mobile reserves.
20. Delay until situations are most beneficial, but do not delay merely for laziness or cowardice.
21. Hide or strengthen weaknesses, including flanks.
22. Use extreme clarity in communication, keeping forces from blundering because of confusing orders or suggestions.
23. Protect own communications from interception and code breaking.
24. Hold or seize valuables: crops, ports, ships, bridges, aircraft, airfields, scientists, engineers, crossroads, factories, technologies, energy plants, media centers, storage centers, precious elements, marshaling yards, administrative centers. If it can't be held or seized, destroy it or otherwise deny it to enemies.
25. Negotiating prowess.
26. Medical care.
27. Ambush or cut off enemy movements without falling into ambushes and other traps yourself.
28. Deception, including smoke, decoys, surprise, sniping, minefields, camouflage, espionage, infiltration, false flags, night actions, code breaking, feigned movements, other demonstrations, bait-and-switch, recon by fire, attacking the rear, tying down their forces (self-imprisonment), tricking them into attacking where you want, tricking them into moving where you want. Etc.
29. Probe for weaknesses, especially on flanks or social weaknesses.
30. Defeat piecemeal with concentrated power.
31. Self-test, including self-reconnaissance.
32. Own the sea, air, and night.

Seldom known factors or principles:

1. Avoid salience to current enemies and potential enemies. Contemporary interventionists talk loudly and carry rotten sticks. Keep unethical peoples far away. Individuals breeding with unethical outgroups must be permanently ostracized. Avoid letting ethnoracial outgroups bribe your leaders in any way, including "no strings" gifts. The recipients of such bribes must be executed or otherwise severely punished.
2. Maximize beneficial alliances and spurn harmful alliances. There were no good ethical reasons for NATO to expand to Russian border states.
3. Stealthily sow divisions among aggressive enemies when forced into conflict, encourage them to fight each other rather than yourself or your allies. Do not allow greedy, treasonous elites to sow divisions among ethical peoples. Ingroups engaging in divide-and-screw practices must be severely punished, both to stop the practices and as a deterrent. Outgroups exercising power over you by divide-and-screw practices must face similar punishments.
4. Avoid wasting your own lives and resources to help unethical peoples. If they won't make massive sacrifices to help themselves and their own people, neither should we. Avoid self destructive conflicts with guerrillas in foreign lands.
5. Avoid recklessly reinforcing defeat. Ignore sunk costs. What was spent in the past is irrelevant to what we should spend now.
6. Be careful with bluffs. They often backfire when enemies call them.
7. Avoid hiring mercenaries. If mercenaries seem a beneficial solution, you probably are doing multitudes or other acts wrong.
8. Ethics matters most, including having clear goals and cost-benefit reasoning, especially maximizing the ratio of harms to unjust enemies to harms done to oneself. Self-examination and self-knowledge must be ruthless. Military means and ends must be ethical means and ends. Contemporary forces talk about ethics but the talk is glib and poorly reasoned, often consisting of empty slogans and buzzwords.
9. Eugenics is a must and ethnoracial homogeneity a worthy goal. Civilizations seldom progress if the demographics don't improve.
10. Some ordinary whites regard agreements as binding. Most others regard agreements as disposable when opportune. 
11. Avoid intervening on behalf of lesser evils.
12. Encourage risk neutrality, that is, avoid both overreacting and under reacting.
13. Avoid fights when ethical people lack the will to fight.
14. Avoid fights to engage in pseudo-ethical grandstanding. Some politicians are willing to fight wars merely to prove they have the moral high ground in some minor way. Others demonize opponents to distract from their own evils.
15. Avoid viewing war as a game or as an entertaining escape from boredom. Have no interest in watching the world burn. If we are not self-possessed, others will crush our necks with their boots. We must find ethical escapes from boredom and depression.
16. Avoid war or require all out sacrifices by all non-disabled adults and teens.
17. Know commitment levels of allies. Have accurate recognition of allies, enemies, and noncombatants.
18. Seek peace but not merely to allow probable enemies to buy time to defeat you in the future.
19. Tests must be thorough in realistic conditions, no small sample testing.
20. Prevent personality cultism from arising around unethical or incompetent leaders.
21. Individuals must be treated justly.
22. Commit to frequent improvements.
23. Avoid military jargon, especially acronyms. They are alienating. Use language to inspire and provide evidence, including the best counter evidence.
24. Reason. Avoid fanaticism. Those who dismiss ideas merely because the ideas offend them have a fanaticism problem.
25. Ability and willingness to live off the land is a virtue.
26. Ethical warriors must have a no surrender mentality.
27. Support self-determination. Understand splintering, evolutionary egoism, psychological egoism, and misplaced altruism. 
28. Assume politicians, billionaires, and mass media are almost always slanted away from the whole truth.
29. Support philosophical diversity among ethical patriots, but keep aggressors, including infiltrators, from gaining control of institutions used for persuasion.
30. Assume enemies are more clever than they appear. Avoid overconfidence. Think of moves by enemies and likely counter moves to your moves. If you have advantages in numbers, technologies, and economic productivity, your enemies are probably working to gain other advantages. Never be smug.
31. Avoid ruminations, self-pity, wishful thinking, futility beliefs, and permanent ironic detachment.
32. Do right acts despite fear, ennui, anxiety, and other helpful or harmful emotions.
33. Remember that attacks often reveal you to others and expose you to counterattacks, including rhetorical attacks.
34. Opportunity costs of unjust wars are often greater than the direct costs.
35. Better alternatives probably exist than the ones being promoted.
36. If a potential adversary engages in mercantilism, avoid trade with them beforehand. Mercantilism is a sign of egoism, Machiavellianism, and future aggression.
37. Persuasion or assassination are usually better than war.

The details, of how and where to apply these tactics and strategies, fill thousands of books. Context matters. A super expert on World War II could tell you what a World War II commander should have done, even for some battles they never heard of because they understand the context of the war. If you take the same expert and transport them in a time machine to the eleventh century, they might struggle. They would know principles such as taking the high ground but know little about context. They wouldn't know the motivations of those around them. They wouldn't know who is trustworthy. They might not know the comparative strengths and weaknesses of weapons on various sides. They would not know how various sides had performed in previous battles. Etc.

Many of the strategies listed above do not apply to nuclear or biological warfare. But they do apply to the aftermath of nuclear or biological warfare. At some point during even the most gung ho nuclear war, the side that emerges most able to function, if any, would probably realize that further nuclear attacks would do more to poison their own land with radiation than harm their perceived enemies. In other words, they would not want winds to carry massive amounts of radiation back to their own lands. It is unlikely that even the most horrific nuclear war would kill every person on the planet. In the aftermath of nuclear wars, survivors would find themselves competing or cooperating with other survivors depending on their characters and ethnoracial traits, though some would attempt to be complete hermits. But we can't build or rebuild civilizations with hermits. The infrastructure for building more nuclear weapons would also likely be gone. Many would find themselves in local turf and resource conflicts where conventional military tactics and strategies would reemerge since hungry, desperate individuals would not play the asinine game of counterinsurgency warfare. Unethical insurgents and the "civilians" who aid them would get scorched earth treatment, not kid gloves treatment. The contemporary lobbies for long distance interventionism and counterinsurgency war profiteering would be gone. Groups of survivors clinging to contemporary norms will find themselves exploited and wiped out.

It should be obvious by now that almost every Western military strategist for over half a century has stunk up the place. Yet they keep getting paid and socially promoted.