Minipedia of Multicultural Contradictions, Part VIII

1. Reciprocal altruism increases when groups are more alike. Tit-for-tat increases when groups are less alike.
2. Brain environment preoccupied multiculturalists label critics of multicultural cultures as genetic determinists.
3. Every politician who embraces integration or segregation rather than universal self-determination.
4. Multiculturalists expect good results from races genetically and culturally unlikely to experience cognitive dissonance and notice contradictions, except in their perceived enemies.
5. Multiculturalists regard non-white minorities as off limits to criticism because of their weakness in numbers. But whites are less than ten percent of the population on a planet where billions are indoctrinated with anti-white fallacies, including most whites.
6. Multiculturalism has a selection effect for individuals inclined toward power trips, are hostile toward the non-wealthy individuals they rule over, causing multiculturalists to care little about inciting wars.
7. Individuals in multicultural societies are more likely to support ingroup gangs than competent governance.
8. Fictional characters should be analyzed for having character traits that should be avoided or emulated. In multicultural societies, fictional characters become rhetorical weapons to demonize races.
9. Races predisposed to high self-esteem and dominance seeking are not races predisposed to decent governance, let alone good governance.
10. The "soft bigotry of low expectations" applies most of all to the abysmal standards leaders are held to in multicultural societies.
11. Multiculturalism leads to vile reactions such as Nazism.
12. The people labeled centrist or moderate in multicultural societies are the people that have the power to have institutions label them as such, no matter how totalitarian they are in actuality.
13. People who benefitted from thousands of years of eugenics, higher IQs, and higher levels of conscientiousness, use totalitarian force to impose dysgenic mass destruction on more vulnerable people.
14. Without eugenics, there would be no ethical character and no intelligent species.

Minipedia of Multicultural Contradictions, Part VII

1. Anti-white Donald Trump, a philosemitic ex-president, gets regularly slurred as a Nazi and anti-Semite.
2. Harms created by non-whites get ignored, whitewashed or assumed to have whiteness as a root cause without evidence. 
3. Lighter skinned non-whites and darker skinned whites self-identify as white or non-white, depending on perceived self-interest.
4. The more power multiculturalism gets, the worse economic equality gets.
5. A few HBDers believe black men pumping and dumping non-black women is beneficial because it produces offspring with higher IQs than the black men, forgetting that those offspring have lower IQs than their mothers, ignoring that those non-black women should be breeding with high character men with IQs above 130.
6. Between the ears affecting racial genes supposedly don't matter to multiculturalists, but they support strict race preservation or expansion for most non-white groups. Why? It's supposedly just irrelevant genes to them.
7. Multiculturalists support strict border controls for some countries, not others.
8. Media control by dark triad multiculturalists gets promoted despite the fact most whites are gullible and conforming to the point of ethnomasochism.
9. We're supposedly supposed to ethically judge only on the content of individual character, but multicultural judgments of character are increasingly dominated by tokenistic grandstanding and anti-whiteness rather than beneficence.
10. Despite having overwhelming power, multiculturalists constantly seek low power scapegoats for the moral failings of multiculturalists.
11. So-called model minorities are great at working hard in their perceived self-interests, terrible at ethical reasoning and actions. They don't stay model minorities once their power increases.
12. Neoconservative multiculturalists invade countries to convert them to neoconservative values, then invite mass destructive peoples into the West despite failing to convert them.
13. Non-white con artistry is seen as a sign of hipness, intelligence, and street smarts rather than as a character flaw.
14. Imitation social conservatives complain about societal lack of trust while increasing the percentage of the population that is not deserving of trust.
15. In multicultural societies, politicians increasingly get judged more on in-group symbolic gestures than on policies that harm millions.

Minipedia of Multicultural Contradictions, Part VI

1. Diversity gets called our greatest strength, despite the horrific historical track record of racial diversity, while the social engineering practices of contemporary multiculturalists get worse.
2. Multicultural humanities and social science students spend fortunes on prestigious educations, to get worse understandings of human beings than many others get for low cost on the internet.
3. Multiculturalists assume non-whites have little moral agency for harms they create while treating non-whites as morally superior. White multiculturalists treat their dogs as if they have more moral agency than non-whites, even punishing their dogs for misbehaviors dogs did hours earlier. Yet dogs have no cognitive ability to understand non-immediate punishments.
4. The so-called reformist political policies of multicultural billionaires produce disastrous results over and over, including the blank slate educational policies promoted or paid for by tech billionaires. Yet such billionaires never reform themselves.
5. Multiculturalists treat most whites as potential Nazis. Yet they do not treat non-whites as potentially tyrannical despite their track records of tribalism and tyranny. Multiculturalists assume non-whites will behave in the future as they do when non-whites are tiny minorities. But their track record says nope. The more the harmful powers of multiculturalists increase, the more power they claim they need.
6. Black crimes against Asians were treated as a crises of the month by the media in 2021. But rampant black crimes against whites in schools and prisons are treated as minor or as nothing burgers.
7. Multiculturalists are fine with revanchism and colonialism when non-whites do them.
8. Multiculturalists promote reparations to equalize black and white household wealth, while ignoring that blacks will spend much of that money on frivolous things and that non-black households have fewer earners per household.
9. Many non-white groups are off limits to even ethically beneficial criticism while whites get demonized with vile, fallacious rhetoric.

Minipedia of Multicultural Contradictions, Part V

1. Media assume that whites must be lying and blacks must be telling the truth despite the fact that blacks commit most ethnoracial hoax crimes and false flag crimes, ignoring the studies that suggest self-reports from blacks are inaccurate.
2. Free riding, empty suit generals and admirals claim diversity increases meritocracy.
3. Rod Dreher, and the other Soren Kierkegaardian practitioners of ethical nihilism, treat unethical religious beliefs as morally more important than 500 million living, breathing whites.
4. Americans spend trillions to export neoconservative values to recalcitrant Muslims, while helping Persian Gulf Sunnis, who rank among the worst beings on Earth, export their horrific values to the West.
5. Free riders, who owe most of their incomes to Westerners, complaining about alleged white privilege.
6. Universities give non-resident tuition waivers to foreign students from wealthy families with worse academic performance than working class native students denied non-resident tuition waivers.
7. Contemporary ruling classes agree that slavery was so evil that multitudes of individuals needed to be slaughtered in the 1800s to stop slavery--while being allied with frenemies in Africa and Southwest Asia who practice slavery and near slavery today.
8. Some multiculturalists claim that Antifa, cancel culture, the deep state, etc. don't exist, then the same multiculturalists cheer when those groups cancel or brutalize whites.
9. Multiculturalists treat humans as having value only if they exist in racially diverse groups or non-white only groups.
10. Twenty percent of blacks had interactions with police in 2015. Twenty percent of blacks self-report that they have been treated unfairly by police the past 30 days.
11. Multiculturalists consider 100 percent non-white groups to have maximum diversity.
12. Multicultural pundits and academics get treated as experts on non-multiculturalists despite their writings on non-multiculturalists being riddled with ad hominem and straw person attacks.
    

Minipedia of Multicultural Contradictions, Part IV

1. Multicultural assimilationists fail to notice that contemporary whites assimilate into non-white values more than non-whites assimilate into Western values.
2. Paul Krugman.
3. Multiculturalists consider unhealthy, impoverished whites more privileged than young, healthy, affirmative action non-whites.
4. Schools and libraries have displays decrying the evils of banning books while having wifi that blocks fact facing websites and employees refusing to buy books that contradict their poorly reasoned agendas.
5. This.
6. Multiculturalists—who control nearly all schools, corporations, mass media, and government entities—act as if they are a besieged minority.
7. Multiculturalists—whose media, schools and corporations spend several hundred billion dollars promoting their world views—gripe about the comparatively miniscule funding of dissenting media.
8. Non-whites act as if they should be granted the right to assault and murder whites why denying the right to self-defense to whites enduring unprovoked assaults.
9. Parasitic Persian Gulf states have per capita incomes larger than Americans defending them.
10. Political check points and road blocks: every case of a person being stopped at those from 2016 until now is a politically motivated felony of unlawful detainment, that is, terrorism. Yet it doesn't get counted in terrorism stats.

Minipedia of Multicultural Contradictions, Part III

1. Multiculturalists believe never let a crisis go to waste, meaning when multiculturalists create disasters, they regularly repeat that others deserve blame and pretend their disasters are evidence for their agendas, as is happening right now as they blame others for Afghanistan and demand more disastrous interventions and power for themselves.
2. Multicultural rulers demand ever greater sacrifices from non-wealthy whites while sacrificing almost nothing themselves. In fact, they benefit from the bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw multiculturalism.
3. From George Will to Thomas Friedman and Leonard Pitts, zero percent of Pulitzer Prize winning multiculturalist opinion writers deserved the award. Same for MacArthur genius grants.
4. Non-white countries receive almost no criticism from multiculturalists for having ethnoracial based citizenship laws.
5. Taleb.
6. Oligarchic, anti-white, neoconservative New Democrats tell pollsters they have no respect for oligarchic, anti-white, neoconservative Republicans.
7. Multiculturalists claim they will move to Canada because of political acts they oppose. Shouldn't they move to Haiti, Africa or Southwest Asia to get more to the vibrant diversity they use totalitarian coercion to force on non-wealthy whites?
8. The subhumanization of whites: European Parliament President Martin Schulz: “For me, the new Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.”
9. Multiculturalists alternate between bragging about eliminating whites and calling white elimination a "conspiracy theory."

Minipedia of Multicultural Contradictions, Part II

1. Multiculturalists excoriate US imperialism. But the United States is more like a colony than imperial power. Wealthy individuals who have nearly all the power over the United States are citizens in a legalistic sense, not a moral sense. Many are not citizens in a legalistic sense. The kings and princes of Saudi Arabia have more influence over US policies than millions of United States working class citizens. Billionaires living in the United States pay few taxes as a percentage of their ill gotten incomes. Those that renounce their legalistic citizenship face few punishments. Imperialism is rule by an emperor or a country controlling other countries or peoples. The United States does not legally control other countries. Nor does it indirectly control countries. Puerto Rico and other territories would be granted Independence if they demanded it. Contemporary Trade practices are rigged against the United States. The most imperialistic part of the United States is refusing to grant self-determination to natives. But multiculturalists oppose that.
2. Feign woke or go broke at the short term individual level. Be woke and go broke at the long term societal level.
3. Judges overturn laws, claiming the motives of white lawmakers were bad, regardless of the laws' merits. Does that mean most laws made by multiculturalists should be overturned because their motives are atrocious?
4. Racial egalitarians support equality in practice only when it coincides with their perceived self-interests.
5. Western ruling groups support both oligarchal sharia and oligarchal neoconservatism, wasting lives and trillions of dollars when the two conflict and when the two agree.
6. When they have the money to do so, white multiculturalists move far from the low functioning diversity they use totalitarian government coercion to force on non-wealthy whites.
7. Multiculturalists oppose ethically accurate stereotyping while promoting their false, unethical stereotypes.
8. Multiculturalists disparage Western values while promoting worse afro-semitic values.
9. Multiculturalists excoriate colonialism by whites but support or whitewash  worse colonialism by people of color.
10. Multicultural economists believe their iron law of supply and demand somehow doesn't apply when migrants reduce working class wages.

Minipedia of Multicultural Contradictions, Part I

Having ethical contradictions matters big time--in a terrible way. Multiculturalism, like all other evil ideologies, is riddled with them. My new project: providing a resource of multicultural contradictions.

1. Multiculturalists deny self-determination to whites, copts, tibetans, and some other groups, while extolling self-determination for others, despite the fact that those others have worse ethical track records.
2. Multiculturalists claim open borders will unleash massive untapped, beneficial creativity and brain power. Roughly: if a country has a mean IQ of about 80 and a standard deviation of about 12.5, a mere one in 30,000 citizens will have an IQ at or above a somewhat smart 130, four standard deviations above the country's mean. Most countries with mean IQs below 90 have zero citizens with IQs above 160. A large percentage of the higher IQ fraction in poor countries consists of totalitarian free riders, not the sort of people who should come to the West to prey on cuckish, altruistic, xenocentric whites. The remainder do important work in productive fields such as medicine and engineering, an ill affordable brain drain. Migrants and their descendents from higher mean IQ China specialize in espionage and anti-white activities, a creative but terrible brain power.
3. "National conversations" about ethnoracial issues include only anti-white Marxists, anti-white New Democrats, anti-white Libertarians, and anti-white neoconservatives.
4. The alleged protectors of Western Civilization protections against multiculturalism are harmful bait-and-switch dog whistles.
5. Whites who deny jobs to other whites, to increase opportunities for less qualified non-whites, almost never donate their own jobs to people of color.
6. Multiculturalists condemn non-multiculturalists for judging non-whites by their skin colors. Since Frank Salter, the Dalai Lama, and few others are the only prominent or semi-prominent non-whites to not be anti-white, judging non-whites by skin color is darn accurate. Non-multiculturalists are willing to make exceptions for the few non-whites who aren't anti-white, as they do for Frank Salter and the Dalai Lama.
7. The worse the multiculturalists, the greater their total fertility rates.
8. By falsely claiming to have been called racial slurs, non-whites increasingly get away with numerous crimes. In other cases, they treat being offended as a right to fine, assault, imprison, and murder whites. Being offended by a thing is irrelevant to whether the thing is good or bad.
9. "To be white is to be racist, period."
10. Ethnic studies lionize non-whites while whiteness studies demonizes whites.
11. Exactly zero percent of our highly paid multicultural thought leaders is a knowledgeable policy expert.

The Benefits and Harms of the Lab Leak Conclusion

The potential benefits:

1. As with almost every evil created by entrenched contemporary establishments, the pathogen alteration industry has carried on with little reform. The somewhat probable truth of the Covid19 lab leak conclusion creates more leverage to close many labs.

2. The truth has value in itself. Because nearly all establishments are dominated by individuals devoted to unethical egoisms and often outright psychopathy, they deluge us with falsehoods and other fallacies. Other individuals get jaded or lazy, becoming less willing to reason accurately. Devotion to truth seeking must be both willed and habitual. China's ruling classes, with monetary assistance from US ruling groups, have probably committed negligent homicide numbering in the tens of millions, no matter the origins of covid-19. The Chinese government engaged in a massive cover-up. They shuttered intra-China travel from covid-19 hotspots while permitting international travel from covid-19 hotspots.

3. The somewhat probable lab leak is another logical nail in the coffins of globalism and multiculturalism.

4. Supporters of evils by Western ruling classes habitually respond to claims they consider offensive with a deluge of ad hominem attacks, straw person claims, small samples, and other fallacies. People who care more whether something offends them than the moral truth almost always support totalitarianism, habitually demonizing those with the temerity to contradict their fallacies. A few of these individuals might now experience cognitive dissonance over their prior knee-jerk responses with r-slurs and conspiracy theory distortions.

The potential harms: China starts a super war or does other aggressive acts because their ruling classes are so thin skinned they can not tolerate criticism on important issues from thousands of miles away. The probability and expected value of this is tiny. Aggressive ruling classes almost always spew pretexts for their evils that have little to with their real reasons for doing evils: sadism, egoism, dysgenics, groupthink, kakistocracy, overconfidence, salami slicing, excessive power, dark triad traits, high-unstable self-esteem, and manufacturing belief with frequent repetition. Face value self-reported motivations by ruling classes should almost never be believed. Chinese ruling classes have committed billions of evils over the past several generations, almost always with fallacious pretexts. Paradoxically, outside ruling groups willingly excoriate China over far less important issues.

Median Household Racial Stats Mislead

Ruling class thinkers point out the alleged horror that the median white household has a much larger income and wealth than the median black household. 

But using medians to compare households is usually inaccurate because of large demographic differences.

Black households around the black median rent and have one working adult, often a single parent. White, Jewish, and Asian households around their medians have homes and two working adults. Hence the big gaps. Households with two working adults earn far more than households with one working adult.

The median white household has most of their wealth tied up in a home. Contemporary houses are poor investments. They extract large costs in interest, insurance, repairs, property taxes, and real estate prices. (But hey, people have to live somewhere. And property taxes tend to be wasted on overpriced schools that teach social Marxism and other worse than worthless subjects.) Multitudes of affordable working class and middle class white neighborhoods were ruined by the multicultural, real estate, and financial industries over the past 60 years.

If social Marxism continues its relentless advance, the median white household will one day be an individual adult or single parent. The median White household income and wealth will plummet to near the black level.

Medians are more accurate for comparing individuals, provided we adjust for relevant factors, including age, IQ, laziness, spending habits, criminality, education level, educational field, conscientiousness, job preferences, job experience, local cost of living, etc.

Not Falling for Specious Arguments

How should we logically and ethically weigh an extremely clever, specious argument from an economics expert, even if like myself, we have no formal training in economics? To wit: Noah Smith's argument that recent migrants do not lower wages, meaning the wages of natives. Below are quotes from Smith's argument. I left out most of Smith's irrelevancies, circular claims, and other fallacies for copyright reasons. Some of my comments are in parentheses because I can't do brackets on my phone.

"No one is going to be persuaded by this post (persuasion is irrelevant)." Polls suggest significant variation in immigration views from year to year.

"First, people don’t really believe social science evidence. It took years and years of empirical research — solid results, almost all pointing in the same direction — just to shift academic economists’ opinions on the effects of minimum wage (irrelevant to immigration)." Most social science studies aren't evidence, especially pro-multiculturalist studies. Surprisingly, Smith portrays economists as having closed minds while also treating them as the top experts on immigration issues. The views of Marxian, libertarian, and neoliberal economists all massively contradict each other, and more important, massively contradict reality. Economists in some European countries, where most migrants receive welfare or engage in free riding occupations, preposterously tell pollsters that migrants are not lowering wages of natives.

"The average person, not being an academic economist, has even less of an idea of how reliable social science research is (false claim)."

"Second, in my experience (small sample), anti-immigration people (irrelevant ad hominem) are completely set in their belief that immigration should be restricted (false claim). It’s their fixed north star (false analogy). The justifications change — Lower wages! Environmental destruction! Brain drain! Rule of law! Cultural change! (straw person, good reasons are additive and there are far more) — but the policy conclusion never wavers (false claim).

"So this post isn’t going to persuade anti-immigration people (irrelevant ad hominem) to change their stance, and it’s probably not going to persuade (irrelevant) many normies (irrelevant ad hominem) to be up in arms about the need to let in more immigrants, either. But it’s still important to write (false claim), and not just because I’m a stubborn S.O.B. who will die face-down in the muck fighting for The Empirical Evidence (false claim). It’s because in another 20 years or so, when America’s current freakout (straw person) over identity and nationhood has passed, we’re hopefully going to be ready to let in a bunch of immigrants again."

"Most people think of labor markets as determined by supply and demand (straw person). This is actually not a great model of the labor market in general (straw person, it is better than alternatives offered)."

"A positive labor supply shock pushes wages down. A positive labor demand shock pushes up wages. Maybe one of those effects is a little bigger; maybe the other. But they’re going to mostly cancel out (false claim)."

"And to see why this is true, just think about babies. Each new generation is bigger than the one that came before it. If those young people were just a labor supply increase, then as population went up, wages would go down. But obviously that’s not what happens, because young people also buy stuff, which pushes up labor demand, which pushes wages back up (false analogy and missing quantification)."

"Immigrants are just babies from elsewhere (false analogy)."

"As you might expect, economists have done quite a lot of research on the question of whether immigration lowers wages. It’s not the kind of thing where you can just wave your hands and... conclude that the former causes the latter... just a few reasons you can’t just look at overall correlations: Immigrants may compete with some groups of native-born workers more than others; for example, less-educated immigrants might compete mainly with native-born workers without a high school degree (no good reason to use the word may here)."

"Second, they try to compare places that get immigrants with places that don’t, but which are otherwise similar in all economic respects (false claim)." This is why all the pro migration studies are junk. Economists ignore dozens of long-term indirect factors, factors they consider offensive, and so on. They ignore IQ, faulty measures, unrepresentative sampling, character traits, economic effects of cultural changes, the low productivity of some migrant groups far more numerous descendants, and so on. Those groups' descendants then get counted as part of the native population in future junk science. It is extremely important to know whether the descendants of migrants will cause genocides, subjugation, totalitarianism, civil wars, societal collapse or massive amounts of legalized corruption. The historical track record of diversity is atrocious.

Smith does not stick to the wage issue. He raises the irrelevant issue of whether contemporary migration is good in general, treating the wage issue as if it decides the immigration issue, leaving out other  important issues, especially issues more important than the wage issue. Smith lists the junk science, some of it relevant to unemployment but not the wage issue. 

Smith never mentions productivity.

If an immigrant group, and far more important, their much less productive descendants, are less productive than the native population but disproportionately get hiring quotas, receive welfare benefits, and enter into multitudes of other free riding activities, they will almost certainly lower the median and mean hourly compensations of native populations, along with living standards. It's important to know the rates of Machiavellianism, psychopathy, evolutionary egoism, psychological egoism, unethical egoism, and other traits among differing ethnoracial groups, but that would be too offensive to know or mention. Immigration also turns native populations into worse and less productive people than they would otherwise be. Many immigrant groups become far worse as their power and numbers increase. A decades-old study tells us little about how ethnoracial groups will behave 50 years from now when they have more power.

There is also an ever decreasing quality in the character of ethnoracial groups entering the US, but they are all just lumped together as immigrants by Smith.

To weigh arguments, we should give no weight to fallacies and compare the relevant good points from various sides. Unfortunately, for Smith's argument, it contains no good points and thus no evidence despite his claims to the contrary. It matters little whether he has a dozen or 50 dozen evidence-free junk science studies to cite. We should not fall for rhetorical tricks no matter how clever. The long-term consequences for present societies' rampant glib, craven, and anti-reason views on dysgenic and multicultural issues will be disastrous for hundreds of future generations.

An Extremely Brief Guide to Current American Political Parties

Democratic Party: plutocratic globalism, multiculturalism, totalitarianism, and super neoconservatism. Democrats took the lead in neoconservatism by trying to start a super war over Russiagate exaggerations. Liberal interventionism and liberal democracy are merely euphemisms for neoconservatism.

Republican Party: super plutocratic globalism, multiculturalism, totalitarianism, and neoconservatism. Civic nationalism and American nationalism (Amnat) are also euphemisms for neoconservatism.

Libertarian Party: super plutocratic globalism, multiculturalism, totalitarianism, and stealth neoconservatism. Those who tolerate or support legalized bribery and control of the mass media by neoconservatives are stealth neoconservatives, no matter how they claim to oppose neoconservative militarism in their periodicals. Policies matter more than platitudes.

Green Party: multiculturalism, stealth communism.

Constitution Party: Republican party with more Yahweh and Tea Party stuff, including the elimination of social security.

Justice Party: more willing to reform plutocratic economics than the Greens but also has tendencies towards communism.

Reform Party: Yes, the party that Ross Perot made famous still exists. For specifics, the party insists it plans to "stop illegal immigration" and "get us out of NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA and the WTO now." Plus a balanced budget scheme, causing nightmarish austerity during depressions and recessions. Also some plans to fight corruption.

American Freedom Party: hard to tell. Could be a bait-and-switch party supporting Hitlerism. But at least their platform is semi-decent, albeit vague. It does claim to support self-determination universalism. Party members supported Trump in 2016, massively contradicting their platform.

National Justice Party: a few weeks old. Too soon to tell but does not look promising.

How evil are the establishment parties? They have been working to incite an anti-white civil war for the past several months, to distract the populace from establishment evils--classic divide-and-screw behavior. They expect unemployed gig workers, the formerly self-employed, recent graduates, part time workers, and millions of others ineligible for unemployment compensation to live until the corona crises ends on the $1,200 they received months ago.

Do Not Take Medical Advice from Charles Murray

In a recent tweet, Charles Murray wrote, "the rational way to choose a physician is to take the East Asian or South Asian first, or a person with a Jewish last name. Not racist, but a matter of correctly playing the odds of getting competent care." Likely because those groups score higher than whites on IQ tests, with Jews leading the way, having IQs roughly 11 points higher than whites, assuming Murray means Brahmin Caste for South Asian.

But physicians are not randomly selected from populations.

Except for blacks and other affirmative action cases, they come from narrow, homogenous IQ sub-groups--smart people. We should not assume Jewish doctors are much smarter than white doctors. The mean IQs of Jewish and white physicians should be nearly identical because the white population is at least 25 times larger than the Jewish population despite Jews having a roughly 11 point larger mean IQ on tests.

The mean GPA of 2015-2016 medical school applicants labeled white is 3.73, that of applicants labeled Asian: 3.73. (The stats likely count people of North African and Southwest Asian descent as white. The stats do not separate Northeast Asians, Brahmin Caste Indians, and other Asians.)

That's not counting rampant cheating done by non-whites. In Asia, students riot and launch lawsuits if they are not permitted to cheat, on the grounds that it is an unfair disadvantage to not be permitted to cheat when their co-ethnics cheat. They cheat in classrooms, and they hire allies to take standardized tests for them.

But medical competence is more than IQ. Whites are higher in compassion, including for other whites, while nonwhites often regard whites as merely a means to their own ends. Whites are also more able to face facts that conflict with self-interest, more able to experience guilt for mistakes and correct those mistakes. See Peter Frost's blog for research on character traits.

For decades, Brahmin orthopedic surgeons more eagerly recommended articular cartilage shaving surgeries to patients, though the surgeries made knees worse because they cared more about making money than facing facts. They did not care when patients complained their knees were worse than before surgeries. They continue to prescribe fish oil despite well-reasoned research contradicting fish oil for cardiovascular health. There are powerful genetic and environmental reasons why India has had a vicious caste system for thousands of years.

In the absence of other specific evidence, choose white doctors first, Northeast Asians second, other non-black doctors third, and black doctors last.

(By the way, Murray's Libertarian economic ideas are even more poorly reasoned.)

The establishments wanted to watch parts of America burn

In the days after the death of George Floyd, there was a palpable realization that it was just a matter of time before the mass domestic terrorism started. We live in a bizarro land where riots are seen as both predictable and unstoppable.

No political leader that I know of instituted a preemptive curfew and made clear that any outdoor political gathering of two or more individuals would be subject to immediate arrest. Hell, politicians could have claimed arrests were part of Corona prevention.

Any competent public school teacher will note they must be a hard-ass the first several days of school or things fall apart.

Democrats wanted to send a message of look what Trump's divisiveness has caused, then when damage escalated, they shifted to placing nearly all the blame on "White antifa," the same establishment that spent the past four years cheering on antifa. Now they cite evidence free rumors of "white supremacist" provocateurs. As JP Rushton and Judith Rich Harris both pointed out, blacks are genetically and environmentally predisposed toward dominance seeking, despite their poor IQs and characters, making it unlikely they would follow a tiny percentage of white provocateurs.

So even on a weekend when nearly all terrorism is being committed by people of color and-or communism, the establishment media are trying to blame people they slur and distort as "white supremacists." And the multicultural faith-based believers believe what their mass media tell them to believe.

Trump wants to sweep in and pretend to be the law and order president despite spending over three years talking tough, promoting white collar crime, and stabbing his voter base in the back.

No matter which political party gains an advantage from the riots, we people lose.

Pathogen Preparations: Another Failure of Fake Meritocracy

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

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

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

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

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

Three More Simple Reasoning Hacks

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

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

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

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

Most arguments ethically worth reading are on obscure websites.

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

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

Five Simple Hacks to Improve Reasoning

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

Kurds, The Letter, and Obama's Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counting Scandals

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

Their scandal accounting is BS.

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

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

Some of us have noticed.

Voting Strategies for the Next Presidential Election

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

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

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

Below are some potential strategies for ethnoracial fact facers.

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

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

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

I'm leaning toward avoiding mass evil.

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

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

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

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

Such behavior is rampant in neoconservatism and multiculturalism.

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

Russiagate Aftermath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the reality is even worse.

Here is the ADL's terrible definition of extremism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Colony We Live in: Homeless Edition

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

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

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

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

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

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

The White Flight Spectacle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That "Right Wing Authoritarianism" Study

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

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

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

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

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

Strange Partisans

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break it up.

Nonmulticulturalism: Worth the Bother

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

So why bother?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avoiding Humble, Passive-Aggressive Con Artistry

'Tis the season for dealing with relationships--good and bad.

Many arguments warn us about what are euphemistically called fast men and fast women. More difficult to detect are individuals devoted to subtle, manipulative psychological and evolutionary egoisms, especially during falling in love periods when they feign being reciprocal altruists. Such individuals are sometimes described as nice, pious, humble, hard working, and family oriented by acquaintances. Former partners are less effusive. Feigners will be most motivated to hide their characters when opportunities to exploit a sugar daddies or sugar mommas exist.

How do we separate humble, ethical, hard working reciprocal altruists from those feigning such traits? What are some warning signs behind the humble, manipulative masks?

Often feigners appear to be good ones among bunches of bad kin. Feeling compassion for a potential partner's terrible family situation is not a good reason for a romantic relationship. Why? First, the feigned good ones often regress to their behavioral means after falling in love periods. They'll blame others because their relationships did not meet their fantasy expectations. "So disappointed." Second, bad kin gradually make spouses' lives hellish. In the long run, many feigners will take the side of terrible kin over spouses and other non kin. Third, if they are actually good, but have bad kin, such good ones still carry terrible genes, which will often be expressed in children or grandchildren.

Feigners are seldom cruel enough to treat service workers poorly, but often treat such workers with indifference, unless the service worker is sexually attractive.

Feigners talk often about hopes, plans, and goals but do not put massive efforts into achieving them.

Feigners treat artistic or religious assertions as if they override well-reasoned ethical conclusions, for example, the belief that birth control is a violation of God's will--as their relatives give birth to dysgenic offspring. Watch for very, very narrow pre-conceptions of what constitutes ethical issues.

Watch for contradictions: they feign great interest in your more substantial, well-reasoned intellectual pursuits but remain overly fascinated in celebrities, TV news, pop psychology, spectator sports, and other aspects of mass cultures, treating hedonistic lifestyles as cool, edifying or empowering. Once they get the ring they lose interest in your pursuits, preferring the intuitive appeal of mass cultures. Then what will you talk about over dinner? They'll praise their low character relatives, but during moments of frustration, when one kin harms another, they'll reveal truths that contradict the praise. Feigners exhibit excessive grouchiness over their own minor illnesses such as small cuts, but lack sufficient compassion for health problems experienced by non kin, including spouses. Feigners excessively or inaccurately criticize acquaintances behind their backs while making excuses for terrible behavior by self and close biological kin.

Many who describe themselves as family oriented are often merely family oriented toward close biological kin.

The fact that individuals work 40 plus hours per work is some evidence but not sufficient evidence that they have good work ethics. Being stuck in ethical, low paying jobs because of outside circumstances is acceptable. But do they treat physical effort as drudgery despite having no physical disabilities? Do they work as slowly as they can get away with? Do they take an excessive number of days off work because they don't feel like working? Are they often late to work? Such feigners seek partners to rescue them into a couch potato lifestyle. A good person is self-possessed, a go getter, having little interest in wasting hundreds of hours sunbathing, watching TV or using Facebook. Some individuals are intimidated by go getters, even when they themselves are go getters. Don't be.

I should briefly mention politics. Politically, feigners cause mass destruction, including via their support for mass dysgenic, non white immigration with small sample images of allegedly pious, humble non white women and children, seldom mentioning those women and children are prone to great evils, especially as the children age.

Even in countries where most migrants are on welfare, media and economists keep insisting that non white migrants are humble, hard working, economically beneficial, and beneficial in other ways--and will "pay for retirements."

Their descendants will be far worse.

Suspicious Economic Statistics

While evidence of increased inequality is overwhelming, other economic survey research looks more suspicious.

Inequality has generally increased during Republican presidencies and decreased during Democratic presidencies, but New Democrats don't advertise the fact that inequality also increased during most of Obama's presidency. New Democrats pull a slight of hand, trying to take credit for gains correlated with long gone presidents, having differing policies.

Democrats have been wedded to the narrative that wages for nonwealthy workers have "stagnated" for decades because evidence of decline would make their own neoliberal, free riding policies look bad, though Republican neoliberal policies are much worse.

Part of this seems driven by the intuition that median per hour wages have increased simply because people now have more toys, ignoring that individuals have more toys because values changed, more wives work now, individuals have fewer children to support, and the nation is older, meaning more individuals have had more years of collecting toys, not to mention wealthy economists simply generalizing from the small sample, availability error of their own circumstances.

Among Consumer Price Index errors, hedonic pricing appears to be a major contributor, especially when applied to housing. Technologies that are more harmful and habit forming should not be treated as hedonic pricing positives. This and other errors leads to alternative Consumer Price Indexes.

Turning to unemployment and some other issues, unrepresentative sampling is a big problem: Because of increases in caller ID and illegal telemarketer calls, a large percentage of working class individuals do not answer phone calls from strange numbers or numbers outside their area codes. Many have pre-pay, pay per minute plans. Almost every time such individuals answer a call it costs them a minimum of ten cents per minute. Since the top one percent today mostly engages in free riding and dark triad activities, they are also less likely to answer calls from strange numbers. Upper middle class individuals, individuals with middle class values, are more likely to be helpful on the phone, making such individuals over sampled.

We have neocolonial establishments that produced thousands of fallacious statistics that we were winning the various counterinsurgency wars, that nonwhite immigration is beneficial, that racial diversity is also beneficial, that genetic factors should be ignored or discounted when doing research, that epigenetics is massively important, that priming has big effects, that early childhood environmental factors have huge impacts on adult behavior, etc. Why should we simply simply assume their economic stats are accurate when economics is not far from sociology and criminology in junk science tendencies?

Countries with Substantial White Minorities: Yeesh

The following countries are or were one to 49.9 percent White within the past 60 years according to The World Factbook: Cuba, Peru, Brazil, Belize, Mexico, Georgia, Bolivia, Panama, Suriname, Armenia (maybe), Ecuador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Paraguay (maybe), Zimbabwe, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Costa Rica, South Africa, and Northern Cyprus (the latter not recognized by Western countries). I have probably inadvertently left off some others. (The World Factbook reports Paraguay is 95 percent mestizo and five percent other. I don't know what that other five percent is.) I won't include White Russians in Israel since they pass and self-identify as part of the Ashkenazi Jewish majority.

What important characteristic do the above countries have in common? With the plausible exception of Costa Rica, they are all terrible places to live for ethical, non-wealthy, civic minded individuals. Costa Rica owes much of its semi-development to White tourism, White investments, White technologies, and low levels of militarism.

Unlike Costa Rica, Western countries with increasing racial diversity are all ruled by multiculturalists devoted to police state militarism, especially Sweden, Russia, and several NATO nations.

The counter argument: thousands of additional factors cause those lands to be terrible. Most were not settled by Northwest Europeans. Northeast Asians and Brahman Caste Indians will pick up where whites left off.

The counter counter argument: racial diversity and cultural Marxism make those thousands of additional factors worse, especially dysgenic breeding and bait-and-switch-divide-and-screw politics. Northwest Europeans failed to stop mass failure in Zimbabwe and South Africa, the two white minority countries settled by Northwest Europeans. Despite their high IQs and work ethic, Brahmans and Northeast Asians devote themselves to egoism and other unethical causes. Numerous countries have Brahman or Northeast Asian minorities combined with low IQ nonwhite majorities--those countries stink, except a plausible few with massive earnings from natural resources such as Trinidad and Tobago. Western countries are also infected with more cultural Marxian demagoguery than the White minority countries listed above, making mutually destructive conflicts more likely.

The takeaway: no one with a smidgen of ethical character should try to make White majority nations into White minority empires. The probabilities and negative expected values of dystopian results are too damn great.

Satirical Headlines Unlikely to Appear in the Onion, Part Three

See if you can guess which two headlines below are actual media headlines, not intended as parody:

Trump's America First Strategy So Stealthy No One Can Distinguish It from the Israel and Saudi Arabia First Strategies

Elizabeth Holmes Says She Can Now Detect Gullible Investors from a Single Drop of Blood

Decorated, Shell Shocked World War II Veteran Remembered As Coward After Fleeing with Gun Wound from His Final Battle by Individuals Too Craven to Oppose Multiculturalism

Local Middle Class Man Brags to Friends That He Has a House Cleaner, Declares That He Too Would Rather Be Murdered in His Bed Than Make It

Study: Spending $500,000 on Booze and Hookers Now Does Less Social Damage Than Donating $500,000 to Crooked Contemporary Charities

Local Man Doesn't Remember Trump Scandal He Thought Was Most Important Event in the World 89 Days Ago

Max Boot Determined to Prove Alleged Einstein Quote Right About Human Stupidity Being Infinite

Local Muslims Concerned Local Progressives Are Out Competing Them for Terrorism Funding

Woman with Hepatitis C Infection from Tattoo and HIV Infection from Vibrant Neighbor Calls Old Men Disgusting Perverts

In Vitro Quintuplets Argue About Who Was the Planned One

Feminist Fights for Right of Saudi "Kill the Infidels, Adulterers, Blasphemers, and Apostates" Women to Drive

Migrant Proud He Lowered Median Per Capita Incomes on Both Sides of the Border

Local Woman Concerned Neighborhood Girls Becoming "Too Slutty," Making It Harder for Her Slutty Daughter to Compete

Biologist in Bad Marriage Admits to Fear of Talking About Mantidae Sexual Cannibalism with Wife

Philosopher Stunned to Learn He Was Fooled by Clickbait Headlines 58 Times in a Row

Heads Explode as White Village Declares Itself a Tenth Amendment Sanctuary City

Curbing Hate Speech Isn’t Censorship – It’s the Law

Fearing Assaults, Feminist Admits She Tells Only White Men to Stop Manspreading

University of California Guide: Saying “I’m Not Racist” Is Racist

A Stunning Headhunting Quote

The gruesome quote below first appeared in a 1909 issue of the Sarawak Gazette. A longer excerpt of the worthwhile article is in A Stroll Through Borneo by James Barclay, which I cannot find an electronic version of. I snipped the excerpt below from Adventure Without End by Richard Bangs. (Obviously, the quote exaggerates how much time Dayaks spend thinking about headhunting.)

Another Plausible Eugenic Policy: Refundable Tax Credits for Home Schooling

Single parents tend to engage in dysgenic breeding. Research suggests a large percentage of the harmful results to personality traits of single parenting are due to genes, that is, terrible sex choices rather than the psychological absence of a spouse or most other in home environmental factors. Married couples much more often engage in eugenic breeding, at least when married, middle class whites breed.

The US educational mean amount spent per public school child is currently around $11,762. New York spends roughly $22,366. Special ed students cost much more.

Home schooling parents receive little help from the government. Basic fairness would require the government to provide help since societies gain the benefits of home schooled children while paying few costs. Home schools are not much different from being family based charter schools. Governments pay for charter schools, including charter schools that teach stealth jihad.

A refundable tax credit for home schooling would work like this: If a family with three home schooled children owes $32,000 in federal taxes, a refundable tax credit of $4,000 would reduce their taxes to $20,000. If a similar family owes $11,000, the tax credit would refund the family $1,000.

One counterargument is that home schooled children act a little odd, but that is because they inherited genes for eccentricity from their parents. Such children often inherited beneficial genes for creativity, intelligence, conscientiousness, self-reliance, and higher character in general. Such children also seem weird because today's normalcy is so depraved. In today's world, raising your hand with enthusiasm to answer a teacher's question is considered weird. But students bouncing off walls and raising hell is considered tolerable.

Another counterargument is that children would supposedly benefit more from exposure to public school education, meaning exposure to racial diversity and liberal arts. But exposure to racial diversity is massively destructive and the liberal arts are now devoted to banalities, psychobabble, and cultural Marxism. So this counterargument is bunk.

The other counterargument is the cost of the tax credit but if home schooling becomes more common, it should reduce costs since home schooling is much more economically efficient than today's schools.

First caveat: an only child who never socializes with anyone other than their parents will develop severe mental illnesses. On rare occasions, the media publish stories about vile parenting, locking an only child in a room or closet. So refundable tax credits for home schooling should apply only to families with two or more children, which more importantly, encourages good parents to have more than one child.

Second caveat: the tax credit must be large enough to encourage eugenic breeding and other beneficial results but not so large that some parents, especially single parents, view it as welfare and quit their jobs. A refundable tax credit of $10,000 would be too large. Those predisposed to dysgenics and free riding would have nine children, collect $90,000 per year, and stop working. Research could easily identify a near optimal size for such a tax credit.

Third caveat: home schooled children should be required to take standardized tests at the end of each school year. Children failing such tests should be required to attend public schools and their parents ruled ineligible for home school tax credits. This banning will also discourage such parents from further dysgenic breeding and encourage other parents to engage in competent teaching.

The Lost Willingness to Accurately Read Between the Lines: a Look at the Anonymous White House Official

The establishments are going gaga over an anonymous New York Times editorial by a senior White House official. But where are the smoking guns? The author states "many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations." But the author doesn't list one specific example. Does Trump drown puppies? Does Trump ship plutonium to North Korea?

In short, the official basically implies that Trump's brand of neoconservatism somewhat differs from the establishment's brand of neoconservatism, a great scandal in establishment circles. "The root of the problem is the president’s amorality." If so, then that implies neoconservatism is amoral.

"Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people." Get real. Neoconservatives don't support freedoms, except the freedom to purge fact facers, the freedom to commit billions of evils of omission, the freedom to rig markets for the well-connected, the freedom to create police states, the freedom to create mutually destructive wars--the "bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more."

"President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations." So merely engaging in diplomacy with dictatorships indicates a "preference for" dictatorships, unlike other neoconservatives who subjugate us to totalitarian Southeast Asian nations and ideologies while trashing our allies as "surrender monkeys."

"But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective... he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back." No, that's not a reference to George W. Bush and his habitual willingness to pursue whatever the first adviser to reach him tells him, the advisers carefully placed by those best at bribery. Nor is it a reference to every other president for over half a century, though it should be.

"There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans." Uh, the ethical reason for having a government is to put the people and other conscious beings first, not the country. The anonymous author acts as if we should be blind to the fact that elites have a long history of "reaching across the aisle" to screw the people over.

"Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making." Every argument I have seen with the phrase first principles attempts to makes virtues out of vices. Establishment first principles are garbage principles.

This is what Trump gets. He surrounds himself with neoconservatives and supports most of their policies, then acts surprised and outraged when they keep stabbing him (and far more importantly us) in the back.

Meanwhile, Trump has never even so much as met with a single supporter of White freedom and self-determination.

Visiting a Psychiatric Hospital

I visited a friend a few times at a psychiatric hospital.

The hospital did not fit the One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest image or other Hollywood images. For starters, nearly every patient was a comparatively young adult, a large percentage were young, attractive women. Most seemed friendly. From talking to patients, I gathered that many were there for social media caused mental illnesses. Computers and personal phones were banned. The main connection patients had with the outside world were phone booth style pay phones in a hallway. And patients couldn't leave the building to use the internet. They were locked in. (Doctors and lawyers are also probably concerned about patients photographing other patients and committing suicide with charging cords.)

Visitors were surprisingly rare. Maybe some patients had ticked off friends and relatives. Others probably had few friends, other than imitation internet friends.

I don't know whether other psychiatric hospitals are similar.

Don't expect Mark Zuckerberg or other social media titans to pay these patients' bills, though Facebook admits that Facebook damages mental health. Facebook acts as if "connecting" people needs no justification--amazing what people believe when it benefits their wealth.

Though the hospital was less tragically weird than Hollywood style psychiatric hospitals, the great tragedy here was so much wasted human potential, mentally ill individuals who should not be mentally ill.