The Demonization of Eugenics

For those who demonize eugenics with ad hominem attacks or fallacious appeals to tradition regarding Nazism: Why the inconsistency?

Why not demonize the thousands of other sciences and technologies practiced by Nazism? No more physics, chemistry, medicine, agriculture, and so on. Why not demonize the Islam, atheism, occultism, Lutheranism, and Catholicism practiced by Hitler's supporters?

And don't say it is because eugenics is evil and the others good.

Eugenics is beneficial. Otherwise no ethical humans or other animals would have evolved. An earth with only single celled organisms would be a worse place, as would an earth filled with ISIS supporters.

Hitler didn't practice eugenics. Hitler's allies practiced dysgenics, murdering individuals smarter and more ethical than themselves.

Many other fields produce numerous benefits but overall worse consequences than eugenics.

Physics brought us nuclear weapons. Biology brings bioweapons. Automotive and petroleum technologies cause evils of sprawl, OPEC, diversity, lung cancer, corruption, collision deaths, and jihad funding. Electronics technology helps indoctrinate billions with Islam, Randism, Marxism, Nazism, neoconservatism, multiculturalism, and third wayism.

Islam spread the hyper tribalism of Arabia to hundreds of countries.

Demonize dysgenics instead. Should we believe it better for individuals devoted to rent seeking, often with justified criminal convictions, to outbreed ethical citizens? We shouldn't help those with genes for aggression breed with gusto, yet we do.

Do liberal opponents of "idiocracy" not realize they're criticizing dysgenics and providing de facto support for eugenics?

Is cowardice so great they can't bring themselves to believe ethical facts that establishments oppose, even when there is little cost and many potential benefits? What will the establishments do? Hunt us down because we read about eugenics on the internet? Establishments have plenty of more self-interested reasons for wanting to crush us. We can keep eugenics beliefs to ourselves if necessary. We can also politely argue with acquaintances and their fanaticism about eugenics. Acquaintances may dump you, but big deal. Do you want to be acquainted with those who will not face easy facts?

Multitudes of individuals have been assaulted or murdered for telling the truth to multiculturalists or their Muslim pals, but has anyone been assaulted or murdered in the West merely for having eugenic beliefs?

The Return to High Growth: What Would Do It

Recent arguments focus on the preposterousness of returning to high growth with Democratic and Republican Party prescriptions, raising the question of whether any set of policies would achieve high growth.

Yes, they could by:

1. Enacting large Pigouvian taxes on negative externalities.
2. Stopping migration to the West.
3. Reducing one-sided, totalitarian trade ("free trade").
4. Sending most secondary students to work or vocational schools.
5. Enacting eugenic policies.
6. Eliminating the U.S. Army, Marine Corps, and the Department of Homeland Security. (No army, no COIN. Less temptation to pivot to Asia or elsewhere. Let fake allies pay for their own armies. And less temptation for the ruling groups to use the military against American civilians.)
7. Providing fiscal stimulus equal to shortfalls in demand.
8. Strictly regulating finance.
9. Slashing government spending on post-secondary schools, bringing back civil service exams.
10. Increasing taxes on the super rich.
11. Eliminating most tax entitlements.
12. Eliminating payroll taxes.
13. Paying Muslims and other individuals of mass destruction to leave the West.
14. Implementing thousands of other reforms.

But these are policies establishment parties will not do.

Big Ben and the Benjamins

The late Ben Wattenberg claimed neoconservatism is about reducing crime. Yet Wattenberg's articles were devoted to promoting cultural Marxism and the career of Joe Lieberman, the former senator devoted to militarism, Wall Street, cultural Marxism, and grandstanding on minor issues. (Don't wait too long for that tough on Wall Street crime article from neoconservatism.)

Wattenberg also said neoconservatism would be more popular if it were called chocolate.

**********

Tough on crime Democrats and Republicans are surprisingly pro-rich and anti-worker, as if the tough on crime stance is a pretext to increase establishment power. Crime reduction and pro-worker policies are a double movement of the soul the modern politician dares not enact.

Principles of Democracy

At a minimum, a democratic country must contain all of the following:

1. a self-determined group of individuals with each individual member capable of roughly equal voting influence via direct vote or party list proportional representation or both.
2. roughly equal meritocratic opportunity for individuals to have well-reasoned media influence.
3. swift, severe, highly probable punishment for both illegal and legalized bribery.
4. no media ownership by non-citizens or pseudo citizens.
5. speech freedoms for all political speech by all citizens.
6. mass media forced to act in the public interest of citizens.
7. eugenic policies for IQ and character since non-eugenic policies will destroy the democracy and the people.
8. freedom for splinter groups to secede when the above conditions, especially freedom of association, are not met.

The former United States is not democratic, and no current Western land is adequately democratic, no matter how often establishments use democracy as a buzzword to cover their evils, though Iceland shows democratic tendencies in fighting the financial industry.

The United States had a few democratic traits during the 1940s through the 1960s when minor checks on establishment power existed,

mostly via private sector labor unions. Unfortunately, unions are now increasingly public sector, adding to corruption and anti-democratic tendencies.

Studies comparing democratic versus other governmental systems are junk science since no nation states in history has been adequately democratic.

No form of governance is an end in itself. All governments should exist to serve the citizens.

Why democracy?

Almost everyone in Western ruling groups is devoted to militarism, cultural Marxism, and neoclassical economics, including almost all the descendents of Western monarchs and other autocrats. In other words: official myths. Overwhelmingly, the people, despite massive indoctrination in militarism, cultural Marxism, and neoclassical economics, represent the opposition to those evils.

Elite rule will be worse since elites devote themselves to psychological egoism, at the expense of the people, for both genetic, cultural and other environmental reasons, no matter whether the the elites create hereditary autocracies, other autocracies or the currently common kleptocracies. Power corrupts. Elites use bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw policies.

For most of the past millennia, these non-democratic policies consisted of various combinations of Randism, slavery, dysgenics, extortion, austerity, polygamy, neoconservatism, debt peonage, sweat shops, tenant farming, paleo-Marxism, third wayism, caste systems, cultural Marxism, excessive usury, and various other forms of militarism, multiculturalism and redistribution to the top.

Various Thoughts

Wealthy establishmenters frequently toss the circumstantial ad hominem "whining" around, apparently unaware of the self-contradictions involved. If the claims of people being screwed are whines, what does that make the trivial complaints of establishments?

**********

From The Week on Trump supporters:

Kevin Williamson implies in National Review Online that I am indulging in “racial identity politics to help poor whites feel better about dependency.” Tom Nichols writes in The Federalist that I want to play the “bitter card of victimhood and entitlement that liberals use.” 

Williamson says that he’d rather poor whites “took the necessary steps to improve their condition in life.” Nichols outlines some of these necessary steps, saying these men need “to stop fleecing the disability system, to kick their addiction, to be fathers to their children, to get a job no matter how low or unappealing it is, and to stick with it until you get a better one.” He implies that I’m against this kind of virtue. That’s wrong.

When confronted with the fact that the Republican establishment did little more than engage in treason and rent seeking for decades, the establishment replies with irrelevant, circumstantial ad hominem attacks against their supporters.

A demographic look at Trump supporters:

Slightly over half of Trump supporters are female, about half are between 45 and 64 years of age with another 34 percent being over 65 years old and less than two percent younger than 30. One half of his voters have a high school education or less compared to 19 percent with a college or post-graduate degree. Slightly over one third of his supporters earn less than $50,000 per year while 11 percent earn over $100,000 per year.

Those demographics don't look similar to fleecing and child abandonment.

This leads to a more massive contradiction: the way you get fleecing, addiction, and child abandonment is by supporting the dysgenic, rent seeking, and cultural Marxian policies of the Democratic and Republican establishments. Personal responsibility rhetoric won't accomplish much in the face of those policies.

**********

Establishment political celebrity ranks among the easiest jobs, provided the celebrities are articulate and attractive.

They don't care about cognitive dissonance. Heck, they might not be capable of anything more than slight amounts. They don't have to carefully weigh pros and cons of competing arguments. They don't have to come up with ideas. They parrot the talking points of whatever teams they choose. Dead air time, especially awkward pauses to think, get them in bigger trouble than fallacious opinions.

Arianna Huffington raked in hundreds of millions from her sweatshop website while doing little work herself.

The danger is letting slip something critical of cultural Marxism as Rick Sanchez and dozens of others found out.

**********

Look how emotively powerful The American Conservative is in defending Yemen from Saudi totalitarianism--"wicked," "atrocious," "shameful," "disgraceful," "indefensible." Compare that with their pathetic defense of the West (if they are even defending the West). Perhaps a spin-off magazine, The Yemeni Conservative, is in the offing.

The American Conservative might counter argue that Saudi aggression is causing a large death toll in Yemen. But if you count suicide, pollution, and other deaths from issues largely ignored by The American Conservative, the Western death toll from Randism, globalism, third wayism, and cultural Marxism is much larger.

The American Conservative also tries to blame "the U.S." for Yemen as if we weren't under a non-democratic, occupation government dominated by wealthy global ruling groups, including the Saudis.

**********

Overheard at work
Worker: I met my girlfriend the night we was running a train on her. I hate her. I want to punch her all the time. I want to punch her most when I mix [two drugs I don't remember the names of]. I have a baby with her. I want to punch my daughter, too. But I don't punch them because girlfriend has a good job.

Rhetoric Matters

Rhetoric is any communication attempt to sway individuals, whether fallacious or non-fallacious. Today's outsiders have a very, very difficult time gaining adherents This is not to place most of the blame on outsiders. We live on a planet dominated by power rather than evidence. Most ethical blame resides with the mass media, wealthy multiculturalists, and establishment political powers. Attempts to undo their powers face immense difficulties.

But.

The SJW slur ranks among the most pathetic frigging slurs I have ever seen in my life, almost as if it were a neutral term. I doubt anyone will reevaluate his life after being called an SJW. Justice and warrior are regarded as positive terms. Combining them with the word social does not make an effective slur. Slurs from multiculturalists make whites feel unethical guilt. The SJW slur likely makes multiculturalists feel ennobled.

It is better to avoid fallacious rhetoric. Better to use well-reasoned evidence, to form alternative communities, to prepare for when things get so bad, establishment supporters will begin to open their minds. Well-reasoned arguments have rhetorical value, too.

A massive flaw with slinging mud is individuals become worse than their enemies. Karl Rove is a worse human being than most of the planet. Millions of young Marxians, quite certain of their own virtue, became far worse human beings than their enemies.

Why bother putting in massive effort to change societies when those efforts will produce rotten results? Political ideologies should be means to more important ends, not ends in themselves.

Jared Taylor and others in similar situations realize that slurs they use will be used against them several dozen fold.

Yes, it stinks to hell that establishments can dominate the world with abusive ad hominem attacks and other fallacious rhetoric while pretending to be paragons of centrism and respectability. It's infuriating that the mass media almost never calls non-multiculturalists anything but slurs, almost never calls outsiders the terms outsiders call themselves, almost never permits outsider arguments to appear in the mass media. It's grossly unfair that those with power use despicable tactics to punch down at those with little power while being rewarded for doing so.

Ecumenical rhetoric with establishments is not a good idea, except ecumenical rhetoric that permits secessions and other separations. Establishments are devoted to rent seeking and to our destruction. Such ecumenical rhetoric doesn't change establishments. It changes outsiders from feeling bad about mass destruction to feeling good about mass destruction. Outsiders sell out. What have ordinary Christians gained from Christian leaders' ecumenicalism with Muslims? Massive harms. Polls and other evidence suggest most Muslims still believe that infidels, apostates, blasphemers, and females accused of adultery should all be murdered. Groups practicing endogamy and totalitarian ideologies seldom give up their fanaticism.

What are the Rovian and cultural Marxism playbooks? One tactic is calling others what they call you. "I know you are but what am I." It's a fallacious, but it works on adults and children alike. Enron ally Bush attacked Democrats for Enron ties. When called a B-word, they call others a super B-word or worse slur.

Rove attacked alleged strengths. George W. Bush, of AWOL fame, was able to hammer John Kerry's far greater military accomplishments. Marxian regimes, in all their hellish glory, continually attacked Westerners on civil rights issues. They still do.

Rove's tactics worked because the neoconservative media machine aided him at almost every step. And because neoconservatives don't care about evidence, so even the most blatant fallacies were and are ignored.

Over-the-top slurs such as the C-word do not work, nor do other slurs that the mass media will not print.

More promising are some tactics from the so-called civil rights era. It would be great to see Rotherham victims and allies marching outside the establishment occupied buildings with "I Am Human" placards, daring the police to arrest them for thought crimes. A "Letter from a Rotherham jail" would be superb. Establishments would reply to the letter with their usual demonizations tactics, but all it takes is a few media moguls to face some facts.

The Bundy occupiers in Oregon failed spectacularly because:

1. they were armed and used the threat of violence not for self-defense.
2. they occupied a building.
3. they did not look downtrodden. They needed to be poor and look like dust bowl survivors.
4. they had few likely allies. They believed in Randism mixed with cultural Marxism, comparing themselves to Rosa Parks. Few outsiders look kindly at such beliefs and insiders reflexively oppose almost any opposition. The alternative right ignored them. They opposed the results of establishment Randism, militarism, and cultural Marxism with their own versions of the same three evils. They tried to play the establishment's game with millions of times less power.

Some might argue that it is worthless to point out thousands of contradictions to devoted establishment believers when devoted establishment believers act as if self-contradictions were nothing important or a good thing. "I'm so random." Whee!

But we are seldom trying to win over the devoted believers, we are trying to convert the victims of globalism, militarism, multiculturalism, neoclassical economics, and other establishment totalitarianisms. Individuals become astonishingly open to change when their hedonistic lifestyles take a hit.

We live in a uniquely desultory period. There are no easy, accurate, and guaranteed maps to get out of this mess. Beyond making well-reasoned arguments, there are multitudes of rhetorical tips here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here.  Here. Here. Here. Some of them more dubious than not.

Establishments persuade many by attacking opponents for alleged "extremism."

Alternative beliefs are increasing but so are beliefs in establishment totalitarianisms. Ordinary whites lack self-respect and have even less respect for other whites. Wealthy whites compete in conspicuous xenocentrism competitions, to see who can be the most anti-white. The self-degradation is astronomical.

Establishments focus on bogeymen. Our job is to focus on fighting wrongs using peaceful means.

Leave the aggression to the establishments. Avoid letting fallacious rhetoric dominate over well-reasoned rhetoric.

When Establishments Collide, Collude or Divide

One nasty side effect Western institutions colonization by free riding is that many plausible reformers are demoralized or have little interest in participating in those institutions. For ruling groups, this is a bonus, assortative mating in ruling class occupations, rent seeking teamwork. The road to ruin is long, the roads to reforms even longer.

The political realignments of the past 60 years played a major role in wrecking the West. Almost all political power was co-opted for the ruling groups.

No matter which groups win the upcoming Supreme Court nomination battles, non-wealthy Westerners will be the losers. The battles will be between multicultural third wayers and multicultural neoconservatives, who have more in common than most voters realize. Citizens will be baited into picking an establishment side. The fights will be distractions from important issues. No matter which sides win, various competing parties will end up aggrieved and highly motivated to cause more revenge ruin, that is, more neoconservatism, third wayism, and cultural Marxism, with both sides claiming they had no choice but to fight fire with fire.

It seems as if some establishment Republicans have realigned so far that they care more about cultural Marxism than redistributing income to their allies, as if they'd prefer Bernie Sanders over your neighborhood ethnoracial fact facer, perhaps because Sanders is little threat to their power. Sanders cannot accomplish much against courts and Congress filled with Republicans and Third Way Democrats. But the alternative right poses the threat of re-realigning the Republican Party. Establishment Republicans would rather risk the destruction of the West than lose the financial support of multicultural evangelicals and other multicultural conservatives.

The media treat the word indoctrination as if it were a taboo word, as if it were something that happens with only old timey totalitarianism.

But let's be honest, almost all of us have had thousands of fallacious ideas rattling around in our brains at one on time or another. And we didn't get those ideas by under rocks. We got them from peers, politicians, celebrities, and other influential individuals with help from our genes. At one time, those ideas sounded good to us. We were fooled by the persuasiveness of arguments rather than the well-reasonedness of arguments.

Most of those ideas came from the mass media, the same mass media that almost never delivers well-reasoned arguments. In other words, we were indoctrinated.

When visiting mass media sites, it almost seems as if parrots have been genetically engineered to type.

Time for Some Classic Links

Fear of an Erudite White by Jim Goad

The Elusive X-Factor, or Why Jonathan Kaplan Is Wrong about Race and IQ by Dalliard

Muslim Statistics (Shari'ah)

Cousin Marriage Conundrum by Steve Sailer

Solutions, Again by Jayman

Most Likely to Secede by Ron Miller, Rob Williams

OECD: Air pollution costs $ 3,600 billion and kills 3.5 million people annually (much of it caused by migration and commuting, the latter often caused by neighborhood ethnic cleansing)

But the middle-class and the poor are essentially unrepresented (unless they happen to share the preferences of the well-off)

A Success Story? by Jayman

The Koran Online Type in unbelievers and dozens of synonyms for unbeliever, including "right hand," a euphemism for captured rape slaves.

The Madonna or the Whore?

“Human Directionals”—The Cheap Wage/Expensive Land Economy Personified by Steve Sailer

The Political Violence of the Bible and the Koran by Bill Warner

Thomas Jackson and Jared Taylor at Amren back issues

The Color of Crime

Family Structure

An increasingly Muslim world will be, ipso facto, most likely, an increasingly less enlightening world by Geoffrey McArthur

Denmark: Muslims 218 percent more criminal in 2nd generation than first

Beliefs About Sharia

Opinion Polls

Persecution

Free Speech

Let Us Meditate About Bias

Noted philosophers and health experts Oprah Winfrey and Deepak Chopra launch a weight loss meditation challenge.

I saw The Oprah Winfrey Show only a few times, always while visiting.

One time, an activist showed a map of the world with the Southern Hemisphere on top, then hectored the audience with the usual pseudo profound accusations of bias. (But maybe, just maybe, the Northern Hemisphere should remain on top because there would be transition costs to turning the map upside down.)

To the best of my memory, no one asked Wile E. Activist, Super Genius why she used a flat map to represent an oblate ellipsoid and whether that might invoke some sort of bias self-contradiction. And no one stated that holding up a map at a talk show is a faulty measure of bias. Some might even call it a biased measure using a biased sample.

Another time, an attractive astrologer debated a physicist about the preposterous notions of astrology. The physicist had stage fright, and those present could barely contain their smirks.

But I won't judge Winfrey based on a small sample fallacy of two shows because that might be biased.