Personal Irresponsibility

Personal responsibility is a good thing. But there are serious flaws with it as a direct political preoccupation, including its genocidal implications.

First, individuals with serious behavior problems don't care what writers in the National Review think. They don't read the National Review. "Just say no" fails.

Second, the so-called personal responsibility people are also committed to dysgenics, massively increasing the number of individuals who act irresponsibly for genetic reasons.

They are pro-life. They oppose paying people with problems to self-sterilize. They support open borders. They support miscegenation. They support economic policies that result in better individuals not having children or putting off childbirth until later in life when when harmful mutations are more prevalent. The result is mass destruction and increasing numbers of individuals with low IQs and behavioral flaws because of high testosterone or genetically caused autism or low activity variants of the MAOA gene or other genetic causes.

Third, establishments are committed to loose labor markets, having a much larger supply of potential workers than available jobs (cheap labor). Sure, we can find some small sample fields where demand for workers outstrips supply. Markets are never anywhere near perfectly efficient. If everyone developed a great work ethic, establishments would enact policies to keep labor markets loose.

Northeast Asians are not lazy, yet their personal responsibility does not overcome loose labor market policies. One reason, among many, Northeast Asia failed to develop modern technology before the West: there was little incentive to develop technology with so much spare labor around.

Fourth, personal responsibility is a bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw distraction. It focuses attention on poor individuals with bad behavior while establishments do multitudes of evil actions.

Wealthy individuals, establishment politicians, and the chosen thinkers act incredibly irresponsible, yet the focus is not on their much more destructive evils. High IQ establishment individuals have little ethical self-development. What makes them think lower IQ individuals, who spend life in a daze, will do what they themselves refuse to do despite huge cognitive and environmental advantages? Kevin Williamson and multitudes of others like him regurgitate establishment nostrums despite having a high IQ.

High IQ establishmenters are  unwilling to study the issues and weigh the evidence accurately--grave character defects.

Fifth, the globalist ideology of the personal responsibility crowd allows drugs, gambling, trash entertainment, cultural Marxism, and other vices to dominate the environmental landscape, again harming character development.

Polling Philosophers on Ethics

Many years ago a poll of philosophers, I can no longer find, indicated most philosophers believe in deontology, virtue or natural law ethics. Another poll suggests they same thing, with only 23.6 percent of philosophers supporting consequentialism, though some philosophers mix intuitive beliefs with consequentialism.

Worse, many consequentialists are deontologists in disguise. Peter Singer and similar philosophers demand Westerners give any income above $30,000 per year to aid agencies (often aid profiteering).

Singer never gets around to making a well-reasoned argument why current aid regimes would have anything other than horrific long term dysgenic and dystopian consequences.

In other words, philosophers act as if their intuitions trump the evidence. This should not surprise. It is a selection effect. Think about the types of people who become a philosophers, people in their teens or young adulthood, who decide they know more about the world than almost everyone else, people who spend much money for degrees in a field with uncertain financial rewards, but know they have to act politically and socially correct to get jobs in that field. Philosophers are genetically and culturally predisposed to intellectual hedonism and verbose blather to arrive at simple, wrong rules. These are not the people you should have teaching logic and ethics. Logic and ethics should be separate fields from the rest of philosophy.

(Preachers, politicians, celebrities, and billionaires are terrible at logic and ethics, too, but preach they do.)

The Dangerous Mix of Cultural Marxism and Neoclassical Economics

Paleo-Marxism, the combination of cultural Marxism and economic Marxism, murdered over 90 million.

But the combination of cultural Marxism and neoclassical economics, sometimes called globalism or neoconservatism or third wayism, brings even more long term challenges than the combination of cultural Marxism and economic Marxism, especially when combined with the militarism of third wayism and hyper militarism of neoconservatism.

Eastern European countries slightly rebounded from the damage of nazism and paleo-Marxism, though those individuals murdered or chronically wounded never rebounded. The opportunity costs of Marxism and nazism will never be recovered.

But whites in South Africa and other majority nonwhite countries, under cultural Marxism mixed with neoclassical economics, have almost no chance of rebounding.

All forms of Marxism look for total mass media control and individuals to blame for Marxism's disasters.

In full Marxism, ordinary whites are too poor to care much about imagined racism and Islamophobia. The contradictions are too big. The consequences of hunger and economic failure on everyday life are too great. Few are fooled, with fallacious statistics, into thinking slow decline is progress. The attachment to ever more degraded normalcy at all costs is less. There are few powerful classes that seek nonwhite maids and other cheap nonwhite labor in pursuit of their own wealth, status, and hedonisms, no matter the costs to nonwealthy whites. Despite incessant propaganda, it becomes harder to believe distant capitalists debilitate the economy when your own rulers control almost everything you see, though in North Korea and some other places, the ruse continues, partly due to Northeast Asian genetic and cultural tendencies.

But whites shouldn't gloat. Whites and other humans also have strong tendencies toward conformity and obedience.

Cultural Marxism mixed with other ideologies is more sustainable than full Marxism, currently enjoying over six billion adherents, who show few signs of improving.

When cultural Marxism mixes with neoclassical economics, more blame gets directed at nonwealthy whites. Rulers seldom blame their own corruptions. And Western rulers have an increasingly hard time blaming economic Marxism for Western living situations. If Bernie Sanders wins the pseudo-election, criticism toward economic Marxism will be reinvigorated but mainly to reinstall near total establishment domination.

For the rulers, nonwhites and non-Western religions are off limits to criticism.

That leaves obscure belief systems and the blame whitey campaigns.

Divide-and-rule doesn't work as well when trying to blame obscure ideologies. But it does work well when blaming people, especially nonwealthy white people, especially given white tendencies toward misplaced empathy and unethical guilt. Look at the whites preoccupied with loving pets and celebrities. Whites feel more sadness or outrage when a celebrity dies than about girls in Rotherham. Many whites are easily browbeaten while imagining themselves rebels and great thinkers. Pro-establishment whites mentally wall off huge swaths of the moral universe to ethical reasoning, often without being aware they do so.

Establishments act as if whites living in trailer parks wrecked the country while all those multicultural billionaires bribing politicians and making policies did not.

White multiculturalists think it hilarious when poor, white Southerners are targeted for ridicule and elimination, but white multiculturalists are not wise enough to realize that they, and especially their children and grandchildren, are also being targeted.

Cultural Marxism mixed with neoclassical economics exhibits increasing fanaticism and group polarization among its adherents.

It's gonna be a bumpy ride.

The Character of Multicultural Establishmentism

It is fascinating that almost every multiculturalist also supports rent seeking, a euphemism for parasitism, on other issues. No matter whether they call themselves liberals, conservatives or something else, when individuals dive into the xenocentrism rat hole, general ethics suffers.

Reformers hate evils in societies while acting with deep commitment to bettering lives. Followers of Hitlerism, multiculturalism, and other totalitarianisms hate the people in societies while they themselves pretend to be holy. The former make societies better, the latter make mass destruction.

Have anyone ever met anyone else who wanted to improve the lives of individuals they hate, no matter how misplaced the hate?

Sure, they talk about reforms, but their actions betray them.

Oddly, once the mask slipped, Kevin Williamson and some other multiculturalists decided to yank it off.

Those unable to experience cognitive dissonance on massively cognitive dissonance causing multiculturalism simply aren't able or willing to experience cognitive dissonance on other political issues. They might tell the truth in their personal lives simply out of self-interest, to avoid being dumped by friends and family. But in the the political realm, they're rewarded for spewing fallacies and living contradiction filled lives.

The next time the establishment narrative on a major issue is correct it will be the first time in the past half century the establishment narrative on a major issue was correct.

Think about that. Most individuals living today have never ever seen their rulers do the right things on a major issue.

Establishment thought is wedded to a one dimensional view of totalitarianism, with Stalinism at one end and Hitlerism on the other of an imaginary spectrum. In reality, multitudes of totalitarianisms exist, including autocracy, Armageddonism, neoconservatism, multiculturalism, crypto jihadism, third wayism, robber baronism, flat earthism, and dysgenic fanaticism.

We pay a huge price for this every day when these additional totalitarianisms are viewed as moderate.

If You Deliberately Wanted to Destroy the West and Its People

1. You would promote migration by nonwhites, but not too much, too fast because that would cause a quick collapse, then expulsion of the nonwhites. You'd want the apocryphal frogs in pots to feel pleasantly warm, as if they were falling asleep in a whirlpool bath. You'd emphasize migration by poor character, fast breeding nonwhites. But you'd mix in some higher character nonwhites to use as poster children and to help prevent a quick collapse.
2. You would try to make biocultural Marxism off limits to criticism, especially its policy prescriptions. 
3. You'd have some multiculturalists act as tough minded assimilationists, though there are few policy and consequentialist differences between assimilationists and other multiculturalists.
4. You'd get whites to hate one another and to hate their ancestors for specious reasons.
5. You'd redefine patriotism as support for globalism, cultural Marxism, reckless militarism, and following orders.
6. You'd take over every major Western institution from within.
7. You'd try to make dysgenics off limits to criticism and eugenics off limits to fact facing.
8. You'd welcome Muslim migration to China, Russia, and the West, so those nukes eventually end up with Muslim fingers on the switches. In the meantime, you'd encourage misanthropism, so egoism and reckless militarism controls the nukes. You'd call criticism of bioweapon engineering a violation of scientific freedom.
9. You'd distract the population with hedonism and techno-utopianism.
10. You'd create policy and environmental circumstances that are pro-natal for nonwhites and anti-natal for whites.
11. You'd praise interracial couples as an ideal, but only when the male half of the couple is nonwhite or Muslim or both.
12. You'd promote massive economic redistribution to globalized pseudo-citizens at the top.
13. You'd use policy and culture to encourage polygamy, endogamy, philandering, and single parenting. You'd make philandering look like sophisticated aestheticism.
14. You'd encourage useful followers to fight on behalf of the things destroying them.

In short, you'd do pretty much what the establishments are doing right now.

The Alien Wants to Know

If an alien arrived on earth and wanted a very, very short summary on human ethics, the following principles would help him quickly develop a better worldview than many professional opinion makers have after decades of opinion making:

1. The prescriptions of Hitlerism, cultural Marxism, and economic Marxism are almost always wrong.
2. The prescriptions of neoclassical economics and foreign policy interventionism are mostly wrong.
3. Media, schools, governments, and other businesses will try to browbeat you into believing official myths. Don't let them. The best arguments and solutions to ethical problems are often found on obscure websites, often by writers demonized by powerful interests. Almost everything in the mass media is there for entertainment or bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw purposes. Or both.
4. Secessions and democracies are good things, but both are rare on earth because of the power of globalism, neoconservatism, third wayism, cultural Marxism, and bad religions, including secular quasi-religions.
5. Secessions and democracies are necessary to prevent to utter takeover of the planet by genes and individuals devoted to egoism and misplaced altruism, often both in the same individual.
6. The most important human philosophical goods in order of importance are a) ethical character, b) freedom, c) respect, and d) purposefulness. Character includes ethical reasoning performance and political justice, not merely being a good family member. It is not the same as merely being a nice guy or gal. Character entails a love for good actions and individuals. Freedom includes strength of will and personal freedom from destructive outside forces, plus freedom of association for both solitary individuals and individuals in groups. Respect includes the basic self-respect we owe ourselves and the respect we owe other conscious beings. An obsequious person lacks sufficient self-respect. Autocracies and kleptocracies lack self-respect for others. Respect should not include admiring individuals merely because they are famous, wealthy or powerful. Purposefulness includes living with zest, not succumbing to constant bouts of ennui, anxiety, alienation, rumination or laziness. Purposefulness contains a deep emotive attachment to life and our missions in life.

Trading Down

So "free" trade is supposed to benefit us with minor improvements in efficiency due to specialization and economics of scale. The fact that such trade redistributes even more wealth and power to individuals at the top doesn't bother globalists. That's a legalized bribery bonus for the thought leaders. It doesn't seem to bother globalists that these are individuals committed to treason (George Soros, Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush) and foreigners committed to our destruction (Prince Bandar, Carlos Slim, Xi Jinping).

We could magically re-redistribute their gains elsewhere.

Those with unjust wealth and power will somehow give wealth and power away based on evidence despite their long, long histories of not being influenced by well-reasoned evidence.

Having important industries and the knowledge base of those industries destroyed is another bonus.

Nor do shortfalls in demand, sometimes known as depressions and recessions, bother globalists. Neither do the harmful items traded (oil, diamonds, celebrity worship, human trafficking among many). The branch of ethics called economics somehow trumps all the other branches of ethics. Heck, it's not even good economics. Comparative advantage is somehow the trump card.

Just wave that magic wand.

They Get Away with It

For the past several decades, many politicians have acted on an interplay of three unspoken questions:

1. Is it what I want?
2. Is it what my financial sponsors want?
3. Can I get away with it?

If the answer to all three is yes, then politicians do it.

They don't eliminate capital gains taxes and raise payroll taxes to 60 percent of work income because they can't get away with it. An anti-ruler war would result.

What the people want is considered irrelevant, except when the people have been propagandized into wanting what establishments want.

Tony Blair, Angela Merkel, and George W. Bush are paradigm cases of this behavior, Bush having almost no moral accomplishments during his reign, except the Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Monument and a few other policies.

The slur barrages directed at holders on non-establishment beliefs represent an aspect of the establishment assault on democracy. Establishments cannot criticize democracy itself without exposing their oligarchism. So instead, they demonize the people to bolster their support for their own corruptions as if to say, "We have a right to do as we please because you're so horrible. You don't deserve anything. We're better than you, and that makes us good."

Humans almost always think their political actions are justified. 

Politicians will dig up junk science, deontological assertions, and other fallacious rhetoric to justify what they prefer. 

**********

Even public libraries have become corrupted shells.

Cities buy expensive new libraries to replace adequate buildings. But inside the architectural fantasy buildings, the Internet is often worse than dial up and the book selection abysmal and getting worse.

Spending on materials declined from 25 percent of library spending in 1942 to 11.7 percent in 2010. Even if major publishers were willing to publish copies of non-establishment books, few libraries would buy them. Librarians are near uniform in support for cultural Marxism and other establishment ideologies. They put up displays about the horrors of censorship, but think little about one-sided acts of omission.

Bruce Bartlett's Familiar Quotations

Bruce Bartlett, a disciple of Jude Wanniski, spouts establishment totalitarianism, er, narratives again:

Our system of government works best when it is balanced between roughly equal political parties, one on the center-right and the other on the center-left.

Unfortunately, what we have is a centrist Democratic Party and a far-right Republican Party.

Wrong.

There is no such thing as a one-dimensional political spectrum. And the kleptocratic system has not worked well for over half a century, especially via those Bartlett considers center-left and center-right. One increased problem now is that the terrible decisions made decades ago are causing increasingly worse consequences now than in the past, for example, the 1965 immigration law.

And how can the Tea Party be both "f*r right" and "[not] easily characterized as either right or left in terms of policy?"

The Tea Party resulted from astroturfing by the same Republican establishment that Bartlett often praises.

The Democratic Party will nominate Hillary Clinton, a third way neoconservative, for the presidency. What does Clinton politically have in common with Ferdinand Pecora? Not much. How does Clinton qualify as whatever a "centrist" is?

Mark Thoma and other third way economists act as if Reagan fan Bartlett is a superb guy. Democratic economists seem to prefer Bartlett over heterodox independent economists. In some minds, being a slight Republican heretic makes you more worthy of attention than those who were right far more often.

By my count Bartlett's argument contains at least 25 logical fallacies, often abusive ad hominem attacks.

Many years ago Bartlett wrote an article about a technical issue in economics that I've since forgotten, which I can no longer find. But I remembered what Bartlett did. Bartlett appeared to thoroughly present two sides of the issue, as if he were being the most even handed man in the world. Yet, on this issue, there was one counter premise that would have demolished Bartlett's conclusion. Bartlett almost certainly could not have known all those other counter premises without knowing the main counter premise. But Bartlett left that main counter premise out.

What sort of man does that? Bruce Bartlett. That's who.