Do Mess with Paris, Texas

Congratulations to actor Harry Dean Stanton on reaching his 90th birthday today.

Stanton's pairing with Natassja Kinski in 1984's Paris, Texas seemed implausible then and more so now. The young, attractive Kinski played Stanton's estranged wife despite Stanton's character lacking gorgeous wife attracting traits--looks, youth, money, status, humor, power, warmth, purpose, similarity, trustworthiness, BS skills, resource altruism, fatherly characteristics, dark triad attributes. Almost nothing except proximity.

The Law Enforcement Assimilationism Nightmare

The political focus of the mass media now is multicultural law enforcement issues.

So let's imagine that beings came down from the heavens to always enforce laws with complete impartiality, a dream of multicultural law enforcement assimilationism. No legal innocent would ever be imprisoned. No suspect would ever be unjustly wounded since police would be replaced by heavenly beings. If someone was fined for driving slightly over the speed limit, everyone driving the same amount over would be fined the same amount. Would that then make multiculturalism a good thing?

Hell no.

Why?

Because the overwhelming majority of multicultural harms come from legalized activities: Welfare. Cheating. Dysgenics. Militarism. Mercantilism. Totalitarianism. Demagoguery. Self-contradictions, Migrant invasions. Legalized treason. Legalized bribery. Nightmarish schooling. Mass deception. Bait-and-switch. Divide-and-screw. Pump-and-dump. health problems. Cultural nihilism. Affirmative action. Relationship conflicts. Loss of freedoms. Atrocious public policies. Ethnoracial nepotism among multiculturalists. And Cultural imperialism by garbage cultures.

Then there are the massive harms from illegal activities that the heavenly beings would punish equally, but fail to prevent: fraud, espionage, illegal bribery, interracial violent crime, to name a few. Preventing harms is far more important than punishing them afterward.

Multiculturalists legalize harmful activities that should be illegal and also ban beneficial actions by whites and other ostracized groups.

Multiculturalists, despite what they say, don't pursue impartiality. They pursue egoism, conquest, and the annihilation of whites and other perceived opponents. Doing so gives their lives emotive purpose. Get justice, get less peace. They take your country, then they treat you as an enemy of the state for not slavishly supporting they dystopian empire they create, acting as if patriotism means selflessly aiding free riding. When we treat persons of psychological or evolutionary egoism fairly or equally, they will still view the treatments as unfair or unequal, They view whatever they want to believe as fairness. Wealthy Persian Gulf persons, who never worked a day in their lives, nevertheless view themselves as victims of Westerners.

Massive genetic differences related to behavior make differing races incompatible, except when using totalitarian force to keep the temporary peace.

You get more of what you reward. And today's rewards are out of whack and unsustainable.

The main ideological result of assimilation has been assimilating whites into totalitarian, anti-white beliefs systems.

Leave us alone to go our own ways. We are not the property of multiculturalists. Millions of future generations depend our actions.

No Rhetorical Enemies to the Biocultural Left

For years, multiculturalists have been hammering Hillary Clinton's "super predators" comment and other allegedly tough on crime and welfare comments she made in the 1990s.

It is not enough that Clinton supports open borders and a multitude of other lesser multicultural initiatives. Even slight deviations from cultural Marxism are no longer tolerated among multiculturalists.

So Clinton's recent Dallas comments are no surprise. Her rhetoric is now utterly tamed by cultural Marxism. Almost every rotten behavior by nonwhites can now be grist to excoriate whites. Whites are assumed to be a blamable cause of almost everything harmful done by nonwhites.

For Democrats, almost no rhetorical point for even slight ethnoracial fact facing now exists. Slight dog whistling will no longer get them additional votes and donations from whites.

Almost no race realist will vote for her, period.

White, third way multiculturalists are now so well indoctrinated that they see nothing amiss with whites being blamed for nonwhite actions in Dallas, Orlando, and more importantly, J Street and Wall Street. She can say almost anything negative about whites and still get votes and money from white, third way multiculturalists.

Unfortunately, for nonwealthy domestic multiculturalists and most of us, Clinton's major policy prescriptions support dysgenics, militarism, financialism, and open borders. She's devoted to Haim Saban and George Soros. (Ignore the gold buggism following that latter article.)

The anarcho-tyranny joke's on the nonwealthy domestic multiculturalists and us. African-Americans may get Clinton to be soft on crime, but they'll be many of the crime victims. They may get a little more affirmative action and Section 8 housing, but they'll keep getting reduced wages from chaos, dysgenics, globalism, militarism, and financialism--as will we.

Latin America

Gregory Hood delivers a solid article about Brazil and cultural Marxism.

I once worked with a very, very smart white supporter of Marxism, especially regarding Marxism south of the Rio Grande. If you asked him to improvise a 10,000 word soliloquy about Zapatistas, he could probably do so.

He would buttonhole coworkers into conversions about Latin American politics, talking to coworkers as if they were four-year-olds, fuming about their ignorance of Latin American politics and how much blame Americans allegedly deserve for failings south of our border.

Though he would have been a good candidate for a Latin American Jeopardy contest, if you asked my coworker what the phenotype IQs of various Latin American countries were, he might have said, "One-hundred. Like everywhere else." Or maybe, "What's a phenotype?" Asking him about dysgenics or free rider problems would have been even more of an adventure. Asking him how many coups Latin America had before Washington starting seriously messing around in Latin America would have been another interesting topic.

My coworker was smart, not wise.

Since then I have met many other progressive white guys, who act as if their banal historical knowledge of Latin America makes them political prescription experts. They read their Chomsky. The US government did something wrong, therefore they prescribe prescriptions that have been unrelentingly disastrous, as if US government actions justify their own evils. I met one guy who illegally traveled to Cuba and marvelled about Cuba, the Cuba untainted by excesses of consumerism and turbocapitalism.

Once my coworker bragged about how America would become like Brazil and have lots of beautiful women like Brazil. I told him American women were more attractive to me than Brazilian women, and that Brazil was the world capital for women who unintentionally look like drag queens.

He never spoke to me again about non-work topics.

When Ad Hominem Attacks Are Relevant

In a totalitarian societies, including the former United States, there is no such thing as a legitimate authority.

There are only experts and non-experts.

It is often logical to criticize the circumstances of an alleged expert, especially when they fail to provide well-reasoned arguments for their positions. In other words, circumstantial ad hominem attacks are often relevant when judging the expertise of experts. An expert witness should face circumstantial ad hominem attacks if he has been previously convicted of fraud or for various other character traits.

It is logically legitimate to criticize the expertise of Judge Gonzalo Curiel, a member of the La Raza Lawyers Association, though Donald Trump did so in a poorly reasoned manner, regardless whether Trump University was a scam, which it was.

Those who support Hispanic supremacism have no business living in the same country as white non-Hispanics and have no business deciding court cases involving white non-Hispanics.

Judges in the former United States are not democratically elected by individuals having self-determination. They are merely experts at best.

Not surprisingly, those who support establishment totalitarianism jumped to the defense of Curiel, the same thinkers who bombard whites with irrelevant circumstantial and abusive ad hominem attacks suddenly imagined that the circumstances of their alleged expert are irrelevant and any criticism of Curiel "racist."

(The ability to experience cognitive dissonance is seldom learned in law schools or journalism schools.)

Naturalistic Fallacies

I discern five ways in which the phrase naturalistic fallacy is thrown around, often without being defined and often in a pseudo profound manner:

1. The origins fallacy, also known as the genetic fallacy, a type of irrelevance: This is a legitimate fallacy type but calling it the naturalistic fallacy sows confusion. Six examples of the origins fallacy: X is artificial. X is unnatural. Y is natural. Americans have not believed X for years. Y is the American way. X comes from the word for W.
2. The idea that you cannot find the truth value of most prescriptive claims (ethical and other value claims) with 100 percent accuracy using formal or informal logic or any other method. Big deal. Some value claim conclusions are 58 percent likely to be true, others 99.9999 percent likely, others somewhere else between zero and 100 percent likely. Whether a prescriptive conclusion is 99.9999 percent likely to be true or 100 percent likely should have little affect on our willingness to act based on expected values and other moral arguments. You should avoid being eaten by flesh eating bacteria, no matter whether a tiny probability exists that flesh eating bacteria might be good. The truth value of most real world empirical claims (is claims) cannot be found with 100 percent accuracy either.
3. The fact-value rubbish: the assertion that empirical claims can be facts while value claims cannot. In other words, the idea that the moon is made of cheese is somehow capable of becoming a fact, even though it isn't a fact, simply because it is an empirical claim. But "You shouldn't walk in front of that bus," is incapable of being a fact because it is a value claim. Facts are any claims that have good arguments supporting them, whether value claims or empirical claims. In other words, facts have a high probability of being accurate because they have sufficient evidence supporting them.
4. The belief that a value claim conclusion requires a value claim premise. More rubbish. For example, "Don't eat that box of poison. Doing so has a 99.92 percent likelihood of killing you," contains a value claim conclusion followed an empirical claim premise. It doesn't need a value claim premise.
5. The assertion that value claims are worthless or meaningless. Self-contradictory rubbish. If value claims are worthless or meaningless, then the claim "value claims are worthless or meaningless" is not worth anything or does not mean anything.

We should not help whites "to preserve our race," because that is a genetic fallacy. We should do so to make our race better. We should do so to prevent the mass destruction that cultural Marxism brings, especially the increasing mass destruction the young and future generations will face. We should want our children to have better genes and environments than ourselves. We should want to reach their ethical potentials.

And by better, I don't mean more exciting toys. Children of wealthy, high achievers often turn out bad, despite high investments by their parents because these children have worse environments than their parents. Consumer items consumed their children. Their peers, in prestigious schools, devote themselves to hedonism and other bad causes, which these children dutifully follow. These kids never develop chips on their shoulders to find ethical facts and fight for them. Instead, they believe what makes them feel good, and hating nonwealthy whites makes them feel real good about themselves. (For most humans, hate is a feel-good emotion. Wealthy whites, apparently, almost never feel any cognitive dissonance for hating nonwealthy white over spurious reasons.)

Thus, nearly all wealthy whites practice egoism mixed with militarism and cultural Marxism. What little noblesse oblige once existed toward fellow whites is almost gone.

Forced Integration

Governments have no right to use totalitarian force to require individuals to live among rent seeking and destruction seeking ethnoracial outgroups.

Being forced to live surrounded by hostile outgroups is odious and degrading, worse than being forced to live surrounded by nihilism practicing 15-year-olds. Would it be acceptable for the government to force us to live surrounded by nihilism practicing 15-year-olds for the remainder of our lives?

The Miseducation Pageant

Another example of wrong versus wronger: the current curriculum education standards groups versus the poverty is the most important cause of poor educational outcomes groups.

Big deal if a few studies find super teachers make a big difference. Maybe the studies are rigged. Maybe the effects are not long lasting. A few thousand super teachers exist while thousands of times that many students exist.

Sure, we could practice eugenics, including cloning the super teachers, but the current establishments are fanatically opposed to eugenics--and are getting more dysgenic every day.

Today's students are too low IQ, ethnoracially diverse, and enveloped in cultures of hostility.

And much of the hostility comes from the fact that the curriculum, beyond basic reading and math, is filled with garbage that has no practical or ethical value, not to mention the cultural Marxism. I once knew a high school auto mechanics teacher. He found multitudes of decent jobs for his medium IQ students. He was a job creator. So what happened? The school district decided to replace the auto mechanics classes with vague, vapid technology classes--the sort of classes where you make worthless objects out of Popsicle sticks--on the unsupported opinion that doing so makes students more creative, confident, and well-rounded.

Equality and Anti-White Governance

Oppressing whites is supposedly necessary for the equality cause.

But how much equality motivation is true?

Multiculturalists show almost no concern for inequalities that harm any non-ally individuals. Every racial and religious minority in majority Muslim countries could be quietly exterminated over the next 40 years and multiculturalists would do little more than slightly wring their hands. Rulers bomb Muslim countries on behalf of globalism, neoconservatism, and war profiteering, not to protect non-Muslim minorities.

Blacks are dozens of times more likely to commit stranger on stranger interracial violent crimes than whites, yet the national media show almost no concern for these victims, even when blacks are heard to be shouting slurs while committing crimes, no matter the color of the victims.

But when a black dies under suspicious circumstances at the hands of a white stranger, the national media goes into full anti-white demonization mode, even when the evidence suggests legitimate self defense. And even when the alleged perpetrator isn't white.

Multiculturalists have no explanation for how their brethren--whipped into long-lasting frenzies of hate, sadism, and schadenfreude--will suddenly turn into just rulers. Multiculturalists spend little time weighing evidence and studying actual policy issues.

Few multiculturalists are aware that age, IQ, educational level, educational field, task persistence, spending habits, number of working adults in a family, and other factors more than completely explain differences in wealth between Northern Eurasian and black families. Some multiculturalists demand reparations for slavery as if they were completely unaware that de facto affirmative action and various welfare programs already cost the US economy well over $1.1 trillion dollars per year. Affirmative action even exists for groups wealthier than whites.

Even comparatively well-meaning multiculturalists seem oblivious of the overwhelming ethical evidence against multiculturalism. Paul Krugman regularly rants against economic conservatives who ignore well-reasoned economic evidence, yet Krugman is worse on biocultural issues than establishment Republicans are on economic issues. The only time I can remember Krugman being slightly right on an ethnoracial issue was when he slightly criticized Stephen Jay Gould's arguments. (It is no accident that Krugman, rephrasing Barry Goldwater, calls his blog "Conscience of a Liberal." Conscience refers to intuitions. The message: Multicultural intuitions matter more to Krugman than ethical evidence.)

None of the Grey Lady's pro-multicultural arguments are well-reasoned. Demands for compassion are rampant, even as the New York Times shows little compassion for the massive harms nonwealthy whites suffer from multiculturalism. The attitude among multiculturalists seems to be my team is automatically right and superior regardless of the evidence.

The end stages of neo-Marxism resemble Zimbabwe, Venezuela, North Korea, and South Africa, never universal equality or even semi-universal equality. Even in societies of unmitigated totalitarianism, the hunt for alleged reactionary forces is considered more important than actual equality. Dysgenics marches on.

Various slogans make multiculturalists superior, but goodness seldom exists. Harmful actions help the team, and the team is what matters most to them. And if multiculturalism wins complete victory the team will become even more factious than now, with Muslims and blacks wiping out other supporters of multiculturalism, just as various secular supporters of neo-Marxism were previously wiped out in North Africa and Southwest Asia by serious Muslims and just as white supporters of neo-Marxism in Zimbabwe fled or were murdered by blacks.

But if multiculturalism wins complete victory, there will be no white areas left for white multiculturalists to flee toward.