Context on the Murders of South African Farmers

The official murder rate of (mostly white) South African farmers is 313 per 100,000 population. Some argue that the real number is larger, that the South African government deliberately undercounts.

To those less familiar with statistics, the annual number does not look astronomical by itself, but it means over the course of their lifetimes those farmers have at least a 20 percent chance of being murdered if the stat were to remain the same and nothing else changed. But like neighboring Zimbabwe, that stat will likely skyrocket.

In Zimbabwe, the former bread basket of Africa, the black ruling group's forces murdered white farmers and gave the farms to allies. Lacking the character, intelligence, and conscientiousness for modern farming, the new black farmers sold the farm equipment for scrap, leading to famine. Some hungry blacks resorted to starting brush fires, then eating animals that died in the conflagrations.

For comparison, much less than one percent of Americans were murdered during World War II by Axis countries. We frequently see photos of burned out Japanese cities from that era, but roughly three percent of Japanese died from war related causes during the same period.

America's murder rate in 2013 was about 64 times lower than among South African farmers.

If those White farmers were to organize, arm themselves, and carve out a country for themselves, the global multiculturalists would be outraged, though they permit nonwhites to defend themselves from much lesser threats.

Multiculturalists treat all of South Africa as present or future Bantu property because Bantus are indigenous to Africa. though whites migrated to those South African farms well before Bantus, who arrived after expanding their population from around Cameroon. Of course, multiculturalists don't treat all of Asia as Chinese or Indian property because that would be an irrelevant and ludicrous property claim.

But the irrelevant and ludicrous becomes conventional belief when it involves Whites.

The Content of Ethical Character

An internet poster once claimed, as best I remember, that no one on Earth judges by the content of character, those most vociferous in saying they do so are often least likely to judge based on real character.

That poster did have a bit of a point, though many individuals do somewhat judge according to character. Pollsters asking respondents for their most admired person tend to get wealthy celebrities and politicians having atrocious policies for answers, hardly examples of good character.

Our rulers regularly portray nonwhites as pious, humble, innocent, and filled with goodness, much to the surprise of fact facers, who live among large numbers ordinary nonwhites. The film Elysium takes this portrayal to hilarious extremes.

The few multiculturalists who talk the content of character talk run smack into multicultural dogma, power, and groupthink, then acquiesce.

Multicultural nonwhites behave as if:

1. they have a right to colonize Western countries but that their own countries should not be colonized by outgroups. 
2. they have a right to genocide whites but would wage war if anyone tried the same on their own ingroups. 
3. they should have freedom of association but whites should not. 
4. equality should be supported when it benefits themselves or their perceived allies but seldom otherwise. 
5. excessive self-interest is good, except in whites. 
6. eugenics related arguments are automatically very, very frightening, but ally themselves with individuals spreading many copies of their atrocious genes, leading to disasters.

Polls hint that large percentages of nonwhite Muslims think infidels, apostates, blasphemers, and females accused of adultery should all be murdered. Given the reluctance of humans to self-report such views to pollsters, the actual numbers are probably closer to 100 percent. The unstated end game of multiculturalism is nonwhite, endogamous Islam everywhere humans exist.

Individuals having such beliefs do not have good character, no matter how polite or hard working they appear.

Ironically, nonmulticulturalists behave closer to the content of character norm. Nonmulticulturalists are willing to make exceptions for Frank Salter and other ethical nonwhites.

Nonmulticulturalists should separate themselves from nonwhites because nearly all nonwhites are unable or unwilling to walk the content of character walk. Everyone has a right to avoid massive undeserved harms from ethnoracial outgroups. We should not be deemed "racist" for wanting to avoid those who seek to exploit and destroy us. (Anyone calling others the R word condemns and contradicts themselves with their own ad hominem claim.) Lack of freedom of association is a form of servitude, of not owning your own life.

The Bigger Story on Straw Person Attacks

On Reddit, a heavily upvoted thread discussed straw person attacks. The posters repeatedly wrote about distorting others' words. But there's more to the story.

If some ordinary stranger posts something preposterous on Twitter and we attack their claims, a straw person exists, even if you quote it exactly.

Taking a blatantly ironic comment and pretending the writer actually has that belief is also a straw person.

In short, a straw person is:

1. twisting someone's quote or otherwise pretending others have beliefs they are unlikely to have.
2. attacking easy, unimportant targets rather than presenting the strongest arguments that differ from your own.

The exception is if powerful individuals--billionaires, national politicians, university presidents--post preposterous ideas. It is not a straw person to attack their arguments because atrocious ideas in powerful hands have disastrous consequences.

But if all we do is ridicule powerful political opponents without addressing the strongest counterarguments to our own views, then that is also a straw person.

A cottage industry of mocking Trump's tweets and speeches now exists. That's sometimes good, but the people doing the mocking believe in neo-Marxism, neoconservatism, and other horrific ideologies. They're often merely trying to bolster their own rotten world views.

We also have a duty to focus more on what politicians do than what they say because previous behavior is a better guide than political boilerplate.

The power of contemporary establishments rests on slurs, straw person attacks, small sample claims, and other fallacies spread through the mass media. The individuals who profit from and listen to the mass media often have no idea what the strongest counterarguments to their worldviews are because they haven't heard them and don't want to hear them. Fifty-four percent of respondents to a 2016 post election Pew poll claim to have never have heard of the "alt-right." Among those who have heard of the alt-right, many make no attempt to read the strongest arguments on the alt-right. Instead, they believe what the mass media tells them the alt-right stands for. In addition, most people seem to think the slurs they call their opponents aren't slurs or that they're just "calling them what they are," though that's seldom what they are. Such behavior is a recipe for unjust wars and extreme totalitarianism.

And if the strongest arguments that differ from our own, deserve more weight than our own, then we all have ethical duties to switch our beliefs.

The Smart Person's Guide to College

Graduation season approaches, so let me explain college to young readers considering college:

Psychology: junk science of pretending genes have no relevance to parental and ethnoracial issues while noticing genes when health and other pragmatic issues are at stake.

Engineering: you may assume that a field as efficiency oriented as engineering will teach only the stuff important for engineering jobs. Wrong. Engineering degrees often require matrix theory and differential equations, though many engineers find jobs requiring little more than algebra.

Business: field for mediocre, partying students, culminating in the MBA: Mendacity Buttressing Arrogance.

History: art of historical one-sidedness and small sample fallacies.

English and literature: art of treating fictional claims as if they were well-reasoned facts.

Computer science: intrinsically boring as hell field made interesting by hype, money, intermittent reinforcement, and the attraction of staring at glowing screens. Be thankful they seldom teach Fortran anymore.

Nursing: deliberately understaffed, often having waiting lists to enroll, so we can import low competence nurses from developing countries. Another example of our rulers failing to provide the beneficial things while bombarding us with harmful things.

Primary education: important for teaching reading and basic math to children, but increasing used to politically influence young children, who haven't even mastered the art of not pissing and shitting their pants.

Secondary education: provides workers for custodial institutions as teenagers eat and breathe their way toward their IQ genotypes and mass media role models.

Queer studies: study of things that aren't worth two seconds time.

Natural sciences: demanding fields that consume the minds of practitioners. Nevertheless, activist natural scientists act as if they should be treated as experts in public affairs in which they have no expertise.

Administration: art of creating more and higher paid administrators until their are more administrators than producers.

Medicine: rigorous field but not ethically rigorous enough to prevent doctors from being unjustly influenced by cartels and free samples.

Philosophy: bizarrely entrusted with teaching logic and ethics, though philosophers are culturally more similar to preachers and aesthetes.

Sociology: junk science of teaching egoism and tribalism to nonwhites--not they need help in that regard--while excoriating whites for their legitimate interests.

Cultural anthropology: Ditto sociology.

Economics: junk science of exaggerating the benefits of policies that agree with economists' perceived self-interests while ignoring the costs of those policies to others.

Other humanities and social science degrees: expensive degrees for people who should have dropped out of middle school and helped their family or themselves out. Not surprisingly, they blame society for their college debts.

Better yet. Don't attend college. Getting a college degree is merely an expensive way to signal smartness and task persistence to potential employers. Here is what you do: You take Methoxsalen to make your skin dark. You buy yourself some spiffy corporate gear. You research when colleges have job fairs. You stride around the job fair, engaging recruiters, carrying some Tennyson in one hand and Classical Electrodynamics in the other, making you look smart but not one dimensional. Recruiters will want to talk to you. They may even chase after you. Don't worry about being an empty suit. Empty suits abound. You can usually learn on the job.

Once they hire you, stop taking Methoxsalen. If they wonder why you suddenly have white skin, tell them you contracted severe vitiligo and it affected your entire surface area.

Even better: learn for free at libraries and in the real world. Start your own business in a field having a high probability of success, copying the practices of successful businesses in that field.

Whatever you do, don't take any loans unless you enter a low unemployment field paying six figure incomes.

(Note: this article is satire. Don't take Methoxsalen unless you want skin and liver damage.)

The Never Ending "Scandal"

Donald Trump's Russian ties remained the top news story for most of the past five months. A recent study suggests that Rachel Maddow's show spends more time on "Russia focused segments" than everything else in the world combined.

Whatever happened to scandal fatigue?

Interest in ongoing scandals seems to increase when individuals are highly aroused, explaining why sex and violence scandals linger. In this case, the driving arousal is illogical hatred of Whites and the West. Multiculturalists can barely wait for the next juicy details, no matter how preposterous, leading to 52 percent of Democrats believing the evidence free baloney that Russia directly hacked the election.

And when the mass media repeat garbage often enough, most people believe it.

The left once again allowed itself to be used by neoconservatives, especially considering this "scandal" involves trying to improve relations with a power and paranoia driven nuclear giant. (We should not trust people who brag about being former Trotskyites. Once a person chooses an abysmal ideology they typically stick with it or replace it with another horrific ideology.)

The media act as if Russia influencing the kleptocratic process is worse than the risk of nuclear war. Never mind that establishment Democrats and Republicans have far worse entanglements with African, Hispanic, and Southwest Asian countries actively working to destroy us from within. (When the Soviet Union engaged in much worse meddling, the left seldom noticed. The reason the Soviet Union didn't need any U2 style spy planes flying over the U.S. was it had multitudes of agents and activists on the ground.)

The big scandal we should be focusing on is the role the media, business, and political establishments play in trying to incite World War III, especially with an erratic, easily manipulated president.

For more ethical individuals, that is, almost no one in the establishments, our focus should be on de-escalating tensions and seeking alliances with fellow whites. The establishments claim we can't get along with Russia because our "interests conflict" and because Russia is corrupt.

Well, guess what?

We have worse and bigger conflicting interests with dozens of corrupt countries, yet establishments coddle them and often take marching orders from them.

Every nation should have interests that sometimes conflict with other nations. Otherwise, you get cucked and steamrolled.

At one point, Trump should have said, "Yes, I conspired with Russians to avoid World War III. I'm sorry so many of you prefer World War III.'' Instead, Trump sold part of his soul to neoconservatives, for their money and faint praise. At least Trump still has Jeff Sessions.

The establishments may not meet the legal definition of treason, but they sure as hell meet the moral definition.

Blameworthiness and the Legacy of Slavery

Multiculturalists love the legacy of slavery causal explanation for African-American problems.

Why?

Because it cannot be undone. It implies that whites are permanently guilty and permanently liable, no matter the consequences. To them, it doesn't matter whether Whites have already given umpteen trillion in welfare, health care, affirmative action, and other benefits to African-Americans.

The word cause means to change the probability of a thing occurring. Bringing African slaves to the Western Hemisphere was a cause of what happens to African-Americans, just as millions of other causes were and are. Otherwise, there would be few, if any, African-Americans and few African-American events.

But the problem with overemphasizing these distant historical causes and harms are that a) the villains are dead, b) millions of distant historical causes exist, c) they lead to mutually destructive tit-for-tat conflicts, d) they de-emphasize policies that would make things better, e) they help ruling groups exploit us with divide-and-screw policies.

The English treated the Irish worse than they treated African-Americans. Would Ireland be a better place today if today's Irish spent massive energies denouncing the British and demanding reparations? I doubt it.

If Africans and African-Americans started pursuing a rigorous program of eugenics 100 years ago, life would be much better for them than chanting the legacy of slavery. But that didn't happen.

Robert Mugabe and his successors will still blame whites as they loot what little wealth Zimbabwe creates in the future.

Multitudes of events (bad luck, good luck, volcanic eruptions, comet collisions, manorial feudalism, random mutations, harmful policies, beneficial policies, the evolution of malaria, Middle Eastern religious texts, etc.) caused our present situations. We can't change that they happened. It would do whites no good to endlessly blame manorial feudalism for our present decline. Sure, we should note what manorial feudalism caused but not dwell on it.

Every racial group has suffered grievous harms from ethnoracial outgroups in prior centuries. Bantu tribes enslaved and wiped out multitudes of outgroups, including Bushmen and other hominids.

Despite establishment propaganda to the contrary, Southwest Asians and North Africans have caused massive harms to Europeans and black Africans for centuries, including slave taking that dwarfed the trans-Atlantic slave trade. But they seldom mention that legacy of slavery, a far more brutal death camp form of slavery. Or the slavery White establishments inflicted upon other Whites. Nevertheless, Whites shouldn't sit around demanding reparations from Arabs and other Southwest Asians.

We must focus on liberating our own lives and nations from every ingroup and outgroup that seeks to harm and destroy us.

Intolerable Tolerance

"People who believe political views have a biological basis are more intolerant, study finds"

So that explains why individuals who believe in environmental determinism committed the most political murders in the 20th century. Those were tolerant murders.

Street Protests and Organizing for Liberation

In 1941, African-Americans planned a protest to obtain more hiring quotas for African-Americans. This threat, according to the story, so unnerved Franklin Roosevelt that he required companies receiving government contracts to implement hiring quotas. (Maybe Roosevelt simply used the threat to implement quotas he already preferred.)

By the Nixon era, the ruling groups lost their fear of marches and learned to use protesters to their own advantage, infiltrating protests with false flag agents to make protesters look rotten.

Contemporary establishments often ignore protesters, except to the extent they can use protesters to aid what politicians seek. Thus, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and similar groups engaging in terrorism, often receive free passes simply because they do what the ruling groups want, that is, support anti-white totalitarianism, aiding the ruling groups' bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw goals. Anyone with their head at least part way out of their rear end knows that "activism" is a euphemism for cultural Marxian crypto totalitarianism, that we should be wary of almost anyone calling themselves an activist.

Multicultural tolerance is tolerance for increasing tyranny by their perceived allies. For them, few enemies exist to the multicultural direction. The intra-multicultural enemies that do exist arise during the ruthless competition for power, Stalin having Trotsky eliminated, for example.

Occupy Wall Street lasted long but accomplished almost nothing because ruling groups vehemently opposed Occupy Wall Street.

Almost any other group that sought to curtail ruling group parasitism by taking it to the streets also floundered. The concept of claiming to be right because you have a slogan bearing sign in your hands is anti-reason. The real solution to treasonous ruling groups is organization that reforms or secedes. And by organization, I mean such organization that dictates to political parties which ethical, reliable individuals are permissible candidates, not individuals devoted to disingenuous platitudes and back stabbing egoism. The problem is that (outside of multiculturalism, the media, K-Street, and similar groups) politically organizing contemporary whites is harder than organizing a bag of cats. Kevin MacDonald writes about the amazing political ability of whites to organize, but we seldom see it in contemporary whites. Sure, you can organize millions of whites to support one arbitrary sports team or another but that's pathetic.

Whites in Zimbabwe tolerated ever increasing hells without forming effective, organized resistance. South Africa has the inspiring small sample of Orania, but without greater outside organization, the long term future of Orania, a town surrounded by millions of hostile outgroup members, looks bleak.

Sometimes a "the worse, the better" strategy tempts us, and maybe life getting worse will spur reforms in some lands. But Zimbabwe, South Africa, and numerous white flight cities are cautionary tales that when things get worse, many contemporary whites hunker down, take a pill, and run out the clock on themselves and posterity.

What to do? Protests by nonmulticulturalists face false flag actions by both establishments and the cultural Marxism industry, especially hoax crimes. But other methods exist. We should use multiculturalists' own tactics against them, including many of the 198 nonviolent methods here. We can form communities like Orania in the West, but geographically linked and mutually supporting, despite whatever differences exist among nonmulticulturalists on less important issues.

Being hated for telling the moral truth should never distract us.

Globalist Backed Saudi Arabia

Notice how often the media and others refer to Saudi Arabia as "U.S. backed," a whopping 427,000 Google results, yet another rhetorical guilt knife in our backs, as if we're mostly to blame for their centuries of Jihad, egoism, endogamy, and mass murder. The media don't write the more accurate "puppets of Saudi Arabia" or "globalist backed Saudi Arabia" or "multiculturalist backed Saudi Arabia" or "neoconservative backed Saudi Arabia" or "Colonial Occupation Force backed Saudi Arabia."

You can just imagine all the molecular machinery going nuts in humanitarian brains when they discovered the "U.S. backed" phrase. That's anti-white gold!

Saudi Arabia, despite the massive pro-Saudi propaganda coming from the ruling groups, has roughly a 30 percent favorable rating in the U.S. Saudi AramcoWorld seems to be in more libraries than almost any other print magazine. A mere Twenty percent of Canadians approve of their country's arms sales to Saudi Arabia. At least the Saudis have the Pakistanis. A staggering 95 percent of Pakistanis approve of the Saudis.

It is more accurate to describe our ruling groups as Saudi backed than to imply that real Americans back the Saudis. You have to respect the Saudi's evil brilliance. They go right to the top when they bribe. None of the just write random checks for treason crap that whites do. Prince Bandar bought Colin Powell a Jaguar. The Bushes frolicked with the King and did much worse. The Clinton Foundation received millions more.

What exactly can we do to stop the Saudis? Our rulers rule over the West as a colonial occupation force. They almost never do what the people want, and they won't abide our right to self-determination. Are the humanitarians implying that we should use violence to stop Saudi influence? Good luck with that against the global police states. If we actually did anything significant to stop Saudi influence, those same "humanitarians" would start screaming about racial and religious intolerance.

We don't need Saudi Arabia and we don't need their oil. The Saudis need infidel goods, money, and workers far more than we need their oil.

I sometimes read establishment message boards to see whether they have any good ideas and also to learn the current establishment zeitgeist. On one board, popular with lawyers and financiers, a wealthy lawyer posts hundreds, if not thousands, of humanitarian Yemen articles, complete with feigned conspicuous empathy. Not surprisingly, he was voted poster of the year. He seems to revel in "U.S backed" articles. To my knowledge, he has never posted a Saudis backed by Israel article or Saudis backed by Qatar article. And he never ever posts anything about about anti-white atrocities.

Because whites don't count as humans, you know.