Marriage Policies and Gay Marriage

Though many individuals have short political memories, if you're reading this blog, you probably remember the massive media coverage given to the government supported gay marriage issue a few years ago. By coverage, I mean the deluge of slurs and straw person attacks directed against anyone who criticized this new frontier of equality.

The short history: for decades, gays regarded marriage as an oppressive, patriarchal heterosexual institution. Then more gays discovered that marriage has financial benefits, including tax benefits and often health insurance for spouses. In a geological blink of an eye, heterosexuals went from being demonized for supporting marriage to being demonized for failing to support government funded gay marriage.

Given the gay desire for and gay availability of promiscuous sex, gay partners must be careful they don't get ripped off in marriage. Partners gain tax benefits and one partner often gains health insurance, but a potential cost is divorce, where one partner takes a large chunk of the other's assets. Many gays likely engage in assortative class mating to avoid financial pitfalls. Many have open marriages of semi-convenience.

But jealousy happens.

Gays often have excessive self-interest. That interior decorating doesn't get done for free. When physical anthropologist Greg Cochran argues, homosexuality is hell on genetic fitness, what he also states or implies is that gays provide little help to their breeding relatives. Gay estrangement from relatives results from more than intolerance on both sides.

What to do:

1. governments should get out the marriage tax entitlement business (along with most other existing tax entitlements). Marriage tax entitlements are an inefficient way to help families with minor children, especially since many married couples have no minor children. Instead, the government should use tax entitlements and other policies to promote eugenics. Eventually, governments should abandon the marriage business altogether, leaving marriage to private entities. Marriage has great value, but its value should not be based on government policies that encourage divorce and gold digging. Alimony and palimony must be banned.
2. health care within a society must not be based on who your relatives are.
3. "But without government run marriage, a hospital can keep my partner from visiting me as I'm dying." Simple solution: require everyone to put a list of those who can and cannot visit on their government ID and in their medical records.
4. Women are hypergamous, that is, they believe they deserve the partners they consider best, no matter how far from the best those men or women are. Government run marriage encourages women to divorce, legally steal a man's assets, and move in with supposedly better man. It requires men to pay child support when cuckolded. It also grants marriages quickly and with little thought. Private entities, especially churches, are more likely to require counseling and waiting periods before marriage, leading to better marriages and beneficial break ups before harmful marriages occur. Churches should be strict about marriage, willing to tell some couples they are not a good match. Some men are also hypergamous.

Compared to nonwhite invasions and other aspects of cultural Marxism, government supported gay marriage is of minor import. But the debate reeks, partly because it was yet another example of activists achieving their goals by demonizing opposition and excluding the best counterarguments from public consciousness. And also because some Christians incited counter-demagoguery, while maintaining their support for far worse aspects of cultural Marxism. Evangelicals continue to grandstand on gay marriage while lives and societies fall into ruin from ethnoracial diversity.

Activists should seldom be rewarded for despicable rhetoric, no matter which sides they belong to.

Multiculturalists Open a New Diversity Is Strength Rhetorical Front

Mike Males asserts, based on his false cause analysis, that "whites in predominantly white and Trump-voting counties are 50% more likely to die from murder, gun violence and drug overdoses than whites who live in the most diverse and Democratic-voting counties."

"Correspondingly, the white Americans who are safest from such deaths are those who live in racially diverse areas such as Los Angeles, New York and Chicago[.]"

"Rates of homicides, gun killings and illicit-drug fatalities are highest in counties where nine in 10 residents are white and where President Trump won."

Translated to truth instead of cultural Marxism: old, poor, lonely, unhealthy, alienated, lower IQ, lower conscientiousness whites are far more likely to die from drug overdoses and gun suicides than young, healthy, wealthy, connected, higher IQ, higher conscientiousness whites. Whites are less likely to die from murder in white areas, ceteris paribus, so don't conflate murder with the far more frequent gun suicides and drug overdoses. The overwhelming majority of interracial stranger on stranger murders involve non-white perpetrators. Many stranger on stranger murders in diverse areas go unsolved, adding to the disparity. Less than 40 percent of murders in Baltimore were cleared in 2016.

Males doesn't even mention the word suicide, the cause of 64 percent of US gun deaths overall and much more than 64 percent for whites. Many white gun deaths are justifiable euthanasia. Some situations are worse than death, including living with severe, chronic health problems. Healthy individuals fail to comprehend how horrible severe, chronic illnesses are. Many gun suicides occur after retirees move to cheaper, whiter rural areas or when ill individuals move back to their non-diverse home towns to receive help from white relatives.

Young, healthy, wealthy, high IQ rentiers and professionals in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles avoid the diverse, low functioning parts of those cities. They live in safer, wealthier low diversity areas such as Manhattan. And they form safer friendships with individuals similar to themselves.

Most violent interracial crimes against whites are committed against children, prisoners, and whites with male nonwhite partners. Those crimes are seldom counted in crime stats.

Much loneliness and alienation results from technology, plus multicultural control of media, schools, and other institutions, so there are even more factors to disentangle. Even whites living in all white areas face the destructive specter of multiculturalism hanging over them from their electronic gadgets. Multiculturalism makes whites alienated from most good beliefs, replacing them with consumerism and totalitarian multiculturalism, including Islam.

Males' analysis produced a 50 and a 90 percent stat. I'm instantly suspicious of stats that claim 50 or 90 or 99 percent of something because most such stats usually are fabricated, especially given the anti-white slurs in his argument.

Moving to a diverse area won't reduce ethical problems. Diversity makes them worse.

More important, as I recently wrote, nonwhite rule combined with nonwhite majorities creates tyranny and the genocide of whites. The harms of diversity will rise exponentially in the future.

Males provides fallacious grist for individuals who like to think white America outside their wealthy, pseudo-diverse enclaves is Deliverance.

Fortunately, some of us are not that gullible. Some of us know we should tease out IQ, age, race, health, income and other factors before jumping to conclusions.

Spurious Merit

Imagine we had multitudes of pipe wrecking, publicly funded plumbers claiming: "How dare you oppose our employment. Plumbing saved millions, if not billions of lives, from cholera and other dreaded pathogens, saving more lives than most doctors throughout history, while causing fewer harms. Our critics are guilty of insidious anti-plumberism." We'd probably mock and defund the harm causing plumbers while employing other (mostly) beneficial plumbers. Similar assertions could be made by other harm causing blue collar workers, and we'd defund them as well.

Yet we publicly fund multitudes of academics, spouting poorly reasoned ethical arguments, partly because a minority of academics provide large benefits by opposing tyranny, inventing vaccines, and other beneficial activities. We're supposed to fund the fanaticism and other wrongs of most academics because some minority of academics are beneficial, even when they ruin lives, leaving some students in debt peonage. At least in the latter days of the Soviet Union, millions of individuals didn't go into debt to be easily indoctrinated. And not merely in the humanities and social sciences. Many natural scientists demand we spend billions on trivial scientific advances having few benefits. Thousands of scientific journals publish newly discovered picayune facts, but we can't find enough money for killer asteroid hunting. Business schools crank out students devoted to extracting wealth by harmful means. Not surprisingly, billionaires made super wealthy by parasitic activities donate to their favorite business schools to create more such individuals. The proliferation of academic administrators is worse.

Academics resort to the false dichotomy bumper sticker, "If you think [formal] education is expensive, try ignorance." Never mind that contemporary formal education is an expensive way to end up wrong on the most important ethical issues.

Academics claim we need academic freedom with tenure to protect ideas. But academic freedom isn't the same as the legal and ethical rights to freedom of speech. Academic freedom with tenure is the privilege to be paid wealthy and upper middle class incomes by students and taxpayers for harmful opinions. It also includes the privilege of stocking colleges with politically like minded individuals, not philosophical diversity. Despite having more presumed supporters of equality than most other institutions, college campuses rank among the most unequal institutions, with students and grad assistants being exploited, with a parallel justice system where students can be expelled for thought crimes or unsupported accusations.

The overwhelming majority of academics born in the Twentieth Century support or supported one or more forms of totalitarianism--Sharia, Randism, fascism, globalism, neoconservatism, cultural Marxism, economic Marxism, new Democratism or similar ideologies. Worse, the more the evidence contradicts these belief systems, the more fanaticism increases. The greater the contradictions, the more they ignore the contradictions, walling themselves off from decent counterarguments. demonizing those providing good evidence.

While a few academics claim they want to add more ideological diversity, what they mean by ideological diversity is more libertarianism and neoconservativism, which is no improvement. They sure as heck won't knowingly hire me or some other nonmulticulturalist.

Imitation meritarianism by irrelevant association applies many other white collar professions as well, often worse than secondary and post secondary education:

1. We need a small financial industry, but then the industry gains more power to bribe, leading to specious justifications for "masters of the universe," "too big to fail," and thousands of other rent seeking activities. The financial crises alone cost at least $20 trillion.
2. We benefit from health care, but now free riding dominates the industry, especially by insurers and various medical monopolies and oligopolies. Our medical system costs 750 billion more dollars per year than it should.
3. We benefited from some military officials, but others devoted to militarism and war profiteering took over and assert they "fight for our freedom" when, if fact, they mostly act to destroy our freedoms. The more ruling groups uses fallacies and totalitarian force to create ethnoracial diversity, the more force is needed to keep a little peace and the more freedom disappears. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone cost $2.4 trillion and counting.
4. We benefit from a small legal profession, but now unelected and unaccountable judges imagine they have a right to decide laws in utter violation of ethical governance. The fallacious appeal to tradition known as precedent gets treated as sacred, depending on whether the precedent agrees or disagrees with judges own whims. Legislators seem proud of the fact they know little about public policies.
5. We benefited from the printing press and the invention of paper, but now we have mass media pursuing profits, ratings, and indoctrination while ignoring the public interest.

The above numbers do not include most opportunity costs and non-monetary costs, which are even greater than the monetary costs.

Steve Sailer criticized a recent article by David Brooks promoting the rise of today's alleged meritarian class but for the wrong reasons. Sailer regards Brooks' take as "pretty reasonable," asserting that Brooks uses meritocratic "as a euphemism, basically, for 'Jewish'." Sailer downplays the fact that the new establishments are extremely anti-meritarian, worse than the old "Protestant establishment," Neoconservatism is far worse than Vietnam era counterinsurgency failures. Heck, neoconservatives seem hellbent on starting World War III. Technology advanced and wives now work outside the home, yet nonwealthy incomes declined, if you replace one sided hedonic pricing and other misadjustments to the Consumer Price Index with more accurate measures. More important, cultural Marxism will exterminate the West and white individuals if permitted to do so, making it much worse than the old establishments racial flaws.

How meritarian can today's establishments be when they will expel or otherwise punish individuals for telling unwanted ethical truths?

Come on, man.

David Brooks isn't merely cheerleading for his teams. Brooks likely believes that his own mixture of Randism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism is the greatest ideology ever created, the ultimate in merit, the evidence be damned.

Establishments pretend they create great value.

We know better.

Hugh Hefner: Dead

My father had a subscription to Playboy magazine against the wishes of my mother, and I viewed them.

I could understand why nubile women flocked to a rich, famous, powerful man, but I couldn't understand why others fawned over Hefner. Halo effects are bizarre. There was almost nothing fascinating about him. In the interviews I saw, he kept spewing his hackneyed shtick about 1950s "sexual repression." (He should have spent a few years in Saudi Arabia to see what real sexual repression looked like.) I doubt Hefner was particularly well-read. Most political commentaries in his magazine were poorly reasoned despite having his pick of thousands of writers sending in submissions, each hoping for a good payday and a bit of recognition.

The magazine had a page or two devoted to photos of Playboy parties, a disproportionate percentage showing African-American men with white women. The intended or unintended message: you pay for worthless paper images of attractive women. Look who gets the real thing. So his was a girly magazine that had more photos of black men than black women. Hefner worked to eliminate the peoples and white beauty his life and wealth depended on.

In older issues, the Playmates had a variety of attractive looks, to fit a variety of tastes. After the mid 1990s, more Playmates displayed dyed hair, orange skin, heavy makeup, breast implants. Yes, the supposed classy, highbrow porn magazine specialized in the b*mbo look. It was likely based on research. Hefner's fan base was likely the same as Howard Stern's. Behind the glitz was the reality of lonely male subscribers living purposeless lives. The morality of the cool comes to liberate, yet takes prisoners, looking for love and purpose in the wrong places. Among the less lonely, hedonism contributed to an epidemic of philandering and broken homes. The one night stand is not an act of liberation. It is an act of contempt. It says I can screw you and maybe give you a pathogen, but you are not good enough to be around me ever again. I'm going to pretend to be gaga about you, but only for a few hours, then switch it off.

Philosophies of hedonism give the impression that many whites in the 1950s were "squares" or worse. Having met thousands of individuals who came of age in the 1950s or before, I keep wondering where the squares went. Did they morph into non-squares by the 1980s? Many were great story tellers with fascinating life experiences. For the unfamiliar, it was once common in American society for friends to frequently visit, sitting and talking about thousands of topics for hours on end, sometimes playing cards while talking.

Writers complain about magazines setting impossible standards, but magazines are more about escapism than setting standards.

Like some other wealthy promoters of hedonism, Hefner seemed devoted to his children, yet such promoters seldom care about the consequences of hedonism to individuals in more difficult circumstances. Hedonism is a luxury that many can financially afford but few can ethically afford.

History, Multiculturalism, and the Near Certainty Principles of Nonwhite Rule

Let's imagine the centuries old Arab, Mongol, and other brutal nonwhite invasions of white lands have no relevance today. Let's focus on the current and last century when nonwhites became more civilized, listing the last six times nonwhites ruled large numbers of whites (leaving out smaller groups of murdered or kidnapped whites around the planet):

1. Zimbabwe (1980 to the present)
2. South Africa (1994 to the present)
3. Japanese Empire (1942-1945)
4. Ottoman Empire (1900-1922)
5. Russia-Soviet Union (1917-1953)
6. North Korea (1950 to unknown by Westerners)

If one of these cases involved the mass slaughter of whites, it would be enough to condemn multicultural goals, yet in all six cases, nonwhite rule over whites resulted in tyranny and the slaughter of whites, often involving sadistic acts of torture and murder thousands of times worse than the acts of torture at Guantanamo Bay.

That is why self-determination is sacred and non-negotiable. It is inalienable, meaning it must not be taken away. Any person on this planet who opposes the right of self-determination, and billions of multiculturalists do oppose self-determination, is massively unethical.

The rainbow political platitudes of nonwhites are worthless at best. Nonwhites do not and will not protect us from their co-ethnics when they have power. Their ephemeral support for progressive humanitarianism does not include most whites. They blame victims of their racial depredations. Whites can engage in trillions of acts of misplaced altruism toward nonwhites. Years later nonwhites remember mistreatment, no matter how petty, not the altruism. Few multiculturalists care that whites saved billions of nonwhite lives with vaccines, other technologies, and charitable activities.

Al Jazeera supports multicultural progressivism because multicultural progressivism serves them as a divide-and-conquer strategy, until Muslims can implement sharia in the West. Note how the owners of Al Jazeera have little interest in implementing multicultural progressivism at home in Qatar.

Among multiculturalists, few enemies to the anti-white exist, especially when their allies rampage through streets and punish dissent. Trust but verify is a rule for chumpism. The verification usually proves faulty. History indicates nonwhites are capable of being decent citizens in white countries only when their power and numbers are tiny (and when whites don't act with abject cowardice).

Wealthy whites are mainly capable of egoism and treason, so whites should, ethically speaking, live only in nations that are nearly 100 percent white, including white foreign diplomats. A handful of near whites, who do not self-identify as nonwhite, are unavoidable and should be tolerated. Allow more nonwhites in and the wealthy begin to see the possibilities of cheaper labor, militaristic empire, multicultural grandstanding, pitting worker against worker, and other divide-and-screw practices. The slightest bribe of a wealthy white individual by nonwhites or white multiculturalists should result in draconian punishment of the bribed.

Now if some whites want live in diverse lands, they should have a legal right to do so, provided nonwhites want them. (It won't last long!) But such whites have no moral right and should have no legal right to force diversity on the rest of us. They also have no moral right to preach diversity since no one has a moral right to spew unethical, poorly reasoned arguments.

The ''what about white rule over people of color'' counterargument is irrelevant. Almost no one living today supports white rule over nonwhites. Separation has transition costs, but the costs of today's multiculturalism will be many times greater to multitudes of future generations.

As I wrote before, 100 percent of majority Muslim countries were and are totalitarian. One hundred percent of lands with large amounts of racial diversity became long-term unethical disasters.

No genocultural engineering by multiculturalists will ever create good, diverse, sustainable countries. Multiculturalists promote ideas that have failed multitudes of times before with ever more clever propaganda techniques, as if they assume we are all incapable of facing facts and as if they assume new packaging changes the moral facts. Most higher IQ individuals with comparatively less bad motives are too lazy and evidence averse to create decent political philosophies. Being forced to live in nonwhite ruled societies, surrounded by lower character fanaticisms is far worse, a prescription worse than death, a norm beneath the dignity of any white individual.

The above is merely a matter of being logical and ethical, not "white supremacism."

Elements of Racial Supremacism

I dislike posting on Fridays because many readers are too busy to read, but I'm hankering to post today.

What makes up racial supremacism:

1. Unsupported belief that a race is superior to another, combined with an unsupported belief in a right to rule over another race, that is, freedom of association for one race but not for another, including denying the latter's right to exit a society and form a homogeneous society.
2. Unsupported belief that a race should be off limits to criticism, no matter how well-reasoned, combined with free fire abusive ad hominem attacks on another race, plus assuming the motives of a race are pure while relentlessly assuming bad motives among potential critics.
3. Unsupported belief that genocide is permissible.
4. Unsupported belief that a race inherits ontological guilt while behaving as if past and present evils done by another race must be white washed, plus assuming one is the racial victim while victimizing another race.
5. Unsupported belief that economic and other goods within a self-chosen multiracial society should be distributed according to power and race, not in proportion to economic productivity, combined with a belief that racial harm doing and free riding can almost always be justified as good for the cause, including spewing fallacies to see whether they stick, especially straw persons and small sample fallacies. It includes treating probabilities and expected values as irrelevant or worthless while treating assertions of specious rights as sacred.
6. Encouraging members of a race to engage in dysgenic breeding to increase the demographic power of a race, no matter how poor the character of those individuals, plus a belief that the triumph of a race over another race is inevitable.
7. Unsupported belief that those who oppose a harmful racial cause must be fired, fined, jailed, murdered, assaulted, ostracized or exploited, that thoughts contradicting the racial cause must be taboo.

The phrase mixed race can also be inserted wherever you see the word race above.

The above describes most whites before the 1950s and many self-described national socialists today. It also describes almost every nonwhite and white multiculturalist.

Counterarguments?

Only white people can be [insert bad traits]. Hmm. That sounds like another aspect of supremacism. Please show me the evidence that that only white people blah, blah, blah. Because it doesn't exist.

But that's not what dictionaries or social science glossaries say. Dictionaries and glossaries are not authorities on ethical definitions. Their definitions on ethical issues consist mainly of ad populum definitions or rhetorical definitions concocted by activists.

Multiculturalists Sacrificing Their Jobs

We almost never see good jobs having White or Jewish or Asian supporters of affirmative action volunteer to donate their good jobs for the cause, thus allowing their employers to hire less wealthy nonwhites. Why should they have good jobs if humans and human races are interchangeable?

They could reply that they are in favor of affirmative action for society as a whole. Their own jobs are supposedly irrelevant. They could claim they are desperately needed at their jobs, that no one else has the skills. But if humans are interchangeable, why can't replacements be found or trained?

Maybe they believe the r*cists in their trailer park centers of power are the ones keeping nonwealthy nonwhites down, not genes, not multiculturalists on Wall Street and elsewhere. (Please don't hurt yourself laughing.)

No rhetorical trick eliminates the contradiction of telling others to do something one is unwilling to do when no relevant differences allegedly exist. If necessary, affirmative action supporters could train their replacements, as Whites often do for the H1-B invasion.

But as I mentioned before, almost no multicultural contradiction is too great for multiculturalists to dismiss or ignore.

Millions of potential candidates to donate their jobs exist, for example, Paul Campos, a professional opinion maker and law professor from Colorado. Campos isn't competent at opinion making, especially his ethnoracial arguments. His recent New York Times article lambastes "white privilege" and racial economic inequality without even attempting to tease out alternative causal factors such as IQ, age, conscientiousness, marriage status, felony record, education level, education choices, relevant experience, and number of working adults per household. Campos criticizes white privilege without mentioning other racial groups with higher incomes than whites. He also cites junk science.

The best thing you can say about Campos is that he noticed we have an oversupply of lawyers but so have millions of other unemployed and underemployed nonwhites.

Campos posts on this pro-totalitarianism message board as poster Paul, where he frequently calls whites super slurs. And in terrific irony, Campos often invokes Dunning-Kruger when demonizing whites. Oh, where or where is the mirror for Paul Campos to look into? Where is his cognitive dissonance? Campos lived his life fleeing from low functioning diversity and should have donated his jobs decades ago.

But for some odd reasons, multicultural sacrifices keep getting shifted onto nonwealthy whites.

The Disastrous Politics of Hobson's Choices

Multiculturalism creates a politics of Hobson's choices, of choosing only among harmful alternatives, pressuring voters to choose between crooked, pro life, somewhat less antiwhite establishment Republicans or pro choice, more antiwhite, somewhat less crooked New Democrats.

In both cases, redistributing income to the powerful ranks above other priorities.

When establishment Republicans are in power, few federal pro life policies result. Research suggests that in the past few generations, millions of pro lifers threw away their previous beliefs on thousands of issues merely so they could be on the "pro life" team, an ultimate litmus test. The study concluded as "individuals realigned their party affiliation in accordance with their initial abortion views, their other political views followed suit." I wonder about other reasons though, since these "race blind" pro lifers arrange their lives to be far from low functioning diversity. They also arrange to not notice that most abortions are spontaneous, seldom recommending policies to reduce the likelihood of spontaneous abortions. Many muticulturalists ignore the abortion angle and imagine the Republican appeal rests mostly on ethnoracial "dog whistling," though establishment Republicans harm whites far more than they help whites.

Congressional New Democrats talk about the minimum wage most often when they know it has no chance of passing, leaving local governments to pass sometimes excessive minimum wage increases. Federal Democratic officials often fail to promote immigration restrictions, tighter labor markets, payroll tax cuts, and other policies that would be more efficient at helping lower income workers. Presumed egalitarian Barack Obama oversaw levels of inequality not seen for several generations. Donald Trump works to expand redistributions to the top, regarding the expansion of play money for Carl Icahn and wealthy individuals as more important to him than the lives of ordinary Americans.

Some call it tribalism, but ordinary voters have little role in the so-called tribes, except as useful voters and minor donors, gaining massive harms while misusing their votes and money. Tribalism relies on close kin. Contemporary Western multicultural politics emphasizes non-kin gang tyranny in the short term, although some kin nepotism exists alongside, as with the Bushes and Clintons. George H.W. Bush would not state the obvious: that his sons were unfit for office. The Clintons won't admit the obvious about Chelsea. In both, egoism rules, forcing altruists or ethical individuals to splinter or figure out ways of reducing gang power. With multiculturalism, bait-and-switch and divide-and-screw are even more rampant than in small tribes. In small tribes, usurpers are seldom far from overthrowing the chief's power.

When multiculturalism reaches its end state, kin gangism takes over.

In many free rider problems, ordinary individuals opt out of reform attempts because their individual efforts contribute so little. The larger the polity, the less influence most individuals have. We now have a nation preoccupied with politics, or at least political infotainment and demonization mongering, but the establishments seldom change, except to increase rent seeking and to become more anti-white. Progressives wonder why Hillary Clinton didn't step aside to let the more electable Sanders run. They fail to understand that genetic egoism functions on individual genes and psychological egoism functions on the individual organism. The party is not an individual. Congresspersons would much rather keep their seats and have the other party in control than lose their seat and have their own party in control, which is why establishment politicians support gerrymandering to protect their own political offices, even when it hurts their party. Ordinary partisans sacrifice for parties dominated by egoism, but the party insiders sacrifice primarily for themselves.

Neither party cares about fiduciary duties to future generations. Both support dysgenics. Both rely on technology, faulty stats, and increased workforce participation by women to maintain the illusion of normalcy. Both support non-white overpopulation. Both support reckless militarism on behalf of profiteering, grandstanding, and rallying tactics, not to mention as distractions from domestic wrongs. Neoconservatives try to distance themselves from Bush II and Paul Wolfowitz, even as they promote similar policies.

George W. Bush attained a 90 percent approval rating in the aftermath of 9/11, the best in Gallup's presidential polling history, despite having zero major moral accomplishments in his life. It's chilling to think what some other present and future multicultural politicians will do to rescue their popularity with voters or their colleagues and the donor classes.

Progressives eschew the foreign interventions of neoconservatism, preferring other destructive interventions, plus much more domestic warfare on whites and other perceived enemies.

The seemingly thoughtful demand race blind policies, only to find themselves ostracized or the policies failing. They haven't thought carefully enough. The incentives for both evolutionary and psychological egoism are too great, the genetic and cultural differences among groups too huge, though they manage to believe the straw person of "only because of their skin color." Many of the seemingly race blind only pretend to be race blind. Barack Obama pretended to be above the fray, "acting presidential," while appointing the likes of Eric Holder and encouraging most of the mass media to demonize those telling the truth. George W. Bush did likewise, letting Karl Rove, Fox News, and talk radio do the dirty work.

Hobson's choice politics occurs in dysfunctional nonmulticultural societies as well, but multiculturalism amplifies problems.

The dynamics are somewhat similar but less worse for now in other Western countries, worsening as other Western countries breed and import more nonwhites. And as they replace nuclear families with dysgenic breeding by single parents. No establishment politician would dare say, "If you insist on being a single parent, please go to a sperm bank and get the highest character sperm you can find of your own race. Stop sexing it up with individuals devoted to con artistry," though saying so would be more ethical than anything most of them have ever said.

When individuals support lesser evils, lesser evils become more powerful, greater evils. Individuals capable of great but lesser evils have little difficulty transitioning to greater evils.

We must reject the pressures to choose bad teams. Most contemporary political parties in the West must end. Individuals must politically fight for their right of self-determination. Organize, then organize some more.

The Effing A**hole Gene?

On occasion, writers defend the low activity variants of MAOA, the so-called warrior gene, a phrase they consider a misnomer because individuals with the low activity variants are likely to lash out at perceived wrongs done to themselves. (Since warriors fight both just and unjust wars, the phrase seems generous.)

Isn't fighting wrongs a good thing?

Yes. We shouldn't create societies riven with immoral cowardice, easy prey for egoism, including psychopathy. But often a chasm exists between a real wrong and a perceived wrong.

At least one study suggests individuals with a low activity variant are more willing to physically punish others for a "provocation." But the study doesn't measure whether these individuals might consider other acts, especially beneficial acts by political opponents, as provocations.

A study of New Zealanders abused as children by Caspi and Moffitt concluded that 80 percent of males with a low activity variant displayed anti-social tendencies, more than than twice the frequency (35 percent) of anti-social tendencies among formerly abused males with the high activity variant. Abused children are noteworthy because they inherit genes for aggression from their parents and they grow up in cultures extolling aggression. If you date someone who was abused by a parent and they claim they would never do what their parent did to their own children, yet display other character defects, you probably should be skeptical about their claim. When children start screeching or misbehaving, there is a good chance they will pound the hell out of them, forgetting their previous promises.

Unless Caspi and Moffitt use a bad definition of anti-social tendencies, it doesn't sound as if the low activity variants cause individuals to fight the right fights.

We should create individuals who respond correctly to wrongs, stopping and preventing harms by those committing them and sometimes punishing those committing them. We should not create more individuals with a general tendency to lash out at the world or ethical outgroups. Most of us have met individuals who believe they have suffered a wrong in one place, then decide to get drunk, drive drunk, and start fights elsewhere as a response. Hollywood audiences love anti-heroes with rotten causes.

We should have an explosion of research on MAOA, but studies on MAOA variants don't seem frequent in the past few years. Not surprisingly, social scientists are busy crafting and rigging studies on behalf of cultural Marxism. We must find out how beneficial or harmful the variants of MAOA are.

Groups more likely to have the low activity variants, including racial groups, have consistently supported one totalitarianism or another throughout their histories, no matter how IQ they are. They pretend to be opponents of totalitarianism mainly when it helps their agendas, then look the other way as their allies implement tyranny. Their intuitions of right and wrong on important political issues are wrong the overwhelming majority of the time, often thinking it right to assault anyone who tells a truth they don't want to hear, even while they support their own right to demonize others with scurrilous, fallacious language, not noticing or caring about self-contradictions. And if you point out the contradictions to them, they'll attack. They think it perfectly acceptable to have the entire mass media dominated by individuals in general agreement with their fallacious intuitions.

Now it could be the case that the low activity variants of MAOA are accidentally correlated with totalitarian behavior among those groups. But whatever the causes, we shouldn't be conducting experiments with the lives of billions in ways almost guaranteed to increase tyranny.

I sure would like to know whether the individuals who slur centrist nonmulticulturalists as Nazis, then then think they have the right to assault us and take away our rights, have the low activity variants of MAOA or what other genes predispose them to support totalitarianism.