Research on Stereotype Accuracy: Dubious

Social science research claims stereotypes are generally accurate (narrowly defined as "beliefs about groups").

But such research is easy to rig. If you ask participants for generalizations on easy questions, they'll give accurate answers. If you ask harder questions, accuracy plummets. Important issues generally have difficult answers.

That is not a major knock on stereotyping itself. We should stereotype when we have the evidence, even when the probability of harm is low. Being wrong about con artistry even once in 20 times over a long period of time will cause major harms.

If stereotypes were generally accurate, cultural Marxism would be almost nonexistent. Instead, most adults on this planet believe in some form of cultural Marxism, with its multitudes of inaccurate ethnoracial stereotypes. Most individuals believe false stereotypes about the secular or avuncular groups they belong to. Etc.

Some probably doubt me because stereotype accuracy has the edge-o-sphere seal of approval. Below are some questions. Most humans would not produce remotely accurate stereotypes.

Origins of Ashkenazi Jews?
probable stereotypes: white or Khazar or Middle Eastern.
more accurate stereotype: Mixture of Southern European and Middle Eastern ancestry

Multicultural groups?
probable stereotype: tolerant
more accurate stereotype: intolerant with ever increasing totalitarianism

Black-white interracial aggression in US?
probable stereotypes: whites are more likely to attack or blacks are somewhat more likely to attack
more accurate stereotype: "a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa"

Serial killing?
probable stereotype: disproportionately a white thing
more accurate stereotype: disproportionately a black thing

Reducing ethnoracial injustices?
probable stereotype: reduced once individuals proclaiming equality have total power
more accurate stereotype: multiply once individuals proclaiming equality have total power

Racial supremacism?
probable stereotype: a white thing
more accurate stereotype: concentrated among nonwhites who believe they have rights to mercantilism, self-determination, affirmative action, speech freedoms, terrorizing nonbelievers, while denying speech freedoms, self-determination, and other rights to whites

We could sit around for years creating millions of questions about groups that humans would answer with false stereotypes.

If we switch to a broader, everyday definition of stereotypes, meaning any generalizations, the general inaccuracy remains.

Cause of changing seasons?
probable stereotype: distance from sun
more accurate stereotype: tilt of Earth affecting length of days and amount of solar radiation striking earth per square meter

Tobin Tax?
probable stereotype: tax on something
more accurate stereotype: taxing spot conversions of currency

Congressional Franking?
probable stereotype: legislators naming kids Frank
more accurate stereotype: legislators mailing "informative" propaganda at little cost to themselves

Pigouvian tax?
probable stereotype: something pigs
more accurate stereotype: taxing harmful activities to reduce their frequency and harms, making harm causers pay the costs they create for others

Div, grad, curl?
probable stereotype: American football receiver jargon
more accurate stereotype: vector calculus

Stop Corporate Inversions Act?
probable stereotype: something inverted
more accurate stereotype: would ban corporations from re-incorporating outside the US to avoid taxes

Minamata Convention?
probable stereotype: something Minnesota or Japanese
more accurate stereotype: regulation of mercury usage

ACHE Act?
probable stereotype: something indigenous tribe
more accurate stereotype: would ban mountain top destruction

Truman Committee?
probable stereotype: something nuclear weapons
more accurate stereotype: investigated corruption and inefficiency during World War II

Davis Bacon Act?
probable stereotype: mmm... bacon
more accurate stereotype: required prevailing wages on federally funded projects, including contractors and subcontractors

Instead of focusing on whether individuals' current stereotypes are accurate, we should focus on how to make stereotypes more accurate by teaching reasoning, improving cultures, and breeding individuals with a strong tendency toward extreme cognitive dissonance when they get stereotypes wrong, especially generalizations about ethical issues.

Eugenics for Defense

In my previous post, I covered factors and principles important in war.

I will now cover specific eugenic traits we should encourage for defense of a nation or a species from asteroids, pathogens, super volcanoes, expanding stars, and other threats to existence. Character and IQ are obvious and important answers.

Though beauty has no direct ethical value, it seems probable that individuals fight harder for beautiful wives and fiancees, ceteris paribus (all else being equal). Many ugly animals fight hard, but they have genes and environments extolling aggression. Reasonable men would not fight hard for a society filled with Andrea Dworkins. War stories are replete with mentions of soldiers or sailors being inspired by letters, memories or photographs from attractive wives or girlfriends.

Monogamous hypersexuality (nymphomania or satyriasis) would be another worthwhile trait. Individuals are not inspired by dead fish. Officers charged with censoring letters for military information often remark how "filthy" the letters are. (Don't expect those letters in books by Tom Brokaw.) If all a soldier has to look forward to when coming home is leftover potato soup, he might commit suicide directly or by acting recklessly. Genes that encourage couples to feel good in long term monogamous marriages should be spread. Genes that encourage falling in love, followed by falling in hate should be avoided.

Aggression should not be bred for because a) such individuals are a massive ethical problem during peacetime, and b) they are not trustworthy in war, often creating or sustaining unjust wars. Those convicted of serious crimes should be sterilized.

Cowardice must also be bred out and ethically punished.

Hypergamy can be good if redirected. Though not often mentioned, millions of men and women find bad boys and bad girls repulsive. We admonish, "Don't stick your dick in crazy." Genes tend to make copies of themselves. There is no requirement that bad boy genes make copies at a faster rate. We simply must change the environmental incentives. In well-functioning societies, a man should have to prove himself to an ethically attractive woman and her parents with virtuous actions. Ethical societies can not survive without them.

A society devoted to single, childfree hedonism will not last long. Individuals with good genes should find video games boring and insipid. The same goes for splenetic, fallacy filled mass media. Individuals should find ethical and family life entrancing. Parents with children seem more likely to help just causes, especially if they have children eight to twelve years old, ages when children seem more highly beloved by parents. But unethical familism and tribalism must also be prevented. I will cover Hamilton's Rule in a separate essay.

Xenocentrism must be bred out and ethically punished. Individuals of egoism, narcissism, and Machiavellianism must not be rewarded for grandstanding ("virtue signaling"), for altruistic acts toward unethical individuals. We must stop rewarding unethical treason and every other major form of free riding. Laws, constitutions, and standards of citizenship must be changed so that such individuals are weeded out long before they get anywhere near positions of power. Individuals should have a large, ethical retributive drive but not a drive for random revenge. Apathy, a trait best left to farm animals, must be bred out. Almost everyone in contemporary establishments should be assumed dangerous until proven otherwise.

Citizens must be bred to be able to reason well enough to recognize the differences among puppetry, pacifism, worthy patriotism, and flag wrapping parasitism (read: John McCain), along with the ability to recognize the ethical and unethical in general. They must not fanatically and reflexively resort to a political team right or wrong. Unfortunately, humans need massive genetic and environmental changes in the reason arena. In the aftermath of 9/11, George W. Bush had an approval rating of at least 90 percent, though Bush had done little in his life to be considered ethically trustworthy. The first casualty in war must not be the truth. Blind obedience sucks. Individuals should be bred to feel extreme anxiety when failing to tell the truth. Too often, contemporary individuals feel more anxiety for flirting with an unpopular truth than believing lies. Humans should see through official myths.

Though many high IQ individuals have unethical tendencies, intelligence is essential for ethical reasoning. Good reasoning requires high levels of argument comprehension, levels not obtainable by lower IQ individuals. Lower IQ individuals will also not be able to figure out how to stop asteroids and other major threats to existence. The most valuable members of society are both high IQ and high character. The least valuable are high IQ and low character. Use policies to breed the former, not the latter.

A Wider Summary of General Military Principles

Contemporary lists of military principles do not account for ethnoracial and other supposed offensive factors, as if rulers can make unwanted facts go away by ignoring them. Establishments deem it acceptable to kill individuals in unjust wars, but mention any unwanted truths to them and you will be ostracized or worse.

Below I list both well-known and seldom known military factors or principles. So for free, I'm summarizing Sun Tzu and dozens of other military works, including some of my principles, more concisely than others have. What a bargain!

Well-known factors or principles, though often adhered to in lip service:

1. Logistics.
2. Training.
3. Range, especially of weapons.
4. Accuracy, especially of weapons.
5. Science and technology.
6. Reconnaissance range, numbers, and accuracy.
7. Concentration and dispersion to match situations. Forces should not be so close together that they get destroyed easily but not so far apart that they get defeated piecemeal or cannot provide mutual support.
8. Cover (armor, bunkers).
9. Readiness, including early warning preparations.
10. Destructiveness (mass or weapon lethality).
11. Military efficiency, also known as economy of force. Don't spend trillions to destroy enemy forces worth millions. Exhaust enemies without exhausting yourself.
12. Economic efficiency, productivity, and GDP.
13. Morale and efficient organization.
14. Flexibility and resilience.
15. Terrain and Weather. Take unoccupied high ground or other advantageous ground. Travel the less unexpected way. Use fog and other weather to advantage.
16. Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative when advantageous. Deny assets to unethical forces, especially assets an enemy cannot afford to lose. Be unpredictable.
17. Have one overall commander, who is easily replaced if someone else is more competent.
18. Hire the more competent. Delegate to them. Hold them accountable. Fire the less competent.
19. Speed and maneuver, including mobile reserves.
20. Delay until situations are most beneficial, but do not delay merely for laziness or cowardice.
21. Hide or strengthen weaknesses, including flanks.
22. Use extreme clarity in communication, keeping forces from blundering because of confusing orders or suggestions.
23. Protect own communications from interception and code breaking.
24. Hold or seize valuables: crops, ports, ships, bridges, aircraft, airfields, scientists, engineers, crossroads, factories, technologies, energy plants, media centers, storage centers, precious elements, marshaling yards, administrative centers. If it can't be held or seized, destroy it or otherwise deny it to enemies.
25. Negotiating prowess.
26. Medical care.
27. Ambush or cut off enemy movements without falling into ambushes and other traps yourself.
28. Deception, including smoke, decoys, surprise, sniping, minefields, camouflage, espionage, infiltration, false flags, night actions, code breaking, feigned movements, other demonstrations, bait-and-switch, recon by fire, attacking the rear, tying down their forces (self-imprisonment), tricking them into attacking where you want, tricking them into moving where you want. Etc.
29. Probe for weaknesses, especially on flanks or social weaknesses.
30. Defeat piecemeal with concentrated power.
31. Self-test, including self-reconnaissance.
32. Own the sea, air, and night.

Seldom known factors or principles:

1. Avoid salience to current enemies and potential enemies. Contemporary interventionists talk loudly and carry rotten sticks. Keep unethical peoples far away. Individuals breeding with unethical outgroups must be permanently ostracized. Avoid letting ethnoracial outgroups bribe your leaders in any way, including "no strings" gifts. The recipients of such bribes must be executed or otherwise severely punished.
2. Maximize beneficial alliances and spurn harmful alliances. There were no good ethical reasons for NATO to expand to Russian border states.
3. Stealthily sow divisions among aggressive enemies when forced into conflict, encourage them to fight each other rather than yourself or your allies. Do not allow greedy, treasonous elites to sow divisions among ethical peoples. Ingroups engaging in divide-and-screw practices must be severely punished, both to stop the practices and as a deterrent. Outgroups exercising power over you by divide-and-screw practices must face similar punishments.
4. Avoid wasting your own lives and resources to help unethical peoples. If they won't make massive sacrifices to help themselves and their own people, neither should we. Avoid self destructive conflicts with guerrillas in foreign lands.
5. Avoid recklessly reinforcing defeat. Ignore sunk costs. What was spent in the past is irrelevant to what we should spend now.
6. Be careful with bluffs. They often backfire when enemies call them.
7. Avoid hiring mercenaries. If mercenaries seem a beneficial solution, you probably are doing multitudes or other acts wrong.
8. Ethics matters most, including having clear goals and cost-benefit reasoning, especially maximizing the ratio of harms to unjust enemies to harms done to oneself. Self-examination and self-knowledge must be ruthless. Military means and ends must be ethical means and ends. Contemporary forces talk about ethics but the talk is glib and poorly reasoned, often consisting of empty slogans and buzzwords.
9. Eugenics is a must and ethnoracial homogeneity a worthy goal. Civilizations seldom progress if the demographics don't improve.
10. Some ordinary whites regard agreements as binding. Most others regard agreements as disposable when opportune. 
11. Avoid intervening on behalf of lesser evils.
12. Encourage risk neutrality, that is, avoid both overreacting and under reacting.
13. Avoid fights when ethical people lack the will to fight.
14. Avoid fights to engage in pseudo-ethical grandstanding. Some politicians are willing to fight wars merely to prove they have the moral high ground in some minor way. Others demonize opponents to distract from their own evils.
15. Avoid viewing war as a game or as an entertaining escape from boredom. Have no interest in watching the world burn. If we are not self-possessed, others will crush our necks with their boots. We must find ethical escapes from boredom and depression.
16. Avoid war or require all out sacrifices by all non-disabled adults and teens.
17. Know commitment levels of allies. Have accurate recognition of allies, enemies, and noncombatants.
18. Seek peace but not merely to allow probable enemies to buy time to defeat you in the future.
19. Tests must be thorough in realistic conditions, no small sample testing.
20. Prevent personality cultism from arising around unethical or incompetent leaders.
21. Individuals must be treated justly.
22. Commit to frequent improvements.
23. Avoid military jargon, especially acronyms. They are alienating. Use language to inspire and provide evidence, including the best counter evidence.
24. Reason. Avoid fanaticism. Those who dismiss ideas merely because the ideas offend them have a fanaticism problem.
25. Ability and willingness to live off the land is a virtue.
26. Ethical warriors must have a no surrender mentality.
27. Support self-determination. Understand splintering, evolutionary egoism, psychological egoism, and misplaced altruism. 
28. Assume politicians, billionaires, and mass media are almost always slanted away from the whole truth.
29. Support philosophical diversity among ethical patriots, but keep aggressors, including infiltrators, from gaining control of institutions used for persuasion.
30. Assume enemies are more clever than they appear. Avoid overconfidence. Think of moves by enemies and likely counter moves to your moves. If you have advantages in numbers, technologies, and economic productivity, your enemies are probably working to gain other advantages. Never be smug.
31. Avoid ruminations, self-pity, wishful thinking, futility beliefs, and permanent ironic detachment.
32. Do right acts despite fear, ennui, anxiety, and other helpful or harmful emotions.
33. Remember that attacks often reveal you to others and expose you to counterattacks, including rhetorical attacks.
34. Opportunity costs of unjust wars are often greater than the direct costs.
35. Better alternatives probably exist than the ones being promoted.
36. If a potential adversary engages in mercantilism, avoid trade with them beforehand. Mercantilism is a sign of egoism, Machiavellianism, and future aggression.
37. Persuasion or assassination are usually better than war.

The details, of how and where to apply these tactics and strategies, fill thousands of books. Context matters. A super expert on World War II could tell you what a World War II commander should have done, even for some battles they never heard of because they understand the context of the war. If you take the same expert and transport them in a time machine to the eleventh century, they might struggle. They would know principles such as taking the high ground but know little about context. They wouldn't know the motivations of those around them. They wouldn't know who is trustworthy. They might not know the comparative strengths and weaknesses of weapons on various sides. They would not know how various sides had performed in previous battles. Etc.

Many of the strategies listed above do not apply to nuclear or biological warfare. But they do apply to the aftermath of nuclear or biological warfare. At some point during even the most gung ho nuclear war, the side that emerges most able to function, if any, would probably realize that further nuclear attacks would do more to poison their own land with radiation than harm their perceived enemies. In other words, they would not want winds to carry massive amounts of radiation back to their own lands. It is unlikely that even the most horrific nuclear war would kill every person on the planet. In the aftermath of nuclear wars, survivors would find themselves competing or cooperating with other survivors depending on their characters and ethnoracial traits, though some would attempt to be complete hermits. But we can't build or rebuild civilizations with hermits. The infrastructure for building more nuclear weapons would also likely be gone. Many would find themselves in local turf and resource conflicts where conventional military tactics and strategies would reemerge since hungry, desperate individuals would not play the asinine game of counterinsurgency warfare. Unethical insurgents and the "civilians" who aid them would get scorched earth treatment, not kid gloves treatment. The contemporary lobbies for long distance interventionism and counterinsurgency war profiteering would be gone. Groups of survivors clinging to contemporary norms will find themselves exploited and wiped out.

It should be obvious by now that almost every Western military strategist for over half a century has stunk up the place. Yet they keep getting paid and socially promoted.

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.