Scandals of the Century or Nanosecond

Dozens of new scandals arose this week involving somebody or others.

Sigh.

Scandals turn into bashathons while the media ignore or downplay bigger wrongs.

To wit:

1. trillions wasted for decades on overpriced OPEC oil because it almost never occurs to politicians and media types that we could create a buyer's cartel to counter OPEC. (Most opinion creators have probably not even heard of the phrase buyer's cartel.)
2. trillions lost because we tax productive work far more than harmful finance and negative externalities.
3. global warming treated as more important than deforestation, other pollution, ocean overharvesting, and dysgenic overpopulation. Several million dead each year from non carbon dioxide air pollution alone. 
4. mass invasions by nonwhites devoted to free riding and anti-white tyranny.
5. trillions wasted defending Asian and African states pursuing our destruction. Post-America's military: doing the jobs that no one else is wrong enough to do, including trillions wasted on no win counterinsurgency wars.
6. hidden in plain sight: ordinary Muslims and other multiculturalists have beliefs worse than individuals the media pretend are neo-Nazis.
7. financial tumors (bubbles) treated as legitimate measures of economic performance, trillions wasted on housing bubbles created by individuals fleeing the neighborhood diversity they shove down our throats.
8. few restrictions on modifying bird flu to murder billions. Freedom of political speech of gets damned by colonial occupiers of the West, but don't interfere with 'muh scientific freedom.
9. antagonizing Putin and risking a world war because he does rotten acts while billions of others devoted to rotten acts get praised. Great idea. Let's antagonize the one person who can cause us the most harm. What could go right?
10. trillions wasted on health care systems that serve profits better than health.
11. education systems increasingly devoted to indoctrination. In Soviet Post-America, students and tax payers pay fortunes for indoctrination. What a country. No two kopek struggle sessions for you.

Decades of scandal mongering have not been enough to reform the Green, Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian Parties. Perchance a new approach in this divide-and-screw near sleep of near death? Nah.

No doubt the winners of the scandal wars will turn their attention to doing the right policy things just as soon as they finish up the winning (sarcasm).

Remember the scandal involving Kimba Wood? Me neither.

The industries of media and legalized bribery lack senses of proportion, but they do have a sense of opportunism.

Ethnoracial Diversity Thought Experiments

Let's suppose we did some survey research of whites, asking which they would prefer:

1. being a convenience store cashier, living in an apartment in the most diverse neighborhood in Baltimore or being homeless in a 99 percent white, middle class neighborhood, assuming the police don't remove you.
2. owning a 5,000 acre farm in Zimbabwe or having a similar homeless situation as above.
3. attending 1970s Detroit Cooley High School or living in 1970s Poland, assuming you speak fluent Polish.
4. earning $100 thousand per year as a contractor in a Pashtun Afghan province or earning five dollars per hour in the white, middle class neighborhood.
5. living at frigid, isolated South Georgia Island or living in the US if diversity inspired Putin, Xi Jinping, neoconservatives, and Democratic Party interventionists incite World War III.
6. being an eighth grade teacher at a random middle school named after MLK or being unemployed.

It would be difficult to get honest answers, but I bet a majority of whites would select the second options.

Most whites would consider high levels of diversity to be worse than being homeless in brutal heat and cold, worse than living under 1970s Polish communism, and so on.

There's worse. End stage multiculturalism would be probably something like Somalia, without the foreign aid. Bad trends keep getting worse unless good individuals deliberately stop them. And multiculturalists almost always prefer ever more diversity over less.

(By the way, credible estimates suggest nearly half of Pushtun men sodomize young boys, so the next time a multiculturalist points at a middle aged white man and tells you he looks like a pedophile, tell her about our pashtun "allies.")

Book Observations: Invading Mexico: America's Continental Dream and the Mexican War, 1846-1848 by Joseph Wheelan

Not surprisingly, Invading Mexico contains much cultural Marxism, but some thought crime facts sneak through that don't fit the mere "land grab" story lines of today.

1. Mexico had no right to the lands that became part of the American Southwest, a claim more preposterous than a dementia patient claiming ownership of the moon. Most individuals living in those lands were non-Mexican. Mexico's claims violated inhabitants' rights to self-determination. (A major reason so few Mexicans lived in the Southwest was they were terrified of the Apache, Comanche and other hostile Amerindians.)
2. It was not a war between a slave holding nation and an anti-slavery nation. In Mexico, the slaves were females, often treated worse than farm animals while Mexican men drank, gambled, lounged, acted macho, and watched bull fights.
3. Mexico did not have the genetic and cultural abilities to effectively govern the lands south of the Rio Grande, let alone the lands north of it. Mexico's required retirement payments to its veterans alone were over two times its government revenues.
4. When Mexicans started losing battles, they would demand a truce--to regroup and continue the fight on better terms for themselves. When Mexicans surrendered during a battle and promised not to take up arms again, they lied. Like agreements with most humans, agreements with Mexicans were worthless. Mexicans lied whenever they saw some advantage.
5. Winfield Scott was a helluva general, except when he kept falling for multicultural assumptions about nonwhites and their leaders.
6. After the war, Texas Rangers quickly, brutally, and ethically stomped a nascent Mexican guerrilla movement. I shudder to think what would have happened if the likes of Max Boot and John McCain had been running the war. We'd probably still have umpteen thousand soldiers in Mexico.
7. Mexico engaged in numerous acts of murder and robbery in borderlands during the years leading up to the war, plus many acts of piracy in the Gulf of Mexico.
8. Mexicans constantly asserted their rights and demanded compassion while showing almost no concern for the rights of others.
9. Despising their own government, many Mexicans wanted to make Mexico part of the US after the war. Another shudder moment that would have created massive opportunities for multicultural, bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw practices by ruling groups.

Sound familiar?

Poor America. So far from God, so close to Mexico.

Ethics and the Human Biodiversity Movement

The HBD movement shows interest in ethnoracial facts mainly when the facts are trivial or IQ related or health care related, rejecting well-reasoned policies if the policies don't fit the above or the policies offend multiculturalists. HBDers cannot or will not break through multicultural fanaticism.

One writer at NotPoliticallyCorrect seemed perplexed and outraged that the multiculturalists at the so-called RationalWiki would try to demonize him, seemingly unaware that multiculturalists seldom tolerate dissent from their totalitarianism, including by multiculturalist HBDers. The writer then contradicted himself and wrote, "I don't care about politics."

Many other slightly edgy writers faced similar wrath. A few truthful mentions of race and IQ are enough to get ostracized.

IQ is important, but HBD overemphasizes IQ. Ninety-five percent of Congress members have academic degrees, an indication of well above the mean IQs, yet Congress seldom does the right acts. The donor class is likewise riddled with high IQ individuals, yet they too seem to be close to inverse weather vanes on important issues, favoring a mixture of Randism, globalism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism.

HBD often avoids ethical evidence and over relies on studies, but most social science studies are junk and most social scientists will not conduct studies that produce results in conflict with their political worldviews. HBDers know more about statistics than other areas of logic, so they seem not to notice their straw persons, false analogies, abusive ad hominim attacks, and other fallacies. HBDers commit far more wrongs of omission than wrongs of commission.

HBDers could retort that nonmulticulturalists include many people of rotten acts, so let's not go there. But excellent ideas do not turn into bad ideas simply because of who believes them. All political movements attract individuals with serious character defects (often people of egoism and misplaced altruism). Bill Frist and thousands of other individuals in government and corporations would make you feel as if you are the most important person in the world when talking to your face, then put knives in your back. Because the establishments control the mass media, they are able to create the illusion to many voters and donors that establishment figures have decent character when, in fact, almost all establishment leaders have horrible character. Establishment ideologies in every contemporary country are designed to extract short-term profits from decline.

If the establishments succeed in creating World War III, they will have proven themselves to be as low character as the likes of Mao, Amin, Stalin, Hitler, Mugabe, Hirohito, Mousilini, Pol Pot, Jong Il, and Jong Un. Even without World War III, multiculturalists commit nearly all the political violence on this planet.

It says something important about multiculturalists and multiculturalism that they commit disproportionately more unjustifiable violence than even the demagoguery at Stormfront incites. Consistency requires that if we reject Stormfront for being beyond redemption, we must also reject multiculturalism for being beyond redemption.

Any political movement that will not weed out egoism and misplaced altruism is doomed to ethical failure. Given their knowledge of how egoism and altruism evolve, HBDers should help weed out tyranny from nonmulticultural movements.

A few HBD followers seem to be looking for gurus, looking for deep truths and mysteries in biological jargon. But more important truths and mysteries reside in ethics than in HBD. HBD lacks proportion, a peculiar form of scientism that regards what hominids did thousands of years ago as more important than evils multiculturalists commit now. How good is HBD concern about IQ and health if they continue to support multicultural victories. IQs will continue to plummet and nostrums will replace Western science, as sometimes flawed as it is.

Merry Christmas to the Amish and Everyone Else

Outsiders see the Amish as a people primarily preoccupied with low tech, old fashioned living. That's not how the Amish see themselves. They primarily see themselves as Christians. So here's to the religious holiday itself and the non-hedonistic spirit of Amish Christmas, to Amish Second Christmas the day after Christmas and to Amish Old Christmas on January sixth.

May they and Christmas still exist 50 million years from now. Because when the Amish disappear, it likely means the multiculturalists have succeeded in their extermination campaigns against other whites.

Not Baited by Me Too Issues

The recent sex crime accusations involving celebrities are not big picture important, mainly matters for accusers, accusees, whistle-blowers, investigative reporters, and law enforcement agencies to sort through.

Almost all contemporary celebrities are people of terrible actions. Celebrities that do and do not commit sex crimes have other vices, especially hedonism, self-contradictions, and cultural Marxism.

Given the rates at which women make false accusations, some celebrities are probably not guilty of some alleged crimes, but the harms from cultural Marxism are and will be millions of times worse than any harms celebrities suffer from false accusations. Let's not waste time defending multicultural celebrities from accusations from multicultural accusers, including slightly edgy, alt light celebrities. If vibrant multiculturalists kidnapped a dozen children, chopped them up, and dumped their remains in a vat of sodium hydroxide, celebrities would care little, except to grandstand in favor of more cultural Marxism and perhaps to make a film about it with whites playing the villain roles.

Humans have the unfortunate, reflexive tendency to pick sides, even when several competing sides are terrible.

In the ghetto where I spent most of my childhood, the local library had dozens of shelves devoted to true crime. True crime is not a genre ethical individuals should be fascinated with. It is a genre for those who admire crime or those predisposed to wantoness. The librarians probably thought that if the local residents didn't read true crime, they probably wouldn't do much reading at all. Multiculturalists act as if almost any education is good education as long as it doesn't include unwanted political facts.

Better to be illiterate than deluge yourself with rotten ideas.

Hitting on coworkers reeks of desperation and lazy cowardice in approaching women elsewhere, unless you have such a rotten job you don't care whether you get fired or humiliated.

Long ago I adopted a policy of not talking about sex, looks, politics, religion, relationships, female attire or behavioral genetics with women coworkers. When coworkers talk about such subjects, I merely make pithy, banal statements--"Wow," "Yeah," "Uh-huh," and "That terrible." It prevents awkwardness and misunderstandings.

The last time I talked about sex with female coworkers: several women talked about why women have large breasts and nipples. I mentioned that a social scientist had the bizarre theory that large nipples evolved as large eye spots to scare away predators. They thought that hilarious. Then I said large breasts were sexually selected and maybe large breasts also evolved for fat storage. Not so hilarious.

Maybe it is because I'm happily married, but I have no desire to have glib sex related conversations with female acquaintances.

Cognitive Impairments and the Establishments

The current Senate is the oldest in the history of the former United States. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both behave as if they have serious age related cognitive problems.

Research hints that the part of the brain responsible for skepticism (the ventromedial prefrontal cortex) suffers severe decline in the elderly, leading to the elderly falling victim to even the most obvious scams by self-proclaimed Nigerian princes and others.

This is the way grifting industries--energy, defense, finance, lobbying, globalism, multiculturalism, education, insurance, mass media, health care--like it. They don't want law makers with skepticism. The don't want mental flexibility. They don't want anyone in the establishment making the effort to accurately weigh arguments. They want their thousands of lobbyists to write laws, then walk them over to Congress for approval.

Unlike many older individuals, George W. Bush earned his brain damage from drugs and the establishment cultures he lived in. Studies suggest drug addiction causes lifelong cognitive impairments. Bush's advisers raced to be first to reach him since Bush often implemented the first idea he heard. Condoleezza Rice claimed Bush was not his own "fact witness," meaning Bush allegedly had a right to lie with impunity because he didn't know what the hell was going on and didn't want to make the effort to know. Close to being an inverse weather vane on important issues, Bush remains unrepentant.

Dick Cheney, a man without a pulse, almost certainly had and has vascular dementia.

Growing old sucks. Ethical older individuals realize this and exhibit the moral character to step aside when their brains start having severe problems.

Imagine an unmitigated skeptic, who pays little attention to politics, a person who unthinkingly assumes everything said by our rulers is fallacious. Such a person would be closer to truths than the true believers who spend thousands of hours watching political infotainment and pretending such indoctrination leads to wisdom. Mass consumers of political infotainment have little sense of proportion, having more concern over minuscule levels of Russian influence over elections than the threat of nuclear super wars, treating Russian influence as worse than far more egregious influence by Israel, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia.

Though we should not be unmitigated skeptics, most humans would do well to have much more skepticism of what they see and hear from propaganda industries.

To be able to recognize important contradictions, an individual must be sufficiently smart and have logical habits. Trump doesn't see anything wrong with his bait-and-switch rhetoric because he doesn't see complex self-contradictions at all.

Despite his Randian neoconservatism, Trump gets little credit from neoconservatives, part of their Br'er Rabbit strategy of plausible deniability. When the mess collapses or blows up, they will claim Trump, Clinton, and others were not one of them despite Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban being the largest donors to Trump and Clinton respectively. Neoconservatives will blame the Alt Right for the failings caused by Trump's neoconservative policies, another reason nonmulticulturalists should avoid getting in bed with Trump.

Young and old members of the establishments alike are carefully vetted for their unwillingness to reason well. None of the younger members of Congress show deviation from their donor classes. Hundreds of memes excoriate Mark Zuckerberg, a billionaire testing the public mood for a presidential run in 2020, for being a robot. Remember when 1990s crowds cheered Chelsea Clinton as if she were some precocious guru? Quite a piece of work she turned out to be.

Fanaticism redistributes to super rich globalists and calls it freedom, supports anti-white totalitarianism and calls it equality, engages in self-destructive militarism and call it security.

I call it lying.

The Logical Inescapability That Some Genes, Cultures, and Personal Beliefs Are Better

Let's say an individual wishes to pass on her or her relatives' genes, cultures, and personal beliefs to future generations because:

1. variety merely for variety's sake is good (false). 
2. genes, cultures, and personal beliefs are equal, so it makes no difference who procreates (false).
3. everyone has an ethical right to spread their seed (false).
4. that's the way she rolls (circular).
5. some future environmental fixes will make life superb even if people who do terrible acts do most breeding (false and almost certain to lead to worse environmental changes).

Every other claim that does not rely on some things being better is likewise fallacious.

We now have a large percentage of the population inconsistently willing to avoid procreation to prevent inherited genetic disorders on behalf of eugenics but who reject eugenics where eugenics would be massively beneficial.

So calling better things better isn't supremacism. It's simply facing facts. Supremacism is demanding logically unjustifiable preferential treatments for groups, for example, bombarding some groups with slurs while demanding some other groups be off limits to even well-reasoned criticism or supporting self-determination for some groups while denying self-determination to other groups. White self-determination is both a right and duty supported by overwhelming evidence, not supremacism. Demanding a group be enslaved or otherwise exploited is supremacism.

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.