A Short Summary of Big Picture Alternatives for Whites:

seasteading
Pros: good for protecting children from destructive mass cultures. If done properly with difficult initiations and proper training, an esprit de corps develops. Cons: expensive, boring, crowded. Poor self-defense. Dependent on shore supplies. Some individuals will act stir crazy. Not a good idea.

separate lives or villages within present states
Pros: easier to adopt, less alienation. Cons: at the mercy of tyrannical political whims from  multicultural populations, forced to work for and pay taxes in support of people seeking your destruction, that is, supporting their evolutionary and unethical egoism.

unilateral secessions
Pros: many. Con: police states responding to unilateral secessions with sanctions and aggressive violence.

purchasing land from existing poor countries for settling
Pro: less expensive land. Cons: difficult to find sellers, nonwhites will eventually break deals. Terrible idea.

leaving Earth 
Pros: greater safety from multicultural aggression, greater freedom to implement preferred societies. Cons: currently too expensive and technologically unfeasible.

paying nonwhites to leave the West 
Pros: many. Cons: expensive and politically unfeasible for now.

negotiated single secession
Pros: larger population for defense, economics of scale. Cons: free rider problems in a large nation. It would probably be dominated by present powers. If Texas seceded, for example, multicultural neoconservatives like Ted Cruz and Rick Perry dominate in the short run. Marxism will dominate in the long run.

negotiated multiple secessions
Pros: multiple experiments in living, less ideological strife, less alienation as whites find groups that fit their views, ability to develop esprit de corps. Cons: worse economics of scale, fewer citizens for self-defense. Counter argument: nuclear weapons would lesson need for large militaries.

encourage extreme multiculturalism now while whites still have a large enough population, leading to a great awakening among whites (the worse now, the better in the long run)

Pros: many. Cons: difficult to pull off, might lead to fascism. Many whites are so fanatically committed to groupthink, hedonism, and individual self-interest they might never experience an ethical awakening.

convert to Islam 

Pro: reduces power of Marxian feminism. Cons: implements a vile form of patriarchy. Nonwhite self-aggrandizement and self-justification is based in large part on misguided hatred of whites. "Hello, fellow Islamic multiculturalists," will look like an obvious ruse and won't significantly reduce their hatred of whites. Islam destroys ethical character, including via gene and culture co-evolution.

continue slow death with the occasional destructive lashing out gesture until multiculturalists believe they have enough power to engage in massacres, as in Zimbabwe, South Africa, the Ottoman Empire, and elsewhere 
Pros: few. Cons: loss of self, progress, and posterity. The worst evil in human history.

combinations of the above

other
several more I can't think of at the moment.

Steven Pinker Peddles Rhetorical Bullcrap

I learned of Steven Pinker around the turn of the century after Pinker wrote The Blank Slate. He shot to pop culture fame. I took a look and thought: he's paraphrasing Judith Rich Harris among many others--fine if it were fascinating paraphrasing, but The Blank Slate was stupendously boring, at least it should be to the well-informed. Judith Rich Harris remained in comparative obscurity. In most bookstores, the mom and dad sections are riddled with the nurture assumptions of helicopter parenting while The Nurture Assumption remains difficult to find. Psychologists still publish multitudes of studies each year as if genes do not exist.

Imagine my surprise when I found out Pinker wrote, The Sense of Style, a writing guide--also stupendously soporific.

Pinker gained more fame with The Better Angels of Our Nature, based on a small sample fallacy of human history.

But those books had many good points.

Pinker's newest work, Enlightenment Now, is more poorly reasoned. It is filled with multitudes of slurs, straw person attacks, and false cause claims while plowing rhetorical ground Greg Easterbrook and many others previously covered. It contains few good points.

It promotes misleading, feel good buzzwords and catch phrases--"sympathy," "optimism," "cosmopolitanism," "classical liberalism," "liberal democracy"--that those who treat politics as infotainment relish. Cosmopolitanism is a euphemism for hedonism and totalitarian rule by remote billionaires, who despise us. Classical liberalism is a feel good phrase for a 19th Century egoism, also known as robber baronism or laissez faire economics. Today liberal democracy is a euphemism for ruling groups deciding among themselves what they will do to the rest of us, often Randian neoconservatism and third way militarism. Liberal democracy meant something different 70 years ago, but as Pinker knows, the meanings of words change with time. Upbeat rhetoric doesn't turn Randian neoconservatism beneficial. Sympathy is compassion minus the urge to help. Many times compassion is misplaced. Sometimes it is well-placed, but sympathy is a vapid substitute.

Pinker claims life is much better now than a few decades ago and provides statistics on that point, but provides no evidence that his ethical and political prescriptions were a cause of those improvements. Technology, high Chinese IQs, people who oppose Pinker's prescriptions, and other factors were far more important.

Pinker invokes "moral sense," which is about as accurate as saying chemistry sense. The field of ethics is not a sense. For many enlightenment figures, reason was mainly a buzzword. The same can be said for Pinker. The casual reader will likely come away from Enlightenment Now with little idea of what reason is. According to Pinker's acknowledgements, dozens of intellectuals helped Pinker with Enlightenment Now. I bet none of them said, "Hey, Professor Pinker. We have a problem here. Your slurs and irrelevancies aren't acts of reason." The individuals who benefit most from contemporary rule seem constitutionally incapable or unwilling to see and fix its flaws. So where is their "moral sense?"

Pinker warns us about numerous sorts of "extremists." But he doesn't warn us about his own glib fanaticism. Russia, China, and the West are all run by optimistic, cosmopolitan globalists despite the fact that elites like to call any globalism that conflicts with their own "nationalism," yet they are marching toward war. Studies have suggested that optimism and opportunism are two of the leading causes of unjust wars. Neoconservatism and classical liberalism are partly driven by optimism and opportunism. Books on wars are loaded with ridiculously optimistic military assessments of self and enemies, leading to disasters. Social scientists have also noticed the dangers of optimism. Pinker describes himself as "more libertarian than authoritarian," but that is a false dichotomy. Because in the long run, libertarianism leads to authoritarian rule by the likes of Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers despite libertarian writers sometimes emphasizing civil liberties.

Pinker claims to oppose tribalism, yet he politically allies himself with the most tribalistic force on contemporary Earth, that is, multiculturalism, including Islam. Pinker opposes the blank slate as a scientific matter but supports politics based in large part on egoism and blank slates. I doubt Pinker thinks he can browbeat nonwhites out of egoism and ethnocentrism. His book is for white individuals, who are already too xenocentric. Pinker claims "more people have been murdered to mete out justice than to satisfy greed." Well, then show us the evidence. The two run together. Greed is excessive self-interest. Humans think their murderous acts of excessive self-interest serve justice. Most humans have lived in tribes. As Napoleon Chagnon's research on tribes suggested, tribal humans fought for an excessive share of resources, especially access to fertile females: "Women! Women! Women! Women!"

More global individuals are more selfish, an apparently unpublished study for reasons I do not know. It appears to have flaws teasing out factors. But the study greatly understates the problem. Most ruling class individuals would not participate in such a study, But we don't have to look far. It is difficult to think of a single ruling class individual having good ethical character. They view others as sexual, financial, and ethnoracial prey. We see it constantly around us: Their idea of compassion is wrecking the jobs, lives, schools, families, and neighborhoods of nonwealthy whites while they benefit from cheaper labor and divide-and-screw politics. A paradigm case for the elite individual of generally horrendous character, who nevertheless thought himself ethically superior because he supported cultural Marxism, was Lyndon Johnson. Johnson stuffed ballots and rigged his way to a World War II medal. His presidency was a disaster of atrocious, Machievellian policies, the most notorious being the 1965 Immigration Act, which was opposed 58 percent to 24 percent by the people. In true low character, self-superior elite fashion Johnson not only signed the bill, but felt compelled to slur the American people as "cruel" for opposing it. Elites use the mass media to propagandize the people into supporting rotten policies and when that fails they do what they want despite democratic opposition.

Pinker criticizes "cynicism about the institutions of modernity." Let's see: Politics dominated by legalized bribery and mass deception. Ditto for national defense. Health care that costs roughly twice what health care costs in other comparatively advanced countries. Education systems devoted to propaganda and debt peonage. A financial, insurance, and real estate sector devoted to ever greater free riding. On the plus side, hard industries and cottage industries are more efficient than ever, but they make up a fraction of the economy.

When the subject is psychology, Pinker appears to somewhat weigh arguments. But as with most individuals, when it comes to ethics and politics, I never get the impression that Pinker sits down and carefully weighs the good points from various sides against each other, which is what we have an ethical duty to do.

Pinker doesn't spew hard demagoguery the way Hitler and Trotsky did. Pinker uses soft demagoguery reminiscent of motivational speakers--many emotively loaded generalities without specific arguments on specific issues. Like other motivators, Pinker's views are vague enough to not offend uninformed readers.

Steven Pinker also produced this essay:

Thomas Hobbes's pithy equation "Reasoning is but reckoning [false with reasoning defined as calculating]" is one of the great ideas in human history [false]. The notion that rationality can be accomplished by the physical process of calculation was vindicated in the 20th century by Turing's thesis that simple machines are capable of implementing any computable function and by models from D. O. Hebb, McCullough and Pitts, and their scientific heirs showing that networks of simplified neurons could achieve comparable feats [faulty measures]. The cognitive feats of the brain can be explained in physical terms: to put it crudely (and critics notwithstanding), we can say that beliefs are a kind of information, thinking a kind of computation [bad definition], and motivation a kind of feedback and control [bad definition].
This is a great idea for two reasons [false]. First, it completes a naturalistic understanding of the universe [false], exorcising occult souls, spirits, and ghosts in the machine [false and straw person]. Just as Darwin made it possible [irrelevant] for a thoughtful observer of the natural world to do without creationism [irrelevant], Turing and others made it possible [irrelevant] for a thoughtful observer of the cognitive world to do without spiritualism [straw person].

Nowhere in that essay does Pinker mention consciousness, that stunning state of being that somehow arises from brain meat. Whether empirically true or not, an overwhelmingly biomechanical explanation of human existence is profoundly dispiriting to most human beings, making it ethically problematic: rah, rah, sis boom bah--you're a bunch of matter-energy in an indifferent universe.

(Steve Sailer calls Pinker "perhaps the finest public intellectual of our time," which tells us something terrible about Sailer's own worldview. Sailer also dismisses The Nurture Assumption because it doesn't devote enough space to teaching how parents can teach vocational skills, pages 328 plus in The Nurture Assumption, though the book is about personality traits. A listing of vocational skills parents teach would be banal.)

Pinker's arguments don't pull us from unethical chasms, they push us closer to them.

Social Science Watch: Crime Sentencing Edition

A new study examines disparities in sentencing, finding that blacks receive three month longer sentences from Republican appointed judges than similar non blacks while women receive two month shorter sentences from these judges.

The authors write, "These differences cannot be explained by other judge characteristics." Cannot as in impossible? Social science authors who treat study results as certain have questionable expertise.

Then the authors seem to contradict that claim with, "racial disparities by political affiliation are largely driven by drug offenses.” So is the judicial characteristic of being tough on drug offenders an explanation?

Did the authors tease out other alternative causal factors for sentencing differences:

1. accurate accounting of criminal history.
2. miscounting nonwhites as white.
3. geographical differences. Republican appointed judges in white, close knit towns probably sentence softer than Republican appointed judges from neoconservative areas having more black crime.
4. differences in insolent behavior by defendants in court.
5. disparities in willingness to plea bargain. It seems likely that judges give harsher sentences when the evidence is closer to slam dunk. Maybe whites with more evidence against them have already plea bargained since whites are more likely to tell the truth on self-reports. It is well known in law enforcement that blacks serving long prison terms demand DNA tests even when guilty because admitting guilt would cause them to lose face and hamper their innocent victim narratives.
6. disparities in crime circumstances. It seems likely that a car jacker murdering a driver will receive a harsher sentence than someone murdering his brother in the midst of a family argument.
7. Democratic appointed judges giving softer sentences than sentencing guidelines recommend.

A probability also exists that the study results are accurate. That's another argument against races living together. Multicultural Republican judges feigning race blindness are still biased. Getting accepted into multicultural political establishments requires biases on thousands of issues. Truth telling gets ostracized.

(Not surprisingly, the authors did not investigate jury nullification, law enforcement nullification, and unjust civil trial awards by progressives and Democrats, so-called restorative justice. Such individuals barely give lip service to equal treatment before the law. The probability of being caught and punished for crimes in diverse neighborhoods is low. And the probability of hate crime reporting, investigation, and conviction for hate crimes against whites is minuscule, but good luck finding scientists to investigate anti-white tyranny. There should be a study on how many more times likely a social scientists are to look for racial biases in whites than nonwhites.)

Reason: Giving the Right Weights to Arguments

Reason, also known as logic, is the sufficient finding and creating of premises and conclusions on some specific issue, plus weighing of those premises with sufficient care and accuracy to figure out which conclusions are best supported by good premises, that is, most likely to be true. Both premises and conclusions are called claims. Anything that is logically insufficient, that should be ignored when weighing arguments, is called a fallacy. Combinations of premises and conclusions, the argument, in informal logic, most everyday reasoning, are degrees of strong or weak, depending on how well the premises support the conclusions.

Argument:
The moon no longer exists (conclusion). I looked outside the last three nights and it was gone (premise).

Counterargument:
The moon still exists (conclusion). It's been cloudy for over a week (premise). Only a dummy could think it's gone (premise). One hundred percent of astronomers believe the moon still exists (premise). Just because you watched the sky one night doesn't mean garbage (premise). The problem is the way your brain is wired (premise).

The conclusion in the second argument is better supported, that is, more well-reasoned despite the fact that it contains three glaring fallacies.

The cloudy and sufficient expertise of astronomers premises outweigh the premise in the first argument. The "dummy" abusive ad hominem premise, the straw person "one night" premise, and the circumstantial ad hominem "your brain is wired" premise should be ignored, treated as worthless. Those three fallacious premises are also irrelevant to the specific issue, so it doesn't matter to this issue whether they are true or not.

There are dozens of types of fallacies beyond false claims, ad hominems, and straw persons.

Individuals make fallacious claims because they want to persuade or because they're making a joke or because they don't know any better or because they know better but regard persuasion as more important than giving an audience logically sufficient claims. It is common for professional opinion makers to glibly reject arguments by saying, "I'm not persuaded." Being persuaded or not is irrelevant to the value of an argument.

It is also common in everyday life for an individual to reject or otherwise under weigh an argument because some claims offend them or some claims are fallacious. This is wrong. What matters is how good the conclusions are and how well the good premises support them. It is often ethically wrong to use abusive ad hominem attacks and carelessly use other fallacies, but that doesn't tell us how well-supported the conclusions are.

Reason is often dismissed as linear, uncreative thinking, but it requires a large amount of creativity and resourcefulness to find or brainstorm the best premises and conclusions. Most arguments omit the best premises and conclusions.

What Mr. Spock does often in Star Trek is not logic, as the show states. He spits out intuitive claims without arguments.

Reason is not the slave of passions, nor should it be. Differing cognitive states can help or harm our reasoning abilities, for example, our arguments might come out worse when we are bored, but our passions when creating arguments are irrelevant to their worth.

Science is one branch of reason. Ethics, technology, art criticism, and many other human endeavors also use reasoning.

Good reasoning is the only legitimate way to find out how likely claims are to be true. A true claim accurately describes something. Because many promoters of tyranny claim to be men or women of reason and science does not make reason to blame. Such individuals reek at reasoning and are throwing out reason and science as empty buzzwords to attach prestige to their horrendous plans. The ability and willingness of most human beings to reason well is extremely, extremely poor. Many individuals with prestigious degrees are abysmal at reasoning outside their areas of expertise. Some lawyers, physicians, professors, and other professionals are terrible at reasoning in every field. They managed to become professionals because they are smart, good memorizers, and hard working, not because of the quality of their their reasoning.

There is far more to the reason story, and those stories can be found is logic texts, ethics works, scientific reasoning writings, etc.

Learning from Abortion, Infidelity, and Legalized Bribery

I didn't follow much of the Roy Moore saga, but from what I remember, it consisted of certain mass media rampantly screeching that Moore was a pedophile and that his voters were depraved supporters of pedophilia. The position of Moore's supporters was more nuanced: Moore was guilty of statutory rapes, not pedophilia, the latter an attraction to or sex with pre-pubescent children. In their view, supporting Moore was defensible because the alternative to Moore was support for what they consider mass baby killings. It didn't matter to Moore's supporters that Doug Jones, Moore's opponent, was labeled "middle-of-the-road." In today's Washington speak, middle-of-the-road means stealthy support for Randism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism.

Jones supports neoconservative Mike Pompeo and "has voted with President Trump's position 63.6% of the time." Other Moore supporters were immigration patriots.

Research suggests a large percentage of pro lifers are single issue voters, who readily adopt the worldview of politicians on other issues as long as the politicians are pro life or pretend to be pro life.

Now we learn Donald Trump or Elliott Broidy, a Wall Streeter and former deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Commitee, had an affair with Playboy Playmate Shera Bechar, resulting in a pregnancy and abortion. Broidy paid Bechar at least $1.6 million in hush money, over ten times what Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal were each paid. Maybe Bechar is a better negotiator than Daniels and McDougal, but more likely, abortion accounts for the difference.

Whoever had the affair with Bechar, Broidy has motive to pay a large sum. It the potential child were his, Broidy avoids millions in child support and an awkward family situation. If it were Trump's, the indirect bribe helps Broidy's unethical business dealings through the Trump Administration--and helps Trump avoid the wrath of pro-lifers, not to mention saving Trump child support and family problems.

Since the 2016 election, an election Trump could not have won without nonmulticulturalists, Trump has betrayed nonmulticulturalists hundreds of times, yet nonmulticulturalists cling to him, with some exceptions. Because of this, Trump has little incentive to protect his nonmulticultural flank, other than reducing refugee numbers (while at the same time increasing the number of guest workers).

Trump dares not throw screw pro lifers with as much vehemence. Pro lifers will get pro life judges from Trump.

Trump's main agenda remains the agenda of his largest donor, Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino owner (a business that should be illegal). For $25 million, a comparatively small sum, Adelson was able to excessively influence Trump, billions of lives, and a roughly $20 trillion US GDP. Most comically, movement conservatives, many unable to even find Jerusalem or Tel Aviv on a map, were suddenly urged to care deeply about moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Adelson keeps Republicans loyal by promising more in the future. Sure enough, Adelson just gave another $30 million to the GOP a few hours ago. But tiny sums from nonmulticulturalists are treated as money with no strings attached by politicians who dare not even meet with nonmulticulturalists. It's shocking how much destruction tens of millions in legalized bribes can cause the formerly greatest nation on earth.

The lesson: Until nonmulticulturalists get more organization and more big donors, they will keep getting screwed, as they have for generations.

Satirical Headlines Unlikely to Appear in The Onion

Irish Import Nonwhites to Atone for Their History of Being Persecuted by Brits and Africans

Gentrifier Makes Sure to Buy Iron Window Bars from Corporation Committed to Diversity

Nonwhites Demanding Rule Over Whites Call Whites Wanting to Be Left Alone "Supremacists"

"I'm Tired of People Judgin' Me by My Skin Color," Says Man with 78 IQ and Long History of Crimes

Hate Crimes Up 201 percent According to Organization with No History of Rigging Research Whatsoever

If a Muslim Had Committed Toronto Van Attack, There Would Be Wall to Wall Media Coverage Say Muslims Who Committed Thousands of Unreported Jihad Acts

Germany Successfully Assimilates Millions of Africans and Southwest Asians Onto Welfare

Diverse Team of Scientists Impresses Everyone by Calling Themselves a Diverse Team of Scientists

Seventy-Two Virgin Goats with Anal Seepage Await Latest Suicide Bomber

Aggressive Descendants of Genocide Practicing Migrants from Cameroon Say Whites Have No Right to Live in Zimbabwe and South Africa

"There Is No Gay Agenda," Remarks Activist Professor of LBGTQ Studies

U2's Bono Applies for Handicapped License Plate, Declaring Himself Cognitive Dissonance Impaired

School Desegregation Plan Praised for Wrecking the Lives of 4,991 Local Working Class White Children While Improving the Education of Six African-Americans

Writer Obsessed with Russian Influence Calls Millions of Harmful Influences by Israel, Turkey, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia "Conspiracy Theories"

Humorist Made Famous for Making Faces in Front of Millions of TV Viewers Should Be Trusted for His Policy Expertise

White Man Divorced from Two Asian Wives Plans to Marry Another Because "Asian Women Are More Affectionate and Family Oriented"

George HW Bush Visits Pearly Gates, Becomes First Man Sent to Hell for the Acts of His Sons

Teenager Contemplates Whether to Continue Living in a Society Where Millions Casually Use the Word Maroon Without Being Aware She Considers It a Slur

Alzheimer's Victim Chuck Woolery Spends Final Years of Life Giving Progressives a Straw Person to Attack

Black Converts to Judaism Feel Discriminated Against by Jews Worried About Intermarriage: "We Ain't Gonna Marry None Them We Inseminate Anyway, at Least Not for Long."

Local Hitler Supporter Does Not Believe DNA Tests Suggesting Hitler Was Part Jewish or Berber: "How Could Der Fuhrer Be Part Carpet?"

Stoning Victim Requested Rock You Like a Hurricane for Final Song

The American Eugenics Society Proves the Evil of Eugenics Claims Scholar Surrounded by Billions of Dysgenic Victims

Catalonia's Secession Plan Postpones Date of White Genocide by One Day

Democrats, Progressives, and Republicans Responsible for Genocultural Totalitarianism Strategy Demand Republicans Apologize for Southern Strategy

Area Teachers Boycott Teaching Tenth Amendment Because Judges Ignore It Anyway

Multicultural White Flighter Says She Is Leaving Neighborhood for No Reason She Can Discern

Brexiter Happy to Be Ruled by Anti-White Tyranny in London Rather Than Anti-White Tyranny in Far Away Brussels

Adopted White Twin Reared Apart Envies Twin Sister with Hispanic Last Name and Cushy Affirmative Action Job

Museum of Lynching Reports That Whites Are Incapable of Being Lynching Victims

Globalist Multiculturalist Finally Admits His Ideology: "Fuck It. Everything Is Permissible for Me, Except Opposition to Diversity."

"Everywhere West of Manhattan Is Inhabited by Inbred Mouth Breathers" Reports Endogamy Practicing Wall Street Supporter of Randism and Genocultural Totalitarianism

Multiculturalist Who Never Read a Counter Argument to His Views Unsure Whether an Immigration Patriot Is Someone Who Opposes or Supports Mass Immigration

Philosophy Text Replaces Truth Value with Offended Value

"White Privilege Must Be Fought Everywhere," Reports Millionaire from Ethnoracial Group Off Limits to Mass Media Criticism and Higher Than White Median Incomes

Supporters of Globalism and Militarism Decry the Alleged Nationalism of Leaders Devoted to Globalism and Militarism in China, Russia, and NATO

Devil Plans to Kick John McCain Out of Hell for Having Sins Too Heinous for the Devil to Tolerate

Man with Gold Plated Bathroom Fixtures Whines About the Alleged Whining Everyone Else Does

Dog Is God Spelled Backward Says Supporter of Interspecies Multiculturalism

Man Claiming to be Universalist Admits He Says That Only to Fool Others and Serve His Short-Term Self-Interest

Sheep Reports Halal Meat a Pain in the Neck

Defense Industry Profits Win War on Terror and War on Their Own Poverty in Twilight Doubleheader

Multiculturalism Fails 171,582 Times in a Row, Only Common Sense to Keep Trying It

Job Interview with Last White Person on Earth Turns Awkward When She Reveals No Person of Color Will Give Her a Reference

Generalizing About the Ease of Miseducation

Many blank slate ideas from our thought leaders arise from small sample fallacies: "I took chemistry in high school. It was fun and easy." Or among science teachers: 200 or 300 level "astronomy, modern physics, and quantitative analysis were a breeze." Mr. X can "teach calculus to a spoon," the problem must be merely bad teaching by other teachers or other environmental factors. Ergo, they believe those classes should be not too difficult for most students not in special ed; more low IQ peoples of color should be scientists, engineers, and programmers. I've read and heard hundreds of similar comments extolling the massive power of teaching skill over IQ deficits, even from a psychologist married to a physicist!

Worse, our rulers have no awareness that some math and science classes are many times more difficult than the classes mentioned above.

Despite their ethical failings, our rulers generally have above the mean IQs. They are smart enough to manipulate, but not wise enough to face facts.

My theory differs: If you are smart enough to master many difficult 300 and 400 level classes despite terrible teaching, that's when you are cut out for STEM fields. Bad teaching in difficult classes is a great test of IQ, resourcefulness, and conscientiousness. (Note this is not an endorsement of bad teaching.) The student who can figure out differential equations simply by reading textbooks is more cut out to be a scientist or engineer than the student who passes because of great teaching.

Nearly as important: for most individuals, especially those struggling with subjects, those fields are no damn fun. What was fun for Richard Feynman would be a nightmare for most individuals on this planet. And even more important: lower IQ individuals will contribute little or nothing to scientific advances and some will be a burden on employers fearing affirmative action holy war from lawyers.

Many opinion makers come from fields where few differences in difficulty among 200 level and 400 level classes exist, not to mention graduate coursework, so they generalize from their own experiences.

One study focuses on reducing anxiety about difficult classes. But students sometimes have good reasons for being anxious. Anxiety is a warning that we are engaged in or about to engage in the wrong activities or that we are putting in the wrong effort or that something is wrong with our beliefs. Another study focuses on overcoming perceptions of difficulty. This study is better: It advises students to focus on their "strengths, enjoyments, and needs," though it should do more to emphasize ethics.

If you are reading this article, you are probably aware Bad Students, Not Bad Schools by Robert Weissberg is a classic in demolishing overemphasis on environments.

It is better for students to find out early that they are not cut out for certain fields than to suffer large financial and opportunity costs, then run into intellectual walls. Most teenagers should never see the insides of physics, calculus, and chemistry classes.

Diversity and Western Militaries

A small sample video of a female sergeant criticizing her African-American colleagues emerged several weeks ago, but don't expect social scientists to do much well-reasoned research on these issues. Comments below the video include some wisdom. Fred Kaplan offers several studies suggesting low IQ recruits fail at simple military tasks, but Kaplan does not mention race and how diversity damages cohesiveness among lower ranking personnel. Nor does Kaplan mention how multicultural political influence creates militarism.

Neoconservatives wage war without paying attention to ethical, practical, and ethnoracial realities while pretending to be paragons of virtue. Note how they incite conflicts against both China and Russia while trying to accrue destructive or near worthless "allies." What the hell kind of grand strategy is that? Britain once had a grand strategy of allying with the second most powerful state on the continent against the most powerful. Sometimes that strategy paid off. Sometimes it didn't. But a strategy of one super power against two super powers is effing ridiculous, especially when contemporary Western ruling classes are deliberately incompetent at nearly everything ethically important.

Neoconservatives try to distance themselves from their disastrous practices, even claiming John Bolton isn't a Neoconservative because Bolton doesn't spew democracy slogans, despite the fact Bolton was a director for the Neoconservative Project for the New American Century. (The word American should be in scare quotes there.)

But few Neoconservatives support democracy in practice anyway. They seldom criticize gerrymandering and legalized bribery by Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson. They seldom excoriate anti-Western voting by migrant, ethically ersatz citizens. They abhor the idea of whites democratically demanding their rights to self-determination and an end to mutually destructive wars.

Let's speculate on why Western militaries readily adopt cultural Marxism, subject to further (unlikely) research:

1. Politicians and their donors demand cultural Marxism, and Western military officers seldom disobey non-military leaders to do the right things.
2. Nonwhites are good at manipulation and intimidation, making nonwhites useful as recruiters, drill instructors, and other positions where lying is rewarded and cognitive dissonance rare. But manipulation and intimidation are little substitute for technical skill and battlefield competence. As whites increasingly adopt African and Southwest Asian values, dysgenics increases while loyalty to worthwhile causes deteriorates.
3. Cultural Marxism makes senior officers feel ethically superior without them having to do ethical acts. Ominously, not only do they act as if might makes right, cultural Marxism makes them feel they are automatically on the sides of angels.
4. Small sample fallacies of heroic or pseudo heroic nonwhite soldiers.
5. Multiculturalism treats the harms created by multiculturalism as caused elsewhere.
6. Multiculturalism creates a larger pool of recruits, at least in the short term. In the long term, nonwhites almost always join anti-white sides, thus, creating the spectacle of Christian nonwhites in London helping to elect the pro-Jihad Muslim Mayor.
7. Cultural Marxism creates the illusion of fewer racial conflicts to officers. As with other wealthy individuals in sheltered neighborhoods, they seldom suffer the harms they create for others. They don't have to live and work in close proximity with low functioning individuals. Senior officers show up for macho posturing, then disappear to their sheltered retreats.
8. Critics of cultural Marxism are seldom able to rise up the ranks, resulting in disastrous egoism driven groupthink and strict enforcement of groupthink. Office politics trumps ethical decision making.

Whites resent being in the most difficult and dangerous jobs while rear echelon nonwhites pilfer desperately needed supplies. In World War II Tunisia, black U.S. soldiers had an STD rate of 451 per 1000 versus a US white rate of 34 per 1000, partly because they brought the STDs with them, and partly because they were exchanging stolen supplies for sex on black markets. George Wilson, given command of a black company of about 200 soldiers, wrote "Every day thefts were reported to me. Some of the men sold, traded, or gave away their personal equipment."

Counterjihadists often assert that Muslims in the U.S. military have killed more Americans than the number of enemy warriors such soldiers have killed, though accurately counting such data is unlikely in today's intellectual climate.

In the event of war with China and Russia, Western militaries would likely experience massive fifth columning by overseas Chinese and Russians.

If a major Neoconservative inspired war occurs, multitudes of non-white military personal would desert or announce that they are conscientious objectors, leaving whites to fight another nonwhite man's war. I wouldn't blame them. If such a war occurs, I would encourage whites to desert and not waste their lives for Randism, neoconservatism, third wayism, and cultural Marxism. Whites shouldn't suffer or die for the totalitarian ideas of those who despise them.

In the final stages of multiculturalism, the anti-white military will likely concoct plenty of excuses why white civilians need to be exterminated, as has happened in other multicultural lands where non-whites gain demographic and political domination.

Calexit and the Migrant Invasion

The Audacious Epigone writes that a several thousand person strong caravan of "alleged Hondurans are being ushered through the narco-state to our south with support from the Mexican government there and from 'humanitarian' groups here (groups that should be charged with criminal conspiracy)."

Jef Costello concludes this is a potential lose-lose situation: "the Left wins big if Trump caves and allows the migrants in... the Left also thinks it wins if Trump refuses to allow the migrants in. We will then see weeks of coverage painting him as cruel and heartless."

That's what happens when multiculturalists control nearly all the institutions. (Multiculturalists should never be permitted a toehold of control over a nation state.)

But a plausible lesser evil exists if Trump caves. The caravan seems headed for California.

It's ethically better if California quickly acquires third world status than for the entire country to gradually sink into third world status, with whites eventually being exterminated.

Paradoxically, welfare and sanctuary cities are less harmful if only California practices those acts--and the welfare is large enough to keep migrants from flooding into other states.

Multicultural Californians blame the rest of the country for its economic woes rather than the predictable failures of multiculturalism because hard core multiculturalists almost never ever blame multiculturalism for the harms multiculturalism causes.

Multiculturalists, especially fans of militarism, believe that somehow the Civil War proves whites don't have a right to self-determination. (Multiculturalists seldom argue we should revert to control by England or Amerindian tribes devoted to murder, torture, robbery, and mutilation. Nor do they often oppose self-determination by non-whites, except at Tibet, Taiwan, and a few other places.) They also act as if it is better for whites to be ruled by individuals who seek to destroy us than for us to be left alone.

If California secedes, it will be harder for multiculturalists to manipulate whites into thinking secession by whites is automatically wrong.

Yeah, it sucks to lose California, a land of fantastic beauty and outstanding coastal weather, but unless ethical white families regain control of institutions and start having eugenic total fertility rates closer to ten children per family rather than one child per family, little probability of saving California exists, except parts of Northern and Eastern California.