It must be election season. National Review is again running bait-and-switch articles slightly critical of multiculturalism for the party partisans made "uneasy" by multicultural tyranny.
This poorly reasoned mess is about defining racism.
(After the November election, it will be back to the same old Randism, neoconservatism, and anti-white tyranny from the National Review.)
Contra the National Review author, definitions on ethical issues should not be authoritatively decided by dictionaries, communities or "how most people use" words. Academics have an ethical right to make good definitions, too. Everyone has an ethical right to introduce new, good words and new, good meanings. Everyone should have that legal right as well, but in some totalitarian places, individuals will be punished for blasphemy or political incorrectness for good definitions.
Let's look at what good definitions should be. Logically, definitions are degrees of good or bad. Many bad definitions are unclear, circular, too broad, too narrow, too unspecific or slanted. Slanted definitions are fallacious attempts to manipulate individuals into conclusions via definition. Some bad definitions are fallacious in other ways. Good definitions are none of those things. Good definitions sometimes list, give examples or accurately describe in other ways. The fact that people disagree about definitions is irrelevant.
Let's look at some bad definitions of racism I have seen over the past few decades:
Racism is privilege plus power or prejudice plus power: in practice, multiculturalists imply this means racism is being white, ignoring that multiculturalists have nearly all the power and that individuals can't be born with ontological guilt for beliefs. It's not white self-determinationist's fault that Marxian multiculturalists despise the results of William Kristol's or Mark Zuckerberg's more powerful brands of multiculturalism. This slanted, too narrow definition includes the false assumption that nonwhites are godlike since they are supposedly incapable of racism.
Racism is that which offends multiculturalists: another slanted, too narrow often implied definition. When some individuals read or hear something that offends them, they reflexively respond with "that's racism" or various anti-white slurs, no matter how ethically truthful the claims are. This is also a bad definition because being offended is irrelevant to arguments.
Racism is treating someone a certain way solely because of their skin color: this is slanted, too narrow, and a straw person. Ethical whites seek self-determination because differing races have very differing behavioral tendencies, not mere skin color differences. Nonwhites are fanatically committed to the long term subjugation and extermination of whites whether they admit it or not.
Racism is the belief that some races are superior to others: unfortunately, races are superior to other races in various ways. Some run faster. Some survive better at high altitudes. Some create better cultures. Some have more compassion. Individuals should ethically improve their races instead of attacking the truth. This is also a bad, slanted definition because facts shouldn't be described with dysphemisms like racism. Never mind the contradiction that most nonwhite races regard their own races as superior (while expecting racial immunity from racial criticism for themselves). Individuals should support eugenics and cultural reforms rather than attacking the truth.
A better definition of racism:
Racism is a worldview that individuals should be treated unjustly because of their race: This unslanted definition is neither too broad nor too narrow. Perhaps someone will come up with an even better definition.
Note that separation and self-determination do not treat races unjustly because no race has a right to cause massive, undeserved harms to other races. Nonwhites demand self-determination for themselves and self-determination is the only ethical living alternative for many whites, especially in the future.
When someone shouting anti-white racial comments murders a white individual, you'll sometimes see or hear many responses similar to, "Nuh-uh. That's not racism. Racism is prejudice plus power." Such rampant demagoguery is even more reason to stay far away from other races.
Monday, August 13, 2018
Sunday, August 12, 2018
If Vietnam War Thinkers Had Been Ethnoracially Informed
Instead of facing facts, Vietnam era thinkers believed the fallacies of everyone is the same deep inside or can be made to be the same deep inside.
They should have known that Vietnam was little threat to the West--unless we foolishly allowed Vietnamese to migrate to the West, which we did. China would not allow Vietnam to develop nuclear weapons because the two are regular antagonists. Nonwhites hold historical grudges far longer and more vehemently than whites.
Western elites should have known that importing nonwhite "refugees," no matter how loyal they may seem on the surface, leads to cultural and sometimes economic Marxism in the long term. We imported many Hmong having IQs in the 80s. Hmong behave in America not far different than others with IQs in the 80s. Nonwhites will say almost anything to save face and serve their self-interest. That doesn't make them trustworthy.
So much for assimilation.
They should have known that rule by a small Catholic minority would be deeply resented by Buddhists and others. What did they think? The nonsense that all religions share the same basic truths? That most Vietnamese Buddhists were similar to chilled out white neo-Buddhists in the West?
North Vietnamese rulers weren't nationalists despite what the likes of Daniel Ellsberg say. They slaughtered various nationalist factions in Vietnam, sometimes with the help of French elites. North Vietnamese elites were devoted to egoism and communism.
Even if Vietnamese communism conquered all of Southeast Asia, Vietnamese would have been hoisted on their own petard, stuck with corruption, incompetence, wrecked economies, and simmering ethnoracial feuds. It didn't matter much for the West whether the Domino Theory in Southeast Asia was true or not. Even in Vietnam, Vietnamese communists were hoisted on their own petards . The Vietcong, who struggled under horrific conditions for years, were shoved aside once the North Vietnamese Army overran South Vietnam, having almost no say in "united" Vietnam.
South Vietnamese saw their incomes grow immensely from free riding on American taxpayers and from new strains of rice developed and spread by Americans, but they didn't like Americans. Why? Because most humans despise foreign armies in their lands, especially violent armies of a differing race. Because Marxism is more skilled at propaganda than non-Marxisms. Because Marxism will use any means to sway a population, including torturing and slaughtering villagers to gain compliance from other villagers. When Marxists promote "by any means necessary," they mean it.
Various estimates place mean Vietnamese IQs somewhere between that of Malays and Northeast Asians--high enough to be excellent at guerrilla warfare but not high enough to create and project conventional types of military power across oceans, given their egoism, Marxism, population size, and lack of natural resources, other than rain and soil.
Western elites should have known that defending NATO was far more important than wasting lives and resources in Southeast Asia. (The contemporary multiple meanings of the word wasted come from Vietnam. All that a man could have made and become, including his children and his grandchildren, were often wasted in Vietnam.)
They should have known that demographics and long term consequences matter more than Pyrrhic body counts and other fallacious statistics.
But they didn't.
They should have known that Vietnam was little threat to the West--unless we foolishly allowed Vietnamese to migrate to the West, which we did. China would not allow Vietnam to develop nuclear weapons because the two are regular antagonists. Nonwhites hold historical grudges far longer and more vehemently than whites.
Western elites should have known that importing nonwhite "refugees," no matter how loyal they may seem on the surface, leads to cultural and sometimes economic Marxism in the long term. We imported many Hmong having IQs in the 80s. Hmong behave in America not far different than others with IQs in the 80s. Nonwhites will say almost anything to save face and serve their self-interest. That doesn't make them trustworthy.
So much for assimilation.
They should have known that rule by a small Catholic minority would be deeply resented by Buddhists and others. What did they think? The nonsense that all religions share the same basic truths? That most Vietnamese Buddhists were similar to chilled out white neo-Buddhists in the West?
North Vietnamese rulers weren't nationalists despite what the likes of Daniel Ellsberg say. They slaughtered various nationalist factions in Vietnam, sometimes with the help of French elites. North Vietnamese elites were devoted to egoism and communism.
Even if Vietnamese communism conquered all of Southeast Asia, Vietnamese would have been hoisted on their own petard, stuck with corruption, incompetence, wrecked economies, and simmering ethnoracial feuds. It didn't matter much for the West whether the Domino Theory in Southeast Asia was true or not. Even in Vietnam, Vietnamese communists were hoisted on their own petards . The Vietcong, who struggled under horrific conditions for years, were shoved aside once the North Vietnamese Army overran South Vietnam, having almost no say in "united" Vietnam.
South Vietnamese saw their incomes grow immensely from free riding on American taxpayers and from new strains of rice developed and spread by Americans, but they didn't like Americans. Why? Because most humans despise foreign armies in their lands, especially violent armies of a differing race. Because Marxism is more skilled at propaganda than non-Marxisms. Because Marxism will use any means to sway a population, including torturing and slaughtering villagers to gain compliance from other villagers. When Marxists promote "by any means necessary," they mean it.
Various estimates place mean Vietnamese IQs somewhere between that of Malays and Northeast Asians--high enough to be excellent at guerrilla warfare but not high enough to create and project conventional types of military power across oceans, given their egoism, Marxism, population size, and lack of natural resources, other than rain and soil.
Western elites should have known that defending NATO was far more important than wasting lives and resources in Southeast Asia. (The contemporary multiple meanings of the word wasted come from Vietnam. All that a man could have made and become, including his children and his grandchildren, were often wasted in Vietnam.)
They should have known that demographics and long term consequences matter more than Pyrrhic body counts and other fallacious statistics.
But they didn't.
Saturday, August 11, 2018
Character and Trustworthiness Matter Far More Than General Trust
Sean Last reports that the famous Robert Putnam study, suggesting that ethnoracial diversity in America is a cause of reduced trust, has major defects.
This is not surprising.
In addition to the reasons Last mentions, white Americans share many cultures of trust and distrust across the country. For generations, ruling groups regularly succeeded in propagandizing Americans to trust individuals Americans should not have trusted--gurus, athletes, celebrities, politicians, billionaires, smooth talkers, and ethnoracial outgroups, keeping whites from noticing important facts.
Even whites living in run down apartments, surrounded by hostile ethnoracial outgroups, are more trusting of the wrong ideas and peoples than they should be. For decades, whites have been more distrusting toward political factions they don't identify with than diversity, though that seems to be changing.
Generalized trust is not that important. Being generally trusting is not far from acting gullible. Trustworthiness is more important, as is knowing when to trust and when not to trust. Character counts most.
Various media empires have been calling themselves the "most trusted news source" for decades. But what do such sources specialize in: greed, gossip, trivia, sensationalism, sex scandals, war mongering, celebrity worship, emotive manipulation, anti-white bigotry, personalities over policies, knee jerk deontology, and horse race political coverage. Television itself is a poor method to convey well-reasoned arguments. The word is more important than the picture. Tune in, turn off your reasoning. The beloved Tom Brokaw and Walter Cronkite were talented in con artistry.
As much grief as Baby Boomers get, the fact is that leaders born before 1946 enacted many major multicultural policies, including Brown v. Board of Education and the 1965 Immigration Act, before most Boomers were old enough to vote, bribe or propagandize. High levels of trust probably aided individuals born before 1946 in organizing for their own economic benefit but also helped their elites screw future generations culturally, genetically, and economically.
The now elderly or dead elites played the biggest roles in shoving Randism, neoconservatism, third wayism, and cultural Marxism down our throats.
The Silent Generation and the Greatest Generation had stable, middle class jobs with defined benefit pensions unlike most individuals since. Despite what many Millennials and others imagine, the economy became much worse for young working families with children between the mid 1970s and mid 1980s. As part of the then new normalcy, older Americans decided that high seniority workers should be paid two to three times what younger workers receive for doing the same jobs. Pre-Boomers decided that finance and various other parasitic activities should be rewarded far more than ethical work. Pre-Boomers created the McJobs economy for younger individuals in the 1980s and late 1970s. It was a Grand, Unstated Bargain. Older workers keep their union jobs. Younger workers get McJobs. Never mind that young families with children have greater expenses for child rearing and other costs. Some young wives worked out of preference and some out of the new necessity. Pre-Boomers decided that television and other forms of hedonism were good things. Pre-Boomers supported integration or segregation instead of self-determination. Pre-Boomers implemented the deluge of bait-and-switch politics we live with now. Nixon ran on getting us out of Vietnam in 1968, then he ran on the same thing in 1972. as if getting out of Vietnam were spectacularly complicated.
Individuals born after 1945 deserve our share of blame. Whereas the oldest generations organized for perceived economic self-interest and horrible political fads, younger generations did little to stop the fads and advantage taking. Instead of organizing for good causes, younger Americans wasted efforts on street protesting and other showboating that the lobbyists, politicians, and billionaires largely ignore (or use for their divide-and-rule practices). Younger generations keep falling for fallacies. When you don't have power and leverage, bait-and-switch is what you get. Older Americans had leverage with private sector labor unions but corruption and multiculturalism wrecked many unions. Public sector unions still have considerable leverage, but they are even more prone to corrupting influences.
Many individuals from the Lost Generation, GI Generation, and Silent Generation got a raw deal, especially chronically disabled veterans, not to mention from the austerity of the Great Depression. The biggest problems aren't generational. The bigger issue is the groupthink fanaticisms of various elite factions across generations, the casual treatment of the rest of us as mere means to their own arbitrary, horrendous ends.
Downwardly mobile individuals should look at the bigger pictures over time rather than simply comparing themselves with their parents. Parents and their friends are a small sample and unrepresentative sample of a cohort.
No one should convert to cultural Marxism simply because Putnam other social scientists made mistakes in survey research. The overwhelming majority of evidence against cultural Marxism comes from other areas.
This is not surprising.
In addition to the reasons Last mentions, white Americans share many cultures of trust and distrust across the country. For generations, ruling groups regularly succeeded in propagandizing Americans to trust individuals Americans should not have trusted--gurus, athletes, celebrities, politicians, billionaires, smooth talkers, and ethnoracial outgroups, keeping whites from noticing important facts.
Even whites living in run down apartments, surrounded by hostile ethnoracial outgroups, are more trusting of the wrong ideas and peoples than they should be. For decades, whites have been more distrusting toward political factions they don't identify with than diversity, though that seems to be changing.
Generalized trust is not that important. Being generally trusting is not far from acting gullible. Trustworthiness is more important, as is knowing when to trust and when not to trust. Character counts most.
Various media empires have been calling themselves the "most trusted news source" for decades. But what do such sources specialize in: greed, gossip, trivia, sensationalism, sex scandals, war mongering, celebrity worship, emotive manipulation, anti-white bigotry, personalities over policies, knee jerk deontology, and horse race political coverage. Television itself is a poor method to convey well-reasoned arguments. The word is more important than the picture. Tune in, turn off your reasoning. The beloved Tom Brokaw and Walter Cronkite were talented in con artistry.
As much grief as Baby Boomers get, the fact is that leaders born before 1946 enacted many major multicultural policies, including Brown v. Board of Education and the 1965 Immigration Act, before most Boomers were old enough to vote, bribe or propagandize. High levels of trust probably aided individuals born before 1946 in organizing for their own economic benefit but also helped their elites screw future generations culturally, genetically, and economically.
The now elderly or dead elites played the biggest roles in shoving Randism, neoconservatism, third wayism, and cultural Marxism down our throats.
The Silent Generation and the Greatest Generation had stable, middle class jobs with defined benefit pensions unlike most individuals since. Despite what many Millennials and others imagine, the economy became much worse for young working families with children between the mid 1970s and mid 1980s. As part of the then new normalcy, older Americans decided that high seniority workers should be paid two to three times what younger workers receive for doing the same jobs. Pre-Boomers decided that finance and various other parasitic activities should be rewarded far more than ethical work. Pre-Boomers created the McJobs economy for younger individuals in the 1980s and late 1970s. It was a Grand, Unstated Bargain. Older workers keep their union jobs. Younger workers get McJobs. Never mind that young families with children have greater expenses for child rearing and other costs. Some young wives worked out of preference and some out of the new necessity. Pre-Boomers decided that television and other forms of hedonism were good things. Pre-Boomers supported integration or segregation instead of self-determination. Pre-Boomers implemented the deluge of bait-and-switch politics we live with now. Nixon ran on getting us out of Vietnam in 1968, then he ran on the same thing in 1972. as if getting out of Vietnam were spectacularly complicated.
Individuals born after 1945 deserve our share of blame. Whereas the oldest generations organized for perceived economic self-interest and horrible political fads, younger generations did little to stop the fads and advantage taking. Instead of organizing for good causes, younger Americans wasted efforts on street protesting and other showboating that the lobbyists, politicians, and billionaires largely ignore (or use for their divide-and-rule practices). Younger generations keep falling for fallacies. When you don't have power and leverage, bait-and-switch is what you get. Older Americans had leverage with private sector labor unions but corruption and multiculturalism wrecked many unions. Public sector unions still have considerable leverage, but they are even more prone to corrupting influences.
Many individuals from the Lost Generation, GI Generation, and Silent Generation got a raw deal, especially chronically disabled veterans, not to mention from the austerity of the Great Depression. The biggest problems aren't generational. The bigger issue is the groupthink fanaticisms of various elite factions across generations, the casual treatment of the rest of us as mere means to their own arbitrary, horrendous ends.
Downwardly mobile individuals should look at the bigger pictures over time rather than simply comparing themselves with their parents. Parents and their friends are a small sample and unrepresentative sample of a cohort.
No one should convert to cultural Marxism simply because Putnam other social scientists made mistakes in survey research. The overwhelming majority of evidence against cultural Marxism comes from other areas.
Friday, August 10, 2018
Flawed Studies Claim Multilingualism Is Better
In recent years, social scientists published a flurry of studies touting the cognitive superiority of being multilingual because of direct multilingual affects on the brain.
Most multilingual individuals fall into two general categories: many speak one language at home and live in societies where another language dominates. They pick up both languages as young children without much conscious effort because young children evolved to easily pick up languages. Other multilingual individuals are higher in IQ, wealth, conscientiousness, and education level than the societies they live in. They learned additional languages, often through media, schooling, and more effort. Even in poor countries, the children of cognitive elites tend to be multilingual, often having English as a second language. Of such studies I could easily obtain and control F, the words IQ, conscientiousness, and educational level were nowhere.
To some extent, knowing additional languages helps international workers and travelers earn more money. In other words, income and multilingualism mutually cause each other for some individuals. Some jobs require multilingualism.
But unless social scientists tease out results due to IQ, conscientiousness, educational level, and other potential causal factors, such direct cognitive benefit studies are worthless.
Most multilingual individuals fall into two general categories: many speak one language at home and live in societies where another language dominates. They pick up both languages as young children without much conscious effort because young children evolved to easily pick up languages. Other multilingual individuals are higher in IQ, wealth, conscientiousness, and education level than the societies they live in. They learned additional languages, often through media, schooling, and more effort. Even in poor countries, the children of cognitive elites tend to be multilingual, often having English as a second language. Of such studies I could easily obtain and control F, the words IQ, conscientiousness, and educational level were nowhere.
To some extent, knowing additional languages helps international workers and travelers earn more money. In other words, income and multilingualism mutually cause each other for some individuals. Some jobs require multilingualism.
But unless social scientists tease out results due to IQ, conscientiousness, educational level, and other potential causal factors, such direct cognitive benefit studies are worthless.
Sunday, August 5, 2018
Avoiding Industries Devoted to Cultural Marxism
Major corporations are predictably anti-white because a) low skill, short term profit seeking industries pursue downward labor costs, no matter whether migration invasions destroy civilization in the long term, b) other industries seek to avoid boycotts, terrorism, lawsuits, media demonization, and other "activism" by multiculturalists, c) they would rather be greedy and cowardly than ethically courageous and less wealthy, d) groupthink dominates the thinking of most contemporary humans, e) contemporary whites seldom organize for the ethical good of civilization, f) media, finance, software, real estate, and several other industries devoted to parasitism benefit from ever more customers and status competitions despite the costs to others, even in European countries where most migrants are on welfare, g) they benefit from the bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw aspects of multiculturalism.
We end up with advertisements featuring black men, white women, and mixed race children, though in reality, such mixed race families feature single white women or grandparents or siblings taking care of part black children, who grow up supporting genocultural tyranny.
Hollywood and Madison Avenue are ethical opposite world. Whites behave like blacks. Blacks behave like whites. Evil villains in fiction are overwhelmingly white, though sometimes blacks play sympathetic antagonists. In the Hollywood logic of the fictional film Nurse Betty, for example, Betty's white partner, the Faulkneresque named Del, is the evil villain because he spews vicious insults. The characters played by Chris Rock and Morgan Freeman murder Del and also use slurs, but that's acceptable because they are African-Americans, and Freeman's acting skills lend pseudo gravitas to his characters' poorly reasoned lectures.
How should whites boycott when ethical alternatives are few? Since almost all major corporations are philosophically anti-white, we don't need to carefully pick and choose. Avoid them all when wise:
We end up with advertisements featuring black men, white women, and mixed race children, though in reality, such mixed race families feature single white women or grandparents or siblings taking care of part black children, who grow up supporting genocultural tyranny.
Hollywood and Madison Avenue are ethical opposite world. Whites behave like blacks. Blacks behave like whites. Evil villains in fiction are overwhelmingly white, though sometimes blacks play sympathetic antagonists. In the Hollywood logic of the fictional film Nurse Betty, for example, Betty's white partner, the Faulkneresque named Del, is the evil villain because he spews vicious insults. The characters played by Chris Rock and Morgan Freeman murder Del and also use slurs, but that's acceptable because they are African-Americans, and Freeman's acting skills lend pseudo gravitas to his characters' poorly reasoned lectures.
How should whites boycott when ethical alternatives are few? Since almost all major corporations are philosophically anti-white, we don't need to carefully pick and choose. Avoid them all when wise:
- avoid debts and harmful products that benefit the financial industry. When investing, buy index funds, but if you don't already have index funds, wait until after the next housing and financial crash. Good research consistently suggests index funds outperform actively managed investments.
- avoid name brands. The bigger the brand, the more likely they practice anti-white grandstanding. Name brands are overpriced and encourage unethical status competitions. Publicly express your contempt toward status goods. Make it cool to hate corporate products. In the t-shirt and jeans 1970s, for example, it was common to hate on flashy clothing. We should make such attitudes far more prevalent. Mock the greenest lawn in the neighborhood. Ridicule every unethical product mass culture adores. Pursue additional white children rather than status competitions.
- buy quality used vehicles and keep them in good shape. Better to give money to white mechanics than mass destructive corporations. Pay cash for vehicles, so you can get by with only liability insurance and avoid helping Joe Lieberman's beloved industries.
- move near your job or school to reduce dangerous commutes and oil funded jihads. Walking distance is best.
- seek out white professionals. They are far more competent and ethical.
- get goods from Freecycle and buy from thrift stores. Many individuals think used goods are gross, but new products often give off harmful volatile substances.
- donate to Freecycle and non chain thrift stores in overwhelmingly white areas when products no longer benefit you.
- avoid mass media products, especially if you have a Nielsen recording meter. If necessary, borrow such products from libraries and other free or used sources.
- plant leaf lettuce and other easy to grow vegetables to reduce reliance on food giants.
- be consistent about telling children no. Tell them if they want something, they can buy it with money they earned from a job. Don't take them to stores if they act bratty. Don't give them cell phones and computers. Keep them away from mass media products. Put fact facing books on your bookshelves. If they get bored, tell them to go play or read a book.
- use freeware rather than major corporate software.
- flirt at stores, churches, meet ups, volunteer groups, and other public places if single. Avoid corporate night clubs and online dating.
- prepare for nuclear wars or natural disasters with inexpensive alternatives. Sugar and hardtack last ages but are unhealthy. (Healthy eating probably won't be a big concern for many survivors.) Canned foods last a lifetime or more. Unsweetened canned beans rank among the healthiest foods available and store sales often make them as inexpensive as dry beans.
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
Eugenics, Dysgenics, and the Bizarre Contradictions of Ruling Class Coercion
The ruling classes dominating the West believe they have the right to engage in many forms of harmful coercion, including:
Despite their lofty rhetoric, contemporary establishments often use legal coercion to increase free riding and other harms.
And yet the ruling classes consider massively wrong any form of coercive "negative" eugenics. Men with repeated rape convictions will seldom be surgically sterilized. By eugenics, I mean both genetic improvements to IQ, health, and ethical character or practices that reduce the prevalence of harm causing genes.
Establishments even consider voluntary "positive" eugenics massively wrong despite the fact that every human evil throughout history was partly or mostly the result of dysgenics. Over 100 billion humans have been harmed by dysgenics. Hidden in plain sight, dysgenics remains the world's most massive preventable evil.
Eugenics gets demonized, in part, because several generations ago, some German individuals put a eugenic label on their dysgenic practices. In addition, a few others elsewhere practiced excessively coercive eugenics. But ethical civilizations and conscious, intelligent species cannot be created, or exist in the long term, without eugenics. Dygenics ranks among the worst forms of immoral nihilism. Yes, every establishment thinker and power broker practices colossal nihilism, no matter how friendly they appear in front of television cameras.
Until roughly the Twentieth Century, doctors caused far more harms to patients than benefits, yet anyone demanding the abolition of most medical fields would be rightly regarded as wrong, but few see evil in attempted abolition of eugenics and the mass promotion of dysgenics.
Eugenics ranks among the most cost effective ways to massively improve human lives. A trip to a eugenic sperm bank is often the difference between parents being stuck in 18 plus years of hell or a splendid, loving family life.
Establishments assume without evidence, and in the face of massive counterevidence, that positive eugenics is wrong, yet nevertheless treat the right of the worst individuals on earth to breed as often as they please as absulute and unalienable.
If we had the ethical and political will, we could raise mean IQs in Western countries by over 20 points in less than 100 years, even without expensive gene editing. We could slash the percentage of individuals devoted to egoism, misplaced altruism, and other evils. We could likewise cause the prevelance of genetic illnesses to plummet.
At the very least, the government could fund a chain of massively eugenic sperm banks, using media and schools to promote the hell out of them. Television ads about dysgenics should feature feature screeching, violent children. Other ads should show children throwing tantrums in stores, the types of acts that send shivers down the spines of would be parents. Eugenic ads should feature children peacefully playing and hugging their parents. Some evidence suggests that public information campaigns targeted in the right ways do well.
Not surprisingly, a forthcoming study suggests that much of the variance in parental stress and warmth comes from their childrens' genes. In other words, some kids' genes make their parents' lives hell. Parents and children mutually create downward spirals in their relationships. One counterargument to frequent use of eugenic sperm banks is that men are more violent toward unrelated children, but a major reason is that, in general, individuals who become step dads and step children have terrible genes, cultures, and behavior. Parents who adopt infants with good genes have far fewer problems.
I listed some other eugenic suggestions before.
We waste umpteen trillion dollars every year in direct and opportunity costs promoting dysgenics and massively inefficient environmental interventions to (sometimes) reduce the damage from dysgenics. Political fanaticism is partly a result of dysgenics, including the current mass culture of believing environments are almost all that matter for IQ and character.
To reverse and prevent disasters, we must have massive improvements in gene-culture co-evolution.
- forcing individuals to pay fines for not having health care semi-insurance from corrupt industries, including working individuals unable to afford treatment for their illnesses. "You can't afford treatment? Too bad. Here, pay a fine to not be treated."
- sending individuals to fight in mutually destructive wars on behalf of ersatz allies and war profiteering.
- stripping whites of self-determination.
- having truency laws, forcing children of working poor whites to attend hellish black majority schools.
- taxing productive working individuals with regressive state, local, excise, and payroll taxes.
- punishing individuals legally, socially or financially for telling the truth about multiculturalism.
- forcing white prisoners to live in integrated prisons, where the ruling classes ignore the fact that they will endure millions of sexual and nonsexual assaults from nonwhites.
- putting prisoners in solitary confinement, causing massive psychological damage (though the likes of Hannibal Lecter deserve solitary confinement or the death penalty.)
Despite their lofty rhetoric, contemporary establishments often use legal coercion to increase free riding and other harms.
And yet the ruling classes consider massively wrong any form of coercive "negative" eugenics. Men with repeated rape convictions will seldom be surgically sterilized. By eugenics, I mean both genetic improvements to IQ, health, and ethical character or practices that reduce the prevalence of harm causing genes.
Establishments even consider voluntary "positive" eugenics massively wrong despite the fact that every human evil throughout history was partly or mostly the result of dysgenics. Over 100 billion humans have been harmed by dysgenics. Hidden in plain sight, dysgenics remains the world's most massive preventable evil.
Eugenics gets demonized, in part, because several generations ago, some German individuals put a eugenic label on their dysgenic practices. In addition, a few others elsewhere practiced excessively coercive eugenics. But ethical civilizations and conscious, intelligent species cannot be created, or exist in the long term, without eugenics. Dygenics ranks among the worst forms of immoral nihilism. Yes, every establishment thinker and power broker practices colossal nihilism, no matter how friendly they appear in front of television cameras.
Until roughly the Twentieth Century, doctors caused far more harms to patients than benefits, yet anyone demanding the abolition of most medical fields would be rightly regarded as wrong, but few see evil in attempted abolition of eugenics and the mass promotion of dysgenics.
Eugenics ranks among the most cost effective ways to massively improve human lives. A trip to a eugenic sperm bank is often the difference between parents being stuck in 18 plus years of hell or a splendid, loving family life.
Establishments assume without evidence, and in the face of massive counterevidence, that positive eugenics is wrong, yet nevertheless treat the right of the worst individuals on earth to breed as often as they please as absulute and unalienable.
If we had the ethical and political will, we could raise mean IQs in Western countries by over 20 points in less than 100 years, even without expensive gene editing. We could slash the percentage of individuals devoted to egoism, misplaced altruism, and other evils. We could likewise cause the prevelance of genetic illnesses to plummet.
At the very least, the government could fund a chain of massively eugenic sperm banks, using media and schools to promote the hell out of them. Television ads about dysgenics should feature feature screeching, violent children. Other ads should show children throwing tantrums in stores, the types of acts that send shivers down the spines of would be parents. Eugenic ads should feature children peacefully playing and hugging their parents. Some evidence suggests that public information campaigns targeted in the right ways do well.
Not surprisingly, a forthcoming study suggests that much of the variance in parental stress and warmth comes from their childrens' genes. In other words, some kids' genes make their parents' lives hell. Parents and children mutually create downward spirals in their relationships. One counterargument to frequent use of eugenic sperm banks is that men are more violent toward unrelated children, but a major reason is that, in general, individuals who become step dads and step children have terrible genes, cultures, and behavior. Parents who adopt infants with good genes have far fewer problems.
I listed some other eugenic suggestions before.
We waste umpteen trillion dollars every year in direct and opportunity costs promoting dysgenics and massively inefficient environmental interventions to (sometimes) reduce the damage from dysgenics. Political fanaticism is partly a result of dysgenics, including the current mass culture of believing environments are almost all that matter for IQ and character.
To reverse and prevent disasters, we must have massive improvements in gene-culture co-evolution.
Thursday, July 19, 2018
Some Types of Anxiety with Solutions
Ongoing, pathological anxiety: arises when doing the right acts but the anxiety stays.
Ongoing, general anxiety: feeling a vague, frequent anxiety but can't pinpoint specifics.
Social pressure anxiety: anxiety about others' acts or norms influencing you. Social pressure is higher when those with powerful halo effects attempt to manipulate. Occurs, for example, when the cool kids try to pressure you into terrible decisions. Social pressures cause many unwarranted anxieties among nonmulticulturalists.
Imitation contradiction anxiety: often arises when media frame a nonexistent contradiction to look like a contradiction. Example: the bible says love your neighbor as yourself, yet these Christians oppose immigration. Many Christians dismiss the bible as a poor ethical guide. Every prescription in the bible contradicts some other prescription in the bible. The "all things are possible" passage by itself contradicts everything else in the bible. In addition, helping evil spread is not love. Media regularly attempt the you belong to group X, yet you believe things that contradict some doctrines of group X gambit, as if groups have a right to dictate your values. (Not surprisingly, those accusing others of ersatz contradictions live lives riddled with despicable self contradictions.)
Deserved cognitive dissonance: arises when acts or beliefs contradict evidence or each other.
Solutions: The right solution to deserved cognitive dissonance is to change acts and beliefs to fit the evidence. For harmful types of anxiety, make massive improvements in beliefs, actions, and environments. Exercise more or harder. Use strength and interval training. Look for more opportunities to socialize. Eat healthier foods. Take more well-reasoned risks. Take fewer reckless, desperate risks. Act as a person of dignity. Develop a sacredness mindset toward beneficial things. Avoid thinking the grass is always greener or is that all there is? Be grateful for things worth being grateful for. Wanting the wrong things leads to disasters. Many who appear to have superb lives quietly wish they had different lives. Change the things you can and should change. Forget the things you cannot or should not change. Develop a hatred for mass culture products. If you are constantly tempted by corrosive things, up your hatred of those things. Make environments very, very helpful, so that constant exertions of will aren't needed. Drugging yourself or chasing other forms of hedonism is the wrong solution to anxieties. Individuals trying to trick you into hedonism are not true friends.
Let's examine a paradigm case: Ian Jobling. Years ago Jobling, an anxious man, created the now defunct whiteamerica.us website. Jobling became troubled by some vile thoughts promoted by some nonmulticulturalists. Some nonmulticultural ideologies are good. Hitlerism, KKKism, and some others are evil. Jobling wanted to go back to the multicultural, middle class world. He gave a fallacy filled interview with the Southern Poverty Law Center, denouncing his former beliefs. (a great way to prove to corporate employers that you support cultural Marxism.) Now a logical, ethical person would think: since all known multicultural belief systems are evil and some nonmulticultural beliefs are also evil, I should promote nonmulticultural belief systems that are good and oppose the evil. That's not what Jobling did. Consciously or unconsciously, he let misguided anxieties dictate. But Jobling, apparently, didn't feel anxiety about the SPLC, an organization with a long track record of lies, greed, and other evils. The interview contains numerous anti-white slurs, but apparently, Jobling didn't feel enough anxiety to stop the interview. Jobling had a defective approach to anxiety. Despite being an academic, Jobling behaved with unethical wantonness.
(You can lead academics to logic and ethics, but it's difficult to make them logical and ethical. A selection effect seems to exist where the people wanting to be professional academics are predisposed to being terrible at logic and ethics. Doing right things is more important than careerism.)
Since we feel anxiety for a variety of reasons, anxiety by itself is not a good guide for finding the truth. Anxiety is an often haywire warning system. We should be conscious of what causes our anxieties, especially when dealing with social influences or misweighed evidence.
Ongoing, general anxiety: feeling a vague, frequent anxiety but can't pinpoint specifics.
Social pressure anxiety: anxiety about others' acts or norms influencing you. Social pressure is higher when those with powerful halo effects attempt to manipulate. Occurs, for example, when the cool kids try to pressure you into terrible decisions. Social pressures cause many unwarranted anxieties among nonmulticulturalists.
Imitation contradiction anxiety: often arises when media frame a nonexistent contradiction to look like a contradiction. Example: the bible says love your neighbor as yourself, yet these Christians oppose immigration. Many Christians dismiss the bible as a poor ethical guide. Every prescription in the bible contradicts some other prescription in the bible. The "all things are possible" passage by itself contradicts everything else in the bible. In addition, helping evil spread is not love. Media regularly attempt the you belong to group X, yet you believe things that contradict some doctrines of group X gambit, as if groups have a right to dictate your values. (Not surprisingly, those accusing others of ersatz contradictions live lives riddled with despicable self contradictions.)
Deserved cognitive dissonance: arises when acts or beliefs contradict evidence or each other.
Solutions: The right solution to deserved cognitive dissonance is to change acts and beliefs to fit the evidence. For harmful types of anxiety, make massive improvements in beliefs, actions, and environments. Exercise more or harder. Use strength and interval training. Look for more opportunities to socialize. Eat healthier foods. Take more well-reasoned risks. Take fewer reckless, desperate risks. Act as a person of dignity. Develop a sacredness mindset toward beneficial things. Avoid thinking the grass is always greener or is that all there is? Be grateful for things worth being grateful for. Wanting the wrong things leads to disasters. Many who appear to have superb lives quietly wish they had different lives. Change the things you can and should change. Forget the things you cannot or should not change. Develop a hatred for mass culture products. If you are constantly tempted by corrosive things, up your hatred of those things. Make environments very, very helpful, so that constant exertions of will aren't needed. Drugging yourself or chasing other forms of hedonism is the wrong solution to anxieties. Individuals trying to trick you into hedonism are not true friends.
Let's examine a paradigm case: Ian Jobling. Years ago Jobling, an anxious man, created the now defunct whiteamerica.us website. Jobling became troubled by some vile thoughts promoted by some nonmulticulturalists. Some nonmulticultural ideologies are good. Hitlerism, KKKism, and some others are evil. Jobling wanted to go back to the multicultural, middle class world. He gave a fallacy filled interview with the Southern Poverty Law Center, denouncing his former beliefs. (a great way to prove to corporate employers that you support cultural Marxism.) Now a logical, ethical person would think: since all known multicultural belief systems are evil and some nonmulticultural beliefs are also evil, I should promote nonmulticultural belief systems that are good and oppose the evil. That's not what Jobling did. Consciously or unconsciously, he let misguided anxieties dictate. But Jobling, apparently, didn't feel anxiety about the SPLC, an organization with a long track record of lies, greed, and other evils. The interview contains numerous anti-white slurs, but apparently, Jobling didn't feel enough anxiety to stop the interview. Jobling had a defective approach to anxiety. Despite being an academic, Jobling behaved with unethical wantonness.
(You can lead academics to logic and ethics, but it's difficult to make them logical and ethical. A selection effect seems to exist where the people wanting to be professional academics are predisposed to being terrible at logic and ethics. Doing right things is more important than careerism.)
Since we feel anxiety for a variety of reasons, anxiety by itself is not a good guide for finding the truth. Anxiety is an often haywire warning system. We should be conscious of what causes our anxieties, especially when dealing with social influences or misweighed evidence.
Friday, July 13, 2018
Homes Versus Borders
Ilya Somin attacks the straw person analogy of houses and borders. But the point immigration fact facers make: it is a contradiction for multiculturalists to support the sanctity of one and not the other. Homes and borders are not analogous. Violating the borders of otherwise ethical individuals by peoples causing long term mass destruction is a worse violation than violating a home. The sanctity of an otherwise ethical person's home may be violated for many reasons, including failing to pay rent, mortgages, and property taxes. Borders should never be violated by worse beings.
"But my home is my castle" is circular or a bad definition, depending on the meaning used for castle.
The other major point: multiculturalists support militarism and cheap labor, plus divide-and-screw politics while shifting the massive costs of harmful invasions onto nonwealthy whites--wrecking lives, schools, nations, careers, freedoms, and neighborhoods--all while multiculturalists try to live far from the low functioning diversity they create.
No right for more harmful peoples to immigrate exists. And no right for more harmful peoples to live in others' homes exists unless they happen to be multiculturalists who refuse to sacrifice while coercing others to pay massive costs.
(The above argument will not sway multiculturalists and their fallacious intuitions but that is irrelevant. Fanaticism is difficult to reform.)
"But my home is my castle" is circular or a bad definition, depending on the meaning used for castle.
The other major point: multiculturalists support militarism and cheap labor, plus divide-and-screw politics while shifting the massive costs of harmful invasions onto nonwealthy whites--wrecking lives, schools, nations, careers, freedoms, and neighborhoods--all while multiculturalists try to live far from the low functioning diversity they create.
No right for more harmful peoples to immigrate exists. And no right for more harmful peoples to live in others' homes exists unless they happen to be multiculturalists who refuse to sacrifice while coercing others to pay massive costs.
(The above argument will not sway multiculturalists and their fallacious intuitions but that is irrelevant. Fanaticism is difficult to reform.)
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
Out from Under the Killing Moon
In tribal wars, clever bands ambushed others, often in the early morning under a bright killing moon. If the ambush was not a lopsided victory, the clever ambusher fled to fight another day. If pursued, they hid, set additional ambushes or outraced pursuers. If ambushers scored a lopsided victory, they exterminated rivals and gained assets, including nubile females. Victims were often disorganized by the chaos of the initial assault. Children cried for their dead parents and siblings. Casualties often exceeded 50 percent. Among Amerindians, only 13 percent "did not engage in wars with their neighbors at least once per year." More gentle peoples were enslaved or eliminated. Torture was incessant, a form of control and entertainment. In tribes, fight or be annihilated was no idle warning.
Tribal members were seldom mere disposable parts of the tribal whole. They valued their lives and sought to spread their individual seed. (I use the word seed since they knew almost nothing about individual genes spreading self-copies.) Members sometimes toppled leaders they considered unfair. Trade made matters worse, increasing tribal conflicts. Many settled peoples outproduced nomads, but nomads sometimes won by being better at killing and being more difficult to find. Nomads had an overlooked disadvantage: they suffered higher rates of miscarriages, especially when women rode horses.
In more complex societies, some wars created large, long term benefits.
But who benefits now? The direct and opportunity costs of contemporary empire wars far exceed benefits.
In many so-called professional militaries, ruling groups make personnel hyper obedient, to make soldiers regard their own lives as low value, to fight for fallacious rhetoric masking as virtue. Behind the rhetoric lies the naked psychological egoism of ruling groups and their vile outgroup allies. Research on wars refers to this egoism as opportunism.
Powerful individuals frequently look for opportunities to undermine the legitimate self-interest of others. Organ donors expect nothing while medical establishments walk away with millions. Economics is largely a sham science, promoting the excessive self-interest of free riding individuals over more deserving individuals, especially pro-immigration junk science that leaves nearly all harms out of the analysis. Military elites likewise propagandize low ranking personnel into thinking their own legitimate self-interest crass.
Military elites side with rulers in encouraging hostility toward establishment critics, regardless how well-reasoned the criticism, inculcating misplaced us versus them mindsets, even when elites operate as a them. The more rulers try to make their rule coup proof, the worse they perform at national defense.
Trying to make make professionals out of individuals predisposed toward tribalism often fails because such individuals value their individual lives and seed too much to waste it on behalf of platitudes and low value medals. In addition, many such individuals have IQs too low to function militarily in complex militaries.
In recent decades, Western militaries taught personnel to ignore unethical orders--burning villages and killing inhabitants being a paradigm case. But they do not teach personnel to disobey big picture wrongs. Note that ethics would require personnel to organize strikes to boycott the wars in Southwest Asia, yet few personnel pursue that option. The so-called emphasis on ethics seems mainly a rear end covering exercise. Blame falls on those at the bottom of the hierarchy for alleged atrocities. Institutions downplay the bigger wrongs of wasting lives and massive resources in unwinnable wars. The Vietnam war wasn't worth one American life.
The definitions of winning become ever more bad and bizarre. We enter wars with terrible or inadequate goals. Helping powerful political parties hostile to yourself gets called winning. Wasting money to cheer for victorious, fan despising athletes is considered winning. Getting corrupt outgroup leaders to bend to the will of our own corrupt leaders is labeled winning, even when harms far exceed benefits. The tribal band member might well say, "Where is the loot? Where are the nubile females from your so-called winning? Where are your children and grandchildren? Oh, you have a ribbon, a ribbon you had to purchase yourself at the commissary, a ribbon civilians seldom comprehend. Will you wear that ribbon if you find yourself sleeping in an alley?"
To which many might correctly reply: character matters more than winning. Looting, murdering, torturing, and kidnapping are execrable. But we must go further. We must avoid evils of tribe and empire.
Multicultural empires rampantly engage in bait-and-switch and divide-and-rule strategies. They antagonize other groups with salami slicing and spirals of tit-for-tat acts. China salami slices via emigration, trade policies, and South China Sea thefts. Salami slicers often find to their surprise that past trends change. Hitler sliced off Czechoslovakia, but was shocked when he could not slice off Poland. Such ruling groups are decadent and willfully blind to their power cravings, blind to their unjust treatment toward those outside the ruling groups. Nevertheless they love to play the victim. The Third Reich's rulers excoriated degeneracy while lying their rear ends off, while stuffing their faces with alcohol, amphetamines, and synthetic opiates. It's astonishing how corrosive concentrated power is in empires. Female rulers deserve their share of blame. "Europe's queens were 27 percent more likely than its kings to wage war."
Even smaller lands such as Sweden should be viewed as mini multicultural empires, where elites use ethnoracial diversity to bait whites into fighting each other instead of corrupt rule. Elites consolidate totalitarian power under the banner of security, a lack of security they deliberately caused by pursuing diversity.
When one multicultural empire fights another, citizens find themselves thrust into dilemmas. Their own ruling classes commit evils, yet some outgroup ruling classes commit more evils. Should one fight and perhaps die on behalf of lesser evils? Maybe one should sit the war out. Truth is a rampant casualty of war. No aggressive government admits to being the greater evil. Shirking becomes more common in diverse units. Should it even be regarded as shirking when totalitarian governance denies one's right to self-determination? But should one turn his back to family and friends?
Many warn against Thucydides traps, but even somewhat well meaning members of ruling classes seem clueless about how to avoid such traps.
Outsiders have a better grasp:
But ruling classes will not pursue policies based on "no more brother wars" because they regard nonwealthy whites as an enemy. They would punish any elite member uttering those four words. They pursue salience and globalism because it gives billionaires more play money, no matter how much conflict globalism creates and how many harms globalism creates for nonwealthy Westerners. They will not provide nuclear weapons to smaller nations because doing so threatens arbitrary nonproliferation rules and threatens their nuclear oligopoly. It also threatens their profiteering, their ripping off of taxpayers, demanding we defend people who dislike us or who are disinclined to fight themselves. A mere eleven percent of Japanese Gallup poll respondents said they would fight for their nation, though that a number is malleable by mass media. Pew polling suggests a host negative views towards Americans by Japanese. Contempt would not be too strong a word for their attitudes. But multiculturalists expect us to suffer and die on behalf of people who hold us in such contempt.
Despite its reputation for being, well, byzantine, the Byzantine Empire managed to survive far longer than the Western Roman Empire by employing crafty diplomatic and military strategies. But such leadership exists almost nowhere among contemporary Western ruling classes. They likely consider such acts not even part of their duties.
Resolve often works, but for what ends should we direct our resolve?
If Japan, Poland, Taiwan, Ukraine, Australia, South Korea, and a few other nations had nuclear arsenals, the world would be a safer place. Instead, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal for empty globalist promises that backfired spectacularly. A status quo bias exists. It is considered acceptable for aggressive Pakistanis to have nuclear weapons, but not for more logical individuals in Taiwan.
In the long run, despite technological advances, nuclear mistakes, pathogen evolution, natural disasters, and dysgenic overpopulation will likely cause havoc. The recently arising dysgenic paradox is thus: The worse genes individuals have, the more likely they will breed. The better the genes, the less likely. The most dangerous enemies often reside from the neck up. One way or another, the totalitarian xenocentrism of many whites will end. Racial cooperation out competes xenocentrism. And unethical winners become even more aggressive toward losers.
Tribal members were seldom mere disposable parts of the tribal whole. They valued their lives and sought to spread their individual seed. (I use the word seed since they knew almost nothing about individual genes spreading self-copies.) Members sometimes toppled leaders they considered unfair. Trade made matters worse, increasing tribal conflicts. Many settled peoples outproduced nomads, but nomads sometimes won by being better at killing and being more difficult to find. Nomads had an overlooked disadvantage: they suffered higher rates of miscarriages, especially when women rode horses.
In more complex societies, some wars created large, long term benefits.
But who benefits now? The direct and opportunity costs of contemporary empire wars far exceed benefits.
In many so-called professional militaries, ruling groups make personnel hyper obedient, to make soldiers regard their own lives as low value, to fight for fallacious rhetoric masking as virtue. Behind the rhetoric lies the naked psychological egoism of ruling groups and their vile outgroup allies. Research on wars refers to this egoism as opportunism.
Powerful individuals frequently look for opportunities to undermine the legitimate self-interest of others. Organ donors expect nothing while medical establishments walk away with millions. Economics is largely a sham science, promoting the excessive self-interest of free riding individuals over more deserving individuals, especially pro-immigration junk science that leaves nearly all harms out of the analysis. Military elites likewise propagandize low ranking personnel into thinking their own legitimate self-interest crass.
Military elites side with rulers in encouraging hostility toward establishment critics, regardless how well-reasoned the criticism, inculcating misplaced us versus them mindsets, even when elites operate as a them. The more rulers try to make their rule coup proof, the worse they perform at national defense.
Trying to make make professionals out of individuals predisposed toward tribalism often fails because such individuals value their individual lives and seed too much to waste it on behalf of platitudes and low value medals. In addition, many such individuals have IQs too low to function militarily in complex militaries.
In recent decades, Western militaries taught personnel to ignore unethical orders--burning villages and killing inhabitants being a paradigm case. But they do not teach personnel to disobey big picture wrongs. Note that ethics would require personnel to organize strikes to boycott the wars in Southwest Asia, yet few personnel pursue that option. The so-called emphasis on ethics seems mainly a rear end covering exercise. Blame falls on those at the bottom of the hierarchy for alleged atrocities. Institutions downplay the bigger wrongs of wasting lives and massive resources in unwinnable wars. The Vietnam war wasn't worth one American life.
The definitions of winning become ever more bad and bizarre. We enter wars with terrible or inadequate goals. Helping powerful political parties hostile to yourself gets called winning. Wasting money to cheer for victorious, fan despising athletes is considered winning. Getting corrupt outgroup leaders to bend to the will of our own corrupt leaders is labeled winning, even when harms far exceed benefits. The tribal band member might well say, "Where is the loot? Where are the nubile females from your so-called winning? Where are your children and grandchildren? Oh, you have a ribbon, a ribbon you had to purchase yourself at the commissary, a ribbon civilians seldom comprehend. Will you wear that ribbon if you find yourself sleeping in an alley?"
To which many might correctly reply: character matters more than winning. Looting, murdering, torturing, and kidnapping are execrable. But we must go further. We must avoid evils of tribe and empire.
Multicultural empires rampantly engage in bait-and-switch and divide-and-rule strategies. They antagonize other groups with salami slicing and spirals of tit-for-tat acts. China salami slices via emigration, trade policies, and South China Sea thefts. Salami slicers often find to their surprise that past trends change. Hitler sliced off Czechoslovakia, but was shocked when he could not slice off Poland. Such ruling groups are decadent and willfully blind to their power cravings, blind to their unjust treatment toward those outside the ruling groups. Nevertheless they love to play the victim. The Third Reich's rulers excoriated degeneracy while lying their rear ends off, while stuffing their faces with alcohol, amphetamines, and synthetic opiates. It's astonishing how corrosive concentrated power is in empires. Female rulers deserve their share of blame. "Europe's queens were 27 percent more likely than its kings to wage war."
Even smaller lands such as Sweden should be viewed as mini multicultural empires, where elites use ethnoracial diversity to bait whites into fighting each other instead of corrupt rule. Elites consolidate totalitarian power under the banner of security, a lack of security they deliberately caused by pursuing diversity.
When one multicultural empire fights another, citizens find themselves thrust into dilemmas. Their own ruling classes commit evils, yet some outgroup ruling classes commit more evils. Should one fight and perhaps die on behalf of lesser evils? Maybe one should sit the war out. Truth is a rampant casualty of war. No aggressive government admits to being the greater evil. Shirking becomes more common in diverse units. Should it even be regarded as shirking when totalitarian governance denies one's right to self-determination? But should one turn his back to family and friends?
Many warn against Thucydides traps, but even somewhat well meaning members of ruling classes seem clueless about how to avoid such traps.
Outsiders have a better grasp:
- emphasizing no more brother wars (not the biological meaning of brother)
- avoiding salience to outgroups
- keeping good fences to make better neighbors
- increasing credible local deterrents, for example, providing smaller, better nations with nuclear deterrents sufficient to extract massive costs on aggressors
- avoiding being the victim of a fait accompli, especially the rhetoric of inevitable white genocide by multiculturalists.
- recognizing that outside interference often prolongs civil wars or other conflicts. (Often prolongation and mutual destruction is what the outsider seeks.)
- recognizing that long lasting rivalries make wars more destructive.
But ruling classes will not pursue policies based on "no more brother wars" because they regard nonwealthy whites as an enemy. They would punish any elite member uttering those four words. They pursue salience and globalism because it gives billionaires more play money, no matter how much conflict globalism creates and how many harms globalism creates for nonwealthy Westerners. They will not provide nuclear weapons to smaller nations because doing so threatens arbitrary nonproliferation rules and threatens their nuclear oligopoly. It also threatens their profiteering, their ripping off of taxpayers, demanding we defend people who dislike us or who are disinclined to fight themselves. A mere eleven percent of Japanese Gallup poll respondents said they would fight for their nation, though that a number is malleable by mass media. Pew polling suggests a host negative views towards Americans by Japanese. Contempt would not be too strong a word for their attitudes. But multiculturalists expect us to suffer and die on behalf of people who hold us in such contempt.
Despite its reputation for being, well, byzantine, the Byzantine Empire managed to survive far longer than the Western Roman Empire by employing crafty diplomatic and military strategies. But such leadership exists almost nowhere among contemporary Western ruling classes. They likely consider such acts not even part of their duties.
Resolve often works, but for what ends should we direct our resolve?
If Japan, Poland, Taiwan, Ukraine, Australia, South Korea, and a few other nations had nuclear arsenals, the world would be a safer place. Instead, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal for empty globalist promises that backfired spectacularly. A status quo bias exists. It is considered acceptable for aggressive Pakistanis to have nuclear weapons, but not for more logical individuals in Taiwan.
In the long run, despite technological advances, nuclear mistakes, pathogen evolution, natural disasters, and dysgenic overpopulation will likely cause havoc. The recently arising dysgenic paradox is thus: The worse genes individuals have, the more likely they will breed. The better the genes, the less likely. The most dangerous enemies often reside from the neck up. One way or another, the totalitarian xenocentrism of many whites will end. Racial cooperation out competes xenocentrism. And unethical winners become even more aggressive toward losers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)