The Most Important Broad Sense Issues

They are in no order:

1. eugenics and dysgenics.
2. courage, free speech, and ethical reasoning.
3. migration, demographic conquest, developing country overpopulation, and the eagerness of some governments to eliminate their own people.
4. non-demographic warfare, especially nuclear weapons and biological weapons.
5. low probability, disastrous expected value existential threats, for example, super volcanoes or a collision with a large comet.
6. pathogen evolution.
7. economic free riding, destroyers-take-most economies.
8. religions, especially religions supporting misplaced altruism, unethical escapism, and dysgenic, evolutionary egoism.
9. self-determination
10. kakistocracy and the ease with which the worst or near worst individuals influence or take over governments via bribery, Machiavellianism, divide-and-screw, and other methods.
11. purpose, hedonism, and lack of self-respect--especially via TV, social media, mood altering drugs, politics as infotainment, and the increasing shortage of ethical, purposeful work, resulting in misplaced hostility and alienation or worse: desperate attachments to harmful acts and groups.

Many of these issues overlap, for example, dysgenics, migration, and overpopulation. Overlaps cannot be eliminated.

Multiculturalism, including Islam, isn't just wrong on all of these issues, it is spectacularly wrong, fanatically opposed to being right, willing to severely punish well-reasoned dissent and reforms. Many other belief systems are poor on these issues as well, but few are as horrendous as multiculturalism.

Contemporary establishments have more commitment to spouting insipid buzzwords than willingness to efficiently accomplish big, good goals. My Google search for "under cost infrastructure project," "under cost highway project," and "project finished under cost" produced a total of two results, both on minor projects. Many similar search phrases would likely produce similar results.

Bill Gates calls flu the biggest threat, yet he wastes billions on educational nostrums, managing only $12 million for flu research.

Ugh.

Meet the Elites

Man, I keep having incongruous, small sample personal experiences. I shouldn't conclude from small samples but holy hell. I'll read, talk to or work for wealthy individuals, many having degrees from prestigious universities, who describe themselves as Democrats or Libertarians or moderates or lifelong Republicans or something similar. The results aren't pretty. It's difficult to maintain more than basic human respect for them.

(I left the direct quotes below unedited, except for adding some periods, ellipses, cutting for brevity, bracketed clarifications, and turning some double quotes into single quotes.)

The elites on Whites: "We already have enough redneck hillbilly white trash cousin fuckers... we don't need to pile on with more toothless okies." And "All Trump voters are racists." And referring to whites "where's an Assad gas attack when you need one?" And it's "crazy how much white trash is in Ohio, how was Ohio formed north of the Mason-Dixon line?" And "Coonass in La and parts of texas is more like calling someone a hillbilly, redneck, or trailertrash. It isn't reference to race or color." And "A bunch of racist, white trash, trailer park, cavemen ,standing in a line on election day to cast a ballot." And the shooter of whites "should have done to Bill Goodmans gun and knife show and picked him up some real fire power. Could have been much more efficicient." And Trump voters are "shitheads" and "Trumpanzees." And they're glad they moved because "everyone back home is fat and stupid."

On foreign policies: "Please nuke the fuck out of us China." And Russians "control American power plants." And "2 of the 3 have pretty good reps (Mattis and Kelly) and they are in defense related roles." And "don't believe" any poll that says "Crimea wanted to be part of Russia."

On so-called activists: Antifa's "actions deserve labelling them as heroes." And "I love Antifa. Wish I could donate to them. Can I?" And "Love seeing them kick the shit out of nazi clowns with american flag pants." More incoherently and unaware that Antifa was the name chosen by Antifas "they're 'antifa' which is short for 'anti-fascist'. The people wielding that word will often insist that they are not racists, not Nazis, and are the persecuted ones. But they're fine with implicitly assuming the label of 'fascist. Weird."

On economics: workers "are bacteria." And "the big growth rates in the 60s fueled the terrible inflation in the 70s and 80s and was fueled by massive government spending and redistribution. Would you prefer going back to those policiies?"

On Trump: Trump is a "shit gibbon." Trump is "Der Fuhrer" of the "Alt Reich." And Trump is a communist "because his father-in-law" is a "card carrying commie." And it's "1939 Germany" again.

On politics: Jeb Bush and George H.W. Bush are "basically the same." And "When did the shitheads start using 'fake news' about reporting they think is biased?" And "The only way I can be happier is if [Trump] appoints Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court." And "I'm hoping Zuckerberg can be that kind of [good president] guy." One such individual claimed he have voted for Trump if Trump promised to eliminate daylight savings.

On immigration: the "chance of a being killed by a refugee terrorist in the US is one in 3.64 billion, according to a new report that studied the tangible risk posed by immigration,'' among the most blatantly false stats ever. And Melania's lucky her parents "aren't Muslim. They'd never be able to come to American."

On shootings: Nikolas Cruz "trained with a white-supremacist group." And "How come I am just now learning that the Kate Steinle death... was an accidental shooting?"  And there was a shooting--"probably a white guy" and the media "will cover it up" or say "he was mentally ill."

On South Africa: Some analogy is "like saying blacks in South Africa mistreated English and Afrikaan minorities."

On life in general: "Shooting to the top of my punch in the face list -- people who say 'How do I tell me child that....'." And "Love how these maudlin fat fucks with goatees are on the verge of tears when they burn their [sports] gear." And "[His] mom raped a retard and had [a baby]."

On police: "In my experience cops are pretty much the worst people in the world and Sessions is going to make it so much worse." If someone gets arrested, they'll assert "he's lucky he's not black." He would "have been shot."

On freedom of association: "Everyone in America" should be forced to watch the Abraham Lincoln film.

They'll spew one fallacy after another, spouting ethnoracial garbage roughly as bad as Stormfront and progressives. I almost never see a well-reasoned argument from them.

They're usually divorced or womanizers or have major marriage problems. They'll call women "cunts" and "bitches." They'll trash most women they're dating. One claimed, "Your body of work as an embarrassed Trump supporter makes you a racist cunt, obviously." Then they'll say they can't believe we have such a misogynistic president.

They'll incessantly complain about petty stuff: the weeds in driveway cracks, the faulty propeller on a yacht, the roommate who called his daughter a "spoiled, racist bitch" and now his daughter wants to transfer (the latter from a guy who frequently calls other whites "racists"). And the "muskets they were using during the Battle of Borodino last night weren't widely used until around 1815. Borodino was in 1812. Idiots."

They frequently refer to other whites as "Dunning-Krueger" political buffoons, regularly misspelling Kruger. They can name dozens of Trump administration officials. But ask them about their opinions on Pigouvian Taxes, Race to the Top, etcetera, and they have no idea what you're talking about.

One admits he "was duped" into supporting the Iraq war, as if most of his worldview didn't consist of a long series of dupings, plus unwillingness to find unwanted facts.

They support smug, self-aggrandizing tokenism: "My company is matching hurricane relief donations up to $1000. I just donated $100, most of my profit from the Mayweather fight, to the cause. I challenge each and everyone to do the same."

One financier brags about the Zig Zigleresque tactics he uses on clients: the Nazis apparently had a bunch of tanks sitting around. When they tried to start the tanks, the tanks wouldn't start because rodents chewed the tanks' electrical wires (an apparent warning to expect the unexpected and don't let assets sit).

I try to understand their minds. Maybe they think multiculturalism, neoconservatism, neoliberalism, and classical liberalism are forms of ethical altruism, a light unto the nations. Maybe they regard their jobs or former jobs in law, finance, medicine, and upper management as far more difficult than the jobs other whites have. They think they deserve every penny of their wealth. But those other whites are beneficiaries of privilege, who must be forced to sacrifice everything.

But the reality is much worse.

What our ruling classes peddle for mass public consumption is highly self-censored.

The odd thing is that if Trump self-censored more often, never said or wrote anything vulgar, never mentioned trade or immigration, many elites would have voted for him in the general election--or someone similar.

These are our elites.

A More Logical Look at Definitions, Including Definitions of Racism

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. move near your job or school to reduce dangerous commutes and oil funded jihads. Walking distance is best.
5. seek out white professionals. They are far more competent and ethical.
6. 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.
7. donate to Freecycle and non chain thrift stores in overwhelmingly white areas when products no longer benefit you.
8. 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.
9. plant leaf lettuce and other easy to grow vegetables to reduce reliance on food giants.
10. 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.
11. use freeware rather than major corporate software.
12. flirt at stores, churches, meet ups, volunteer groups, and other public places if single. Avoid corporate night clubs and online dating.
13. 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.

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:

1. 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."
2. sending individuals to fight in mutually destructive wars on behalf of ersatz allies and war profiteering.
3. stripping whites of self-determination.
4. having truency laws, forcing children of working poor whites to attend hellish black majority schools.
5. taxing productive working individuals with regressive state, local, excise, and payroll taxes.
6. punishing individuals legally, socially or financially for telling the truth about multiculturalism.
7. 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.
8. 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.

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.