The one-dimensional political spectrum line is a fallacious fabrication by those supporting tyranny, but who see the advantage of having themselves labeled centrist and moderate. Individuals who tried to pass themselves off as moderates include Jon Chait, Karl Rove, Joe Klein, John McCain, William Kristol, David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan, Haim Saban, James Kirchick, Cory Booker, Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman, Chris Matthews, Ben Shapiro, George Will, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Joe Lieberman, Bill O'Reilly, Charles Krauthammer, Rachel Maddow, and George W. Bush.
Let's compare the contemporary acts of those labeled centrist with nonmulticulturalists, those slurred as far right.
So-called centrism: supports self-determination, except for Whites, Igbos, Tibetans, non-Muslims in majority Muslim lands, and many other weak groups, treating self-determination as contingent upon establishment self-interest and how much comparative power a group has. Some increasingly support self-determination for Palestinians. Others view Palestinians as not a real people, which is far more ethnocentric than anything most nonmulticulturalists believe. Centrism pretends to be "humanitarian" but that is merely cover for excessive self-interest and demographic warfare.
Nonmulticulturalism: most support self-determination, though some individuals do not.
So-called centrism: often uses the words democracy and liberal democracy but vehemently undermines real democracy. Supports legalized bribery and the importation of tyranny, using migrant ringers to vote for establishments in the short term--Marxism and Sharia in the long term. Any public, establishment figure who decides to oppose such ersatz democracy gets kicked out of the establishment.
Nonmulticulturalism: many individuals support real democracy. Some support fascism, some Hitlerism, some monarchism.
So-called centrism: almost always uses slurs and other irrelevant ad hominem attacks to describe real political opponents while pretending to be bastions of civility.
Nonmulticulturalism: often uses slurs, often does not. Sometimes unwisely refers to themselves using the slurs concocted by others.
So-called centrism: almost always one-sided and constantly distorts the views of opponents. It acts as if repeating fallacies turns them into a good points. It behaves as if no other alternatives to establishment worldviews should enter our consciousnesses.
Nonmulticulturalism: some media are as one-sided as establishmentism, but others tolerate a variety of views, for example, many of the articles on Amren, the New Right Subreddit, and many other nonmulticultural sites come from establishment, pro-multicultural media (much of it illegally copied and pasted).
So-called centrism: caused millions of unwarranted deaths over the past two decades from terrorism, overpopulation, unethical wars, extra pollution, etc. Uses nonwhites and multicultural whites as anti-white proxy forces, including useful supporters of Marxism.
Nonmulticulturalism: caused a handful of terror deaths over the past few decades, causes far fewer unwarranted deaths on a per capita basis.
So-called centrism: tends to overemphasize global warming at the expense of other important environmental issues--fanatically ignores dysgenic overpopulation.
Nonmulticulturalism: not much interest in environmental issues, except those caused by dysgenic overpopulation.
So-called centrism: supports ever more mass destruction by dysgenics, which they post hoc blame on factors other than dysgenics.
Nonmulticulturalism: supports eugenics.
So-called centrism: views arguments as good for one's causes or not, with the latter being deemed "offensive" and fit for demonization, no matter how ethically well-reasoned. Thus, dozens of individuals received Pulitzer Prizes and MacArthur Genius Grants, who seldom, if ever, wrote a well-reasoned argument. For them, persuasive power trumps evidence. Centrism uses a corporate-government alliance to spread fallacies and destroy free speech while pretending to be guardians of truth.
Nonmulticulturalism: some of the above, but also more likely to believe ethical evidence even when it contradicts one's causes. Strongly supports freedom of speech.
So-called centrism: Russia. Russia. Russia! They care little about whether they start World War III. The Democratic Party matters more to them than most of our lives. A few million dollars of Russian influence matters far more to them than billions in despicable influence by Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt, Turkey, Israel, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Nonmulticulturalism: recognizes that many other countries have and have had far worse influence over US elections and politics.
So-called centrism: willing to create or enter wars with almost no regard for long term consequences to nonwealthy individuals. It still supports contemporary counterinsurgency tactics despite their horrific track record. Believes utter nonsense such as the main mistake in Iraq was not having enough troops to secure Iraq, unaware that tribal humans despise the presence of foreign troops, unaware that insurgents play the long game and counterinsurgency surges only temporarily dent their efforts. Centrism is willing to tell almost any lie on behalf of their wars.
Nonmulticulturalism: wary about entering unjust wars, mutually destructive wars, and self-destructive wars.
I could go on for days.
But in general, so-called centrists are more supportive of tyranny, with the exception that supporters of Hitlerism and some other horrible ideologies are bigger supporters of tyranny, which helps explain why so-called centrists try to slur everyone who tells the truth about multiculturalism as a Nazi.
The good counterargument is that we should also compare best versus best, even if today's so-called centrists have abandoned such good beliefs and good belief systems have little chance against those in power.
If we compare the best so-called centrists (Richard Lugar, William Proxmire, etc.) versus the best nonmulticultural worldviews, as we should, then the best nonmulticultural worldviews are still better since the best nonmulticultural worldviews will also include good ideas from Lugar, Proxmire, etc. But multiculturalists such as Lugar and Proxmire would not face eugenic and ethnoracial facts.
But what about progressivism, libertarianism, and other isms? The same problem exists. Libertarians and progressives will not face facts on eugenics and ethnoracial issues without being expelled. But the best nonmulticulturalists will freely pick ideas from progressivism and libertarianism.
In the long run, New Dealerism also trended toward cultural Marxism and so-called centrism. (It would also be rejected by multiculturalists because it interned Japanese, included Dixiecrats in its coalition, etc.)
Economic Marxism is not included above because every major variety of economic Marxism has been a disaster. Scandanavian mixed economies in the 1970s were not Marxian. Economic Marxism is the attempt by the state to control all means of economic production and distribution, though black markets predictably arise. Other forms of progressivism all trend toward Marxism and Sharia in the long run.
In short, nonmulticulturalists have multitudes of different worldviews. Some support anti-whatever bigotry. Some support nonwhite rights but also demand that whites get their rights as well. Some are environmentalists. Some don't care about environmental issues. Etc.
Unlike so-called centrists, nonmulticulturalists are far less likely to be manipulated by groupthink and totalitarian power to spew one ethnoracial fallacy after another.
Saturday, August 25, 2018
Monday, August 20, 2018
A Brief Look at Establishment Worldviews as They Are Practiced
A chasm exists between the rhetoric of many worldviews and how they end up being practiced. The poor performance often results a) because such worldviews are practiced by dysgenically bred humans, b) because many humans use ideology as bait-and-switch in the service of egoism, and c) because the ideologies stink--often such ideologies do not match human genetic predispositions.
The specifics of these ideologies stretch into billions of words, but if we seek a brief overview, this is one.
Libertarianism in practice: Let humans do what they prefer, except theft, violent crimes, and freedoms that conflict with the preferences of more powerful individuals. When humans do massively harmful acts permitted by libertarianism, too bad for you and others. It's a fake individualism that leaves you at the mercy of gangs of hostile thinkers, politicians, lobbyists, foreigners, and billionaires.
Neoconservatism in practice: libertarianism and Southwest Asian militarism plus self-aggrandizing, tokenistic or wasteful compassionate conservatism.
Civic nationalism in practice: a euphemism for a semi-neoconservatism with somewhat less migration and less one sided trade deals, a way for some elites to poke sticks in the eyes of other elites while pretending to be men of the people. It's neither nationalistic nor civic minded overall, doing little to reverse harmful trends.
Third wayism in practice: mixes some libertarianism and neoconservatism but supports somewhat more progressive taxation, somewhat more regulation, and much more education spending, much it it wasteful spending.
Marxism in practice: equality is mere bait. Those seizing power make the decisions, including everything from Chavezism, to Maoism, to Stalinism, to Unism, to Mugabeism. Though most ideologies make it easy for the rise of dictatorial power, Marxism makes it especially easy because of "no enemies to the left" cowardice and cluelessness.
Progressivism in practice: a euphemism for Marxism despite less Marxian rhetoric.
Scandinavian mixed economy in practice: a semi-third wayism with more taxation, more regulation, more public services, and less militarism. Doomed by dysgenics, feminism, and misplaced altruism.
Glass ceiling feminism in practice: one or more of the above ideologies plus an emphasis on the claims of wealthy, powerful women (acts as if ordinary women should live vicariously through the power and wealth and status of other women).
Marxian feminism: similar to other Marxisms but with more emphasis on the claims of women, except when nonwhites harm or manipulate women. The patriarchy they oppose is the now nearly nonexistent White, Western patriarchy.
Islam: crypto sharia plus mixtures of the above as alliances of convenience--alliances disposed of once Muslims gain enough power in a society.
What do all the above have in common: support for globalism, dysgenics, blank slates, crypto nihilism, nurture assumptions, evolutionary egoism, psychological egoism, bait-and-switch acts, divide-and-rule tactics, anti-white tyranny, hedonism as a lifestyle, and disregard for long term consequences. Cultural Marxism runs through all of them.
They are all simple ideologies for ordinary followers to understand. For the high priests, complicated writings exist to allegedly justify unjust acts.
Ethical reasoning and weighing the evidence on individual issues seldom matters for them.
Feel good narratives matter more to them than beneficial results. Communicating the fact that one is a sympathetic person by supporting early childhood education matters more to them than the fact that Head Start and similar early childhood interventions are a waste of money and efforts better put elsewhere. Signaling that one is tough on national defense matters more to them the fact that nonwhite immigration and contemporary, Western counterinsurgency warfare are national defense disasters. Self and the political team matters more for them than the citizens they supposedly serve.
They support freedom of political speech--for their perceived allies. For dissenters, social and government punishments abound. Some use corporations to restrict speech, making it appear as if some imaginary free marketplace of ideas exists. They narrow the range of acceptable political thoughts to official myths--ignoring or whitewashing evidence that doesn't fit their narratives while demonizing opponents with fallacies.
They support freedom of association for their perceived allies. For others, self-determination gets mistakenly labeled as discrimination.
They are all ethically terrible ideologies.
The specifics of these ideologies stretch into billions of words, but if we seek a brief overview, this is one.
Libertarianism in practice: Let humans do what they prefer, except theft, violent crimes, and freedoms that conflict with the preferences of more powerful individuals. When humans do massively harmful acts permitted by libertarianism, too bad for you and others. It's a fake individualism that leaves you at the mercy of gangs of hostile thinkers, politicians, lobbyists, foreigners, and billionaires.
Neoconservatism in practice: libertarianism and Southwest Asian militarism plus self-aggrandizing, tokenistic or wasteful compassionate conservatism.
Civic nationalism in practice: a euphemism for a semi-neoconservatism with somewhat less migration and less one sided trade deals, a way for some elites to poke sticks in the eyes of other elites while pretending to be men of the people. It's neither nationalistic nor civic minded overall, doing little to reverse harmful trends.
Third wayism in practice: mixes some libertarianism and neoconservatism but supports somewhat more progressive taxation, somewhat more regulation, and much more education spending, much it it wasteful spending.
Marxism in practice: equality is mere bait. Those seizing power make the decisions, including everything from Chavezism, to Maoism, to Stalinism, to Unism, to Mugabeism. Though most ideologies make it easy for the rise of dictatorial power, Marxism makes it especially easy because of "no enemies to the left" cowardice and cluelessness.
Progressivism in practice: a euphemism for Marxism despite less Marxian rhetoric.
Scandinavian mixed economy in practice: a semi-third wayism with more taxation, more regulation, more public services, and less militarism. Doomed by dysgenics, feminism, and misplaced altruism.
Glass ceiling feminism in practice: one or more of the above ideologies plus an emphasis on the claims of wealthy, powerful women (acts as if ordinary women should live vicariously through the power and wealth and status of other women).
Marxian feminism: similar to other Marxisms but with more emphasis on the claims of women, except when nonwhites harm or manipulate women. The patriarchy they oppose is the now nearly nonexistent White, Western patriarchy.
Islam: crypto sharia plus mixtures of the above as alliances of convenience--alliances disposed of once Muslims gain enough power in a society.
What do all the above have in common: support for globalism, dysgenics, blank slates, crypto nihilism, nurture assumptions, evolutionary egoism, psychological egoism, bait-and-switch acts, divide-and-rule tactics, anti-white tyranny, hedonism as a lifestyle, and disregard for long term consequences. Cultural Marxism runs through all of them.
They are all simple ideologies for ordinary followers to understand. For the high priests, complicated writings exist to allegedly justify unjust acts.
Ethical reasoning and weighing the evidence on individual issues seldom matters for them.
Feel good narratives matter more to them than beneficial results. Communicating the fact that one is a sympathetic person by supporting early childhood education matters more to them than the fact that Head Start and similar early childhood interventions are a waste of money and efforts better put elsewhere. Signaling that one is tough on national defense matters more to them the fact that nonwhite immigration and contemporary, Western counterinsurgency warfare are national defense disasters. Self and the political team matters more for them than the citizens they supposedly serve.
They support freedom of political speech--for their perceived allies. For dissenters, social and government punishments abound. Some use corporations to restrict speech, making it appear as if some imaginary free marketplace of ideas exists. They narrow the range of acceptable political thoughts to official myths--ignoring or whitewashing evidence that doesn't fit their narratives while demonizing opponents with fallacies.
They support freedom of association for their perceived allies. For others, self-determination gets mistakenly labeled as discrimination.
They are all ethically terrible ideologies.
Thursday, August 16, 2018
The Most Important Broad Sense Issues
They are in no order:
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.
- eugenics and dysgenics.
- courage, free speech, and ethical reasoning.
- migration, demographic conquest, developing country overpopulation, and the eagerness of some governments to eliminate their own people.
- non-demographic warfare, especially nuclear weapons and biological weapons.
- low probability, disastrous expected value existential threats, for example, super volcanoes or a collision with a large comet.
- pathogen evolution.
- economic free riding, destroyers-take-most economies.
- religions, especially religions supporting misplaced altruism, unethical escapism, and dysgenic, evolutionary egoism.
- self-determination
- 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.
- 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.
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
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.
(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.
Monday, August 13, 2018
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)