Russiagate Aftermath

Russiagate ended with a fizzle, "having uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia."

Domestically, Russiagate was an intra-establishment feud among neoconservative supporters of Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton, who prefer a kinder face on neoconservative ruthlessness, versus neoconservatives tolerant of Trump's and Netanyahu's vulgarities.

It served to a) distract individuals from establishment evils and b) harden the group polarization of establishments. Because most powerful individuals on this planet have dark triad tendencies, they will not self-examine and reform themselves after their Russiagate mistakes, just as they learned almost nothing good from the thousands of other neoconservative errors. Instead, establishments will seek other opportunities to spread their greed, militarism, and cultural Marxism.

It was minuscule compared to the influence peddling done by migrants and countries devoted to white destruction.

Internationally, Russiagate escalated Cold War II, a potentially disastrous result. It pushed China and Russia closer. It gave Putin more maneuvering room to spread his own brand of greed, globalism, and militarism within Russia, a rally to the big man, little matter how depraved.

Totalitarianism Watch: Anti-Defamation League Research Is Far Worse Than Reported

James Fulford reports that the ADL labels murders committed by conservatives and others they  consider enemies "domestic extremism" when no known political motive exists, even intra-family murders.

But the reality is even worse.

Here is the ADL's terrible definition of extremism:

A concept used to describe religious, social or political belief systems that exist substantially outside of belief systems more broadly accepted [appeal to popularity] in society (i.e., “mainstream” beliefs [appeal to popularity]). Extreme ideologies often seek radical changes in the nature of government, religion or society. Extremism can also be used to refer to the radical wings of broader movements, such as the anti-abortion movement or the environmental movement. Not every extremist movement is “bad”—the abolitionist movement is one example of an extreme movement that had admirable goals—but most extremist movements exist outside of the mainstream [appeal to popularity] because many of their views or tactics are objectionable [irrelevant].

Here is the ADL with more fallacies on what it call the extreme right:

The term “extreme right [abusive ad hominem]” is used to describe right-wing [abusive ad hominem] political, social and religious movements that exist outside of and are more radical than mainstream conservatism [appeal to popularity]. In the United States, the extreme right [abusive ad hominem] consists primarily of two large, slightly overlapping spheres. In one sphere is the white supremacist [abusive ad hominem] movement, including its various submovements, such as neo-Nazis [abusive ad hominem], racist [abusive ad hominem] skinheads, and the alt right, among others. In the other sphere are anti-government extremist [abusive ad hominem] movements such as the militia movement and sovereign citizens (collectively, this sphere is often referred to as the “Patriot” movement). Also in the extreme right are several “single-issue” movements, which each tend to be the extreme wing of a more mainstream conservative [appeal to popularity] movement; these include anti-abortion extremists [abusive ad hominem], anti-immigrant extremists [abusive ad hominem], anti-Muslim extremists [abusive ad hominem], and anti-public lands extremists [abusive ad hominem], among others.

Since the overwhelming majority of the US population consists of multiculturalists and since their views are objectionable to anyone who cares about the ethical truth and since multiculturalists commit the overwhelming majority of murders, logical consistency would require the ADL to count these murders as extremism.

But the ADL makes the false claim that "over the last decade, a total of 73.3 percent of all extremist-related fatalities can be linked to domestic right-wing extremists."

Since almost all multiculturalists, including Muslims and almost all nonwhites, deny the right to self-determination to whites, that is totalitarianism.

It sure would be great to have some more measures of rampant totalitarianism rather than poorly defined extremism.

The Colony We Live in: Homeless Edition

We now live in a land, many nonmulticulturalists call it a colony for lack of a better word in American English, where many homeless shelters have bed lotteries or waiting lists.

But a counterargument arises: a large percentage of the homeless engage in crime, drug use, and irksome panhandling. So screw it. They deserve to be punished until they change their ways. Let incentives work.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has an estimate from 2003 that 38 percent of the homeless were addicted to alcohol. Twenty-six percent abused other drugs. (The sites I found weren't clear about the amount of overlap in the two numbers.) I doubt anyone knows what percentage of the homeless engage in crime careers since that group is far more noticeable and interacts with others far more often, a likely availability bias. Some homeless individuals wake up in shelters and go to work. Another group of homeless tries to be invisible, living in vehicles, woodlots, and other less conspicuous places. Many have physical disabilities. Estimates of serious mental illness among the homeless range from 20 percent to 33 percent. Personal responsibility incentives often fail with the mentally ill. We don't punish everyone on Wall Street because a large percentage of Wall Streeters engage in legal or ethical wrongs. We seldom even punish the Wall Streeters committing crimes. But the ruling classes treat almost all homeless individuals as if they should be punished for the wrongs of homeless individuals committing crimes.

(It would be irrelevant to mention we have umpteen trillion for reckless, self-destructive militarism. We have umpteen trillion more for direct and opportunity costs arising from the financial industry. We have trillions for tax entitlements. We have payments for parents having children with minor disabilities, often the parents own fault for dysgenic breeding. We have billions to resettle conquerors, in all their horrific dysgenic glory. We have umpteen trillion more for monopolies, oligopolies, and affirmative action, including foreign oligopolies such as OPEC. We waste trillions on colleges and college prep curricula for marginal students, who often drop out of college with large debts.)

Alas, we don't have enough beds for the homeless in brutally cold weather.

So we have ruling classes promoting mass dysgenics, atrocious cultures, and massive economic redistribution to themselves, then when the products of mass dysgenics predictably suffer from harmful genes and rotten cultures, too bad for them.

The White Flight Spectacle

Ask white multiculturalists why they fled their formerly white neighborhoods and you get answers like: The neighborhood went bad. Or: The schools got rough. Nothing racial.

Ask them about race and they spew fallacies: There's only one race. The human race. Everyone's the same inside. Or the related: Everyone's the same once you get to know 'em. You must be some kind of r*cist.

But they didn't flee the old neighborhood when it had plenty of whites they consider bad whites.

There's also this: in warmer parts of the country, many inexpensive campgrounds have destitute whites living in cars, vans, tents or cargo trailers alongside upper middle class snow birds in six figure recreational vehicles. Why isn't this upper middle class fleeing from these destitute whites? These whites are poorer than people in tropical countries on a purchasing power basis. Many have no jobs. Some are disabled but too proud to apply for disability or have had their disability claims rejected. Some have mental illnesses. These whites are in the economic bottom five percent, many in the bottom one percent.

Instead, these campers and homeless wave and greet each other. They have friendly conversations. Sometimes they share food. They are more friendly toward each other than individuals in many gated "communities."

There are a few exceptions, for example, Slab City, California. But Slab City has a large population of anarcho-multiculturalists, whites who adopted ghetto and Hollywood values to an even greater extent than most.

White multiculturalists and self-contradictions go hand in hand. It would be amusing if it weren't so tragic and harmful.

That "Right Wing Authoritarianism" Study

PsyPost ran an article based on a recent study concluding that individuals high in "Right Wing Authoritarianism" score higher in meaning in life. PsyPost inserted a photo of individuals acting ridiculous at Unite the Right in case any reader did not get the hints.

A problem: here is a list of survey questions for such studies. The people who would score highest for Right Wing Authoritarianism are not nonmulticulturalists. Multicultural, neoconservative movement conservatives and probably some multicultural, philosemitic monarchists would score much higher, the sort of individuals who listen to Roosh V, Glenn Beck, Max Boot, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity or Dennis Prager.

For example, the first statement on the survey asks for agreement with "The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protestors are usually just 'loud mouths' showing off their ignorance." Nonmulticulturalists vehemently and ethically oppose "established authorities."

A bigger problem: governments run by multiculturalists caused more unjustifiable deaths over the past century than any other type of government. Nonmulticulturalist leaders committed to principles self-determination for all seldom commit aggression.

So why aren't social scientists more interested in studying why multiculturalists are so prone to unwarranted violence and tyranny, including multiculturalists who allegedly oppose hate and oppression?

Strange Partisans

If this were a film from generations ago, audiences would have rejected it for being too preposterous.

Donald Trump is president. Trump is on the same policy side as Never Trump Neoconservatives, but Never Trumpers hate Trump, partly because of Trump's slur filled demagoguery. Much of Trump's inner circle consists of individuals who would otherwise be Never Trumpers. Predictably, they stab Trump in the back once they resign or get fired. Witness the recent comments by John Kelly and Michael Cohen. Trump pretends to be on the rhetorical side of an assortment of non-wealthy conservatives, and they like Trump, but Trump has stabbed them in the back hundreds of times. Much of the former Alt Right has abandoned Trump. To top it off, Never Trumpers spew lots of slur dominated demagoguery themselves, albeit with differing targets than Trump.

Paul Krugman, no stranger to slur filled demagoguery, moved from lavish praise of Hillary Clinton, a New Democrat Neoconservative with a disastrous tenure as Secretary of State on her resume, to praise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, an individual prone to crypto Marxism, all without much apparent change to his own totalitarian ideology. The D next to Ocasio-Cortez's name matters more.

Barack Obama now claims his presidency was based on "facts, reason, and logic," though the percentage of his presidency based on logic was much closer to zero percent than 100 percent.

Meanwhile, George W. Bush, who produced a horrendous presidency, has had his "favorability" among Democrats go from "only 11% in February 2009 to a majority 54% now." One political but not ethical lesson: farm out many evil deeds to the likes of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz. Another: pretend to be altruistic with tokenistic acts. And another: act presidential even if it's only an act.

The ethical lesson: this colony has too many rotten cultures and dysgenic genes to produce rulers with well-reasoned political actions.

Break it up.

Nonmulticulturalism: Worth the Bother

Sometimes variations of the following question arise: why bother reading or writing nonmulticultural arguments when many forms of political participation are unavailable to nonmulticulturalists or produce counterproductive results? Almost all individuals who bribe politicians support dysgenics and anti-white tyranny. Similar views exist among the mass media and other institutions. They punish well-reasoned dissent. Street activism causes mass media to go into anti-white demonization frenzies, manipulating millions despite the onslaught of fallacies contained in mass media versions of events. It wouldn't surprise me if establishment politicians smile inwardly when street violence occurs.

So why bother?

Facing ethical facts has personal development value. Being in the habit of ignoring or rejecting well-reasoned ethical evidence tends to infest most of a person's worldview. Thus, Marxists, Neoconservatives, and various other establishments tend to be not just wrong about ethnoracial issues but massively wrong about the majority of issues.

Some research suggests that political participation increases happiness and boosts "participants' vitality levels."

What else should we do with spare time? Hedonistic activities are sometimes expensive. Even when not expensive, hedonism runs into the paradox of hedonism, where the direct pursuit of happiness produces long term unhappiness, not to mention alienation. (The pursuit of happiness through politics does not mean we should spend thousands of hours reading fallacious Alt Wrong memes for infotainment purposes.)

There's something grotesque about individuals who don't care about the well being of future generations. They are nihilistic and loathsome company.

We should help the millions of nonmulticultural newcomers make better choices. These individuals bring decades of intellectual baggage with them. If we don't provide them with good arguments, they will settle for totalitarian garbage such as Hitlerism or Civic Nationalism, the latter a euphemism for slightly altered Libertarian Neoconservatism. Some newcomers are cheap political dates. They settle for a slight improvements on a handful of issues. If we ignore the ad hominem filled Twitter distractions and focus on policy, the Trump presidency resembles a third term from George W. Bush.

It matters little to them that political opportunists have been betraying their voting bases for generations. These newcomers brought the my political team right or wrong mindset with them. That mindset has got to go.

What politicians have done for years matters, not what they say they will do once in office. What individuals did they hang out with? What individuals did they get money from? What individuals have they helped? How much time did they spend on shameless self-aggrandizement? Barack Obama choosing Joe Lieberman as a mentor and taking large Wall Street donations in 2008 were gigantic red flags. Donald Trump's donor class, choices of advisers, and refusal to knowingly meet with any nonmulticulturalists were also massive red flags. Not surprisingly, Trump rewarded his donor class. Trump likely pushed the Overton Window in one direction while campaigning and in a reverse direction while in office. Trump is on a nearly identical political side as Never Trump Neoconservatives, yet those Trump has consistently betrayed remain Trump's staunchest supporters, an astounding absurdity of the present situation.

It's not enough to recognize that races and cultures have differing ethical characteristics. If individuals keep falling for blatant con artistry, something is massively wrong with them, especially the ideas they permit to enter and dominate their brains.

The current establishments are so wrong that they will eventually cause disasters, not merely long declines. We must have millions of individuals already prepared to fill the void with good ideas, especially a willingness to fight off egoism. Human history is replete with free riders being replaced by new free riders pretending to be reformers. The U.S. constitution contains several excellent ideas, for example, the First and Second Amendments in the Bill of Rights. But the constitution left out dozens of ethically and legally important ethnoracial rules. In a future article, I will cover some ideas a constitution should contain.

Avoiding Humble, Passive-Aggressive Con Artistry

'Tis the season for dealing with relationships--good and bad.

Many arguments warn us about what are euphemistically called fast men and fast women. More difficult to detect are individuals devoted to subtle, manipulative psychological and evolutionary egoisms, especially during falling in love periods when they feign being reciprocal altruists. Such individuals are sometimes described as nice, pious, humble, hard working, and family oriented by acquaintances. Former partners are less effusive. Feigners will be most motivated to hide their characters when opportunities to exploit a sugar daddies or sugar mommas exist.

How do we separate humble, ethical, hard working reciprocal altruists from those feigning such traits? What are some warning signs behind the humble, manipulative masks?

Often feigners appear to be good ones among bunches of bad kin. Feeling compassion for a potential partner's terrible family situation is not a good reason for a romantic relationship. Why? First, the feigned good ones often regress to their behavioral means after falling in love periods. They'll blame others because their relationships did not meet their fantasy expectations. "So disappointed." Second, bad kin gradually make spouses' lives hellish. In the long run, many feigners will take the side of terrible kin over spouses and other non kin. Third, if they are actually good, but have bad kin, such good ones still carry terrible genes, which will often be expressed in children or grandchildren.

Feigners are seldom cruel enough to treat service workers poorly, but often treat such workers with indifference, unless the service worker is sexually attractive.

Feigners talk often about hopes, plans, and goals but do not put massive efforts into achieving them.

Feigners treat artistic or religious assertions as if they override well-reasoned ethical conclusions, for example, the belief that birth control is a violation of God's will--as their relatives give birth to dysgenic offspring. Watch for very, very narrow pre-conceptions of what constitutes ethical issues.

Watch for contradictions: they feign great interest in your more substantial, well-reasoned intellectual pursuits but remain overly fascinated in celebrities, TV news, pop psychology, spectator sports, and other aspects of mass cultures, treating hedonistic lifestyles as cool, edifying or empowering. Once they get the ring they lose interest in your pursuits, preferring the intuitive appeal of mass cultures. Then what will you talk about over dinner? They'll praise their low character relatives, but during moments of frustration, when one kin harms another, they'll reveal truths that contradict the praise. Feigners exhibit excessive grouchiness over their own minor illnesses such as small cuts, but lack sufficient compassion for health problems experienced by non kin, including spouses. Feigners excessively or inaccurately criticize acquaintances behind their backs while making excuses for terrible behavior by self and close biological kin.

Many who describe themselves as family oriented are often merely family oriented toward close biological kin.

The fact that individuals work 40 plus hours per work is some evidence but not sufficient evidence that they have good work ethics. Being stuck in ethical, low paying jobs because of outside circumstances is acceptable. But do they treat physical effort as drudgery despite having no physical disabilities? Do they work as slowly as they can get away with? Do they take an excessive number of days off work because they don't feel like working? Are they often late to work? Such feigners seek partners to rescue them into a couch potato lifestyle. A good person is self-possessed, a go getter, having little interest in wasting hundreds of hours sunbathing, watching TV or using Facebook. Some individuals are intimidated by go getters, even when they themselves are go getters. Don't be.

I should briefly mention politics. Politically, feigners cause mass destruction, including via their support for mass dysgenic, non white immigration with small sample images of allegedly pious, humble non white women and children, seldom mentioning those women and children are prone to great evils, especially as the children age.

Even in countries where most migrants are on welfare, media and economists keep insisting that non white migrants are humble, hard working, economically beneficial, and beneficial in other ways--and will "pay for retirements."

Their descendants will be far worse.

Suspicious Economic Statistics

While evidence of increased inequality is overwhelming, other economic survey research looks more suspicious.

Inequality has generally increased during Republican presidencies and decreased during Democratic presidencies, but New Democrats don't advertise the fact that inequality also increased during most of Obama's presidency. New Democrats pull a slight of hand, trying to take credit for gains correlated with long gone presidents, having differing policies.

Democrats have been wedded to the narrative that wages for nonwealthy workers have "stagnated" for decades because evidence of decline would make their own neoliberal, free riding policies look bad, though Republican neoliberal policies are much worse.

Part of this seems driven by the intuition that median per hour wages have increased simply because people now have more toys, ignoring that individuals have more toys because values changed, more wives work now, individuals have fewer children to support, and the nation is older, meaning more individuals have had more years of collecting toys, not to mention wealthy economists simply generalizing from the small sample, availability error of their own circumstances.

Among Consumer Price Index errors, hedonic pricing appears to be a major contributor, especially when applied to housing. Technologies that are more harmful and habit forming should not be treated as hedonic pricing positives. This and other errors leads to alternative Consumer Price Indexes.

Turning to unemployment and some other issues, unrepresentative sampling is a big problem: Because of increases in caller ID and illegal telemarketer calls, a large percentage of working class individuals do not answer phone calls from strange numbers or numbers outside their area codes. Many have pre-pay, pay per minute plans. Almost every time such individuals answer a call it costs them a minimum of ten cents per minute. Since the top one percent today mostly engages in free riding and dark triad activities, they are also less likely to answer calls from strange numbers. Upper middle class individuals, individuals with middle class values, are more likely to be helpful on the phone, making such individuals over sampled.

We have neocolonial establishments that produced thousands of fallacious statistics that we were winning the various counterinsurgency wars, that nonwhite immigration is beneficial, that racial diversity is also beneficial, that genetic factors should be ignored or discounted when doing research, that epigenetics is massively important, that priming has big effects, that early childhood environmental factors have huge impacts on adult behavior, etc. Why should we simply simply assume their economic stats are accurate when economics is not far from sociology and criminology in junk science tendencies?