The Character of Multicultural Establishmentism

It is fascinating that almost every multiculturalist also supports rent seeking, a euphemism for parasitism, on other issues. No matter whether they call themselves liberals, conservatives or something else, when individuals dive into the xenocentrism rat hole, general ethics suffers.

Reformers hate evils in societies while acting with deep commitment to bettering lives. Followers of Hitlerism, multiculturalism, and other totalitarianisms hate the people in societies while they themselves pretend to be holy. The former make societies better, the latter make mass destruction.

Have anyone ever met anyone else who wanted to improve the lives of individuals they hate, no matter how misplaced the hate?

Sure, they talk about reforms, but their actions betray them.

Oddly, once the mask slipped, Kevin Williamson and some other multiculturalists decided to yank it off.

Those unable to experience cognitive dissonance on massively cognitive dissonance causing multiculturalism simply aren't able or willing to experience cognitive dissonance on other political issues. They might tell the truth in their personal lives simply out of self-interest, to avoid being dumped by friends and family. But in the the political realm, they're rewarded for spewing fallacies and living contradiction filled lives.

The next time the establishment narrative on a major issue is correct it will be the first time in the past half century the establishment narrative on a major issue was correct.

Think about that. Most individuals living today have never ever seen their rulers do the right things on a major issue.

Establishment thought is wedded to a one dimensional view of totalitarianism, with Stalinism at one end and Hitlerism on the other of an imaginary spectrum. In reality, multitudes of totalitarianisms exist, including autocracy, Armageddonism, neoconservatism, multiculturalism, crypto jihadism, third wayism, robber baronism, flat earthism, and dysgenic fanaticism.

We pay a huge price for this every day when these additional totalitarianisms are viewed as moderate.

If You Deliberately Wanted to Destroy the West and Its People

1. You would promote migration by nonwhites, but not too much, too fast because that would cause a quick collapse, then expulsion of the nonwhites. You'd want the apocryphal frogs in pots to feel pleasantly warm, as if they were falling asleep in a whirlpool bath. You'd emphasize migration by poor character, fast breeding nonwhites. But you'd mix in some higher character nonwhites to use as poster children and to help prevent a quick collapse.
2. You would try to make biocultural Marxism off limits to criticism, especially its policy prescriptions. 
3. You'd have some multiculturalists act as tough minded assimilationists, though there are few policy and consequentialist differences between assimilationists and other multiculturalists.
4. You'd get whites to hate one another and to hate their ancestors for specious reasons.
5. You'd redefine patriotism as support for globalism, cultural Marxism, reckless militarism, and following orders.
6. You'd take over every major Western institution from within.
7. You'd try to make dysgenics off limits to criticism and eugenics off limits to fact facing.
8. You'd welcome Muslim migration to China, Russia, and the West, so those nukes eventually end up with Muslim fingers on the switches. In the meantime, you'd encourage misanthropism, so egoism and reckless militarism controls the nukes. You'd call criticism of bioweapon engineering a violation of scientific freedom.
9. You'd distract the population with hedonism and techno-utopianism.
10. You'd create policy and environmental circumstances that are pro-natal for nonwhites and anti-natal for whites.
11. You'd praise interracial couples as an ideal, but only when the male half of the couple is nonwhite or Muslim or both.
12. You'd promote massive economic redistribution to globalized pseudo-citizens at the top.
13. You'd use policy and culture to encourage polygamy, endogamy, philandering, and single parenting. You'd make philandering look like sophisticated aestheticism.
14. You'd encourage useful followers to fight on behalf of the things destroying them.

In short, you'd do pretty much what the establishments are doing right now.

The Alien Wants to Know

If an alien arrived on earth and wanted a very, very short summary on human ethics, the following principles would help him quickly develop a better worldview than many professional opinion makers have after decades of opinion making:

1. The prescriptions of Hitlerism, cultural Marxism, and economic Marxism are almost always wrong.
2. The prescriptions of neoclassical economics and foreign policy interventionism are mostly wrong.
3. Media, schools, governments, and other businesses will try to browbeat you into believing official myths. Don't let them. The best arguments and solutions to ethical problems are often found on obscure websites, often by writers demonized by powerful interests. Almost everything in the mass media is there for entertainment or bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw purposes. Or both.
4. Secessions and democracies are good things, but both are rare on earth because of the power of globalism, neoconservatism, third wayism, cultural Marxism, and bad religions, including secular quasi-religions.
5. Secessions and democracies are necessary to prevent to utter takeover of the planet by genes and individuals devoted to egoism and misplaced altruism, often both in the same individual.
6. The most important human philosophical goods in order of importance are a) ethical character, b) freedom, c) respect, and d) purposefulness. Character includes ethical reasoning performance and political justice, not merely being a good family member. It is not the same as merely being a nice guy or gal. Character entails a love for good actions and individuals. Freedom includes strength of will and personal freedom from destructive outside forces, plus freedom of association for both solitary individuals and individuals in groups. Respect includes the basic self-respect we owe ourselves and the respect we owe other conscious beings. An obsequious person lacks sufficient self-respect. Autocracies and kleptocracies lack self-respect for others. Respect should not include admiring individuals merely because they are famous, wealthy or powerful. Purposefulness includes living with zest, not succumbing to constant bouts of ennui, anxiety, alienation, rumination or laziness. Purposefulness contains a deep emotive attachment to life and our missions in life.

Trading Down

So "free" trade is supposed to benefit us with minor improvements in efficiency due to specialization and economics of scale. The fact that such trade redistributes even more wealth and power to individuals at the top doesn't bother globalists. That's a legalized bribery bonus for the thought leaders. It doesn't seem to bother globalists that these are individuals committed to treason (George Soros, Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush) and foreigners committed to our destruction (Prince Bandar, Carlos Slim, Xi Jinping).

We could magically re-redistribute their gains elsewhere.

Those with unjust wealth and power will somehow give wealth and power away based on evidence despite their long, long histories of not being influenced by well-reasoned evidence.

Having important industries and the knowledge base of those industries destroyed is another bonus.

Nor do shortfalls in demand, sometimes known as depressions and recessions, bother globalists. Neither do the harmful items traded (oil, diamonds, celebrity worship, human trafficking among many). The branch of ethics called economics somehow trumps all the other branches of ethics. Heck, it's not even good economics. Comparative advantage is somehow the trump card.

Just wave that magic wand.

They Get Away with It

For the past several decades, many politicians have acted on an interplay of three unspoken questions:

1. Is it what I want?
2. Is it what my financial sponsors want?
3. Can I get away with it?

If the answer to all three is yes, then politicians do it.

They don't eliminate capital gains taxes and raise payroll taxes to 60 percent of work income because they can't get away with it. An anti-ruler war would result.

What the people want is considered irrelevant, except when the people have been propagandized into wanting what establishments want.

Tony Blair, Angela Merkel, and George W. Bush are paradigm cases of this behavior, Bush having almost no moral accomplishments during his reign, except the Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Monument and a few other policies.

The slur barrages directed at holders on non-establishment beliefs represent an aspect of the establishment assault on democracy. Establishments cannot criticize democracy itself without exposing their oligarchism. So instead, they demonize the people to bolster their support for their own corruptions as if to say, "We have a right to do as we please because you're so horrible. You don't deserve anything. We're better than you, and that makes us good."

Humans almost always think their political actions are justified. 

Politicians will dig up junk science, deontological assertions, and other fallacious rhetoric to justify what they prefer. 

**********

Even public libraries have become corrupted shells.

Cities buy expensive new libraries to replace adequate buildings. But inside the architectural fantasy buildings, the Internet is often worse than dial up and the book selection abysmal and getting worse.

Spending on materials declined from 25 percent of library spending in 1942 to 11.7 percent in 2010. Even if major publishers were willing to publish copies of non-establishment books, few libraries would buy them. Librarians are near uniform in support for cultural Marxism and other establishment ideologies. They put up displays about the horrors of censorship, but think little about one-sided acts of omission.

Bruce Bartlett's Familiar Quotations

Bruce Bartlett, a disciple of Jude Wanniski, spouts establishment totalitarianism, er, narratives again:

Our system of government works best when it is balanced between roughly equal political parties, one on the center-right and the other on the center-left.

Unfortunately, what we have is a centrist Democratic Party and a far-right Republican Party.

Wrong.

There is no such thing as a one-dimensional political spectrum. And the kleptocratic system has not worked well for over half a century, especially via those Bartlett considers center-left and center-right. One increased problem now is that the terrible decisions made decades ago are causing increasingly worse consequences now than in the past, for example, the 1965 immigration law.

And how can the Tea Party be both "f*r right" and "[not] easily characterized as either right or left in terms of policy?"

The Tea Party resulted from astroturfing by the same Republican establishment that Bartlett often praises.

The Democratic Party will nominate Hillary Clinton, a third way neoconservative, for the presidency. What does Clinton politically have in common with Ferdinand Pecora? Not much. How does Clinton qualify as whatever a "centrist" is?

Mark Thoma and other third way economists act as if Reagan fan Bartlett is a superb guy. Democratic economists seem to prefer Bartlett over heterodox independent economists. In some minds, being a slight Republican heretic makes you more worthy of attention than those who were right far more often.

By my count Bartlett's argument contains at least 25 logical fallacies, often abusive ad hominem attacks.

Many years ago Bartlett wrote an article about a technical issue in economics that I've since forgotten, which I can no longer find. But I remembered what Bartlett did. Bartlett appeared to thoroughly present two sides of the issue, as if he were being the most even handed man in the world. Yet, on this issue, there was one counter premise that would have demolished Bartlett's conclusion. Bartlett almost certainly could not have known all those other counter premises without knowing the main counter premise. But Bartlett left that main counter premise out.

What sort of man does that? Bruce Bartlett. That's who.

Partners: Evolution at the Relationship Level

Living beings exist on an  r/K continuum. Here, r refers to rapid practices to spread genes. Bacteria and dandelions are r practitioners.

Northeast Asians are K practitioners, investing heavily in few offspring.

I prefer to use the phrase r/K practices over r/K strategies because genes are incapable of strategies and many individuals are unconscious of their practices. JP Rushton's chart details evolutionary practices for three human races. Africans are closer to the r end of the spectrum.

After a few days or years of a relationship, individuals toward the r end feel rage at their spouses or partners for petty reasons. Sometimes the rage wells up from seemingly nowhere. The more self-controlled among them do not escalate to violence. They assume fault lies with the partner or figure the relationship is not a good match.

Yet earlier in relationships, they somehow fell in love or convinced themselves the relationships were worth pursuing. They fell for empty, heartfelt promises when warning signs abounded.

Those toward the r end use ad hominem attacks with their partners. Unlike the political realm where slurs easily manipulate, partners resist. Mutual contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling infect their relationships. They expect partners with feet of clay to provide endless amusement. They seldom assign self-blame for their own boredom or anxieties or character defects.

They look to save face and make partners villains.

In one night stands, there is often no rage, merely a little awkwardness the next day. The same goes for friends with benefits. Some may adopt an ironic triumphalism to mitigate awkwardness. High fives all around.

Pump-and-dump.

Time for a new partner.

"But don't you dare criticize my wanton, unconscious, mass destructive dysgenic escapades with your eugenic thinking. I can criticize you, but you can't criticize me."

Genetically adapted ("fit") behavior is not synonymous with genetically better or ethically better behavior. It's simply the practice that might leave the most copies of the same gene years from now. Some behaviors have no purpose at all.

Many r practitioners are not vaguely aware of being at the mercy of genes and environments. Others are fully aware they want to spread genes. Many low IQ tribal members understand seed spreading better than wealthy aesthetes.

"I did the work of making all these babies. Someone else should provide for them."

Egoism and misplaced altruism are both disastrous for societies and ethical individuals. Misplaced altruism is often worse than street crimes.

Humans generally engage in assortative mating, that is, mating with those similar to themselves. But r practitioners love tricking K practitioners, among others, into breeding. In ethical societies, r practitioners are severely punished for tricking or failing to provide. In unethical societies, they are rewarded. Societies decay. Contemporary propaganda from political, Hollywood, and Madison Avenue leaves many individuals vulnerable to exploitation.

An individual must make radical belief and environmental improvements to evade corrupting erosions, often with little outside help.

Even hate has an ethical purpose. Hating evils provides motivation, often enough to avoid corrupting erosions. In just wars, those with the most hate fight the hardest. They are more efficient. They have the most will to survive. They are less likely to have misplaced alienation and devotion.

But misplaced hatred leads to massive harms, especially in the political and personal relationship arenas.

Instead of clear, ethical individual roles, confusion and destruction reign. But there are ways out.

At the hedonic level, the promise of more fun seldom matches the reality. Individuals not predisposed to the dark triad (narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism) copy the fashionable dark triad practices of peers and celebrities, leading to abysmal results. Direct attempts at happiness lead to unhappiness and character destruction, the double paradoxes of hedonism.

Pursuing ethical goals, an indirect method, causes greater happiness as a side effect, the paradox of character. Partners pursuing shared ethical goals transcend self-defeating quests for hedonism.

The 100 Percent Rules

Friendly reminder: 100 percent of OIC states are totalitarian, 100 percent of racially diverse empires became long-term moral disasters, 100 percent of majority Muslim states subjugate infidels, and 100 percent of oligarchies in racially diverse lands use divide-and-rule practices.

Any legitimate historical expert would tell you these facts if only they gave a crap about moral truths.

If I were a billionaire, I'd slap these facts on billboards.

We don't need in depth causal factor analysis to see these facts, though sometimes analyzing causal factors is helpful. No matter the multitudes of genetic and environmental causal factors, the long-term results are similar.

To rephrase Orwell, the hardest and most important things to see are sometimes right in front of our noses.

Where Things Stand

The increase in pro-Western beliefs, evidenced by increases in alternative right political candidates that would have been improbable 30 years ago, does not seem to be causing massive overall declines in support for cultural Marxism within the former United States, especially among college freshmen.

Direct measures of support for cultural Marxism are difficult to find. A decent proxy measure for multicultural support is support for restricting free speech. One ongoing poll hints that restriction support remains roughly constant, at around 60 percent. (The use of the self-contradicting R-word slur in the article does not help.)

The overall number of whites fleeing cultural Marxism appears to roughly equal the number of nonwhites imported into the cultural Marxian fold.

It will be intriguing to see what the 2016 poll finds.

Seventy-one percent of U.S. college freshmen in 2015 supported speech restrictions, the highest level since such polling began.

(When I was a naive teenager and heard an individual attended a prestigious university, I thought, wow, that individual must be far superior to me. Now, when I hear individuals attended a prestigious university, I imagine individuals devoted to egoism, careerism, groupthink, fanaticism, cultural Marxism, and general moral cluelessness, despite having far more IQ, educational, and other advantages than myself.)

Alternatives to multiculturalism still have a long, long way to go. Despite improvements, no alternative right website ranks anywhere near the top in Quantcast website visitor rankings for 2016. Amren ranks 30,259 and Vdare 30,971.

The power of unethical taboos is immense.

Daniel Pipes, and several other semi-alternative sites do manage higher ranks, but are hardly pro-Western.

Evidence on migration issues is hopeful.

But most Westerners remain unaware of ethnoracial facts. Listening to establishment thinkers talk about ethnoracial issues is a surreal experience, worse than listening to children talk about chemical engineering would be. Rachel Maddow is still a household name. JP Rushton is not. Trump tapped immigration patriot ideas, but multitudes of other ethnoracial issues are neglected.

Reddit and similar sites provide side benefits for cultural Marxism. Individuals visit Reddit for entertainment, then get subtly or splenetically indoctrinated with anti-white narratives in most political subreddits. "I'm going to hell for this," and similar subreddits do not help, making the alternative right look cruel to ordinary Redditors, serving as convenient straw persons. The HBD, European, and New Right subreddits have few visitors compared to the 234 million unique visitors Reddit received per month in 2015 (if Wikipedia's source is accurate).

Establishment propaganda techniques are powerful, almost never letting a crisis go to waste, meaning redirecting the crisis response toward nefarious agendas, especially "security measure" profiteering.

Some writers might emphasize group polarization in the multicultural divide. But most of the alternative right might be less polarized. In establishment lingo, alt righters are big tent moderates compared to the neoconservatives who dominated conservative parties for decades. Newcomers to the nonmulticultural left and alternative right are simply starting to face facts despite lifelong indoctrination and intimidation tactics. The group polarization model does fit multiculturalism.

Kudos to the race realists who have brought us this far. Seriously.

The long, hard, happy work to escape the death grips of cultural Marxism is still in its infancy. But it beats wasting our lives reading puns on Reddit.