Genocidal Contradictions

Multiculturalists claim to oppose cultural and genetic genocide. Yet the peoples most at risk of cultural or genetic genocides or are the peoples multiculturalists and their allies actively try to genocide--whites, Copts, Mandeans, Tibetans, Yezidis, etc.

The peoples least at risk of genocide--Jews, Africans, Hispanics, Muslim Arabs, and many Asians--are the protected peoples and the peoples working hardest to genocide whites.

As on most ethnoracial other issues, multiculturalists' beliefs about genocide are riddled with despicable self-contradictions. And I doubt most multiculturalists have the genetic and cultural wherewithal to notice or fix their wrongs. Their causes matter more to them than noticing or fixing contradictions.

The Missing Truths

Most multiculturalists tell the truth most of the time. The problem is that their truths are irrelevant or otherwise fallacious, including straw person attacks, especially errors of omission. Other irrelevancies include appeals to origins, novelty, popularity, momentum, and most ad hominem attacks.

Some reasoning errors result from historical causal factors. A causal factor is a factor that changes the probability of thing(s) occurring. The legacy of slavery is a causal factor. It increased probabilities of various African-American behaviors, mainly because without slavery most African-Americans would not be in America. But the legacy of slavery is seldom an ethically important causal factor today. Nearly all of it cannot be undone. A big current legacy of slavery is unethical white guilt, not the sort of legacy multiculturalists mention.

On another side, manorial feudalism was a causal factor. But manorial feudalism cannot be undone and manorial feudalism is not coming back. Manorial feudalism is ethically unimportant now.

Multitudes of currently unimportant factors changed history. Everything from super volcanos to the acts of powerful individuals. In general, historical causal factors are seldom ethically important today, except when used in studies to make prescriptions, explain current actions, and predict future actions.

Other historical factors, the MAOA gene variants, for example, are with us today and their frequencies can and should be changed. They are very, very important.

In addition to irrelevancies, the other major category of "true fallacy," is the small sample fallacy. Mass media and cultural Marxian wars against whites sometimes rely on small sample fallacies, often cases of police attacks on African-Americans. But nonmulticulturalists know the reality that African-Americans are dozens of times more likely to commit stranger-on-stranger, interracial assaults. And those assaults will rise exponentially as whites become weaker and less numerous, with massive support from Muslims, Asians, and Hispanics.

In mass media and cultural Marxism:
1. It's true that small sample fallacy X happened.
2. Therefore white guilt and holy war against whites.
3. Mass destruction and anti-white genocide.
4. Profit.

Every establishment political ideology is cover for rent seeking.

Other types of true fallacies include circular claims, misleading stats, and unrepresentative sampling.

Sometimes multiculturalists make good points, but then try to use the good points to support atrocious conclusions, often because they know almost nothing about alternative prescriptions. No matter the situation, they see more establishmentism and cultural Marxism as solutions. The fixation on prescribing more wrongs as solutions is a feature of all types of totalitarianism. Their straw person attacks also often result from the fact they know almost nothing about the alternative right and other political alternatives.

When multiculturalists make outright false claims, multiculturalists still think they are telling the truth, primarily because humans tend to believe the truth is what they hear first and most often. And multiculturalists dominate nearly all the mass media. Groupthink, avoidance of ostracization, and absence of cognitive dissonance add to the likelihoods of telling falsehoods.

Gene Genie: Don't Let Yourself Go

Let's imagine person X with the world's best genes for ethical character. Person X shares 99.5 percent of her genes with person Y and 99 percent of her genes with person Z. But X shares nearly all her best character genes with Z while Y has two mutations that have a high probability of causing major evils.

By ethical character, I do not mean individuals prone to misplaced altruism and establishment respectable egoism. I do not mean those the mass media worship. I mean someone who reasons well and acts on well-reasoned ethical conclusions.

Person X would be right to help Z reproduce, before helping Y reproduce, though she shares more genes with Y, all else being equal. Genes for earlobes and other non-moral traits should not matter to us, except when they affect health. In short, we should care most about health and character related genes when making reproductive decisions, not overall genetic similarity of junk genes and other unimportant genes.

If high IQs make individuals more ethical, then we should support IQ eugenics for ethical reasons. If it is someday proven that genotypic IQs above 150 cause sufficient harms or insufficient benefits, then we should reduce the birth rates of above 150 IQ individuals.

Some individuals might select for genes related to beauty and other traits, but there is no moral imperative for doing so. In many cases, selection for non-moral traits could lead to mutually destructive status competitions, for example, producing millions of extra tall athletes, having health problems, competing for a handful of professional sports jobs.

We would be more right to help some peaceful cetaceans than nonwhites waging demographic and other unconventional wars against whites, though we share more genes with nonwhites than cetaceans.

The above is not an argument for whites to breed with nonwhites. Why? Biracial children have more health and behavior problems. Mixed race children adopt the dominant culture of anti-white bigotry. Mixed race children cause massive harms to their white parents and whites in general. They often make a white parent's life living hell. They're not bundles of joy when they become teenagers. Biracial children do not respect the difficult task of improving Western Civilization. Every land dominated by biracial individuals is or was a divide-and-rule disaster. Parents are more cruel to mixed race children once the warm, fuzzy multicultural superiority feelings wear off. Parents care about children in proportion to how closely related the children are to the parents. Mixed race children, having black fathers, are born out of wedlock and abandoned by their fathers overwhelmingly often.

And it is no argument for nonwhite immigration, since almost all conscious, nonwhite adults support anti-white totalitarianism, plus multiracial states are almost always long-term disasters.

White women can almost always find a healthy, higher character white man or sperm sample to breed with if they make an honest effort to do so. White men without decent white women should not breed in Western countries or should do so by sperm donation. In most cases, the problem is lack of effort. Most whites who make an good effort to interact with thousands of other whites, and ask many whites on dates, will find decent to excellent spouses.

What about rights? A legal right to miscegenation exists in many countries. That does not make it a moral right. No moral right to cause self and others undeserved harms exists. A key point about well-reasoned moral claims is that they override other claims. For example, saving a good life overrides the right to make a good painting.

Status and Cultural Marxism

More than the political system is threatened by inconvenient facts. Most respected individuals in contemporary societies have been exposed for engaging in evils and unmitigated buffoonery. How do we not laugh at every establishment celebrity?

In the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century, humans gained status by hundreds of methods, including:

1. having expensive consumer junk.
2. being athletic in team sports or at least cheering for the same teams as peers.
3. being nonwhite.
4. being cool.
5. being famous.
6. having a white collar job.
7. having a degree from a prestigious university.
8. practicing popular pedantry.
9. practicing egoism mixed with xenocentrism if white ("virtue" signaling).

Alternative righters and other nonmulticulturalists threaten all nine on that list, status emperors with no moral clothes.

Alternative righters prefer prepping over consumer junk. Arbitrary sports teams don't matter much when your country is being conquered and subjugated by unconventional warfare. Nonmulticulturalists aren't fooled by assertions of noble savagery. Coolness is little more than banal shtick. Most white collar jobs are drudgery. Prestigious universities charge students massive sums to be indoctrinated. Establishment writings deserve derision. Xenocentrism is increasingly and correctly seen as vice, not virtue.

Almost any white adult tainted by unrepented cultural Marxism gets the low status treatment from the alternative right.

Establishmentism relies on the folk psychology of special people, cultivating the impression that establishment individuals are wiser and better than other humans. Unfortunately, for the establishments, nonmulticulturalists know quite a bit about psychology and philosophy, often more than psychologists, philosophers, and establishment writers, at least on the important issues.

In the 1960s and 1970s, baby boomers mocked traditional sources of status, but were co-opted for various reasons, including the fact that the fashionable utopian attempts were worse than establishment utopianism.

Nonmulticulturalists must channel rising skepticism about establishments into something better. We must not fall for those who sell out or pursue their own evils.

In part, opposition to cultural Marxism represents a partial return to acquiring status for moral actions. In some prior societies, you gained status by being a dedicated mother or father to several children. You gained status when each hand washed the other. You gained status for telling a larger portion of the truth. Even if you knew little about logic, you weren't easily distracted or intimidated by demonization from outgroups.

This is likely to return.

Multiculturalists are already apoplectic about the fact that their demonization tactics aren't working as well as they once did.

Marc Mezvinsky, Wall Street, and the Clintons

The hedge fund of Chelsea Clinton's husband, Marc Mezvinsky, collapsed after making a preposterous bet that Greece's economy would rebound in the face of grinding austerity.

The above suggests one of the following is likely:

1. Bill or Hillary (or both) had information that Greece would get an adequate rescue, which reached Chelsea's husband, but the rescue fell apart. 
2. Mezvinsky believes in the cleansing powers of austerity for reasons that have nothing to do with the Clintons. 
3. Bill or Hillary (or both) believe in the cleansing powers of austerity, which they imparted to Chelsea's husband.

The Clintons are partners with Wall Street, the Peterson Institute, and other austerity supporting groups. Bill supported reckless budget surpluses and trade deficits in the 1990s, both increased private sector debts and bubbles via accounting identity, both are commonly supported by pro-bubble and pro-austerity forces. Bill also supported financial deregulation. In Kentucky, Hillary informed us: "My husband, who I’m going to put in charge of revitalising the economy, because you know he knows how to do it."

Now Hillary is even more psychologically in debt to Wall Street after seeing her Wall Street partners lose with her son-in-law. "I gave your son-in-law my money, and I didn't even get a t-shirt." Lloyd Blankfein doesn't invest money with a neophyte hedge fund for fun and games. The Clintons have a history of rewarding donors.

Introducing Alternatives to a Smart Individual

Let's imagine you know a bookish person starting to show doubts about her beloved cultural Marxism. Like most bookish individuals, she thinks she's open minded. She regards intellectual outgroups with kneejerk contempt while viewing herself as tolerant. She thinks she has most of the moral universe figured out.

But you and I know better than that. We know she believes based on manipulation. She is far from being who she thinks she is.

How should you go about introducing her to nonmulticulturalism? You don't want to scare her away with poorly reasoned rants. 

If she wants books, I would suggest The Nurture Assumption by Judith Rich Harris first, then Race, Evolution, and Behavior by JP Rushton, then Future Human Evolution by John Glad.

If her fanaticism hasn't yet overpowered her, and sent her fleeing, then I would introduce her to some edgier stuff: The Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald and Gregory Hood's upcoming book.

Maybe she prefers internet articles. I would start with the Judith Rich Harris homepage, then Cousin Marriage Conundrum by Steve Sailer. Most Americans despise the Iraq War by now, so she won't need to move her soul far. I'd continue with this book review, then some stuff by JP Rushton, plus Thomas Jackson's archives, then Gregory Hood's archives here and here, then Amren print archives, then some resources on secessions.

At some point, she might realize she has been told too many political lies via the mass media.

Let's hope that this realization motivates her. Let's hope she doesn't get bogged down in genetic infotainment. Let's hope she continues to move toward supporting ethnoracial self-determination.

It's time for her to grow.

Public Intellectuals

Greg Cochran devoted a post to naming "ideal" public intellectuals. Note that Cochran doesn't name anyone in his original post, which hints at what Cochran thinks of other public intellectuals. Many commenters nominated intellectuals having mediocre to atrocious writings. Only a few commenters named Cochran while others named intellectuals with inferior track records to Cochran.

I doubt Cochran was fishing for compliments, but the results should irk him.

The Future We Make

The short, charitable version of the multicultural manifesto: all should be ethically judged on the content of their characters, nothing else.

We live a planet with more than three billion nonwhite adults. How many nonwhite adults oppose anti-white bigotry: Frank Salter, Jewamongyou, and some others, probably totalling fewer than 1,000. Even Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams act more multicultural than not.

Nearly all the remainder, no matter how kind they act on the surface, believe in freedom of association for nonwhites but not whites, migrant invasions of white nations but not nonwhite nations, blood guilt for whites but not nonwhites, and multitudes of other contradictory ideas, not to mention the piles of other fallacious rhetoric spouting from cultural Marxism.

So, apparently, nearly all nonwhites find it nearly impossible to treat whites as full humans. How can we have multiracial societies based on individuals being judged by the content of their characters when nearly all nonwhites refuse to do so? Why try to create said societies when nearly all nonwhites are genetically and culturally predisposed to poor character on ethnoracial issues?

Future genetic engineering might not help matters among nonwhites. Nonwhite parents will likely engineer their children for higher IQs, increased familism, and increased egoism. They don't want their children acting white.

The love and tolerance rhetoric has made almost no dent among nonwhites. Such rhetoric mostly makes whites more gullible and easier to exploit.

Nonwhites have made their own dysgenic and totalitarian choices. Let them suffer the consequences of their own choices. They will not reform themselves when whites keep rewarding them for evil actions. And whites will not reform themselves when they keep supporting multicultural, divide-and-screw rulers.

Millions of white children and future generations depend on the decisions we make now.

Two for Tea and Eugenics for Thee

All large societies have no fertility alternatives but to practice eugenics or dysgenics (or both), whether the societies realize it.

Some examples of hidden eugenics or dysgenics:
Pensions: a method for childfree, farsighted individuals to obtain care from others in old age while avoiding the costs of childrearing themselves. In the past, adult children provided for their elderly parents.

Seniority based pay: makes children more expensive for young individuals. Harmful mutations increase with age. Older parents pass on more harmful mutations. Female fertility plummets past age 28, affecting the total fertility rate of women postponing childbirth.

Welfare: rewards low IQ, low character individuals for having more children.

Migration: low IQ or low character (or both) nonwhites migrate to the West.

Reckless Wars: altruists often die on behalf of those genetically predisposed to egoism. The eugenic or dysgenic effects vary widely depending on who volunteers or gets drafted or makes the decisions.

Austerity: uncertainty, lower incomes, and postponement of childbirth.

Cultural Marxism: pressures whites to mate with low IQ, low character nonwhites, causes many other whites to see their own fertility as an impediment to a better world rather than as a solution for creating a better world.

Religion: contemporary religions spread dysgenic Sharia and cultural Marxian ideas.

Computers at prisons: online dating sites make it easier for prisoners to set up relationships that produce children after release or during conjugal visits.

Environmentalism: now dominated by cultural Marxism. Encourages whites to avoid childbirth while acting too feckless to oppose migration and population explosions by nonwhites.

Miseducation: status symbol college degrees create immense direct and opportunity costs, making families unaffordable, often creating debt peonage.

Finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE): huge direct and opportunity costs to society while making childbearing families less affordable.

Wrecked public schools: dysgenic breeding forces good parents to homeschool or send children to private schools, leaving parents having good genes with less money for additional children. Forces parents to labor and compete fiercely for spots in decent schools and neighborhoods having fewer neighbors of poor breeding. A vicious spiral.

Helicopter parenting: parents have fewer children while investing in destructive, economically expensive childrearing activities and status competitions.

Nurture assumptions: low IQ, low character, high self-esteem individuals think they can have and mold great offspring when a look at themselves and their relatives indicates bad news. Nurture assumptions cause children to blame their parents parenting instead of taking control of their own lives and their fertility.

Other: Randism, abortion, pathogens, hedonism, consumerism, birth control, health care, mass media, cultural fads, and so on.

"Idiocracy" results from anti-reason Marxian, liberal, libertarian, and neoconservative policies. Followers of such ideologies should blame themselves and their allies for the atrocious results they created.

Societies should avoid mass destruction by having dozens of explicitly eugenic policies, including:

1. Federally funded sperm banks with sperm obtained from high IQ, high character teen boys and young men. 
2. Payments for fertile, former special education students to obtain surgical sterilization.
3. Mandatory surgical sterilization of fertile felons.
4. Comprehensive, government funded sex, family, and eugenics education, including advertising warning potential parents that if they mate with bad individuals, they'll have bad children, who make their lives living hell.
5. Inducements to marry young but after a six month waiting period.
6. Dismantling cultural Marxism, stopping the spread of ghetto and Sharia values.
7. Immigration bans.
8. Legalized secessions.
9. Laws encouraging and enforcing surrogate contracts. 
10. More research funds for embryo selection and human genetic engineering.
11. Laws enshrining freedom of association.
12. Welfare and affirmative action bans.