Tangled Up in Blue Words

Words are symbols made by humans with meanings concocted by humans. If we wanted, we could replace the word apple with numbers or the word erteyu. Most individuals would reject or ignore our new apple word. Some words feel good and some feel rotten. Some start out feel good, then become dysphemisms--the euphemism treadmill. The word retard was once a euphemism. The  government once made compassionate postage stamps with the words "Retarded Children" printed on them. Other words start out as dysphemisms, then are reappropriated as neutral or euphemistic, often only in specific contexts, for example, the word infidel in They Call Me Infidel. Using infidel in a different context could result in violence. Even words as unimportant as first names acquire negative or positive feelings over time. Few parents name their children Ralph or Betty anymore.

Many words--shithead and scumbag, for example--will likely remain slurs in most English fluent minds for as long as English exists.

Establishments and many others are masters of language tricks, rebranding themselves with more euphemistic words, trying to attach positive feelings to terrible ideas. James Kirchik has a new book out. I bet it seldom contains the word neoconservative, though neoconservative was once a euphemism. Neoconservative became more neutral or dysphemic in many minds due to horrific neoconservative actions. Instead, Kirchick's book contains plenty of the phrase liberal democracy, though neoconservatives regularly destroy democratic practices and much else. 

One Third Way group calls itself the Progressive Policy Institute to attract unwary progressives to the Democratic Party.

Many individuals reply with demagoguery to innocently intended words. If an elderly person uses the archaic neutral word lady, colored or oriental, they can find themselves demonized. Activists don't care what individuals intend. They twist words and meanings to fit their own totalitarian causes.

A few individuals with alternative beliefs act as if they can turn dysphemisms into euphemisms. But they cannot turn them into euphemisms because they lack the media power to do so. Most whites will never support groups that label themselves white nationalist or national socialist, no matter the attached beliefs. Those two phrases are political poison. In most white minds, those phrases represent Nazism, meaning mass murder, economic cronyism, and pro-Hitlerism. It doesn't matter to political readers whether they actually support pan-Europeanism or nationalist universalism or Teddy Rooseveltism or neoclassical pan-Arcticism or self-determination universalism.

When you don't control the mass media, you should not describe your beliefs with dysphemic terms, unless you prefer losing or your beliefs really are evil. Our attachments to labels should be minuscule compared to our commitments to people and better reasoned beliefs.

Dear Europeans: Please Leave NATO

It's less you, mostly us. Our neoconservative and third way dominated empire brings you more military harms than benefits. 

Russia's decaying multicultural, "civic nationalist" empire cannot gobble large chucks of outgroup neighbors without risking guerrilla wars, plus massive social and economic losses. China is too far away to project large conventional forces into Europe.

You have your own problems with austerity, globalism, and multicultural invasions, but at least many of your leaders lack extreme militarism. While your rulers engage in domestic treason and throw you in jail or ostracize you for telling truths, you still have a bit of control over their foreign policy militarism. The knee jerk militarism of our colonial rulers rivals that of Muslims. We must be better friends than we are now--outside the alliance.

Ignore sunk costs and the inertia of the status quo.

You don't want to risk being caught in a nuclear war between us and the world's most powerful nuclear arsenal. The aftermath of nuclear war will not be pure survivalism. The history of wars past suggests increased tit for tat conflicts in the aftermath.

The Longer, Stranger Trip of Sixto Rodriguez

In the early 1970s, Sixto Rodriguez created two albums of abysmal, didactic folk-rock music. Few copies sold, though a few big timers in the music industry regarded Rodriguez's work as fantastic. After losing his contract, Rodriguez vanished into greater obscurity, reemerging to tour Australia in 1979 and 1981. The ruthlessness of the music industry is such that even unprofitable "justice" acts can't be spared cash for long.

Unknown to Rodriguez, a few copies of his work traveled to South Africa. Bootleg copies spread, creating a sensation "bigger than Elvis" among White, multicultural South Africans. Since Rodriguez disappeared, South Africans believed rumors of his death.

In the late 1990s, fans found Rodriguez living a working class life in Detroit, informing Rodriguez of his superstar status in South Africa. Rodriguez then performed before adoring White, multiculturalist crowds in South Africa.

A 2012 Academy Award winning film, Searching for Sugar Man, documented the events, a story so bizarre, skeptical viewers may be excused for thinking the narrative is a ruse, a subtle mockumentary, but, in fact, the story is mostly true.

Now why am I wasting time on this?

Because the film came and went without much comment on nonmulticultural sites, though it has some relevance to understanding multicultural whites. The film gives an unintended lesson in how naive, creepy, and feel good orientated multiculturalism is. The lives of white multiculturalists lack moral purpose, and they vainly try to find purpose in the evils of cultural Marxism. No one in the film stops to say, "This music is cliched demagoguery, lacking hooks."

I wonder how many of those screaming and sobbing Rodriguez fans in South Africa are still multiculturalists or even alive.

The film reminds us how multiculturalism evolves as its power increases. They talk about what they imagine is justice, then years later the justice talk includes far more kill the whites rhetoric and actions.

Sounds Like a Eugenic Plan for Schools

We somewhat improve the academic performance of nonwhite disadvantaged children by sending them to almost all white schools. In other words, one environmental factor that lowers the performance of disadvantaged nonwhites is being around other lower IQ nonwhites, primarily through increased concentrations of rotten values and those children wrecking learning environments via misbehavior, plus quality individuals not wanting to teach in those schools. Mass media, of course, ignore the disadvantaged harming each other. They imagine institutional racism and vaguely bad neighborhoods as if bad neighborhood vapors were rising from sewers.

So let's help by sending every disadvantaged nonwhite student in America to schools that are almost all white.

Oh, wait.

Then those schools overflow with disadvantaged nonwhites, recreating the same problem and creating the additional problem of nonwhite children wrecking the social and learning environments for whites.

The way the scheme could work is by creating several billion more high IQ white children.

It almost sounds good, except for the fact that by itself it doesn't reverse cultural Marxian boring from within, not to mention the difficulty of creating several billion more white children.

We're better off with self-determination and complete separation.

Migrants and the Immune System: a Sickening Study

An article about a new study asserts "strong feelings about immigrants are controlled by something as surprising as the immune system."

"The research also shows that hypersensitive people are completely indifferent to any good intentions that immigrants might have to contribute to society." Because good intentions are fleeting and done for grandstanding and conspicuous tokenism reasons. Nonwhites gradually make things worse, then when society collapses, they almost always side with their own kind and blame the victims of their invasion.

"Those who are very concerned about the risk of infection are those who are most reluctant to seek out social contact with immigrants–something that we otherwise know fosters tolerance," says Associate Professor Lene Aarøe. Nope. Nope. Nope.

"People with a hypersensitive behavioral immune system do not avoid immigrants because they are consciously afraid of becoming ill if they interact with them. Immigrants are not a source of infection." Oh, really.

"If some people see dangers in immigrants that others don't, it's difficult to reach a mutual understanding with reason-based, rational arguments." Oh, please. Apparently, evidence from the billions of horrors caused by diversity doesn't matter. Circumstantial ad hominem attacks on people's immune systems and abusive ad hominem attacks on "hypersensitive people" are what matter. This study is more scientism gone wild, part of a trend in studies used to promote political policies unsupported by the research.

But "if people are concerned about an entirely different risk–and perhaps one they aren't even fully aware of–it's difficult to achieve a mutual understanding of what is the right policy."

Moriori Man: Hey, these migrants are really effing us over.
Moriori Woman: Oh, don't worry. It's just your hypersensitive immune system. Just relax and make more contact. Those thoughts will go away. They're plenty friendly to your face.

(later)
Moriori Woman: Why are we the last Moriori? Why are we being tortured and why are we slaves?

The article provides no evidence of any direction of causation, if any even exists. And any direction of causation between migrant acceptance and the immune system is ethically irrelevant anyway.

Studies of why multiculturalists have such poor ethical character would be much more beneficial to society.

Context on the Murders of South African Farmers

The official murder rate of (mostly white) South African farmers is 313 per 100,000 population. Some argue that the real number is larger, that the South African government deliberately undercounts.

To those less familiar with statistics, the annual number does not look astronomical by itself, but it means over the course of their lifetimes those farmers have at least a 20 percent chance of being murdered if the stat were to remain the same and nothing else changed. But like neighboring Zimbabwe, that stat will likely skyrocket.

In Zimbabwe, the former bread basket of Africa, the black ruling group's forces murdered white farmers and gave the farms to allies. Lacking the character, intelligence, and conscientiousness for modern farming, the new black farmers sold the farm equipment for scrap, leading to famine. Some hungry blacks resorted to starting brush fires, then eating animals that died in the conflagrations.

For comparison, much less than one percent of Americans were murdered during World War II by Axis countries. We frequently see photos of burned out Japanese cities from that era, but roughly three percent of Japanese died from war related causes during the same period.

America's murder rate in 2013 was about 64 times lower than among South African farmers.

If those White farmers were to organize, arm themselves, and carve out a country for themselves, the global multiculturalists would be outraged, though they permit nonwhites to defend themselves from much lesser threats.

Multiculturalists treat all of South Africa as present or future Bantu property because Bantus are indigenous to Africa. though whites migrated to those South African farms well before Bantus, who arrived after expanding their population from around Cameroon. Of course, multiculturalists don't treat all of Asia as Chinese or Indian property because that would be an irrelevant and ludicrous property claim.

But the irrelevant and ludicrous becomes conventional belief when it involves Whites.

The Content of Ethical Character

An internet poster once claimed, as best I remember, that no one on Earth judges by the content of character, those most vociferous in saying they do so are often least likely to judge based on real character.

That poster did have a bit of a point, though many individuals do somewhat judge according to character. Pollsters asking respondents for their most admired person tend to get wealthy celebrities and politicians having atrocious policies for answers, hardly examples of good character.

Our rulers regularly portray nonwhites as pious, humble, innocent, and filled with goodness, much to the surprise of fact facers, who live among large numbers ordinary nonwhites. The film Elysium takes this portrayal to hilarious extremes.

The few multiculturalists who talk the content of character talk run smack into multicultural dogma, power, and groupthink, then acquiesce.

Multicultural nonwhites behave as if:

1. they have a right to colonize Western countries but that their own countries should not be colonized by outgroups. 
2. they have a right to genocide whites but would wage war if anyone tried the same on their own ingroups. 
3. they should have freedom of association but whites should not. 
4. equality should be supported when it benefits themselves or their perceived allies but seldom otherwise. 
5. excessive self-interest is good, except in whites. 
6. eugenics related arguments are automatically very, very frightening, but ally themselves with individuals spreading many copies of their atrocious genes, leading to disasters.

Polls hint that large percentages of nonwhite Muslims think infidels, apostates, blasphemers, and females accused of adultery should all be murdered. Given the reluctance of humans to self-report such views to pollsters, the actual numbers are probably closer to 100 percent. The unstated end game of multiculturalism is nonwhite, endogamous Islam everywhere humans exist.

Individuals having such beliefs do not have good character, no matter how polite or hard working they appear.

Ironically, nonmulticulturalists behave closer to the content of character norm. Nonmulticulturalists are willing to make exceptions for Frank Salter and other ethical nonwhites.

Nonmulticulturalists should separate themselves from nonwhites because nearly all nonwhites are unable or unwilling to walk the content of character walk. Everyone has a right to avoid massive undeserved harms from ethnoracial outgroups. We should not be deemed "racist" for wanting to avoid those who seek to exploit and destroy us. (Anyone calling others the R word condemns and contradicts themselves with their own ad hominem claim.) Lack of freedom of association is a form of servitude, of not owning your own life.

The Bigger Story on Straw Person Attacks

On Reddit, a heavily upvoted thread discussed straw person attacks. The posters repeatedly wrote about distorting others' words. But there's more to the story.

If some ordinary stranger posts something preposterous on Twitter and we attack their claims, a straw person exists, even if you quote it exactly.

Taking a blatantly ironic comment and pretending the writer actually has that belief is also a straw person.

In short, a straw person is:

1. twisting someone's quote or otherwise pretending others have beliefs they are unlikely to have.
2. attacking easy, unimportant targets rather than presenting the strongest arguments that differ from your own.

The exception is if powerful individuals--billionaires, national politicians, university presidents--post preposterous ideas. It is not a straw person to attack their arguments because atrocious ideas in powerful hands have disastrous consequences.

But if all we do is ridicule powerful political opponents without addressing the strongest counterarguments to our own views, then that is also a straw person.

A cottage industry of mocking Trump's tweets and speeches now exists. That's sometimes good, but the people doing the mocking believe in neo-Marxism, neoconservatism, and other horrific ideologies. They're often merely trying to bolster their own rotten world views.

We also have a duty to focus more on what politicians do than what they say because previous behavior is a better guide than political boilerplate.

The power of contemporary establishments rests on slurs, straw person attacks, small sample claims, and other fallacies spread through the mass media. The individuals who profit from and listen to the mass media often have no idea what the strongest counterarguments to their worldviews are because they haven't heard them and don't want to hear them. Fifty-four percent of respondents to a 2016 post election Pew poll claim to have never have heard of the "alt-right." Among those who have heard of the alt-right, many make no attempt to read the strongest arguments on the alt-right. Instead, they believe what the mass media tells them the alt-right stands for. In addition, most people seem to think the slurs they call their opponents aren't slurs or that they're just "calling them what they are," though that's seldom what they are. Such behavior is a recipe for unjust wars and extreme totalitarianism.

And if the strongest arguments that differ from our own, deserve more weight than our own, then we all have ethical duties to switch our beliefs.

The Smart Person's Guide to College

Graduation season approaches, so let me explain college to young readers considering college:

Psychology: junk science of pretending genes have no relevance to parental and ethnoracial issues while noticing genes when health and other pragmatic issues are at stake.

Engineering: you may assume that a field as efficiency oriented as engineering will teach only the stuff important for engineering jobs. Wrong. Engineering degrees often require matrix theory and differential equations, though many engineers find jobs requiring little more than algebra.

Business: field for mediocre, partying students, culminating in the MBA: Mendacity Buttressing Arrogance.

History: art of historical one-sidedness and small sample fallacies.

English and literature: art of treating fictional claims as if they were well-reasoned facts.

Computer science: intrinsically boring as hell field made interesting by hype, money, intermittent reinforcement, and the attraction of staring at glowing screens. Be thankful they seldom teach Fortran anymore.

Nursing: deliberately understaffed, often having waiting lists to enroll, so we can import low competence nurses from developing countries. Another example of our rulers failing to provide the beneficial things while bombarding us with harmful things.

Primary education: important for teaching reading and basic math to children, but increasing used to politically influence young children, who haven't even mastered the art of not pissing and shitting their pants.

Secondary education: provides workers for custodial institutions as teenagers eat and breathe their way toward their IQ genotypes and mass media role models.

Queer studies: study of things that aren't worth two seconds time.

Natural sciences: demanding fields that consume the minds of practitioners. Nevertheless, activist natural scientists act as if they should be treated as experts in public affairs in which they have no expertise.

Administration: art of creating more and higher paid administrators until their are more administrators than producers.

Medicine: rigorous field but not ethically rigorous enough to prevent doctors from being unjustly influenced by cartels and free samples.

Philosophy: bizarrely entrusted with teaching logic and ethics, though philosophers are culturally more similar to preachers and aesthetes.

Sociology: junk science of teaching egoism and tribalism to nonwhites--not they need help in that regard--while excoriating whites for their legitimate interests.

Cultural anthropology: Ditto sociology.

Economics: junk science of exaggerating the benefits of policies that agree with economists' perceived self-interests while ignoring the costs of those policies to others.

Other humanities and social science degrees: expensive degrees for people who should have dropped out of middle school and helped their family or themselves out. Not surprisingly, they blame society for their college debts.

Better yet. Don't attend college. Getting a college degree is merely an expensive way to signal smartness and task persistence to potential employers. Here is what you do: You take Methoxsalen to make your skin dark. You buy yourself some spiffy corporate gear. You research when colleges have job fairs. You stride around the job fair, engaging recruiters, carrying some Tennyson in one hand and Classical Electrodynamics in the other, making you look smart but not one dimensional. Recruiters will want to talk to you. They may even chase after you. Don't worry about being an empty suit. Empty suits abound. You can usually learn on the job.

Once they hire you, stop taking Methoxsalen. If they wonder why you suddenly have white skin, tell them you contracted severe vitiligo and it affected your entire surface area.

Even better: learn for free at libraries and in the real world. Start your own business in a field having a high probability of success, copying the practices of successful businesses in that field.

Whatever you do, don't take any loans unless you enter a low unemployment field paying six figure incomes.

(Note: this article is satire. Don't take Methoxsalen unless you want skin and liver damage.)