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.)
Monday, April 24, 2017
Friday, April 21, 2017
The Never Ending "Scandal"
Donald Trump's Russian ties remained the top news story for most of the past five months. A recent study suggests that Rachel Maddow's show spends more time on "Russia focused segments" than everything else in the world combined.
Whatever happened to scandal fatigue?
Interest in ongoing scandals seems to increase when individuals are highly aroused, explaining why sex and violence scandals linger. In this case, the driving arousal is illogical hatred of Whites and the West. Multiculturalists can barely wait for the next juicy details, no matter how preposterous, leading to 52 percent of Democrats believing the evidence free baloney that Russia directly hacked the election.
And when the mass media repeat garbage often enough, most people believe it.
The left once again allowed itself to be used by neoconservatives, especially considering this "scandal" involves trying to improve relations with a power and paranoia driven nuclear giant. (We should not trust people who brag about being former Trotskyites. Once a person chooses an abysmal ideology they typically stick with it or replace it with another horrific ideology.)
The media act as if Russia influencing the kleptocratic process is worse than the risk of nuclear war. Never mind that establishment Democrats and Republicans have far worse entanglements with African, Hispanic, and Southwest Asian countries actively working to destroy us from within. (When the Soviet Union engaged in much worse meddling, the left seldom noticed. The reason the Soviet Union didn't need any U2 style spy planes flying over the U.S. was it had multitudes of agents and activists on the ground.)
The big scandal we should be focusing on is the role the media, business, and political establishments play in trying to incite World War III, especially with an erratic, easily manipulated president.
For more ethical individuals, that is, almost no one in the establishments, our focus should be on de-escalating tensions and seeking alliances with fellow whites. The establishments claim we can't get along with Russia because our "interests conflict" and because Russia is corrupt.
Well, guess what?
We have worse and bigger conflicting interests with dozens of corrupt countries, yet establishments coddle them and often take marching orders from them.
Every nation should have interests that sometimes conflict with other nations. Otherwise, you get cucked and steamrolled.
At one point, Trump should have said, "Yes, I conspired with Russians to avoid World War III. I'm sorry so many of you prefer World War III.'' Instead, Trump sold part of his soul to neoconservatives, for their money and faint praise. At least Trump still has Jeff Sessions.
The establishments may not meet the legal definition of treason, but they sure as hell meet the moral definition.
Whatever happened to scandal fatigue?
Interest in ongoing scandals seems to increase when individuals are highly aroused, explaining why sex and violence scandals linger. In this case, the driving arousal is illogical hatred of Whites and the West. Multiculturalists can barely wait for the next juicy details, no matter how preposterous, leading to 52 percent of Democrats believing the evidence free baloney that Russia directly hacked the election.
And when the mass media repeat garbage often enough, most people believe it.
The left once again allowed itself to be used by neoconservatives, especially considering this "scandal" involves trying to improve relations with a power and paranoia driven nuclear giant. (We should not trust people who brag about being former Trotskyites. Once a person chooses an abysmal ideology they typically stick with it or replace it with another horrific ideology.)
The media act as if Russia influencing the kleptocratic process is worse than the risk of nuclear war. Never mind that establishment Democrats and Republicans have far worse entanglements with African, Hispanic, and Southwest Asian countries actively working to destroy us from within. (When the Soviet Union engaged in much worse meddling, the left seldom noticed. The reason the Soviet Union didn't need any U2 style spy planes flying over the U.S. was it had multitudes of agents and activists on the ground.)
The big scandal we should be focusing on is the role the media, business, and political establishments play in trying to incite World War III, especially with an erratic, easily manipulated president.
For more ethical individuals, that is, almost no one in the establishments, our focus should be on de-escalating tensions and seeking alliances with fellow whites. The establishments claim we can't get along with Russia because our "interests conflict" and because Russia is corrupt.
Well, guess what?
We have worse and bigger conflicting interests with dozens of corrupt countries, yet establishments coddle them and often take marching orders from them.
Every nation should have interests that sometimes conflict with other nations. Otherwise, you get cucked and steamrolled.
At one point, Trump should have said, "Yes, I conspired with Russians to avoid World War III. I'm sorry so many of you prefer World War III.'' Instead, Trump sold part of his soul to neoconservatives, for their money and faint praise. At least Trump still has Jeff Sessions.
The establishments may not meet the legal definition of treason, but they sure as hell meet the moral definition.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Blameworthiness and the Legacy of Slavery
Multiculturalists love the legacy of slavery causal explanation for African-American problems.
Why?
Because it cannot be undone. It implies that whites are permanently guilty and permanently liable, no matter the consequences. To them, it doesn't matter whether Whites have already given umpteen trillion in welfare, health care, affirmative action, and other benefits to African-Americans.
The word cause means to change the probability of a thing occurring. Bringing African slaves to the Western Hemisphere was a cause of what happens to African-Americans, just as millions of other causes were and are. Otherwise, there would be few, if any, African-Americans and few African-American events.
But the problem with overemphasizing these distant historical causes and harms are that a) the villains are dead, b) millions of distant historical causes exist, c) they lead to mutually destructive tit-for-tat conflicts, d) they de-emphasize policies that would make things better, e) they help ruling groups exploit us with divide-and-screw policies.
The English treated the Irish worse than they treated African-Americans. Would Ireland be a better place today if today's Irish spent massive energies denouncing the British and demanding reparations? I doubt it.
If Africans and African-Americans started pursuing a rigorous program of eugenics 100 years ago, life would be much better for them than chanting the legacy of slavery. But that didn't happen.
Robert Mugabe and his successors will still blame whites as they loot what little wealth Zimbabwe creates in the future.
Multitudes of events (bad luck, good luck, volcanic eruptions, comet collisions, manorial feudalism, random mutations, harmful policies, beneficial policies, the evolution of malaria, Middle Eastern religious texts, etc.) caused our present situations. We can't change that they happened. It would do whites no good to endlessly blame manorial feudalism for our present decline. Sure, we should note what manorial feudalism caused but not dwell on it.
Every racial group has suffered grievous harms from ethnoracial outgroups in prior centuries. Bantu tribes enslaved and wiped out multitudes of outgroups, including Bushmen and other hominids.
Despite establishment propaganda to the contrary, Southwest Asians and North Africans have caused massive harms to Europeans and black Africans for centuries, including slave taking that dwarfed the trans-Atlantic slave trade. But they seldom mention that legacy of slavery, a far more brutal death camp form of slavery. Or the slavery White establishments inflicted upon other Whites. Nevertheless, Whites shouldn't sit around demanding reparations from Arabs and other Southwest Asians.
We must focus on liberating our own lives and nations from every ingroup and outgroup that seeks to harm and destroy us.
Why?
Because it cannot be undone. It implies that whites are permanently guilty and permanently liable, no matter the consequences. To them, it doesn't matter whether Whites have already given umpteen trillion in welfare, health care, affirmative action, and other benefits to African-Americans.
The word cause means to change the probability of a thing occurring. Bringing African slaves to the Western Hemisphere was a cause of what happens to African-Americans, just as millions of other causes were and are. Otherwise, there would be few, if any, African-Americans and few African-American events.
But the problem with overemphasizing these distant historical causes and harms are that a) the villains are dead, b) millions of distant historical causes exist, c) they lead to mutually destructive tit-for-tat conflicts, d) they de-emphasize policies that would make things better, e) they help ruling groups exploit us with divide-and-screw policies.
The English treated the Irish worse than they treated African-Americans. Would Ireland be a better place today if today's Irish spent massive energies denouncing the British and demanding reparations? I doubt it.
If Africans and African-Americans started pursuing a rigorous program of eugenics 100 years ago, life would be much better for them than chanting the legacy of slavery. But that didn't happen.
Robert Mugabe and his successors will still blame whites as they loot what little wealth Zimbabwe creates in the future.
Multitudes of events (bad luck, good luck, volcanic eruptions, comet collisions, manorial feudalism, random mutations, harmful policies, beneficial policies, the evolution of malaria, Middle Eastern religious texts, etc.) caused our present situations. We can't change that they happened. It would do whites no good to endlessly blame manorial feudalism for our present decline. Sure, we should note what manorial feudalism caused but not dwell on it.
Every racial group has suffered grievous harms from ethnoracial outgroups in prior centuries. Bantu tribes enslaved and wiped out multitudes of outgroups, including Bushmen and other hominids.
Despite establishment propaganda to the contrary, Southwest Asians and North Africans have caused massive harms to Europeans and black Africans for centuries, including slave taking that dwarfed the trans-Atlantic slave trade. But they seldom mention that legacy of slavery, a far more brutal death camp form of slavery. Or the slavery White establishments inflicted upon other Whites. Nevertheless, Whites shouldn't sit around demanding reparations from Arabs and other Southwest Asians.
We must focus on liberating our own lives and nations from every ingroup and outgroup that seeks to harm and destroy us.
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Intolerable Tolerance
"People who believe political views have a biological basis are more intolerant, study finds"
So that explains why individuals who believe in environmental determinism committed the most political murders in the 20th century. Those were tolerant murders.
So that explains why individuals who believe in environmental determinism committed the most political murders in the 20th century. Those were tolerant murders.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Street Protests and Organizing for Liberation
In 1941, African-Americans planned a protest to obtain more hiring quotas for African-Americans. This threat, according to the story, so unnerved Franklin Roosevelt that he required companies receiving government contracts to implement hiring quotas. (Maybe Roosevelt simply used the threat to implement quotas he already preferred.)
By the Nixon era, the ruling groups lost their fear of marches and learned to use protesters to their own advantage, infiltrating protests with false flag agents to make protesters look rotten.
Contemporary establishments often ignore protesters, except to the extent they can use protesters to aid what politicians seek. Thus, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and similar groups engaging in terrorism, often receive free passes simply because they do what the ruling groups want, that is, support anti-white totalitarianism, aiding the ruling groups' bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw goals. Anyone with their head at least part way out of their rear end knows that "activism" is a euphemism for cultural Marxian crypto totalitarianism, that we should be wary of almost anyone calling themselves an activist.
Multicultural tolerance is tolerance for increasing tyranny by their perceived allies. For them, few enemies exist to the multicultural direction. The intra-multicultural enemies that do exist arise during the ruthless competition for power, Stalin having Trotsky eliminated, for example.
Occupy Wall Street lasted long but accomplished almost nothing because ruling groups vehemently opposed Occupy Wall Street.
Almost any other group that sought to curtail ruling group parasitism by taking it to the streets also floundered. The concept of claiming to be right because you have a slogan bearing sign in your hands is anti-reason. The real solution to treasonous ruling groups is organization that reforms or secedes. And by organization, I mean such organization that dictates to political parties which ethical, reliable individuals are permissible candidates, not individuals devoted to disingenuous platitudes and back stabbing egoism. The problem is that (outside of multiculturalism, the media, K-Street, and similar groups) politically organizing contemporary whites is harder than organizing a bag of cats. Kevin MacDonald writes about the amazing political ability of whites to organize, but we seldom see it in contemporary whites. Sure, you can organize millions of whites to support one arbitrary sports team or another but that's pathetic.
Whites in Zimbabwe tolerated ever increasing hells without forming effective, organized resistance. South Africa has the inspiring small sample of Orania, but without greater outside organization, the long term future of Orania, a town surrounded by millions of hostile outgroup members, looks bleak.
Sometimes a "the worse, the better" strategy tempts us, and maybe life getting worse will spur reforms in some lands. But Zimbabwe, South Africa, and numerous white flight cities are cautionary tales that when things get worse, many contemporary whites hunker down, take a pill, and run out the clock on themselves and posterity.
What to do? Protests by nonmulticulturalists face false flag actions by both establishments and the cultural Marxism industry, especially hoax crimes. But other methods exist. We should use multiculturalists' own tactics against them, including many of the 198 nonviolent methods here. We can form communities like Orania in the West, but geographically linked and mutually supporting, despite whatever differences exist among nonmulticulturalists on less important issues.
Being hated for telling the moral truth should never distract us.
By the Nixon era, the ruling groups lost their fear of marches and learned to use protesters to their own advantage, infiltrating protests with false flag agents to make protesters look rotten.
Contemporary establishments often ignore protesters, except to the extent they can use protesters to aid what politicians seek. Thus, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and similar groups engaging in terrorism, often receive free passes simply because they do what the ruling groups want, that is, support anti-white totalitarianism, aiding the ruling groups' bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw goals. Anyone with their head at least part way out of their rear end knows that "activism" is a euphemism for cultural Marxian crypto totalitarianism, that we should be wary of almost anyone calling themselves an activist.
Multicultural tolerance is tolerance for increasing tyranny by their perceived allies. For them, few enemies exist to the multicultural direction. The intra-multicultural enemies that do exist arise during the ruthless competition for power, Stalin having Trotsky eliminated, for example.
Occupy Wall Street lasted long but accomplished almost nothing because ruling groups vehemently opposed Occupy Wall Street.
Almost any other group that sought to curtail ruling group parasitism by taking it to the streets also floundered. The concept of claiming to be right because you have a slogan bearing sign in your hands is anti-reason. The real solution to treasonous ruling groups is organization that reforms or secedes. And by organization, I mean such organization that dictates to political parties which ethical, reliable individuals are permissible candidates, not individuals devoted to disingenuous platitudes and back stabbing egoism. The problem is that (outside of multiculturalism, the media, K-Street, and similar groups) politically organizing contemporary whites is harder than organizing a bag of cats. Kevin MacDonald writes about the amazing political ability of whites to organize, but we seldom see it in contemporary whites. Sure, you can organize millions of whites to support one arbitrary sports team or another but that's pathetic.
Whites in Zimbabwe tolerated ever increasing hells without forming effective, organized resistance. South Africa has the inspiring small sample of Orania, but without greater outside organization, the long term future of Orania, a town surrounded by millions of hostile outgroup members, looks bleak.
Sometimes a "the worse, the better" strategy tempts us, and maybe life getting worse will spur reforms in some lands. But Zimbabwe, South Africa, and numerous white flight cities are cautionary tales that when things get worse, many contemporary whites hunker down, take a pill, and run out the clock on themselves and posterity.
What to do? Protests by nonmulticulturalists face false flag actions by both establishments and the cultural Marxism industry, especially hoax crimes. But other methods exist. We should use multiculturalists' own tactics against them, including many of the 198 nonviolent methods here. We can form communities like Orania in the West, but geographically linked and mutually supporting, despite whatever differences exist among nonmulticulturalists on less important issues.
Being hated for telling the moral truth should never distract us.
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Globalist Backed Saudi Arabia
Notice how often the media and others refer to Saudi Arabia as "U.S. backed," a whopping 427,000 Google results, yet another rhetorical guilt knife in our backs, as if we're mostly to blame for their centuries of Jihad, egoism, endogamy, and mass murder. The media don't write the more accurate "puppets of Saudi Arabia" or "globalist backed Saudi Arabia" or "multiculturalist backed Saudi Arabia" or "neoconservative backed Saudi Arabia" or "Colonial Occupation Force backed Saudi Arabia."
You can just imagine all the molecular machinery going nuts in humanitarian brains when they discovered the "U.S. backed" phrase. That's anti-white gold!
Saudi Arabia, despite the massive pro-Saudi propaganda coming from the ruling groups, has roughly a 30 percent favorable rating in the U.S. Saudi AramcoWorld seems to be in more libraries than almost any other print magazine. A mere Twenty percent of Canadians approve of their country's arms sales to Saudi Arabia. At least the Saudis have the Pakistanis. A staggering 95 percent of Pakistanis approve of the Saudis.
It is more accurate to describe our ruling groups as Saudi backed than to imply that real Americans back the Saudis. You have to respect the Saudi's evil brilliance. They go right to the top when they bribe. None of the just write random checks for treason crap that whites do. Prince Bandar bought Colin Powell a Jaguar. The Bushes frolicked with the King and did much worse. The Clinton Foundation received millions more.
What exactly can we do to stop the Saudis? Our rulers rule over the West as a colonial occupation force. They almost never do what the people want, and they won't abide our right to self-determination. Are the humanitarians implying that we should use violence to stop Saudi influence? Good luck with that against the global police states. If we actually did anything significant to stop Saudi influence, those same "humanitarians" would start screaming about racial and religious intolerance.
We don't need Saudi Arabia and we don't need their oil. The Saudis need infidel goods, money, and workers far more than we need their oil.
I sometimes read establishment message boards to see whether they have any good ideas and also to learn the current establishment zeitgeist. On one board, popular with lawyers and financiers, a wealthy lawyer posts hundreds, if not thousands, of humanitarian Yemen articles, complete with feigned conspicuous empathy. Not surprisingly, he was voted poster of the year. He seems to revel in "U.S backed" articles. To my knowledge, he has never posted a Saudis backed by Israel article or Saudis backed by Qatar article. And he never ever posts anything about about anti-white atrocities.
Because whites don't count as humans, you know.
You can just imagine all the molecular machinery going nuts in humanitarian brains when they discovered the "U.S. backed" phrase. That's anti-white gold!
Saudi Arabia, despite the massive pro-Saudi propaganda coming from the ruling groups, has roughly a 30 percent favorable rating in the U.S. Saudi AramcoWorld seems to be in more libraries than almost any other print magazine. A mere Twenty percent of Canadians approve of their country's arms sales to Saudi Arabia. At least the Saudis have the Pakistanis. A staggering 95 percent of Pakistanis approve of the Saudis.
It is more accurate to describe our ruling groups as Saudi backed than to imply that real Americans back the Saudis. You have to respect the Saudi's evil brilliance. They go right to the top when they bribe. None of the just write random checks for treason crap that whites do. Prince Bandar bought Colin Powell a Jaguar. The Bushes frolicked with the King and did much worse. The Clinton Foundation received millions more.
What exactly can we do to stop the Saudis? Our rulers rule over the West as a colonial occupation force. They almost never do what the people want, and they won't abide our right to self-determination. Are the humanitarians implying that we should use violence to stop Saudi influence? Good luck with that against the global police states. If we actually did anything significant to stop Saudi influence, those same "humanitarians" would start screaming about racial and religious intolerance.
We don't need Saudi Arabia and we don't need their oil. The Saudis need infidel goods, money, and workers far more than we need their oil.
I sometimes read establishment message boards to see whether they have any good ideas and also to learn the current establishment zeitgeist. On one board, popular with lawyers and financiers, a wealthy lawyer posts hundreds, if not thousands, of humanitarian Yemen articles, complete with feigned conspicuous empathy. Not surprisingly, he was voted poster of the year. He seems to revel in "U.S backed" articles. To my knowledge, he has never posted a Saudis backed by Israel article or Saudis backed by Qatar article. And he never ever posts anything about about anti-white atrocities.
Because whites don't count as humans, you know.
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Ways of War: Hidden Vulnerabilities
On the Credible Defense Subreddit, a thread covers how to take down America's nuclear aircraft carriers. Not surprisingly, voters decide that the most efficient method would be to destroy the carrier's supply chain.
Foreign leaders, especially Chinese leaders, almost certainly know this as well.
But the Reddit posters--devoted to militarism and cultural Marxism--do not mention the elephants in the room: race and cultural Marxism driven sabotage, espionage, and invasion by immigration. People of gravitas "know" that nonwhites do not do evil things and that the harmful things they do must somehow be the fault of whites, including acts by Northeast Asians.
Just like they imagine they know that Japanese settlers in the 1930s and 1940s were wonderful and innocent people. Never mind that almost none of the millions of World War II Japanese settlers living in Asia and the Western Pacific sided with the natives. And if Japan had been so powerful it could have easily conquered the West Coast, almost none of those freedom and democracy loving Japanese-Americans would have sided with the US. As it was, only a few percent of military age Japanese-Americans volunteered for the US military, partly to aid the Double Victory on behalf of anti-white supremacism. Prior to Pearl Harbor, Japanese-Americans sent millions of dollars for Japan's war efforts in China, including the brazen act of publicly sponsoring a war plane. Japan didn't even need to recruit Japanese-Americans for espionage. Japanese-American "civilians" volunteered themselves at no charge. Another 3,500 Japanese out of a small population of roughly 127,000 were specifically exported to the US to engage in espionage.
People of gravitas also "know" that Chinese, Vietnamese, and North Korean actions during the wars for full bore communism were not unethical and racially motivated against the "pigs," "imperialists," "long noses," and "hairy monkeys."
If you evince knowledge of nonwhite tribalism, behavioral genetics, and establishment unapproved history, that's a bannable offense on many Subreddits.
But the recognition of nonwhite perfidy does not mean we should endorse knee jerk militarism toward potential enemies. We should stick to our kind and we should encourage them to stick to their kind.
The minions of militarism pursue unwinnable wars against China and Russia, merely to continue the process of eliminating and replacing whites. What good would fighting China or Russia do when we are giving our countries away to far worse people?
A war against China or Russia is not our war.
Foreign leaders, especially Chinese leaders, almost certainly know this as well.
But the Reddit posters--devoted to militarism and cultural Marxism--do not mention the elephants in the room: race and cultural Marxism driven sabotage, espionage, and invasion by immigration. People of gravitas "know" that nonwhites do not do evil things and that the harmful things they do must somehow be the fault of whites, including acts by Northeast Asians.
Just like they imagine they know that Japanese settlers in the 1930s and 1940s were wonderful and innocent people. Never mind that almost none of the millions of World War II Japanese settlers living in Asia and the Western Pacific sided with the natives. And if Japan had been so powerful it could have easily conquered the West Coast, almost none of those freedom and democracy loving Japanese-Americans would have sided with the US. As it was, only a few percent of military age Japanese-Americans volunteered for the US military, partly to aid the Double Victory on behalf of anti-white supremacism. Prior to Pearl Harbor, Japanese-Americans sent millions of dollars for Japan's war efforts in China, including the brazen act of publicly sponsoring a war plane. Japan didn't even need to recruit Japanese-Americans for espionage. Japanese-American "civilians" volunteered themselves at no charge. Another 3,500 Japanese out of a small population of roughly 127,000 were specifically exported to the US to engage in espionage.
People of gravitas also "know" that Chinese, Vietnamese, and North Korean actions during the wars for full bore communism were not unethical and racially motivated against the "pigs," "imperialists," "long noses," and "hairy monkeys."
If you evince knowledge of nonwhite tribalism, behavioral genetics, and establishment unapproved history, that's a bannable offense on many Subreddits.
But the recognition of nonwhite perfidy does not mean we should endorse knee jerk militarism toward potential enemies. We should stick to our kind and we should encourage them to stick to their kind.
The minions of militarism pursue unwinnable wars against China and Russia, merely to continue the process of eliminating and replacing whites. What good would fighting China or Russia do when we are giving our countries away to far worse people?
A war against China or Russia is not our war.
Imagining Counter Evidence as Evidence
In the bizarro realm of multiculturalism, overwhelming evidence against multiculturalism supposedly counts as evidence for multiculturalism: racial diversity was an unmitigated long term disaster in every nation that practiced it? Oh, that means we need more multiculturalism to teach tolerance, though multiculturalists spend far more time teaching demagoguery than tolerance and their one-sided tolerance lectures are directed toward neutering their perceived enemies while emboldening the aggression of their perceived allies.
Consistency in Labeling
When a white nonmulticulturalist assaults or murders a nonwhite individual, he is immediately dubbed a white supremacist by the mass media. Given that almost every nonwhite adult believes in freedom of association their own preferred ethnoracial groups but not for whites, along with dozens of other contradiction filled anti-white beliefs, shouldn't almost every nonwhite adult who assaults or murders a white individual also be slurred as a supremacist by the mass media?
And nonwhites do a hell of a lot more stranger-on-stranger interracial aggression than whites do, not including the multitudes of uncounted interracial crimes in schools and prisons.
Of course, millions of peaceful nonmulticulturalists, who care about truth and ethics, also get slurred as supremacists. Yet billions of nonwhite adults, in all their anti-white glory, are not.
And nonwhites do a hell of a lot more stranger-on-stranger interracial aggression than whites do, not including the multitudes of uncounted interracial crimes in schools and prisons.
Of course, millions of peaceful nonmulticulturalists, who care about truth and ethics, also get slurred as supremacists. Yet billions of nonwhite adults, in all their anti-white glory, are not.
Thursday, March 9, 2017
Into Arcadia
Or as David Brooks puts it (along with a bunch of false analogies):
It's rituals. It's doing specific activities during certain calendar dates each year.
A tree in a contemporary city park is a random tree, often a semi-dwarf cut to look the same as its neighbors. A tree in the woods behind your home becomes the special place where you had your first kiss with your spouse. These sacred attachments cannot be adequately conveyed by the mediums of film and television, which often reduce rural life to satire or mawkishness.
Big cities can be decent or excellent places, as long as they are racially homogeneous. They can be places deserving of great attachment. But not now.
Even those who believe nurture assumptions, have an inkling that moving to a contemporary big city results in handing children over to ghetto and Hollywood cultures, leaving parents with teenagers who seem like hostile strangers in the nest.
Rural areas are not immune to these destructive cultures, but they are better.
Many whites do move, including high IQ whites, causing brain drain in rural areas. Attend rural advanced placement classes and you will hear big city and big college dreams. It's quite unfair for city dwellers to mock country folks for low intelligence when big cities poached millions of bright, rural graduates. Farm boys make especially good engineers.
When poorer, lower IQ individuals move to big cites, they often end up exchanging one low paying job for another in a higher cost of living area, including the costs of being surrounded by hostile individuals. Fifty years ago, working class individuals could walk off farms and into decent paying factory jobs, even when they were unskilled. Now, it's often better to make $7.50 per hour in a rural area than $10.50 per hour in the big city.
The often unmentioned big attraction of contemporary cities is massive opportunities for semi-anonymous philandering, avoiding walks of shame. It's much easier to be abusive toward someone you probably will never see again anywhere. But philandering is usually reserved for high status men and is always accompanied by lies to self and others--and I do mean always. In a few cases, it involves the raping and trafficking of runaways. In places like Rotherham, the drugging, raping, and trafficking happens to non-runaways, not far from home. If you are predisposed toward guilt and other ethical traits, such philandering holds little appeal.
The "respectable" mass media seldom talk about philandering and its consequences.
Instead, the mass media emphasize their cultural activities, often claiming there is little to do in rural areas. But if you have a low paying job, many big city cultural activities are off limits anyway. Most big city cultural activities are overrated hedonistic behaviors, propped up by pedantry and advertising. Someone once called Los Angeles, with some exaggeration, the world's biggest city with nothing to do. Paintings can be viewed in books and on the internet less expensively. And much contemporary art should be ignored.
For most people, outdoor activities are more ethically and personally rewarding than didactic cultural activities, which often involve destructive status competitions.
One purpose of agitprop is to make us alienated from sources of purpose, except cultural Marxism, making us willing to psychologically flee and fill voids with cultural Marxism's lies and "activism."
Small towns are often sources of petty and malicious gossip, but often the individual complaining about the gossip earned the gossip through their own actions.
Big city work places have their own social treachery. You have to keep your mouth shut while your coworkers spout their political narratives, lest you get fired by coworkers who have never honestly studied and weighed issues. And nothing is quite like the horrors of multicultural, big city schools for whites.
Even if co-workers cared about finding more of the whole truth, well-reasoned arguments seldom turn up on the first few pages of Google results.
Some urbanites create more purpose with gentrification, community gardens, and other activities, but the result is hollow and ephemeral, often childfree and philosophically sterile. Gentrified children end up in expensive private schools, which have problems with spoiled children. And gentrification makes neighborhood nonwhites livid when they see their property taxes rocketing upward.
Economists, of course, will rightly lecture rural areas about wasteful farm subsidies, but they usually avoid the non-tax entitlement ways governments redistribute far more to big cities, especially the free riding financial industry. The economic vibrancy of some big cities is not driven by nonwhite immigrants, It's driven by crooked redistributions. Working migrants move to big cities to provide services to the free riding individuals. Other non-working migrants join in the free riding.
The better economies in certain coastal and sunbelt cities aren't due to neutral policies. They're due to deliberate corruption favoring rent seeking industries in those cities.
Rural individuals often underestimate the costs of driving.
Rural areas have drug problems but those addicted would probably be addicted in cities as well. Alone in a city is not where you want to be if you have self-control problems. Selection effects are a bigger problem than people realize. High functioning, eugenically bred individuals know better ways of responding to boredom than drugs.
Most of all, rural areas provide better protection from nuclear wars and other human inflicted catastrophes, the sorts of disasters the establishments and defense industries are right now prodding us into.
David Brooks, the self-anointed social science expert, will never ever move to Houston's vibrant neighborhoods. Instead, he noted this about his $120,000 cosmopolitan vacation:
I can’t figure out why so many Republicans prefer a dying white America to a place like, say, Houston.One reason is rural people, cultures, and environments. Though attachments to people and place diminished for decades, many remain. It's thousands of shared stories that become parts of ethical narratives, a strange concept to some, whose idea of a narrative consists of anti-white fictions. It's thousands of regional recipes such as grandma's homemade bread, the best you ever tasted. A good recipe off the internet is just something that tastes good, not a part of you.
It's rituals. It's doing specific activities during certain calendar dates each year.
A tree in a contemporary city park is a random tree, often a semi-dwarf cut to look the same as its neighbors. A tree in the woods behind your home becomes the special place where you had your first kiss with your spouse. These sacred attachments cannot be adequately conveyed by the mediums of film and television, which often reduce rural life to satire or mawkishness.
Big cities can be decent or excellent places, as long as they are racially homogeneous. They can be places deserving of great attachment. But not now.
Even those who believe nurture assumptions, have an inkling that moving to a contemporary big city results in handing children over to ghetto and Hollywood cultures, leaving parents with teenagers who seem like hostile strangers in the nest.
Rural areas are not immune to these destructive cultures, but they are better.
Many whites do move, including high IQ whites, causing brain drain in rural areas. Attend rural advanced placement classes and you will hear big city and big college dreams. It's quite unfair for city dwellers to mock country folks for low intelligence when big cities poached millions of bright, rural graduates. Farm boys make especially good engineers.
When poorer, lower IQ individuals move to big cites, they often end up exchanging one low paying job for another in a higher cost of living area, including the costs of being surrounded by hostile individuals. Fifty years ago, working class individuals could walk off farms and into decent paying factory jobs, even when they were unskilled. Now, it's often better to make $7.50 per hour in a rural area than $10.50 per hour in the big city.
The often unmentioned big attraction of contemporary cities is massive opportunities for semi-anonymous philandering, avoiding walks of shame. It's much easier to be abusive toward someone you probably will never see again anywhere. But philandering is usually reserved for high status men and is always accompanied by lies to self and others--and I do mean always. In a few cases, it involves the raping and trafficking of runaways. In places like Rotherham, the drugging, raping, and trafficking happens to non-runaways, not far from home. If you are predisposed toward guilt and other ethical traits, such philandering holds little appeal.
The "respectable" mass media seldom talk about philandering and its consequences.
Instead, the mass media emphasize their cultural activities, often claiming there is little to do in rural areas. But if you have a low paying job, many big city cultural activities are off limits anyway. Most big city cultural activities are overrated hedonistic behaviors, propped up by pedantry and advertising. Someone once called Los Angeles, with some exaggeration, the world's biggest city with nothing to do. Paintings can be viewed in books and on the internet less expensively. And much contemporary art should be ignored.
For most people, outdoor activities are more ethically and personally rewarding than didactic cultural activities, which often involve destructive status competitions.
One purpose of agitprop is to make us alienated from sources of purpose, except cultural Marxism, making us willing to psychologically flee and fill voids with cultural Marxism's lies and "activism."
Small towns are often sources of petty and malicious gossip, but often the individual complaining about the gossip earned the gossip through their own actions.
Big city work places have their own social treachery. You have to keep your mouth shut while your coworkers spout their political narratives, lest you get fired by coworkers who have never honestly studied and weighed issues. And nothing is quite like the horrors of multicultural, big city schools for whites.
Even if co-workers cared about finding more of the whole truth, well-reasoned arguments seldom turn up on the first few pages of Google results.
Some urbanites create more purpose with gentrification, community gardens, and other activities, but the result is hollow and ephemeral, often childfree and philosophically sterile. Gentrified children end up in expensive private schools, which have problems with spoiled children. And gentrification makes neighborhood nonwhites livid when they see their property taxes rocketing upward.
Economists, of course, will rightly lecture rural areas about wasteful farm subsidies, but they usually avoid the non-tax entitlement ways governments redistribute far more to big cities, especially the free riding financial industry. The economic vibrancy of some big cities is not driven by nonwhite immigrants, It's driven by crooked redistributions. Working migrants move to big cities to provide services to the free riding individuals. Other non-working migrants join in the free riding.
The better economies in certain coastal and sunbelt cities aren't due to neutral policies. They're due to deliberate corruption favoring rent seeking industries in those cities.
Rural individuals often underestimate the costs of driving.
The risk of injury death — which counts both violent crime and accidents — is more than 20% higher in the countryside than it is in large urban areas.Long distance driving also causes cardiovascular disease and large negative externalities. But many whites seem to loath cities so much that they work in cities but drive over 100 miles per day to make a home in the country.
Rural areas have drug problems but those addicted would probably be addicted in cities as well. Alone in a city is not where you want to be if you have self-control problems. Selection effects are a bigger problem than people realize. High functioning, eugenically bred individuals know better ways of responding to boredom than drugs.
Most of all, rural areas provide better protection from nuclear wars and other human inflicted catastrophes, the sorts of disasters the establishments and defense industries are right now prodding us into.
David Brooks, the self-anointed social science expert, will never ever move to Houston's vibrant neighborhoods. Instead, he noted this about his $120,000 cosmopolitan vacation:
But sometimes money allows you to see too many things, too quickly. Sometimes if you seize all the opportunities your money affords, you may end up skimming over life and nothing is deep enough to leave a mark.
Friday, March 3, 2017
We Live on a Creepy, Evil Planet
The reality of this planet is worse than almost any horror movie. Imagine describing this planet to an alien.
We are in yet another Thucydides Trap. Good people should be screaming and doing their best to get the hell out of it, yet humans keep letting ego driven salami slicers rise to the top.
The threats of nuclear weapons, biological weapons, rapidly evolving pathogens, and potential space based calamities hang over the planet with greater ominousness than a Sword of Damocles, yet the latest social media outrages are treated with more seriousness.
Biting and sucking creatures, plus the pathogens they carry, have killed billions. Viewing these creatures under a microscope gives us shivers. Gut bacteria influence actions in surprising ways. Other organisms completely take over their hosts. Geological hazards add to the carnage. On much of Earth surface, humans seldom survive without protective technologies, in particular, weapons, clothing, and housing.
At our planet, the worse a powerful race or ideology behaves, the more off limits to reform or criticism it is.
With the exception of the Dalai Lama, Frank Salter, and a handful of other thinkers, almost every nonwhite public figure believes in freedom of association for their own races but not for whites. Few seem to notice the contradiction and its monstrous implications.
History books regale us with the horrors of McCarthyism, which harmed a handful of Marxians--individuals and ideologies that were and are waging aggressive, unconventional warfare against us. These books fail to enlighten about the thousands of whites fired, fined, imprisoned or ostracized for thought crimes against cultural Marxism.
The most admired individuals exhibit extreme egoism or misplaced altruism or both.
Powerful individuals are treated as if they have gravitas due to halo effects, when in reality, they are more articulate than wise. This also applies to military leadership, yet polling suggests more public trust in the military than other institutions. Let's hope the poll respondents meant they lower ranking military personnel. The jargon and banalities, especially multicultural, coming from military officers is nearly as bad as what exists in journals of neo-pragmatism.
Multiculturalists tell us nonwhites will treat us fairly when we become minorities in our own countries, even though nonwhites don't treat us fairly now and have relentlessly abused other minorities throughout history.
Professional ironists inform us (without irony) that reality (meaning truth) has a liberal bias (though there are millions of mutually contradictory worldviews calling themselves liberal), a self-contradictory claim. The truth cannot have a bias.
Those with long formal educations spent small fortunes to learn millions of trivial facts but do not face facts on the most important issues. Instead, they succumb to social pressures, availability biases, and other reasoning mistakes. And they aren't even dimly aware how skewed their worldviews are. If you point out their lack of accuracy, you will be demonized for anti-intellectualism. Almost every politician, intellectual, and wealthy individual born in the 20th century believed in one or more totalitarian ideologies. Almost. Every. One.
Billions form their unethical views based on how those views affect their own status and wallets. Multicultural billionaires, who acquired their wealth via inheritance or unethical activities, are viewed as admirable philanthropists merely for donating a small portion of their ill-gotten wealth to (mostly) crooked charities.
The results of economic models that weigh a small number of one-sided factors are treated as iron laws.
It is considered offensive to tell low IQ, low character individuals to have fewer children, even wards of the state and wards of international charities. But it is cool to tell productive Westerners to stop having children on behalf of the planet. Let's get rid of the people who saved billions of lives with their altruism and scientific revolutions (sarcasm)! Dysgenic supremacism cannot continue forever. At some point, individuals will become so bad off they will no longer understand the simple, fatuous slogans of cultural Marxism, then they will start breeding for worthwhile traits or their groups will become extinct.
The ruling groups think its wrong to make the world better by spreading better genes, as if things will get better as genes gradually get worse, as if the right environmental schemes will make things better, even though they haven't yet figured out such a scheme and even though doing right things contradicts their own perceived self-interest. Nevertheless, they are very, very careful about not marrying someone with genes far beneath them.
Fathers are often stripped of their children without an ethical process of law or even due process of law.
These realities must not induce fatalism. There are good things on this planet. The fight for good things is a good in itself. J.K. Rowling now finds herself facing a petition to make her mansion a home to migrants. This is a good thing. Hammer their contradictions. If she decides to invite a small, unrepresentative sample of obsequious migrants into her home and pronounce it a success, excoriate her for using small, unrepresentative sampling.
There are worse things than being socially ostracized. Multiculturalists hate whites for existing and many other specious reasons. Groveling doesn't eliminate their misplaced hatreds. They need their hatreds to give their lives purpose, to increase social status for themselves. While their expertise at many professions is abysmal, multiculturalists are experts at exploiting the self-loathing of whites. I write this so that we will find warranted confidence, so that we will not be browbeaten by the tactics and technologies of mass manipulation.
Our rights and duties do not disappear because others behave poorly or cleverly.
We are in yet another Thucydides Trap. Good people should be screaming and doing their best to get the hell out of it, yet humans keep letting ego driven salami slicers rise to the top.
The threats of nuclear weapons, biological weapons, rapidly evolving pathogens, and potential space based calamities hang over the planet with greater ominousness than a Sword of Damocles, yet the latest social media outrages are treated with more seriousness.
Biting and sucking creatures, plus the pathogens they carry, have killed billions. Viewing these creatures under a microscope gives us shivers. Gut bacteria influence actions in surprising ways. Other organisms completely take over their hosts. Geological hazards add to the carnage. On much of Earth surface, humans seldom survive without protective technologies, in particular, weapons, clothing, and housing.
At our planet, the worse a powerful race or ideology behaves, the more off limits to reform or criticism it is.
With the exception of the Dalai Lama, Frank Salter, and a handful of other thinkers, almost every nonwhite public figure believes in freedom of association for their own races but not for whites. Few seem to notice the contradiction and its monstrous implications.
History books regale us with the horrors of McCarthyism, which harmed a handful of Marxians--individuals and ideologies that were and are waging aggressive, unconventional warfare against us. These books fail to enlighten about the thousands of whites fired, fined, imprisoned or ostracized for thought crimes against cultural Marxism.
The most admired individuals exhibit extreme egoism or misplaced altruism or both.
Powerful individuals are treated as if they have gravitas due to halo effects, when in reality, they are more articulate than wise. This also applies to military leadership, yet polling suggests more public trust in the military than other institutions. Let's hope the poll respondents meant they lower ranking military personnel. The jargon and banalities, especially multicultural, coming from military officers is nearly as bad as what exists in journals of neo-pragmatism.
Multiculturalists tell us nonwhites will treat us fairly when we become minorities in our own countries, even though nonwhites don't treat us fairly now and have relentlessly abused other minorities throughout history.
Professional ironists inform us (without irony) that reality (meaning truth) has a liberal bias (though there are millions of mutually contradictory worldviews calling themselves liberal), a self-contradictory claim. The truth cannot have a bias.
Those with long formal educations spent small fortunes to learn millions of trivial facts but do not face facts on the most important issues. Instead, they succumb to social pressures, availability biases, and other reasoning mistakes. And they aren't even dimly aware how skewed their worldviews are. If you point out their lack of accuracy, you will be demonized for anti-intellectualism. Almost every politician, intellectual, and wealthy individual born in the 20th century believed in one or more totalitarian ideologies. Almost. Every. One.
Billions form their unethical views based on how those views affect their own status and wallets. Multicultural billionaires, who acquired their wealth via inheritance or unethical activities, are viewed as admirable philanthropists merely for donating a small portion of their ill-gotten wealth to (mostly) crooked charities.
The results of economic models that weigh a small number of one-sided factors are treated as iron laws.
It is considered offensive to tell low IQ, low character individuals to have fewer children, even wards of the state and wards of international charities. But it is cool to tell productive Westerners to stop having children on behalf of the planet. Let's get rid of the people who saved billions of lives with their altruism and scientific revolutions (sarcasm)! Dysgenic supremacism cannot continue forever. At some point, individuals will become so bad off they will no longer understand the simple, fatuous slogans of cultural Marxism, then they will start breeding for worthwhile traits or their groups will become extinct.
The ruling groups think its wrong to make the world better by spreading better genes, as if things will get better as genes gradually get worse, as if the right environmental schemes will make things better, even though they haven't yet figured out such a scheme and even though doing right things contradicts their own perceived self-interest. Nevertheless, they are very, very careful about not marrying someone with genes far beneath them.
Fathers are often stripped of their children without an ethical process of law or even due process of law.
These realities must not induce fatalism. There are good things on this planet. The fight for good things is a good in itself. J.K. Rowling now finds herself facing a petition to make her mansion a home to migrants. This is a good thing. Hammer their contradictions. If she decides to invite a small, unrepresentative sample of obsequious migrants into her home and pronounce it a success, excoriate her for using small, unrepresentative sampling.
There are worse things than being socially ostracized. Multiculturalists hate whites for existing and many other specious reasons. Groveling doesn't eliminate their misplaced hatreds. They need their hatreds to give their lives purpose, to increase social status for themselves. While their expertise at many professions is abysmal, multiculturalists are experts at exploiting the self-loathing of whites. I write this so that we will find warranted confidence, so that we will not be browbeaten by the tactics and technologies of mass manipulation.
Our rights and duties do not disappear because others behave poorly or cleverly.
Saturday, February 25, 2017
Test Scores: Dazed and Confused
Scott Alexander, a much beloved writer from the alt very, very light, argues that the reason "minority students’ scores [increased] by about 20%... almost entirely during the period from 1975-1985..." was due to "the general improvement in minorities’ conditions around that time, giving them better nutrition and a more stable family life." White students' test scores increased by 1.4 percent, writes Alexander.
Come on, man.
The median income of young families with children (officially) declined 26 percent between 1973 and 1986, probably more than that unofficially when gimmicks such as hedonic pricing are more accurately weighed. That was the era when OPEC, globalists, educators, neoconservatives, multiculturalists, Wall Street, New Democrats, establishment Republicans, and people born before 1950 unilaterally decided America should not be a broad middle class society. Divorce was also more common during that era. That does not sound like a recipe for improved nutrition and a more stable family life.
Many factors, pushing in a variety of directions, are going on here:
Come on, man.
The median income of young families with children (officially) declined 26 percent between 1973 and 1986, probably more than that unofficially when gimmicks such as hedonic pricing are more accurately weighed. That was the era when OPEC, globalists, educators, neoconservatives, multiculturalists, Wall Street, New Democrats, establishment Republicans, and people born before 1950 unilaterally decided America should not be a broad middle class society. Divorce was also more common during that era. That does not sound like a recipe for improved nutrition and a more stable family life.
Many factors, pushing in a variety of directions, are going on here:
- increased cheating.
- increased teaching of test skills.
- changes in residential mobility.
- small dysgenic and eugenic effects within races.
- the Flynn effect.
- increased integration in some years, harming learning environments for whites. (People of comparatively recent African and Southwest Asian descent have excellent skills at dragging others down from where they otherwise would have been, especially gullible whites).
- decreased integration in other years, improving the learning environments for many whites.
- changes in pollution.
- changes in test questions.
- the era of open classrooms and dozens of other education fads in some schools, which resulted in students goofing off most of the day and failing to learn the basics.
- changes in teacher quality, including the percentage of burned out teachers.
- changes in school size.
- changes in rates of reading for pleasure over time.
- changes in how cultures valued education, including during the Dazed and Confused Era, which the film by the same name did not adequately re-create.
(As a general rule, contrarians whose world views differ little from establishment world views, get most of the important issues wrong.)
Saturday, February 11, 2017
More Crime and Migration Junk Science
A new study asserts there are "no links" between crime and immigration. That's because most street and financial crimes in the United States are committed by the descendants of nonwhite migrants. In other words, the first generation of nonwhite migrants may commit fewer crimes than "natives." But it is because native, nonwhite descendants of migrants commit more crimes than the first generation and whites do. First generation nonwhites are also more clever about avoiding arrests for their crimes than their nihilism, hedonism, and cultural Marxism loving descendants.
The article commits the lump of migrants fallacy, making no distinctions among high crime and low crime ethnoracial groups. But multiculturalists now act to flood the West with more harmful types of migrants.
High IQ Asians do have low rates of street crimes but have high rates of far more harmful bribery, espionage, and other high-functioning crimes. A handful of espionage acts often causes far more harm than millions of burglaries. They also support terrorism against whites exercising their speech rights and other important rights, another type of crime that causes harms far out of proportion to the number of crimes committed.
The article also does not say whether the study relied on self-reports, where many nonwhites are many times more likely to make false statements.
I also doubt the study counted visa fraud and illegal entries as crimes.
The article commits the lump of migrants fallacy, making no distinctions among high crime and low crime ethnoracial groups. But multiculturalists now act to flood the West with more harmful types of migrants.
High IQ Asians do have low rates of street crimes but have high rates of far more harmful bribery, espionage, and other high-functioning crimes. A handful of espionage acts often causes far more harm than millions of burglaries. They also support terrorism against whites exercising their speech rights and other important rights, another type of crime that causes harms far out of proportion to the number of crimes committed.
The article also does not say whether the study relied on self-reports, where many nonwhites are many times more likely to make false statements.
I also doubt the study counted visa fraud and illegal entries as crimes.
Saturday, February 4, 2017
The Establishment Distraction Strategies Disaster
Establishment distraction strategies have three main attributes:
All of the above falls into the straw person category.
Expect mass denunciations of Trump's tweets for the next several years, including from neoconservatives, even as Trump surrounds himself with neoconservatives and implements neoconservative policies, especially regarding China, tax shifts, Wall Street, and our ersatz allies in the Middle East. The slightly more honest neoconservatives must be ecstatic. Trump surrounds himself with neoconservatives and does what they want, yet they chant that he's not one of them. The media blame for Trump falls on nonmulticulturalists, who get little in return for delivering the Oval Office to Trump.
Expect a continued litany of trivial scandals:"Alternative Facts," "Bowling Green Massacre," etc.
Expect to see obscure social media users vaulted to brief fame as establishments attempt to demonize them as representative of any opposition.
Expect numerous KKK stories, though many KKK members are now federal agents. The KKK is now partly an anti-white false flag operation. It wouldn't surprise me if federal agents actively recruited gullible, low IQ whites for the KKK. Imagine the opposite. Imagine a KKK meeting. The "serious" member asks the undercover agents why they seem lukewarm. That might become awkward. Federal agents probably recruit simply to fit in and keep an eye on KKK types.
The KKK has no business being a part of any white liberation movement. Groups with histories of aggressive acts have no business existing, nor do they have any business being a part of any white liberation movements.
Group polarization keeps the focus away from accurately weighing issues and doing the right things. And ethnoracial diversity is the all-time world champ at creating group polarization.
I often encounter individuals whose political thinking consists of slurs, establishment talking points, and lengthy enemies lists. The emphasis on enemies lists keeps increasing as establishment policies and ideologies increasingly consist of greed mixed with self-contradictory Twitter slogans. Not surprisingly, establishment individuals accuse others of being the Dunning-Kruger "idiots." The ability to experience cognitive dissonance seems almost non-existent among the establishment thinkers. Lord knows they are great successes at contradicting themselves.
Establishment actions matter more than their words.
One problem for establishments is that by giving publicity to those perceived as among the worst, establishments increase the fame and influence of those individuals.
- demonizing perceived outgroup individuals as dangerous threats, while real enemies remain allies of the ruling groups (Saudi Arabia, for example).
- keeping well-reasoned opposition out of voter's and donor's minds.
- keeping the focus away from the establishment's own evils.
All of the above falls into the straw person category.
Expect mass denunciations of Trump's tweets for the next several years, including from neoconservatives, even as Trump surrounds himself with neoconservatives and implements neoconservative policies, especially regarding China, tax shifts, Wall Street, and our ersatz allies in the Middle East. The slightly more honest neoconservatives must be ecstatic. Trump surrounds himself with neoconservatives and does what they want, yet they chant that he's not one of them. The media blame for Trump falls on nonmulticulturalists, who get little in return for delivering the Oval Office to Trump.
Expect a continued litany of trivial scandals:"Alternative Facts," "Bowling Green Massacre," etc.
Expect to see obscure social media users vaulted to brief fame as establishments attempt to demonize them as representative of any opposition.
Expect numerous KKK stories, though many KKK members are now federal agents. The KKK is now partly an anti-white false flag operation. It wouldn't surprise me if federal agents actively recruited gullible, low IQ whites for the KKK. Imagine the opposite. Imagine a KKK meeting. The "serious" member asks the undercover agents why they seem lukewarm. That might become awkward. Federal agents probably recruit simply to fit in and keep an eye on KKK types.
The KKK has no business being a part of any white liberation movement. Groups with histories of aggressive acts have no business existing, nor do they have any business being a part of any white liberation movements.
Group polarization keeps the focus away from accurately weighing issues and doing the right things. And ethnoracial diversity is the all-time world champ at creating group polarization.
I often encounter individuals whose political thinking consists of slurs, establishment talking points, and lengthy enemies lists. The emphasis on enemies lists keeps increasing as establishment policies and ideologies increasingly consist of greed mixed with self-contradictory Twitter slogans. Not surprisingly, establishment individuals accuse others of being the Dunning-Kruger "idiots." The ability to experience cognitive dissonance seems almost non-existent among the establishment thinkers. Lord knows they are great successes at contradicting themselves.
Establishment actions matter more than their words.
One problem for establishments is that by giving publicity to those perceived as among the worst, establishments increase the fame and influence of those individuals.
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Their Interest Is in Harming Us
Theresa May, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, talks interests:
Our rulers regularly conflate or confuse their interest in their own egoism with what would be beneficial for the people they rule over.
In general, we should be wary of the word interests. Nonmulticulturalists frequently say the interests of nonwhites clash with those of whites. But the word interests is vague and euphemistic, making it sound as if whites and nonwhites have minor differences in preferences. Writers seldom define interests in the context of their essays.
Instead of differing interests, we should use more accurate words and phrases such as invasions, massive harms, dysgenic hells, mass destruction, beneficence lost, stealth annihilation, globalized totalitarianism, long-term horrors, anti-white genocide, massive opportunity costs, and ideological weapons of mass destruction. While the political record of whites is poor, that record is far better than that of nonwhites, who create mass totalitarianism and mass Machiavellianism almost everywhere they have the power to do so, especially in ethnoracially diverse societies.
When establishment people start talking about the interests of the West, they're not talking about helping us or preventing harms. They're talking about the helping anti-Western individuals, including themselves, who sometimes happen to have mailing addresses in the West. And the same often applies to magazines with misleading names such as The National Interest and The American Interest."But nor can we afford to stand idly by when the threat is real and when it is in our own interests to intervene. We must be strong, smart and hard-headed. And we must demonstrate the resolve necessary to stand up for our interests."And whether it is the security of Israel in the Middle East or Estonia in the Baltic states, we must always stand up for our friends and allies in democratic countries that find themselves in tough neighbourhoods too," she said, to applause from her audience.
Our rulers regularly conflate or confuse their interest in their own egoism with what would be beneficial for the people they rule over.
In general, we should be wary of the word interests. Nonmulticulturalists frequently say the interests of nonwhites clash with those of whites. But the word interests is vague and euphemistic, making it sound as if whites and nonwhites have minor differences in preferences. Writers seldom define interests in the context of their essays.
Instead of differing interests, we should use more accurate words and phrases such as invasions, massive harms, dysgenic hells, mass destruction, beneficence lost, stealth annihilation, globalized totalitarianism, long-term horrors, anti-white genocide, massive opportunity costs, and ideological weapons of mass destruction. While the political record of whites is poor, that record is far better than that of nonwhites, who create mass totalitarianism and mass Machiavellianism almost everywhere they have the power to do so, especially in ethnoracially diverse societies.
Monday, January 23, 2017
What Is Neoliberalism?
Neoliberalism has a multitude of meanings. In economics, neoliberalism is any type of capitalism that unjustly redistributes income to the top or to other allies, from laissez faire economics to the Third Wayism of the New Democrats. (Marxism also unjustly redistributes to the top or other allies but that is a topic for another day.)
In broader meanings of the term, neoliberalism mixes these economic policies with militarism and cultural Marxism. Neoliberalism's adherents usually label their redistributions as something else: merit, equality, freedom, democracy, etc. Almost anything that conflicts with such redistributions gets demonized as racism, class warfare and other dysphemisms. Neoliberalism is a comparatively transparent ruse, but attracts followers because of its simplicity, because many of its supporters profit from it and because its supporters control massive amounts of propaganda power. Neoliberalism accepts de facto affirmative action because boycotts, lawsuits, and negative publicity interfere with redistributions to allies. Neoliberalism pretends to oppose welfare but in practice supports tax entitlements and other stealthy forms of welfare.
Neoliberalism is tricky for New Democrats. Most New Democrats cannot support tax shifts from allies to nonwealthy workers or future generations without losing millions of votes and donations, though some neoconservative and Blue Dog Democrats did so without severe repercussions.
New Democrats unjustly redistribute using policies that voters don't understand: by accepting legalized bribery, by supporting pro-Wall Street policies, by creating austerity while pretending to be anti-austerity, by tolerating monopolies and oligopolies among their allies. Many voters remain unaware that more money gets redistributed by the combination of these other methods than by tax shifts. Austerity, for example, redistributes to the top by increasing unemployment, which decreases worker bargaining power. Austerity also makes some products of financial engineering more valuable.
How do New Democrats get away with it? First, by overemphasizing the minor benefits of trivial reforms. Second, New Democrats claim that they would do the right things if only the Republicans weren't stopping them. But the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House in 2009 and 2010, yet still governed using neoliberalism. Third, New Democrats use cultural Marxism, especially hostile migration, for divide-and-rule strategies.
Almost all supporters of neoliberalism also support globalism, ignoring massive counter evidence while emphasizing comparative advantage and economics of scale.
Almost all neoliberals support cultural Marxism, a faith based belief that if whites treat nonwhites as equals or superiors, nonwhites will reciprocate the altruism, though nonwhites in power have seldom behaved with such fairness. Nonwhites and white multiculturalists are quite willing to kill the proverbial geese that lay golden eggs, as has happened in Zimbabwe and numerous other places.
Why globalism and cultural Marxism? Because they are profitable for those engaged in free riding. Realtors make money every time you buy and sell. Realtors don't want you living in the same house for the rest of your life. They want white flight. Realtors call it block busting, wanting whites to move regularly. Software manufacturers want nonwhites to move to the West, where nonwhites are less likely to pirate software. The marginal cost of each additional software copy to software manufacturers is comparatively tiny. Most donors in the ruling groups reap short term benefits from globalism and cultural Marxism. But in the long-term, the results are war, mass destruction, and genetic dystopias, even for the ruling groups.
Militarism distracts the population, helps neoliberal war profiteering, and helps suppress alternative belief systems. Libertarians often claim to oppose militarism but since Libertarians support legalized bribery and defense industries do massive amounts of bribing, Libertarian rhetorical opposition is largely a small gesture.
Most living Westerners have grown up under neoliberalism and many conceive of little else. They know little about public policies and thus reflexively recoil at different ideas unless the establishment propaganda machines hop on board the different ideas.
Many opponents of neoliberalism reflexively flee to socialism, having never studied the real history of socialism and having never lived under socialism, leading to even worse results.
Since few individuals admit to their ruthless behaviors, even to themselves, neoliberalism come up with tokenistic altruistic policies to hide scams and "prove" themselves as good people. In the 1980s, it was the Earned Income Tax Credit. In the 1990s, it was Marvin Olasky's compassionate conservatism. In the 2000s, it was George W. Bush's aid to Africa and Barack Obama's Cash for Clunkers, to name but a few. The wealthy typically donate about two percent of their wealth to (mostly) crooked charitable activities, another way for them to feel good about themselves while not actually being good.
What else is wrong with neoliberalism: free riding. Every type of neoliberalism creates massive free rider problems, especially for future generations. It is not sustainable for individuals and environments. Neoliberals would see nothing wrong with flooding the West with several hundred million welfare and affirmative action seeking nonwhites. Their easily indoctrinated hostility toward whites is worse.
In all types of neoliberalism, productive workers end up worse off than those engaged in parasitic activities. Since most humans think they are ethically better than most other humans, multicultural neoliberals will invent multitudes of rationalizations to justify parasitism. Wall Streeters, who contribute far more harms than benefits, described themselves as Masters of the Universe. Ethical work is highly taxed socially and economically. Negative externalities are supported or lightly taxed. The financial industry causes umpteen trillion dollars per year in direct, indirect, and opportunity costs, yet the search for killer comets and asteroids starves for want of a few million dollars. The result is increasing chaos combined with increasing tyranny to prevent the chaos from spilling into the lives of ruling groups.
Thousands of important policy issues exist. Neoliberals offer few good solutions, except to give more money and power to those who already have too much money and power and to those who have little interest in the people.
Neoliberals care more about the label democracy than the reality of kleptocratic kakistocracy.
In broader meanings of the term, neoliberalism mixes these economic policies with militarism and cultural Marxism. Neoliberalism's adherents usually label their redistributions as something else: merit, equality, freedom, democracy, etc. Almost anything that conflicts with such redistributions gets demonized as racism, class warfare and other dysphemisms. Neoliberalism is a comparatively transparent ruse, but attracts followers because of its simplicity, because many of its supporters profit from it and because its supporters control massive amounts of propaganda power. Neoliberalism accepts de facto affirmative action because boycotts, lawsuits, and negative publicity interfere with redistributions to allies. Neoliberalism pretends to oppose welfare but in practice supports tax entitlements and other stealthy forms of welfare.
Neoliberalism is tricky for New Democrats. Most New Democrats cannot support tax shifts from allies to nonwealthy workers or future generations without losing millions of votes and donations, though some neoconservative and Blue Dog Democrats did so without severe repercussions.
New Democrats unjustly redistribute using policies that voters don't understand: by accepting legalized bribery, by supporting pro-Wall Street policies, by creating austerity while pretending to be anti-austerity, by tolerating monopolies and oligopolies among their allies. Many voters remain unaware that more money gets redistributed by the combination of these other methods than by tax shifts. Austerity, for example, redistributes to the top by increasing unemployment, which decreases worker bargaining power. Austerity also makes some products of financial engineering more valuable.
How do New Democrats get away with it? First, by overemphasizing the minor benefits of trivial reforms. Second, New Democrats claim that they would do the right things if only the Republicans weren't stopping them. But the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House in 2009 and 2010, yet still governed using neoliberalism. Third, New Democrats use cultural Marxism, especially hostile migration, for divide-and-rule strategies.
Almost all supporters of neoliberalism also support globalism, ignoring massive counter evidence while emphasizing comparative advantage and economics of scale.
Almost all neoliberals support cultural Marxism, a faith based belief that if whites treat nonwhites as equals or superiors, nonwhites will reciprocate the altruism, though nonwhites in power have seldom behaved with such fairness. Nonwhites and white multiculturalists are quite willing to kill the proverbial geese that lay golden eggs, as has happened in Zimbabwe and numerous other places.
Why globalism and cultural Marxism? Because they are profitable for those engaged in free riding. Realtors make money every time you buy and sell. Realtors don't want you living in the same house for the rest of your life. They want white flight. Realtors call it block busting, wanting whites to move regularly. Software manufacturers want nonwhites to move to the West, where nonwhites are less likely to pirate software. The marginal cost of each additional software copy to software manufacturers is comparatively tiny. Most donors in the ruling groups reap short term benefits from globalism and cultural Marxism. But in the long-term, the results are war, mass destruction, and genetic dystopias, even for the ruling groups.
Militarism distracts the population, helps neoliberal war profiteering, and helps suppress alternative belief systems. Libertarians often claim to oppose militarism but since Libertarians support legalized bribery and defense industries do massive amounts of bribing, Libertarian rhetorical opposition is largely a small gesture.
Most living Westerners have grown up under neoliberalism and many conceive of little else. They know little about public policies and thus reflexively recoil at different ideas unless the establishment propaganda machines hop on board the different ideas.
Many opponents of neoliberalism reflexively flee to socialism, having never studied the real history of socialism and having never lived under socialism, leading to even worse results.
Since few individuals admit to their ruthless behaviors, even to themselves, neoliberalism come up with tokenistic altruistic policies to hide scams and "prove" themselves as good people. In the 1980s, it was the Earned Income Tax Credit. In the 1990s, it was Marvin Olasky's compassionate conservatism. In the 2000s, it was George W. Bush's aid to Africa and Barack Obama's Cash for Clunkers, to name but a few. The wealthy typically donate about two percent of their wealth to (mostly) crooked charitable activities, another way for them to feel good about themselves while not actually being good.
What else is wrong with neoliberalism: free riding. Every type of neoliberalism creates massive free rider problems, especially for future generations. It is not sustainable for individuals and environments. Neoliberals would see nothing wrong with flooding the West with several hundred million welfare and affirmative action seeking nonwhites. Their easily indoctrinated hostility toward whites is worse.
In all types of neoliberalism, productive workers end up worse off than those engaged in parasitic activities. Since most humans think they are ethically better than most other humans, multicultural neoliberals will invent multitudes of rationalizations to justify parasitism. Wall Streeters, who contribute far more harms than benefits, described themselves as Masters of the Universe. Ethical work is highly taxed socially and economically. Negative externalities are supported or lightly taxed. The financial industry causes umpteen trillion dollars per year in direct, indirect, and opportunity costs, yet the search for killer comets and asteroids starves for want of a few million dollars. The result is increasing chaos combined with increasing tyranny to prevent the chaos from spilling into the lives of ruling groups.
Thousands of important policy issues exist. Neoliberals offer few good solutions, except to give more money and power to those who already have too much money and power and to those who have little interest in the people.
Neoliberals care more about the label democracy than the reality of kleptocratic kakistocracy.
Monday, January 2, 2017
Thomas Sowell: a Mixed Legacy
Thomas Sowell ranks among the more notable of 2016's casualties. What I remember most about Sowell was his willingness to investigate alternative causal factors for differences in family incomes (ages, cultures, education types, education levels, work preferences, number of working adults) at a time when most establishment thinkers fanatically and erroneously chanted sexism and racism. If anything, the situation is worse now. Establishment thinkers still won't face facts, acting as if their rage and belief in a thing makes the thing true. Groupthink and epistemic cowardice keep escalating.
(Sowell developed a devoted following. At a university I briefly attended, someone went to the trouble of stuffing photocopies of Sowell's articles into thousands of library books.)
Inside American Education was probably Sowell's greatest book, a work even William Raspberry praised.
Unfortunately, Sowell largely ignored genetic factors. Even as Sowell railed against those he slurred as "intelligentsia," Sowell was blinded by his own neoliberalism and cultural Marxism.
Almost all forms of assimilationism are and were variants of cultural Marxism, including Sowell's.
(Sowell developed a devoted following. At a university I briefly attended, someone went to the trouble of stuffing photocopies of Sowell's articles into thousands of library books.)
Inside American Education was probably Sowell's greatest book, a work even William Raspberry praised.
Unfortunately, Sowell largely ignored genetic factors. Even as Sowell railed against those he slurred as "intelligentsia," Sowell was blinded by his own neoliberalism and cultural Marxism.
Almost all forms of assimilationism are and were variants of cultural Marxism, including Sowell's.
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
Getting Serious About Defending Speech Freedoms
When multiculturalists and their allies demand ever increasing fines, firings, imprisonments, and other punishments for thought crimes, Westerners increasingly either agree with the totalitarianism or offer milquetoast defenses of free speech, often repeating the slurs spewed by the multiculturalists, as if to say, "I hate #@#$, too, but we have this free speech thing for the time being."
Instead, a more robust defense of free speech must be argued, explaining why free speech is crucial and why multiculturalism causes mass destruction to speech freedoms and ethical societies.
A you first reply should be adopted. Those who demand punishments for "hate speech" should be told they should fire or arrest themselves and their allies first before they fire or arrest anyone else. Most establishment thinkers have spewed multitudes of anti-white slurs (big*t, r*cist, far r*ght, white tr*sh, white suprem*cist, etc.) When such writers demand arrests for whites for telling ethnoracial truths, we should demand they make an citizen's arrest of themselves first for their far worse rhetoric.
Instead, a more robust defense of free speech must be argued, explaining why free speech is crucial and why multiculturalism causes mass destruction to speech freedoms and ethical societies.
A you first reply should be adopted. Those who demand punishments for "hate speech" should be told they should fire or arrest themselves and their allies first before they fire or arrest anyone else. Most establishment thinkers have spewed multitudes of anti-white slurs (big*t, r*cist, far r*ght, white tr*sh, white suprem*cist, etc.) When such writers demand arrests for whites for telling ethnoracial truths, we should demand they make an citizen's arrest of themselves first for their far worse rhetoric.
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
IQ Paradoxes in Warped Cultures
Individuals with extra low IQs receive compassion, protected by paternalism from states and families, for example, victims of Down Syndrome. But, oddly, individuals with IQs somewhat above that receive unmitigated contempt, especially if white, as if they were escapees from the set of Deliverance. The latter groups are sometimes worse off than the former, having few individuals to look out for them, often having severe behavioral problems. In both cases, they suffer from genes and environments they have little control over.
Yet establishment leaders keep working to make dysgenics and environments worse.
Hard working overachievers also face unexpected problems. They may choose a career beyond their IQ capabilities or other capabilities. Thanks to grade inflation and the college for everyone dogma, many ex-students end up fired or unhired, burdened by unused degrees and miseducation debt peonage. A would be scientist, for example, could find and mechanically memorize solutions to three dimensional wave equations (the internet contains many solutions manuals) while having little understanding of three dimensional wave equations. Despite the explosion in staff and costs, few individuals at colleges care about about the long-term interests of students. I don't know which is worse: administrators financially taking advantage of naive 18-year-olds or educators believing that almost any formal education is good education, especially non-vocational formal educations.
Some students may think their six figure educations are a ticket to the middle class, only to be undone in unexpected ways, being unattractive or performing poorly during job interviews, for example.
The pro-austerity, pro-parasitism, and pro-cultural Marxism policies of Republicans and Democrats add to the carnage
Students would often be better off performing an internship or apprenticeship before spending massive sums on careers they end up hating or failing to find employment in.
No one will sit down with students and say, "I love you, sister, but this career is beyond your capabilities to perform well. It's not a good fit for you." Instead, people tell students to follow their dreams and you can be good at anything if you work hard enough at it, then telling students if you're not good at it, you must work harder.
The brain regions responsible for scam skepticism deteriorate in elderly individuals, yet few powerful individuals do anything to prevent rampant scamming, leaving many elderly citizens destitute. Instead, leaders promote the scams.
Environmental semi-determinism and free will exaggerations rank highly among the causes. Maybe humans are capable of free will, but if so, humans do so on rare occasions. Most daily actions are driven by habits and other intuitions, especially among lower IQ individuals. Many individuals who fanatically dismiss genetic causes in the social world, nevertheless accept genetic facts when diagnosed with a genetically caused physical illness, that is, when their own health is at stake.
The future will be neither ethically easy nor pretty.
Yet establishment leaders keep working to make dysgenics and environments worse.
Hard working overachievers also face unexpected problems. They may choose a career beyond their IQ capabilities or other capabilities. Thanks to grade inflation and the college for everyone dogma, many ex-students end up fired or unhired, burdened by unused degrees and miseducation debt peonage. A would be scientist, for example, could find and mechanically memorize solutions to three dimensional wave equations (the internet contains many solutions manuals) while having little understanding of three dimensional wave equations. Despite the explosion in staff and costs, few individuals at colleges care about about the long-term interests of students. I don't know which is worse: administrators financially taking advantage of naive 18-year-olds or educators believing that almost any formal education is good education, especially non-vocational formal educations.
Some students may think their six figure educations are a ticket to the middle class, only to be undone in unexpected ways, being unattractive or performing poorly during job interviews, for example.
The pro-austerity, pro-parasitism, and pro-cultural Marxism policies of Republicans and Democrats add to the carnage
Students would often be better off performing an internship or apprenticeship before spending massive sums on careers they end up hating or failing to find employment in.
No one will sit down with students and say, "I love you, sister, but this career is beyond your capabilities to perform well. It's not a good fit for you." Instead, people tell students to follow their dreams and you can be good at anything if you work hard enough at it, then telling students if you're not good at it, you must work harder.
The brain regions responsible for scam skepticism deteriorate in elderly individuals, yet few powerful individuals do anything to prevent rampant scamming, leaving many elderly citizens destitute. Instead, leaders promote the scams.
Environmental semi-determinism and free will exaggerations rank highly among the causes. Maybe humans are capable of free will, but if so, humans do so on rare occasions. Most daily actions are driven by habits and other intuitions, especially among lower IQ individuals. Many individuals who fanatically dismiss genetic causes in the social world, nevertheless accept genetic facts when diagnosed with a genetically caused physical illness, that is, when their own health is at stake.
The future will be neither ethically easy nor pretty.
Thursday, December 15, 2016
War and Multicultural Peace
Just fighters often view unhelpful wars as worthwhile simply because justice is on their side, ignoring the individuals wounded or sacrificed and disregarding that a much better solution would have avoided the war.
Multiculturalists, especially, don't care whether their side engages in aggression. They care about winning and that their allies get labeled as victims.
In war, hate and vengeance escalate on various sides, no matter which side is more just or less wrong. Unjust sides seldom suddenly decide they were wrong all along.
Wars among super powers likely will escalate into nuclear wars. Too many individuals are infatuated with Hollywood and military establishment notions of conventional warfare, paying little more than lip service to the dangers of nuclear and biological warfare.
The "world's only super power" phrase seems less common now.
Good.
The nation with the world's most powerful nuclear arsenal is a super power, unless many of Russia's nukes are defective.
For generations, the rulers of what is now called Russia have played by their own rules, violating most international treaties they signed, obeying the treaties when it was in their perceived interest to do so. The proper response to these violations is to be wiser, not agitate for war. Remember too, that Western leaders frequently violate ethical rules and constantly choose actions harmful to the people they rule over. Ethical violations are far more important than international agreements. International law consists largely of poorly reasoned pieces of paper signed by rulers with no business being in power.
Like many other nonwhite nations and some white nations, China prefers to pursue unfair trade. Humans are loss averse. Losing $400 from a pockets irks us far more than missing an opportunity to gain $400. Chinese leaders get outraged at anything Western nations do to decrease unfair trade. That's another point against so-called free trade. If the West avoided trade with China all along, China would not become nearly as outraged at never having lost something they now view as an absolute right. China will pursue mercantilism and espionage until almost every important industry is in their hands. If the West avoided Japan and Japan's mercantilism, nearly 30 million individuals would not have been murdered by Japan between 1931 and 1946.
China is now the world's largest industrial power. If China wanted, China could build umpteen thousand fusion bombs.
Many note that diversity plus proximity creates wars.
Another important factor is salience. It is better to lie in the bushes and be unnoticed than to be a hamfisted, multicultural empire. Distant, powerful rulers seldom rant about the leadership in Uruguay. Many can't find Uruguay on a map.
Multicultural writers like to blame nationalism for many, if not most, ills because it suits establishment agendas of unethical egoism and anti-white genocide. But states engaging in aggression tend to be multicultural empires with rampant bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw oligarchism, so empires, unethical egoism, misplaced altruism, and lack of self-determination are bigger issues. Almost every ruler pretends to be a nationalist in times of crises, even globalists seeking global conquest. Soviet leaders appealed to Mother Russia to save themselves.
Any nation state without ethical nationalism gets conquered by others devoted to genetic or unethical egoism or, most often, both, whether by military means, demographic methods or ideological tactics or all three. Non-aggressive, non-free riding nationalism is a good. Globalists and other multiculturalists support aggression and free riding by themselves and their allies. Not surprisingly, they fight any force that opposes their depredations. Without ethical nationalism, nothing would have stopped world conquest by Maoism or Stalinism or Hitlerism or Hirohitoism or various other horrors. Ethical nationalism is the most potent potential force to stop Islam, Randism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism.
Christianity?
Doubtful.
Most of Christianity is now punked by various combinations of Islam, Randism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism. Pope Francis, the leader of the largest Christian denomination, has more thoughts in common with Saul Alinsky than with most white Westerners.
The major problem: letting those prone to unethical egoism take over groups. The bigger and more ethnoracially diverse an empire, the more likely it will be infected by egoism and glory seeking by rulers.
The current Western establishments devote great efforts to indoctrination, especially military, economic, and multicultural indoctrination, an indoctrination made more insidious because it is presented as the result of consumer choice or informed choices, not ruling group Machiavellianism.
Before and during any war, the question of what are we fighting for should immediately arise. Frank Capra made several documentaries devoted to that question during World War II. What would we be fighting for during a war with China or any other super power? A chunk of land that we are currently giving away to Somalis and other unethical peoples? Should we die to save a land from the Chinese when the ruling groups are working to give the country away to far worse peoples?
The people ruling the United States, having minds closed to ethical evidence, act as if they are engaged in a colonial occupation, despising the people they rule over, These rulers should not be trusted to do right for the people because they have track records of doing wrong to the people for several generations. The fact that they wrap themselves in flags representing people they oppose makes them more dangerous, not less.
Consider the fact that for generations our rulers seldom took civil defense seriously for the people. Establishment writers often claimed life wouldn't be worth living after a nuclear war, yet rulers themselves thought otherwise, building underground cities for themselves in the event of nuclear war. Even the Soviets, who murdered tens of millions, provided far more civil defense for their subjugated peoples.
Aggressive foreigners, explicit and de facto, dominate nearly all American mass media. Imagine if whites dominated nearly all the mass media in developing countries. Multiculturalists would scream bloody murder. Yet Americans accept foreign domination as part of the crypto-totalitarian new normalcy. Rupert Murdoch gets the most criticism of the foreign owners, partly because he is worse than most and partly because he ranks among the few whites with massive media power, making him fair game.
What is worth fighting for?
We need new, white religions or quasi-religions devoted to good works, that is, well-reasoned, hard working religions that avoid and punish both egoism and misplaced altruism while rewarding ethical altruism. The so-called universal religions are a catastrophe. Even the best among them eventually evolve in anti-white directions, making them anti-universal, supporting egoism and misplaced altruism.
Let's imagine that the new religions devoted to good works arise. If the existence of God(s) is fantasy, at least we have the good works. If it turns out that supernatural beings are evil and send good individuals to hells, those beings can go eff themselves. Better to be right and ticked off in hell than insipid in pseudo-paradise. Individuals with massive chips on their shoulders will find more purpose in their existences than even the most refined of pleasure seeking individuals.
Multiculturalists, especially, don't care whether their side engages in aggression. They care about winning and that their allies get labeled as victims.
In war, hate and vengeance escalate on various sides, no matter which side is more just or less wrong. Unjust sides seldom suddenly decide they were wrong all along.
Wars among super powers likely will escalate into nuclear wars. Too many individuals are infatuated with Hollywood and military establishment notions of conventional warfare, paying little more than lip service to the dangers of nuclear and biological warfare.
The "world's only super power" phrase seems less common now.
Good.
The nation with the world's most powerful nuclear arsenal is a super power, unless many of Russia's nukes are defective.
For generations, the rulers of what is now called Russia have played by their own rules, violating most international treaties they signed, obeying the treaties when it was in their perceived interest to do so. The proper response to these violations is to be wiser, not agitate for war. Remember too, that Western leaders frequently violate ethical rules and constantly choose actions harmful to the people they rule over. Ethical violations are far more important than international agreements. International law consists largely of poorly reasoned pieces of paper signed by rulers with no business being in power.
Like many other nonwhite nations and some white nations, China prefers to pursue unfair trade. Humans are loss averse. Losing $400 from a pockets irks us far more than missing an opportunity to gain $400. Chinese leaders get outraged at anything Western nations do to decrease unfair trade. That's another point against so-called free trade. If the West avoided trade with China all along, China would not become nearly as outraged at never having lost something they now view as an absolute right. China will pursue mercantilism and espionage until almost every important industry is in their hands. If the West avoided Japan and Japan's mercantilism, nearly 30 million individuals would not have been murdered by Japan between 1931 and 1946.
China is now the world's largest industrial power. If China wanted, China could build umpteen thousand fusion bombs.
Many note that diversity plus proximity creates wars.
Another important factor is salience. It is better to lie in the bushes and be unnoticed than to be a hamfisted, multicultural empire. Distant, powerful rulers seldom rant about the leadership in Uruguay. Many can't find Uruguay on a map.
Multicultural writers like to blame nationalism for many, if not most, ills because it suits establishment agendas of unethical egoism and anti-white genocide. But states engaging in aggression tend to be multicultural empires with rampant bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw oligarchism, so empires, unethical egoism, misplaced altruism, and lack of self-determination are bigger issues. Almost every ruler pretends to be a nationalist in times of crises, even globalists seeking global conquest. Soviet leaders appealed to Mother Russia to save themselves.
Any nation state without ethical nationalism gets conquered by others devoted to genetic or unethical egoism or, most often, both, whether by military means, demographic methods or ideological tactics or all three. Non-aggressive, non-free riding nationalism is a good. Globalists and other multiculturalists support aggression and free riding by themselves and their allies. Not surprisingly, they fight any force that opposes their depredations. Without ethical nationalism, nothing would have stopped world conquest by Maoism or Stalinism or Hitlerism or Hirohitoism or various other horrors. Ethical nationalism is the most potent potential force to stop Islam, Randism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism.
Christianity?
Doubtful.
Most of Christianity is now punked by various combinations of Islam, Randism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism. Pope Francis, the leader of the largest Christian denomination, has more thoughts in common with Saul Alinsky than with most white Westerners.
The major problem: letting those prone to unethical egoism take over groups. The bigger and more ethnoracially diverse an empire, the more likely it will be infected by egoism and glory seeking by rulers.
The current Western establishments devote great efforts to indoctrination, especially military, economic, and multicultural indoctrination, an indoctrination made more insidious because it is presented as the result of consumer choice or informed choices, not ruling group Machiavellianism.
Before and during any war, the question of what are we fighting for should immediately arise. Frank Capra made several documentaries devoted to that question during World War II. What would we be fighting for during a war with China or any other super power? A chunk of land that we are currently giving away to Somalis and other unethical peoples? Should we die to save a land from the Chinese when the ruling groups are working to give the country away to far worse peoples?
The people ruling the United States, having minds closed to ethical evidence, act as if they are engaged in a colonial occupation, despising the people they rule over, These rulers should not be trusted to do right for the people because they have track records of doing wrong to the people for several generations. The fact that they wrap themselves in flags representing people they oppose makes them more dangerous, not less.
Consider the fact that for generations our rulers seldom took civil defense seriously for the people. Establishment writers often claimed life wouldn't be worth living after a nuclear war, yet rulers themselves thought otherwise, building underground cities for themselves in the event of nuclear war. Even the Soviets, who murdered tens of millions, provided far more civil defense for their subjugated peoples.
Aggressive foreigners, explicit and de facto, dominate nearly all American mass media. Imagine if whites dominated nearly all the mass media in developing countries. Multiculturalists would scream bloody murder. Yet Americans accept foreign domination as part of the crypto-totalitarian new normalcy. Rupert Murdoch gets the most criticism of the foreign owners, partly because he is worse than most and partly because he ranks among the few whites with massive media power, making him fair game.
What is worth fighting for?
We need new, white religions or quasi-religions devoted to good works, that is, well-reasoned, hard working religions that avoid and punish both egoism and misplaced altruism while rewarding ethical altruism. The so-called universal religions are a catastrophe. Even the best among them eventually evolve in anti-white directions, making them anti-universal, supporting egoism and misplaced altruism.
Let's imagine that the new religions devoted to good works arise. If the existence of God(s) is fantasy, at least we have the good works. If it turns out that supernatural beings are evil and send good individuals to hells, those beings can go eff themselves. Better to be right and ticked off in hell than insipid in pseudo-paradise. Individuals with massive chips on their shoulders will find more purpose in their existences than even the most refined of pleasure seeking individuals.
Saturday, December 3, 2016
Boycotts
So we are urged to boycott Kellogg's now on behalf of Breitbart. And what will Breitbart do for us? Would it be too much to ask for Breitbart to actually support white self-determination more than the Republican establishment and various minor issues?
In general, we should boycott most global, multicultural corporations. Avoid the mass media, especially if you have a Nielsen meter. If there is a show you can't bear avoiding, leave the meter in its charging cradle while you watch it in another room. Television ad revenue in the former US is $73 billion in 2016. There are about 70,000 active Nielsen meters, so each meter carried by a boycotter can subtract a huge chunk of money from the mass media. And that's not including radio. When my wife and I did the Nielsen ratings, we watched fewer than one show per month. (I did watch part of a PBS show about logic. Not surprisingly, the show featured Boolean logic, which has little moral relevance, not informal logic.)
Buy more second hand and store brand stuff, though, unfortunately, some store brand stuff comes from global corporations. Many second hand goods are better quality than the new junk at the Walmarts of the world. Quality control at sweatshops seems to be plummeting in recent years.
In general, we should boycott most global, multicultural corporations. Avoid the mass media, especially if you have a Nielsen meter. If there is a show you can't bear avoiding, leave the meter in its charging cradle while you watch it in another room. Television ad revenue in the former US is $73 billion in 2016. There are about 70,000 active Nielsen meters, so each meter carried by a boycotter can subtract a huge chunk of money from the mass media. And that's not including radio. When my wife and I did the Nielsen ratings, we watched fewer than one show per month. (I did watch part of a PBS show about logic. Not surprisingly, the show featured Boolean logic, which has little moral relevance, not informal logic.)
Buy more second hand and store brand stuff, though, unfortunately, some store brand stuff comes from global corporations. Many second hand goods are better quality than the new junk at the Walmarts of the world. Quality control at sweatshops seems to be plummeting in recent years.
Fake Centrism
In contemporary empires, the self-styled centrists and moderates rank among the worst human beings, individuals such as Jonathan Alter, David Brooks, Hillary Clinton, Ben Wattenberg, John Kerry, Rand Paul, Tom Friedman, Joe Lieberman, Tyler Cowen, Olympia Snow, Paul Ryan, Harry Reid, Charles Krauthammer.
If you made a list of the most important 100 policy issues, the individuals who try to position themselves as centrists are right or close to right on probably less than five percent of them. And by right, I mean their actual policy positions and the long-term consequences of those policies, not policies they pretend to support for grandstanding reasons. For example, someone who claims to support punishing Wall Street crimes, but supports legalized bribery, does not support punishing Wall Street crimes. Wall Street bribes their way out of punishments when Wall Street is able.
A goal of the democratic and republican establishments is to indoctrinate the population with the view that their corrupt behaviors are centrist and moderate, then trying to tar every else as some form of fascism or communism.
If Ferdinand Pecora and Dwight Eisenhower were around today, they would both be demonized as too far out.
Some might tell me to look at the Barack Obama campaign promises kept website and the goodness of those promises kept. I have. Few of Obama's worthwhile promises kept would make the 1000 most important issues. And Obama is wrong on some of those promises kept. That is a major problem with pretend centrism. They are bribed on all the important issues. They trumpet trivial reforms, where no major interest groups exist to bribe them. When Bush and Obama both created large Pacific ocean nature preserves, there were no billionaires with much interest in the issue. If some individual or industry were earning several billion per year overfishing those areas, those preserves would not have happened.
If you made a list of the most important 100 policy issues, the individuals who try to position themselves as centrists are right or close to right on probably less than five percent of them. And by right, I mean their actual policy positions and the long-term consequences of those policies, not policies they pretend to support for grandstanding reasons. For example, someone who claims to support punishing Wall Street crimes, but supports legalized bribery, does not support punishing Wall Street crimes. Wall Street bribes their way out of punishments when Wall Street is able.
A goal of the democratic and republican establishments is to indoctrinate the population with the view that their corrupt behaviors are centrist and moderate, then trying to tar every else as some form of fascism or communism.
If Ferdinand Pecora and Dwight Eisenhower were around today, they would both be demonized as too far out.
Some might tell me to look at the Barack Obama campaign promises kept website and the goodness of those promises kept. I have. Few of Obama's worthwhile promises kept would make the 1000 most important issues. And Obama is wrong on some of those promises kept. That is a major problem with pretend centrism. They are bribed on all the important issues. They trumpet trivial reforms, where no major interest groups exist to bribe them. When Bush and Obama both created large Pacific ocean nature preserves, there were no billionaires with much interest in the issue. If some individual or industry were earning several billion per year overfishing those areas, those preserves would not have happened.
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
They Called It Civic Nationalism
So-called civic nationalism is slower multiculturalism. Civic nationalism merely postpones the date the last white will take his or her last breath by a few decades, a way for establishments to prolong the grift and better manage the decline until they and their loved ones die of old age.
The phrase civic nationalism is euphemistic and inaccurate. At the very least a civic minded nationalism must:
The phrase civic nationalism is euphemistic and inaccurate. At the very least a civic minded nationalism must:
- oppose almost all inward migration by racial outgroups.
- oppose ethnoracial based affirmative action and other advantage taking by outgroups.
- prevent racial ingroups from population declines.
- try to avoid self-destructive and mutually destructive military activities.
- prevent divide-and-screw oligarchism.
Street Smarts and Book Smarts
Many whites are book smart but not street smart, which leads to the question of why: probably genes for docility and conformity play roles, and fears of not being liked, even by strangers. But that leads to the paradox that the more you degrade yourself trying to be liked, the more you end up hated. Those pursuing bullying or other advantage taking sense weakness.
Parltly, it's lack of self-respect caused by anomie, incoherence, and cultural Marxism. Street wisdom violates cultural Marxian norms for whites, whether secular or avuncular.
White tendencies toward empathy and compassion seldom differentiate among deserved compassion and misplaced compassion. For that, we need good reasoning, something mass media and powerful groups oppose with fury. Some whites have book smarts but not the ethical and logical book smarts they would benefit from. Many whites get repeatedly fooled by aggressive panhandling, yet seem unaware they are being tricked by the foot-in-the-door technique and other tactics of deception.
Parltly, it's lack of self-respect caused by anomie, incoherence, and cultural Marxism. Street wisdom violates cultural Marxian norms for whites, whether secular or avuncular.
White tendencies toward empathy and compassion seldom differentiate among deserved compassion and misplaced compassion. For that, we need good reasoning, something mass media and powerful groups oppose with fury. Some whites have book smarts but not the ethical and logical book smarts they would benefit from. Many whites get repeatedly fooled by aggressive panhandling, yet seem unaware they are being tricked by the foot-in-the-door technique and other tactics of deception.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Establishment Totalitarianism Strikes Again
Recently, my local library featured a banned books display, warning against censorship.
This, at a library system that engages in despicable censorship.
Almost all nonmulticultural and self-determination websites are blocked for "intolerance" or being "advocacy groups." Some economic populist sites are also blocked, including Citizens for Tax Justice. Even Nick Bostrom's philosophy site on human survival issues is blocked for being "non-traditional religion." Almost all personal blogs are also blocked.
Not surprisingly, Salon, Alternet, SPLC, and various other sites devoted to anti-white genocide and totalitarianism are not blocked, no matter how many slurs they spew at whites, no matter how evil their curriculum.
The contradictions are breathtaking.
I won't say what city this is because I'm in no mood to be stalked and doxxed.
This, at a library system that engages in despicable censorship.
Almost all nonmulticultural and self-determination websites are blocked for "intolerance" or being "advocacy groups." Some economic populist sites are also blocked, including Citizens for Tax Justice. Even Nick Bostrom's philosophy site on human survival issues is blocked for being "non-traditional religion." Almost all personal blogs are also blocked.
Not surprisingly, Salon, Alternet, SPLC, and various other sites devoted to anti-white genocide and totalitarianism are not blocked, no matter how many slurs they spew at whites, no matter how evil their curriculum.
The contradictions are breathtaking.
I won't say what city this is because I'm in no mood to be stalked and doxxed.
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Friday, July 29, 2016
Paradoxes of Contemporary Families and Societies
In contemporary societies, if you increase the incomes of single women using establishment methods, single women will spend more money on hedonism and dysgenic breeding. If you decrease the incomes of single women, then you have more children in poverty. If you try to reduce family poverty using establishment methods, victims of establishment dysgenics migrate to white middle class and white working class neighborhoods, ruining far more lives and neighborhoods (the biocultural imperialism of dysgenics and cultural Marxism).
The same goes for many other men and women, with much money wasted on harms and seduction games.
If you give more power to white altruists practicing xenocentrism, they'll commit evils, often the misplaced compassion and misplaced loyalty varieties, until they are back in degraded, low power positions (millions of working class whites paying taxes and voting for establishment candidates, for example). The same results from individuals practicing egoism mixed with xenocentrism (Bob Geldof, Angela Merkel, the Koch brothers, and millions of others).
Societies get ruined for almost everyone.
How do we escape the dysgenic and cultural Marxian traps:
The transition costs are high, but the long term costs of continuing on the present path are astronomical for us and thousands of future generations.
The same goes for many other men and women, with much money wasted on harms and seduction games.
If you give more power to white altruists practicing xenocentrism, they'll commit evils, often the misplaced compassion and misplaced loyalty varieties, until they are back in degraded, low power positions (millions of working class whites paying taxes and voting for establishment candidates, for example). The same results from individuals practicing egoism mixed with xenocentrism (Bob Geldof, Angela Merkel, the Koch brothers, and millions of others).
Societies get ruined for almost everyone.
How do we escape the dysgenic and cultural Marxian traps:
- Give a right of secession to all groups and individuals. Add freedom of association rights to constitutions.
- Pay Muslims and nonwhites to leave the West.
- Fund comprehensive sex and eugenics education.
- Spend more on embryo selection, plus genetic engineering research and development.
- Federally fund schooling and advertising that demonizes dysgenics the way eugenics has been demonized for the past several generations.
- Federally fund sperm banks drawn from high IQ, high character teen boys and young men, charging minimal fees to users. Subsidize egg donation by high IQ, high character young women.
- Ban migration to the West by Muslims and nonwhites, then enforce the bans.
- Require a sixth month waiting period before marriage.
- Create adequate Pigouvian taxes on most negative externalities, including pollution and advertising.
- Gradually require white individuals to raise at least three white children to be eligible for Social Security. Use Pigouvian taxes to pay for Social Security. White individuals failing to do so must provide their own retirements or work until disabled.
- Ban government funding, including student financial aid, for universities and vocational schools that teach anything other than nursing, medicine, engineering, natural sciences, and vocational skills.
- Sterilize all fertile, convicted felons. Require surgical sterilization among fertile welfare applicants as condition for receiving welfare.
- Rescind all government aid to migrants and sanctuary cities.
- Pay former special education students to be sterilized.
- Break off diplomatic relations with any nation that refuses to take their migrants back, parachuting criminal migrants back to their home countries when home countries refuse to take their citizens back.
- Eliminate tax entitlements for religions and other charities promoting political agendas, including property tax entitlements.
- Punish (severely) employers hiring Muslim and nonwhite migrants.
- Enforce surrogate contracts.
- Eliminate welfare and affirmative action.
- Fund paid maternity or paternity leave in proportion to the number of years worked.
- Make public high schools for only the top 25 percent of students. Require the bottom 75 percent of 14 to 19-year-olds to obtain jobs or attend public vocational schools lasting less than two years. Give any teenage student a right to drop out. Permit public schools to expel any student above the age of 12 for any reason without legal interference. Permit K-12 teachers the right to refuse entry into their classrooms any student they think should not be in their classrooms.
- Ban public universities from requiring non-major students from taking courses in the so-called humanities and social sciences.
- Ban public schools from employing struggle sessions and oaths of loyalty to diversity.
- Create party list proportional representation.
- Give the stolen electromagnetic spectrum back to the people.
- Require publicly funded and corporate created media that travels across public property or uses the electromagnetic spectrum to serve the public interest, not egoism, militarism, and cultural Marxism. Ban ownership of media by non-citizens.
- Eliminate citizenship rights for nonwhite and Muslim anchor babies.
- Ban government entities from hiring anyone with any degree in the so-called humanities.
- Do more.
The transition costs are high, but the long term costs of continuing on the present path are astronomical for us and thousands of future generations.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
The Fear, Optimism, and Demagoguery Game
This election season we've seen much of the words fear, optimism, and demagoguery.
Establishment thinkers label you an optimist if you support militarism, parasitism, and cultural Marxism, if you believe the fallacious statistics manufactured by the establishments, if you call whites dozens of slurs.
If you tell the truth about Islam and nonwhites, you're not considered an optimist. Establishments conflate vapid cheerleading for their own wealth and power with better forms of patriotism. Ad hominem appeals to fear and optimism get treated as more important than the evidence.
The likes of David Brooks, Barack Obama, Thomas Friedman, Andrew Sullivan, and George W. Bush are often respected because they are seen as optimists, no matter the consequences of their actions.
If you have a an anti-establishment idea with beneficial consequences, then you're not considered an optimist.
But there is no good evidence that optimism causes politicians to be good for a country. Tojo, Hitler, Hirohito, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Czar Nicholas II, and thousands of other rulers rank among the most overoptimistic leaders in history. Evidence suggests positive thinking is often a terrible thing.
For over half a century, establishments have acted as if the people don't deserve the truth. Few ideas are are more cynical than that.
The establishments have been fear-mongering and demonizing whites for decades, but when you tell the truth about their crypto totalitarianism, then they accuse you of fear-mongering.
Demagoguery consists of emotively loaded, poorly reasoned arguments (though some emotively loaded arguments are well-reasoned).
Knowing that nearly all major institutions are controlled by multiculturalists and their allies, you'd thing Obama would pretend to be above the fray. Thousands of academics and mass media individuals are willing to do the demagoguery for Obama.
But no, Obama puts his optimistic knife of demagoguery in and twists:
The weary world wonders how much more of this optimism and mass destruction we will be forced to absorb.
Establishment thinkers label you an optimist if you support militarism, parasitism, and cultural Marxism, if you believe the fallacious statistics manufactured by the establishments, if you call whites dozens of slurs.
If you tell the truth about Islam and nonwhites, you're not considered an optimist. Establishments conflate vapid cheerleading for their own wealth and power with better forms of patriotism. Ad hominem appeals to fear and optimism get treated as more important than the evidence.
The likes of David Brooks, Barack Obama, Thomas Friedman, Andrew Sullivan, and George W. Bush are often respected because they are seen as optimists, no matter the consequences of their actions.
If you have a an anti-establishment idea with beneficial consequences, then you're not considered an optimist.
But there is no good evidence that optimism causes politicians to be good for a country. Tojo, Hitler, Hirohito, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Czar Nicholas II, and thousands of other rulers rank among the most overoptimistic leaders in history. Evidence suggests positive thinking is often a terrible thing.
For over half a century, establishments have acted as if the people don't deserve the truth. Few ideas are are more cynical than that.
The establishments have been fear-mongering and demonizing whites for decades, but when you tell the truth about their crypto totalitarianism, then they accuse you of fear-mongering.
Demagoguery consists of emotively loaded, poorly reasoned arguments (though some emotively loaded arguments are well-reasoned).
Knowing that nearly all major institutions are controlled by multiculturalists and their allies, you'd thing Obama would pretend to be above the fray. Thousands of academics and mass media individuals are willing to do the demagoguery for Obama.
But no, Obama puts his optimistic knife of demagoguery in and twists:
"when study after study shows [studies hint or suggest, not show] that whites and people of color experience the criminal justice system differently [trite], so that if you’re black you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested [because blacks are more likely to do crime], more likely to get longer sentences [failure to control for crime severity and other factors], more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime [failure to control for geography and other factors]; when mothers and fathers raise their kids right [false claim] and have “the talk” about how to respond if stopped by a police officer -- “yes, sir,” “no, sir”--but still fear [irrelevant] that something terrible may happen when their child walks out the door, still fear [irrelevant] that kids being stupid [ad hominem] and not quite doing things right might end in tragedy [false claim]--when all this takes place more than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act [irrelevant], we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid [straw person]. (Applause [ad populum].) We can’t simply dismiss it as a symptom of political correctness or reverse racism [straw person]. To have your experience denied like that, dismissed by those in authority [straw person], dismissed perhaps even by your white friends and coworkers and fellow church members again and again and again -- it hurts [straw person]. Surely we can see that, all of us [false claim]."The triumph of dysgenics over eugenics, especially character dysgenics, represents an ultimate triumph of optimism over reality.
The weary world wonders how much more of this optimism and mass destruction we will be forced to absorb.
Monday, July 25, 2016
Little Migration from Almost Anywhere
We should not support migration to white countries from anywhere, except white refugees from Zimbabwe and South Africa, including other whites moving from one Western country to another, except when engaging in the massively important task of seceding.
Why?
Because contemporary whites moving among white countries tend to be multiculturalists and others bringing harms. Even those less inclined toward globalism, hedonism, and multiculturalism are easily shamed with irrational guilt, thinking that if it is permissible for them, then billions of nonwhites should also have the right to move to the West. "I was an immigrant, too." Nevermind, the massive behavioral differences among immigrant groups.
Yes, white migrants helped make America a decent country, but today's white migrants bring more ideological baggage. Like nonwhites, they tend to view new lands as merely places to make money, having little attachment to the land and people.
There is also the risk of brain drain and a race to the bottom, with some white countries poaching white talent from other white countries, leaving the white country invested in developing that talent worse off.
There is also the rhetorical problem. When multiculturalists concoct fallacious economic stats and small sample fallacies touting the alleged benefits of migration, one of their tricks is to lump all migrants together, touting the benefits of nonwhite immigration by listing migrant white or Jewish inventors and entrepreneurs. I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard someone try to support third world invasions by listing the likes of Andrew Grove as a benefit of invasions.
Whites must view their homelands as a part of themselves that must be reformed. They must not view homelands as disposable wastelands, temporarily useful before escaping someplace else until the day cultural Marxism conquers the entire planet.
The big exception is secession. Ideally, hundreds of new white only countries would exist where individual whites could pick their citizenship, united in a military alliance, but without the horrors of cultural Marxism.
Why?
Because contemporary whites moving among white countries tend to be multiculturalists and others bringing harms. Even those less inclined toward globalism, hedonism, and multiculturalism are easily shamed with irrational guilt, thinking that if it is permissible for them, then billions of nonwhites should also have the right to move to the West. "I was an immigrant, too." Nevermind, the massive behavioral differences among immigrant groups.
Yes, white migrants helped make America a decent country, but today's white migrants bring more ideological baggage. Like nonwhites, they tend to view new lands as merely places to make money, having little attachment to the land and people.
There is also the risk of brain drain and a race to the bottom, with some white countries poaching white talent from other white countries, leaving the white country invested in developing that talent worse off.
There is also the rhetorical problem. When multiculturalists concoct fallacious economic stats and small sample fallacies touting the alleged benefits of migration, one of their tricks is to lump all migrants together, touting the benefits of nonwhite immigration by listing migrant white or Jewish inventors and entrepreneurs. I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard someone try to support third world invasions by listing the likes of Andrew Grove as a benefit of invasions.
Whites must view their homelands as a part of themselves that must be reformed. They must not view homelands as disposable wastelands, temporarily useful before escaping someplace else until the day cultural Marxism conquers the entire planet.
The big exception is secession. Ideally, hundreds of new white only countries would exist where individual whites could pick their citizenship, united in a military alliance, but without the horrors of cultural Marxism.
Saturday, July 23, 2016
Degraded Normalcy
I visited the World News subreddit, viewing the top monthly posts. The first post mentioning the attack in France was at number 230: "France 'must learn to live with terrorism' - French PM Valls."
Cultural Marxism makes normalcy worse, demonizing or ignoring almost everything that contradicts cultural Marxism.
Cultural Marxism makes normalcy worse, demonizing or ignoring almost everything that contradicts cultural Marxism.
Unconventional Conflicts
Some individuals wonder why nonmulticulturalists focused so much on Rotherham, not other wrongs in the world.
Maybe because there is little Westerners can do about many other evils in the non-Western world. Or perhaps because multitudes of media types and government officials conspired (yes, conspired) for over a decade to hide the fact that thousands of white children were being held in rape slavery and refused to punish the offenders. Compare that reaction with the onslaught of outrage generated over the fabricated Tawana Brawley and Duke lacrosse cases.
Maybe because past history proves Rotherham is a harbinger of massive evils to come.
Multiculturalism is waging an unconventional war of aggression against whites. Most multiculturalists on this planet support the genocide of whites.
Why should we care when adult "civilians" waging wars of aggression suffer harms from their own despicable choices? We didn't force nonwhites to overpopulate their countries. We didn't force nonwhites to engage in massive amounts of dysgenic breeding. We didn't force them to believe horrific ideologies.
Anyone who believes nonwhites shouldn't be criticized for their choices because they believe humans are controlled by only genes and environments should at least be consistent and not criticize their political opponents, who would also be controlled by only genes and environments.
Maybe because there is little Westerners can do about many other evils in the non-Western world. Or perhaps because multitudes of media types and government officials conspired (yes, conspired) for over a decade to hide the fact that thousands of white children were being held in rape slavery and refused to punish the offenders. Compare that reaction with the onslaught of outrage generated over the fabricated Tawana Brawley and Duke lacrosse cases.
Maybe because past history proves Rotherham is a harbinger of massive evils to come.
Multiculturalism is waging an unconventional war of aggression against whites. Most multiculturalists on this planet support the genocide of whites.
Why should we care when adult "civilians" waging wars of aggression suffer harms from their own despicable choices? We didn't force nonwhites to overpopulate their countries. We didn't force nonwhites to engage in massive amounts of dysgenic breeding. We didn't force them to believe horrific ideologies.
Anyone who believes nonwhites shouldn't be criticized for their choices because they believe humans are controlled by only genes and environments should at least be consistent and not criticize their political opponents, who would also be controlled by only genes and environments.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
The Right to Defend Ourselves
Steve King faced a deluge of criticism for accurately implying that whites invented almost everything worthwhile.
In self-determined, ethnoracially homogenous societies, it wouldn't matter much which race invented what. Which individual and how would matter more.
But it matters now. Nonwhites bombard whites with fallacious race blaming rhetoric, yet when someone semi-famous attempts to counter the fallacies, he gets treated as if he has no moral right to tell the truth.
In self-determined, ethnoracially homogenous societies, it wouldn't matter much which race invented what. Which individual and how would matter more.
But it matters now. Nonwhites bombard whites with fallacious race blaming rhetoric, yet when someone semi-famous attempts to counter the fallacies, he gets treated as if he has no moral right to tell the truth.
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
The Media and Fact Facers
Mass media multiculturalists often announce that ethnoracial fact facers aren't being brave, that fact facers are merely trying to get attention by being contrarian.
But ethnoracial fact facing is the sort of contrarianism that gets you little attention. Few Americans have heard of Thomas Jackson, Gregory Hood, and other realists. Facing facts gets you fired or unhired. You don't get much attention by being permanently banned from the mass media and other institutions. Most Westerners still know almost nothing about ethnoracial issues. (The mountains of fallacious propaganda spread by establishment institutions counts as information, not knowledge.
Cutesy, infotainment contrarianism (Freakonomics, for example) gets attention. When no powerful groups are threatened by contrarian facts, powerful groups love contrarian infotainment. Sports writers love to throw shocking contrarian claims out to grab attention. Human memories are so limited that sports fans forget the previous, inaccurate contrarianism and rumor mongering by sports reporters.
Ethnoracial fact facers write on obscure websites that barely stay afloat. Most Americans cannot name a single race realist writer. Millions have now heard of the phrase Alternative Right, but they mainly hear straw person attacks from the mass media. The mass media in no way want fact facers to get attention, other than demonizations. There are thousands of influential mass media positions in the world, no open race realist holds any of them.
Despite the protection of being African-American, Walter Williams was fired by NPR merely for stating that he gets nervous seeing "Muslim garb" on a plane. He didn't call Muslims slurs. Dozens of others were fired or unhired for simply facing moral facts. Meanwhile, multiculturalists keep their jobs while getting away with monstrous slurs and murderous rhetoric.
Sally Kohn still has a job at CNN after writing "i have no reason to believe not justified" in regards to Vester Flanagan murdering two colleagues. Among Flanagan's spurious racial complaints were statements by co-workers saying they were going "out in the field."
The mass media do not want certain ethical facts entering the minds of citizens.
But then, the media live in unethical bubbles. The fact that millions of working class whites are being massively harmed by multiculturalists--losing their jobs, lives, incomes, families, schools, neighborhoods, countries--does not occur to multiculturalists as motivation for race realism. Treating nonwealthy whites as full humans with equal rights to others seldom occurs to multiculturalists.
Establishment conservatism's favorite buzzword is freedom, yet establishment conservatism destroys freedoms for nonwealthy and ethical individuals. Multiculturalism's favorite buzzword is equality, yet multiculturalism destroys both freedom and equality, especially for whites and nonmuslims.
But ethnoracial fact facing is the sort of contrarianism that gets you little attention. Few Americans have heard of Thomas Jackson, Gregory Hood, and other realists. Facing facts gets you fired or unhired. You don't get much attention by being permanently banned from the mass media and other institutions. Most Westerners still know almost nothing about ethnoracial issues. (The mountains of fallacious propaganda spread by establishment institutions counts as information, not knowledge.
Cutesy, infotainment contrarianism (Freakonomics, for example) gets attention. When no powerful groups are threatened by contrarian facts, powerful groups love contrarian infotainment. Sports writers love to throw shocking contrarian claims out to grab attention. Human memories are so limited that sports fans forget the previous, inaccurate contrarianism and rumor mongering by sports reporters.
Ethnoracial fact facers write on obscure websites that barely stay afloat. Most Americans cannot name a single race realist writer. Millions have now heard of the phrase Alternative Right, but they mainly hear straw person attacks from the mass media. The mass media in no way want fact facers to get attention, other than demonizations. There are thousands of influential mass media positions in the world, no open race realist holds any of them.
Despite the protection of being African-American, Walter Williams was fired by NPR merely for stating that he gets nervous seeing "Muslim garb" on a plane. He didn't call Muslims slurs. Dozens of others were fired or unhired for simply facing moral facts. Meanwhile, multiculturalists keep their jobs while getting away with monstrous slurs and murderous rhetoric.
Sally Kohn still has a job at CNN after writing "i have no reason to believe not justified" in regards to Vester Flanagan murdering two colleagues. Among Flanagan's spurious racial complaints were statements by co-workers saying they were going "out in the field."
The mass media do not want certain ethical facts entering the minds of citizens.
But then, the media live in unethical bubbles. The fact that millions of working class whites are being massively harmed by multiculturalists--losing their jobs, lives, incomes, families, schools, neighborhoods, countries--does not occur to multiculturalists as motivation for race realism. Treating nonwealthy whites as full humans with equal rights to others seldom occurs to multiculturalists.
Establishment conservatism's favorite buzzword is freedom, yet establishment conservatism destroys freedoms for nonwealthy and ethical individuals. Multiculturalism's favorite buzzword is equality, yet multiculturalism destroys both freedom and equality, especially for whites and nonmuslims.
Friday, July 15, 2016
Nonwhite Medical Workers: Avoid Them If You Can
They are low in empathy, especially toward whites.
The minimum IQ of competent doctors is at least 115, more than two standard deviations above most black and dark brown groups. The amount of information doctors must know and carefully weigh is staggering. Lower IQ individuals, even when well-meaning, simply don't have a chance of accurately handling that load of information.
The glib, lazy, selfish, uninformed, overconfident decisions they make, kill or cause lifetimes of severe suffering.
And when they screw up, they'll do what they can to evade responsibility and blame you, simply out of their own egoism and tribalism.
Ignore the fatuous praise heaped on them by white multiculturalists. White multiculturalists are vapidly enthralled by things done nonwhite mammals, including stupid pet tricks, drawing their conclusions from faith, indoctrination, and small sample fallacies.
Ignore nonwhite doctors' skills in BS artistry. It doesn't take much brilliance to be a good BS artist. Look at how talented 15-year-olds are in BS artistry.
In the West, dark triad types congregate in law, finance, government, and mass media. In nonwhite countries, those professions pay little, except for individuals at or near the top. Filipino nurses in the U.S. earn many times more than lawyers in the Philippines. Selfish, dark triad individuals in those countries seek out medical professions, hoping to migrate to the West. Academic cheating in nonwhite countries is the norm and nonwhite students who don't cheat quickly learn that not cheating gives their classmates advantages they consider unfair.
You are usually better off with white nurse practitioners than experienced black and dark brown general practitioners.
Despite their advantages over nonwhite medical workers, white medical workers should also be treated with ethical doses of skepticism. Your life and health are too valuable to be ruined by poorly reasoned decisions, especially decisions motivated by the self-loathing rampant among contemporary whites.
Rely on nonwhite medical workers only in emergencies or when whites are unavailable.
The minimum IQ of competent doctors is at least 115, more than two standard deviations above most black and dark brown groups. The amount of information doctors must know and carefully weigh is staggering. Lower IQ individuals, even when well-meaning, simply don't have a chance of accurately handling that load of information.
The glib, lazy, selfish, uninformed, overconfident decisions they make, kill or cause lifetimes of severe suffering.
And when they screw up, they'll do what they can to evade responsibility and blame you, simply out of their own egoism and tribalism.
Ignore the fatuous praise heaped on them by white multiculturalists. White multiculturalists are vapidly enthralled by things done nonwhite mammals, including stupid pet tricks, drawing their conclusions from faith, indoctrination, and small sample fallacies.
Ignore nonwhite doctors' skills in BS artistry. It doesn't take much brilliance to be a good BS artist. Look at how talented 15-year-olds are in BS artistry.
In the West, dark triad types congregate in law, finance, government, and mass media. In nonwhite countries, those professions pay little, except for individuals at or near the top. Filipino nurses in the U.S. earn many times more than lawyers in the Philippines. Selfish, dark triad individuals in those countries seek out medical professions, hoping to migrate to the West. Academic cheating in nonwhite countries is the norm and nonwhite students who don't cheat quickly learn that not cheating gives their classmates advantages they consider unfair.
You are usually better off with white nurse practitioners than experienced black and dark brown general practitioners.
Despite their advantages over nonwhite medical workers, white medical workers should also be treated with ethical doses of skepticism. Your life and health are too valuable to be ruined by poorly reasoned decisions, especially decisions motivated by the self-loathing rampant among contemporary whites.
Rely on nonwhite medical workers only in emergencies or when whites are unavailable.
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Do Mess with Paris, Texas
Congratulations to actor Harry Dean Stanton on reaching his 90th birthday today.
Stanton's pairing with Natassja Kinski in 1984's Paris, Texas seemed implausible then and more so now. The young, attractive Kinski played Stanton's estranged wife despite Stanton's character lacking gorgeous wife attracting traits--looks, youth, money, status, humor, power, warmth, purpose, similarity, trustworthiness, BS skills, resource altruism, fatherly characteristics, dark triad attributes. Almost nothing except proximity.
Stanton's pairing with Natassja Kinski in 1984's Paris, Texas seemed implausible then and more so now. The young, attractive Kinski played Stanton's estranged wife despite Stanton's character lacking gorgeous wife attracting traits--looks, youth, money, status, humor, power, warmth, purpose, similarity, trustworthiness, BS skills, resource altruism, fatherly characteristics, dark triad attributes. Almost nothing except proximity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)