The HBD movement shows interest in ethnoracial facts mainly when the facts are trivial or IQ related or health care related, rejecting well-reasoned policies if the policies don't fit the above or the policies offend multiculturalists. HBDers cannot or will not break through multicultural fanaticism.
One writer at NotPoliticallyCorrect seemed perplexed and outraged that the multiculturalists at the so-called RationalWiki would try to demonize him, seemingly unaware that multiculturalists seldom tolerate dissent from their totalitarianism, including by multiculturalist HBDers. The writer then contradicted himself and wrote, "I don't care about politics."
Many other slightly edgy writers faced similar wrath. A few truthful mentions of race and IQ are enough to get ostracized.
IQ is important, but HBD overemphasizes IQ. Ninety-five percent of Congress members have academic degrees, an indication of well above the mean IQs, yet Congress seldom does the right acts. The donor class is likewise riddled with high IQ individuals, yet they too seem to be close to inverse weather vanes on important issues, favoring a mixture of Randism, globalism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism.
HBD often avoids ethical evidence and over relies on studies, but most social science studies are junk and most social scientists will not conduct studies that produce results in conflict with their political worldviews. HBDers know more about statistics than other areas of logic, so they seem not to notice their straw persons, false analogies, abusive ad hominim attacks, and other fallacies. HBDers commit far more wrongs of omission than wrongs of commission.
HBDers could retort that nonmulticulturalists include many people of rotten acts, so let's not go there. But excellent ideas do not turn into bad ideas simply because of who believes them. All political movements attract individuals with serious character defects (often people of egoism and misplaced altruism). Bill Frist and thousands of other individuals in government and corporations would make you feel as if you are the most important person in the world when talking to your face, then put knives in your back. Because the establishments control the mass media, they are able to create the illusion to many voters and donors that establishment figures have decent character when, in fact, almost all establishment leaders have horrible character. Establishment ideologies in every contemporary country are designed to extract short-term profits from decline.
If the establishments succeed in creating World War III, they will have proven themselves to be as low character as the likes of Mao, Amin, Stalin, Hitler, Mugabe, Hirohito, Mousilini, Pol Pot, Jong Il, and Jong Un. Even without World War III, multiculturalists commit nearly all the political violence on this planet.
It says something important about multiculturalists and multiculturalism that they commit disproportionately more unjustifiable violence than even the demagoguery at Stormfront incites. Consistency requires that if we reject Stormfront for being beyond redemption, we must also reject multiculturalism for being beyond redemption.
Any political movement that will not weed out egoism and misplaced altruism is doomed to ethical failure. Given their knowledge of how egoism and altruism evolve, HBDers should help weed out tyranny from nonmulticultural movements.
A few HBD followers seem to be looking for gurus, looking for deep truths and mysteries in biological jargon. But more important truths and mysteries reside in ethics than in HBD. HBD lacks proportion, a peculiar form of scientism that regards what hominids did thousands of years ago as more important than evils multiculturalists commit now. How good is HBD concern about IQ and health if they continue to support multicultural victories. IQs will continue to plummet and nostrums will replace Western science, as sometimes flawed as it is.
Sunday, January 7, 2018
Monday, December 25, 2017
Merry Christmas to the Amish and Everyone Else
Outsiders see the Amish as a people primarily preoccupied with low tech, old fashioned living. That's not how the Amish see themselves. They primarily see themselves as Christians. So here's to the religious holiday itself and the non-hedonistic spirit of Amish Christmas, to Amish Second Christmas the day after Christmas and to Amish Old Christmas on January sixth.
May they and Christmas still exist 50 million years from now. Because when the Amish disappear, it likely means the multiculturalists have succeeded in their extermination campaigns against other whites.
May they and Christmas still exist 50 million years from now. Because when the Amish disappear, it likely means the multiculturalists have succeeded in their extermination campaigns against other whites.
Friday, December 22, 2017
Not Baited by Me Too Issues
The recent sex crime accusations involving celebrities are not big picture important, mainly matters for accusers, accusees, whistle-blowers, investigative reporters, and law enforcement agencies to sort through.
Almost all contemporary celebrities are people of terrible actions. Celebrities that do and do not commit sex crimes have other vices, especially hedonism, self-contradictions, and cultural Marxism.
Given the rates at which women make false accusations, some celebrities are probably not guilty of some alleged crimes, but the harms from cultural Marxism are and will be millions of times worse than any harms celebrities suffer from false accusations. Let's not waste time defending multicultural celebrities from accusations from multicultural accusers, including slightly edgy, alt light celebrities. If vibrant multiculturalists kidnapped a dozen children, chopped them up, and dumped their remains in a vat of sodium hydroxide, celebrities would care little, except to grandstand in favor of more cultural Marxism and perhaps to make a film about it with whites playing the villain roles.
Humans have the unfortunate, reflexive tendency to pick sides, even when several competing sides are terrible.
In the ghetto where I spent most of my childhood, the local library had dozens of shelves devoted to true crime. True crime is not a genre ethical individuals should be fascinated with. It is a genre for those who admire crime or those predisposed to wantoness. The librarians probably thought that if the local residents didn't read true crime, they probably wouldn't do much reading at all. Multiculturalists act as if almost any education is good education as long as it doesn't include unwanted political facts.
Better to be illiterate than deluge yourself with rotten ideas.
Hitting on coworkers reeks of desperation and lazy cowardice in approaching women elsewhere, unless you have such a rotten job you don't care whether you get fired or humiliated.
Long ago I adopted a policy of not talking about sex, looks, politics, religion, relationships, female attire or behavioral genetics with women coworkers. When coworkers talk about such subjects, I merely make pithy, banal statements--"Wow," "Yeah," "Uh-huh," and "That terrible." It prevents awkwardness and misunderstandings.
The last time I talked about sex with female coworkers: several women talked about why women have large breasts and nipples. I mentioned that a social scientist had the bizarre theory that large nipples evolved as large eye spots to scare away predators. They thought that hilarious. Then I said large breasts were sexually selected and maybe large breasts also evolved for fat storage. Not so hilarious.
Maybe it is because I'm happily married, but I have no desire to have glib sex related conversations with female acquaintances.
Almost all contemporary celebrities are people of terrible actions. Celebrities that do and do not commit sex crimes have other vices, especially hedonism, self-contradictions, and cultural Marxism.
Given the rates at which women make false accusations, some celebrities are probably not guilty of some alleged crimes, but the harms from cultural Marxism are and will be millions of times worse than any harms celebrities suffer from false accusations. Let's not waste time defending multicultural celebrities from accusations from multicultural accusers, including slightly edgy, alt light celebrities. If vibrant multiculturalists kidnapped a dozen children, chopped them up, and dumped their remains in a vat of sodium hydroxide, celebrities would care little, except to grandstand in favor of more cultural Marxism and perhaps to make a film about it with whites playing the villain roles.
Humans have the unfortunate, reflexive tendency to pick sides, even when several competing sides are terrible.
In the ghetto where I spent most of my childhood, the local library had dozens of shelves devoted to true crime. True crime is not a genre ethical individuals should be fascinated with. It is a genre for those who admire crime or those predisposed to wantoness. The librarians probably thought that if the local residents didn't read true crime, they probably wouldn't do much reading at all. Multiculturalists act as if almost any education is good education as long as it doesn't include unwanted political facts.
Better to be illiterate than deluge yourself with rotten ideas.
Hitting on coworkers reeks of desperation and lazy cowardice in approaching women elsewhere, unless you have such a rotten job you don't care whether you get fired or humiliated.
Long ago I adopted a policy of not talking about sex, looks, politics, religion, relationships, female attire or behavioral genetics with women coworkers. When coworkers talk about such subjects, I merely make pithy, banal statements--"Wow," "Yeah," "Uh-huh," and "That terrible." It prevents awkwardness and misunderstandings.
The last time I talked about sex with female coworkers: several women talked about why women have large breasts and nipples. I mentioned that a social scientist had the bizarre theory that large nipples evolved as large eye spots to scare away predators. They thought that hilarious. Then I said large breasts were sexually selected and maybe large breasts also evolved for fat storage. Not so hilarious.
Maybe it is because I'm happily married, but I have no desire to have glib sex related conversations with female acquaintances.
Monday, December 18, 2017
Cognitive Impairments and the Establishments
The current Senate is the oldest in the history of the former United States. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both behave as if they have serious age related cognitive problems.
Research hints that the part of the brain responsible for skepticism (the ventromedial prefrontal cortex) suffers severe decline in the elderly, leading to the elderly falling victim to even the most obvious scams by self-proclaimed Nigerian princes and others.
This is the way grifting industries--energy, defense, finance, lobbying, globalism, multiculturalism, education, insurance, mass media, health care--like it. They don't want law makers with skepticism. The don't want mental flexibility. They don't want anyone in the establishment making the effort to accurately weigh arguments. They want their thousands of lobbyists to write laws, then walk them over to Congress for approval.
Unlike many older individuals, George W. Bush earned his brain damage from drugs and the establishment cultures he lived in. Studies suggest drug addiction causes lifelong cognitive impairments. Bush's advisers raced to be first to reach him since Bush often implemented the first idea he heard. Condoleezza Rice claimed Bush was not his own "fact witness," meaning Bush allegedly had a right to lie with impunity because he didn't know what the hell was going on and didn't want to make the effort to know. Close to being an inverse weather vane on important issues, Bush remains unrepentant.
Dick Cheney, a man without a pulse, almost certainly had and has vascular dementia.
Growing old sucks. Ethical older individuals realize this and exhibit the moral character to step aside when their brains start having severe problems.
Imagine an unmitigated skeptic, who pays little attention to politics, a person who unthinkingly assumes everything said by our rulers is fallacious. Such a person would be closer to truths than the true believers who spend thousands of hours watching political infotainment and pretending such indoctrination leads to wisdom. Mass consumers of political infotainment have little sense of proportion, having more concern over minuscule levels of Russian influence over elections than the threat of nuclear super wars, treating Russian influence as worse than far more egregious influence by Israel, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia.
Though we should not be unmitigated skeptics, most humans would do well to have much more skepticism of what they see and hear from propaganda industries.
To be able to recognize important contradictions, an individual must be sufficiently smart and have logical habits. Trump doesn't see anything wrong with his bait-and-switch rhetoric because he doesn't see complex self-contradictions at all.
Despite his Randian neoconservatism, Trump gets little credit from neoconservatives, part of their Br'er Rabbit strategy of plausible deniability. When the mess collapses or blows up, they will claim Trump, Clinton, and others were not one of them despite Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban being the largest donors to Trump and Clinton respectively. Neoconservatives will blame the Alt Right for the failings caused by Trump's neoconservative policies, another reason nonmulticulturalists should avoid getting in bed with Trump.
Young and old members of the establishments alike are carefully vetted for their unwillingness to reason well. None of the younger members of Congress show deviation from their donor classes. Hundreds of memes excoriate Mark Zuckerberg, a billionaire testing the public mood for a presidential run in 2020, for being a robot. Remember when 1990s crowds cheered Chelsea Clinton as if she were some precocious guru? Quite a piece of work she turned out to be.
Fanaticism redistributes to super rich globalists and calls it freedom, supports anti-white totalitarianism and calls it equality, engages in self-destructive militarism and call it security.
I call it lying.
Research hints that the part of the brain responsible for skepticism (the ventromedial prefrontal cortex) suffers severe decline in the elderly, leading to the elderly falling victim to even the most obvious scams by self-proclaimed Nigerian princes and others.
This is the way grifting industries--energy, defense, finance, lobbying, globalism, multiculturalism, education, insurance, mass media, health care--like it. They don't want law makers with skepticism. The don't want mental flexibility. They don't want anyone in the establishment making the effort to accurately weigh arguments. They want their thousands of lobbyists to write laws, then walk them over to Congress for approval.
Unlike many older individuals, George W. Bush earned his brain damage from drugs and the establishment cultures he lived in. Studies suggest drug addiction causes lifelong cognitive impairments. Bush's advisers raced to be first to reach him since Bush often implemented the first idea he heard. Condoleezza Rice claimed Bush was not his own "fact witness," meaning Bush allegedly had a right to lie with impunity because he didn't know what the hell was going on and didn't want to make the effort to know. Close to being an inverse weather vane on important issues, Bush remains unrepentant.
Dick Cheney, a man without a pulse, almost certainly had and has vascular dementia.
Growing old sucks. Ethical older individuals realize this and exhibit the moral character to step aside when their brains start having severe problems.
Imagine an unmitigated skeptic, who pays little attention to politics, a person who unthinkingly assumes everything said by our rulers is fallacious. Such a person would be closer to truths than the true believers who spend thousands of hours watching political infotainment and pretending such indoctrination leads to wisdom. Mass consumers of political infotainment have little sense of proportion, having more concern over minuscule levels of Russian influence over elections than the threat of nuclear super wars, treating Russian influence as worse than far more egregious influence by Israel, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia.
Though we should not be unmitigated skeptics, most humans would do well to have much more skepticism of what they see and hear from propaganda industries.
To be able to recognize important contradictions, an individual must be sufficiently smart and have logical habits. Trump doesn't see anything wrong with his bait-and-switch rhetoric because he doesn't see complex self-contradictions at all.
Despite his Randian neoconservatism, Trump gets little credit from neoconservatives, part of their Br'er Rabbit strategy of plausible deniability. When the mess collapses or blows up, they will claim Trump, Clinton, and others were not one of them despite Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban being the largest donors to Trump and Clinton respectively. Neoconservatives will blame the Alt Right for the failings caused by Trump's neoconservative policies, another reason nonmulticulturalists should avoid getting in bed with Trump.
Young and old members of the establishments alike are carefully vetted for their unwillingness to reason well. None of the younger members of Congress show deviation from their donor classes. Hundreds of memes excoriate Mark Zuckerberg, a billionaire testing the public mood for a presidential run in 2020, for being a robot. Remember when 1990s crowds cheered Chelsea Clinton as if she were some precocious guru? Quite a piece of work she turned out to be.
Fanaticism redistributes to super rich globalists and calls it freedom, supports anti-white totalitarianism and calls it equality, engages in self-destructive militarism and call it security.
I call it lying.
Thursday, December 14, 2017
The Logical Inescapability That Some Genes, Cultures, and Personal Beliefs Are Better
Let's say an individual wishes to pass on her or her relatives' genes, cultures, and personal beliefs to future generations because:
Every other claim that does not rely on some things being better is likewise fallacious.
We now have a large percentage of the population inconsistently willing to avoid procreation to prevent inherited genetic disorders on behalf of eugenics but who reject eugenics where eugenics would be massively beneficial.
So calling better things better isn't supremacism. It's simply facing facts. Supremacism is demanding logically unjustifiable preferential treatments for groups, for example, bombarding some groups with slurs while demanding some other groups be off limits to even well-reasoned criticism or supporting self-determination for some groups while denying self-determination to other groups. White self-determination is both a right and duty supported by overwhelming evidence, not supremacism. Demanding a group be enslaved or otherwise exploited is supremacism.
- variety merely for variety's sake is good (false).
- genes, cultures, and personal beliefs are equal, so it makes no difference who procreates (false).
- everyone has an ethical right to spread their seed (false).
- that's the way she rolls (circular).
- some future environmental fixes will make life superb even if people who do terrible acts do most breeding (false and almost certain to lead to worse environmental changes).
Every other claim that does not rely on some things being better is likewise fallacious.
We now have a large percentage of the population inconsistently willing to avoid procreation to prevent inherited genetic disorders on behalf of eugenics but who reject eugenics where eugenics would be massively beneficial.
So calling better things better isn't supremacism. It's simply facing facts. Supremacism is demanding logically unjustifiable preferential treatments for groups, for example, bombarding some groups with slurs while demanding some other groups be off limits to even well-reasoned criticism or supporting self-determination for some groups while denying self-determination to other groups. White self-determination is both a right and duty supported by overwhelming evidence, not supremacism. Demanding a group be enslaved or otherwise exploited is supremacism.
Friday, November 10, 2017
Research on Stereotype Accuracy: Dubious
Social science research claims stereotypes are generally accurate (narrowly defined as "beliefs about groups").
But such research is easy to rig. If you ask participants for generalizations on easy questions, they'll give accurate answers. If you ask harder questions, accuracy plummets. Important issues generally have difficult answers.
That is not a major knock on stereotyping itself. We should stereotype when we have the evidence, even when the probability of harm is low. Being wrong about con artistry even once in 20 times over a long period of time will cause major harms.
If stereotypes were generally accurate, cultural Marxism would be almost nonexistent. Instead, most adults on this planet believe in some form of cultural Marxism, with its multitudes of inaccurate ethnoracial stereotypes. Most individuals believe false stereotypes about the secular or avuncular groups they belong to. Etc.
Some probably doubt me because stereotype accuracy has the edge-o-sphere seal of approval. Below are some questions. Most humans would not produce remotely accurate stereotypes.
Origins of Ashkenazi Jews?
probable stereotypes: white or Khazar or Middle Eastern.
more accurate stereotype: Mixture of Southern European and Middle Eastern ancestry
Multicultural groups?
probable stereotype: tolerant
more accurate stereotype: intolerant with ever increasing totalitarianism
Black-white interracial aggression in US?
probable stereotypes: whites are more likely to attack or blacks are somewhat more likely to attack
more accurate stereotype: "a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa"
Serial killing?
probable stereotype: disproportionately a white thing
more accurate stereotype: disproportionately a black thing
Reducing ethnoracial injustices?
probable stereotype: reduced once individuals proclaiming equality have total power
more accurate stereotype: multiply once individuals proclaiming equality have total power
Racial supremacism?
probable stereotype: a white thing
more accurate stereotype: concentrated among nonwhites who believe they have rights to mercantilism, self-determination, affirmative action, speech freedoms, terrorizing nonbelievers, while denying speech freedoms, self-determination, and other rights to whites
We could sit around for years creating millions of questions about groups that humans would answer with false stereotypes.
If we switch to a broader, everyday definition of stereotypes, meaning any generalizations, the general inaccuracy remains.
Cause of changing seasons?
probable stereotype: distance from sun
more accurate stereotype: tilt of Earth affecting length of days and amount of solar radiation striking earth per square meter
Tobin Tax?
probable stereotype: tax on something
more accurate stereotype: taxing spot conversions of currency
Congressional Franking?
probable stereotype: legislators naming kids Frank
more accurate stereotype: legislators mailing "informative" propaganda at little cost to themselves
Pigouvian tax?
probable stereotype: something pigs
more accurate stereotype: taxing harmful activities to reduce their frequency and harms, making harm causers pay the costs they create for others
Div, grad, curl?
probable stereotype: American football receiver jargon
more accurate stereotype: vector calculus
Stop Corporate Inversions Act?
probable stereotype: something inverted
more accurate stereotype: would ban corporations from re-incorporating outside the US to avoid taxes
Minamata Convention?
probable stereotype: something Minnesota or Japanese
more accurate stereotype: regulation of mercury usage
ACHE Act?
probable stereotype: something indigenous tribe
more accurate stereotype: would ban mountain top destruction
Truman Committee?
probable stereotype: something nuclear weapons
more accurate stereotype: investigated corruption and inefficiency during World War II
Davis Bacon Act?
probable stereotype: mmm... bacon
more accurate stereotype: required prevailing wages on federally funded projects, including contractors and subcontractors
Instead of focusing on whether individuals' current stereotypes are accurate, we should focus on how to make stereotypes more accurate by teaching reasoning, improving cultures, and breeding individuals with a strong tendency toward extreme cognitive dissonance when they get stereotypes wrong, especially generalizations about ethical issues.
But such research is easy to rig. If you ask participants for generalizations on easy questions, they'll give accurate answers. If you ask harder questions, accuracy plummets. Important issues generally have difficult answers.
That is not a major knock on stereotyping itself. We should stereotype when we have the evidence, even when the probability of harm is low. Being wrong about con artistry even once in 20 times over a long period of time will cause major harms.
If stereotypes were generally accurate, cultural Marxism would be almost nonexistent. Instead, most adults on this planet believe in some form of cultural Marxism, with its multitudes of inaccurate ethnoracial stereotypes. Most individuals believe false stereotypes about the secular or avuncular groups they belong to. Etc.
Some probably doubt me because stereotype accuracy has the edge-o-sphere seal of approval. Below are some questions. Most humans would not produce remotely accurate stereotypes.
Origins of Ashkenazi Jews?
probable stereotypes: white or Khazar or Middle Eastern.
more accurate stereotype: Mixture of Southern European and Middle Eastern ancestry
Multicultural groups?
probable stereotype: tolerant
more accurate stereotype: intolerant with ever increasing totalitarianism
Black-white interracial aggression in US?
probable stereotypes: whites are more likely to attack or blacks are somewhat more likely to attack
more accurate stereotype: "a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa"
Serial killing?
probable stereotype: disproportionately a white thing
more accurate stereotype: disproportionately a black thing
Reducing ethnoracial injustices?
probable stereotype: reduced once individuals proclaiming equality have total power
more accurate stereotype: multiply once individuals proclaiming equality have total power
Racial supremacism?
probable stereotype: a white thing
more accurate stereotype: concentrated among nonwhites who believe they have rights to mercantilism, self-determination, affirmative action, speech freedoms, terrorizing nonbelievers, while denying speech freedoms, self-determination, and other rights to whites
We could sit around for years creating millions of questions about groups that humans would answer with false stereotypes.
If we switch to a broader, everyday definition of stereotypes, meaning any generalizations, the general inaccuracy remains.
Cause of changing seasons?
probable stereotype: distance from sun
more accurate stereotype: tilt of Earth affecting length of days and amount of solar radiation striking earth per square meter
Tobin Tax?
probable stereotype: tax on something
more accurate stereotype: taxing spot conversions of currency
Congressional Franking?
probable stereotype: legislators naming kids Frank
more accurate stereotype: legislators mailing "informative" propaganda at little cost to themselves
Pigouvian tax?
probable stereotype: something pigs
more accurate stereotype: taxing harmful activities to reduce their frequency and harms, making harm causers pay the costs they create for others
Div, grad, curl?
probable stereotype: American football receiver jargon
more accurate stereotype: vector calculus
Stop Corporate Inversions Act?
probable stereotype: something inverted
more accurate stereotype: would ban corporations from re-incorporating outside the US to avoid taxes
Minamata Convention?
probable stereotype: something Minnesota or Japanese
more accurate stereotype: regulation of mercury usage
ACHE Act?
probable stereotype: something indigenous tribe
more accurate stereotype: would ban mountain top destruction
Truman Committee?
probable stereotype: something nuclear weapons
more accurate stereotype: investigated corruption and inefficiency during World War II
Davis Bacon Act?
probable stereotype: mmm... bacon
more accurate stereotype: required prevailing wages on federally funded projects, including contractors and subcontractors
Instead of focusing on whether individuals' current stereotypes are accurate, we should focus on how to make stereotypes more accurate by teaching reasoning, improving cultures, and breeding individuals with a strong tendency toward extreme cognitive dissonance when they get stereotypes wrong, especially generalizations about ethical issues.
Saturday, October 21, 2017
Eugenics for Defense
In my previous post, I covered factors and principles important in war.
I will now cover specific eugenic traits we should encourage for defense of a nation or a species from asteroids, pathogens, super volcanoes, expanding stars, and other threats to existence. Character and IQ are obvious and important answers.
Though beauty has no direct ethical value, it seems probable that individuals fight harder for beautiful wives and fiancees, ceteris paribus (all else being equal). Many ugly animals fight hard, but they have genes and environments extolling aggression. Reasonable men would not fight hard for a society filled with Andrea Dworkins. War stories are replete with mentions of soldiers or sailors being inspired by letters, memories or photographs from attractive wives or girlfriends.
Monogamous hypersexuality (nymphomania or satyriasis) would be another worthwhile trait. Individuals are not inspired by dead fish. Officers charged with censoring letters for military information often remark how "filthy" the letters are. (Don't expect those letters in books by Tom Brokaw.) If all a soldier has to look forward to when coming home is leftover potato soup, he might commit suicide directly or by acting recklessly. Genes that encourage couples to feel good in long term monogamous marriages should be spread. Genes that encourage falling in love, followed by falling in hate should be avoided.
Aggression should not be bred for because a) such individuals are a massive ethical problem during peacetime, and b) they are not trustworthy in war, often creating or sustaining unjust wars. Those convicted of serious crimes should be sterilized.
Cowardice must also be bred out and ethically punished.
Hypergamy can be good if redirected. Though not often mentioned, millions of men and women find bad boys and bad girls repulsive. We admonish, "Don't stick your dick in crazy." Genes tend to make copies of themselves. There is no requirement that bad boy genes make copies at a faster rate. We simply must change the environmental incentives. In well-functioning societies, a man should have to prove himself to an ethically attractive woman and her parents with virtuous actions. Ethical societies can not survive without them.
A society devoted to single, childfree hedonism will not last long. Individuals with good genes should find video games boring and insipid. The same goes for splenetic, fallacy filled mass media. Individuals should find ethical and family life entrancing. Parents with children seem more likely to help just causes, especially if they have children eight to twelve years old, ages when children seem more highly beloved by parents. But unethical familism and tribalism must also be prevented. I will cover Hamilton's Rule in a separate essay.
Xenocentrism must be bred out and ethically punished. Individuals of egoism, narcissism, and Machiavellianism must not be rewarded for grandstanding ("virtue signaling"), for altruistic acts toward unethical individuals. We must stop rewarding unethical treason and every other major form of free riding. Laws, constitutions, and standards of citizenship must be changed so that such individuals are weeded out long before they get anywhere near positions of power. Individuals should have a large, ethical retributive drive but not a drive for random revenge. Apathy, a trait best left to farm animals, must be bred out. Almost everyone in contemporary establishments should be assumed dangerous until proven otherwise.
Citizens must be bred to be able to reason well enough to recognize the differences among puppetry, pacifism, worthy patriotism, and flag wrapping parasitism (read: John McCain), along with the ability to recognize the ethical and unethical in general. They must not fanatically and reflexively resort to a political team right or wrong. Unfortunately, humans need massive genetic and environmental changes in the reason arena. In the aftermath of 9/11, George W. Bush had an approval rating of at least 90 percent, though Bush had done little in his life to be considered ethically trustworthy. The first casualty in war must not be the truth. Blind obedience sucks. Individuals should be bred to feel extreme anxiety when failing to tell the truth. Too often, contemporary individuals feel more anxiety for flirting with an unpopular truth than believing lies. Humans should see through official myths.
Though many high IQ individuals have unethical tendencies, intelligence is essential for ethical reasoning. Good reasoning requires high levels of argument comprehension, levels not obtainable by lower IQ individuals. Lower IQ individuals will also not be able to figure out how to stop asteroids and other major threats to existence. The most valuable members of society are both high IQ and high character. The least valuable are high IQ and low character. Use policies to breed the former, not the latter.
I will now cover specific eugenic traits we should encourage for defense of a nation or a species from asteroids, pathogens, super volcanoes, expanding stars, and other threats to existence. Character and IQ are obvious and important answers.
Though beauty has no direct ethical value, it seems probable that individuals fight harder for beautiful wives and fiancees, ceteris paribus (all else being equal). Many ugly animals fight hard, but they have genes and environments extolling aggression. Reasonable men would not fight hard for a society filled with Andrea Dworkins. War stories are replete with mentions of soldiers or sailors being inspired by letters, memories or photographs from attractive wives or girlfriends.
Monogamous hypersexuality (nymphomania or satyriasis) would be another worthwhile trait. Individuals are not inspired by dead fish. Officers charged with censoring letters for military information often remark how "filthy" the letters are. (Don't expect those letters in books by Tom Brokaw.) If all a soldier has to look forward to when coming home is leftover potato soup, he might commit suicide directly or by acting recklessly. Genes that encourage couples to feel good in long term monogamous marriages should be spread. Genes that encourage falling in love, followed by falling in hate should be avoided.
Aggression should not be bred for because a) such individuals are a massive ethical problem during peacetime, and b) they are not trustworthy in war, often creating or sustaining unjust wars. Those convicted of serious crimes should be sterilized.
Cowardice must also be bred out and ethically punished.
Hypergamy can be good if redirected. Though not often mentioned, millions of men and women find bad boys and bad girls repulsive. We admonish, "Don't stick your dick in crazy." Genes tend to make copies of themselves. There is no requirement that bad boy genes make copies at a faster rate. We simply must change the environmental incentives. In well-functioning societies, a man should have to prove himself to an ethically attractive woman and her parents with virtuous actions. Ethical societies can not survive without them.
A society devoted to single, childfree hedonism will not last long. Individuals with good genes should find video games boring and insipid. The same goes for splenetic, fallacy filled mass media. Individuals should find ethical and family life entrancing. Parents with children seem more likely to help just causes, especially if they have children eight to twelve years old, ages when children seem more highly beloved by parents. But unethical familism and tribalism must also be prevented. I will cover Hamilton's Rule in a separate essay.
Xenocentrism must be bred out and ethically punished. Individuals of egoism, narcissism, and Machiavellianism must not be rewarded for grandstanding ("virtue signaling"), for altruistic acts toward unethical individuals. We must stop rewarding unethical treason and every other major form of free riding. Laws, constitutions, and standards of citizenship must be changed so that such individuals are weeded out long before they get anywhere near positions of power. Individuals should have a large, ethical retributive drive but not a drive for random revenge. Apathy, a trait best left to farm animals, must be bred out. Almost everyone in contemporary establishments should be assumed dangerous until proven otherwise.
Citizens must be bred to be able to reason well enough to recognize the differences among puppetry, pacifism, worthy patriotism, and flag wrapping parasitism (read: John McCain), along with the ability to recognize the ethical and unethical in general. They must not fanatically and reflexively resort to a political team right or wrong. Unfortunately, humans need massive genetic and environmental changes in the reason arena. In the aftermath of 9/11, George W. Bush had an approval rating of at least 90 percent, though Bush had done little in his life to be considered ethically trustworthy. The first casualty in war must not be the truth. Blind obedience sucks. Individuals should be bred to feel extreme anxiety when failing to tell the truth. Too often, contemporary individuals feel more anxiety for flirting with an unpopular truth than believing lies. Humans should see through official myths.
Though many high IQ individuals have unethical tendencies, intelligence is essential for ethical reasoning. Good reasoning requires high levels of argument comprehension, levels not obtainable by lower IQ individuals. Lower IQ individuals will also not be able to figure out how to stop asteroids and other major threats to existence. The most valuable members of society are both high IQ and high character. The least valuable are high IQ and low character. Use policies to breed the former, not the latter.
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
A Wider Summary of General Military Principles
Contemporary lists of military principles do not account for ethnoracial and other supposed offensive factors, as if rulers can make unwanted facts go away by ignoring them. Establishments deem it acceptable to kill individuals in unjust wars, but mention any unwanted truths to them and you will be ostracized or worse.
Below I list both well-known and seldom known military factors or principles. So for free, I'm summarizing Sun Tzu and dozens of other military works, including some of my principles, more concisely than others have. What a bargain!
Well-known factors or principles, though often adhered to in lip service:
Many of the strategies listed above do not apply to nuclear or biological warfare. But they do apply to the aftermath of nuclear or biological warfare. At some point during even the most gung ho nuclear war, the side that emerges most able to function, if any, would probably realize that further nuclear attacks would do more to poison their own land with radiation than harm their perceived enemies. In other words, they would not want winds to carry massive amounts of radiation back to their own lands. It is unlikely that even the most horrific nuclear war would kill every person on the planet. In the aftermath of nuclear wars, survivors would find themselves competing or cooperating with other survivors depending on their characters and ethnoracial traits, though some would attempt to be complete hermits. But we can't build or rebuild civilizations with hermits. The infrastructure for building more nuclear weapons would also likely be gone. Many would find themselves in local turf and resource conflicts where conventional military tactics and strategies would reemerge since hungry, desperate individuals would not play the asinine game of counterinsurgency warfare. Unethical insurgents and the "civilians" who aid them would get scorched earth treatment, not kid gloves treatment. The contemporary lobbies for long distance interventionism and counterinsurgency war profiteering would be gone. Groups of survivors clinging to contemporary norms will find themselves exploited and wiped out.
It should be obvious by now that almost every Western military strategist for over half a century has stunk up the place. Yet they keep getting paid and socially promoted.
Below I list both well-known and seldom known military factors or principles. So for free, I'm summarizing Sun Tzu and dozens of other military works, including some of my principles, more concisely than others have. What a bargain!
Well-known factors or principles, though often adhered to in lip service:
- Logistics.
- Training.
- Range, especially of weapons.
- Accuracy, especially of weapons.
- Science and technology.
- Reconnaissance range, numbers, and accuracy.
- Concentration and dispersion to match situations. Forces should not be so close together that they get destroyed easily but not so far apart that they get defeated piecemeal or cannot provide mutual support.
- Cover (armor, bunkers).
- Readiness, including early warning preparations.
- Destructiveness (mass or weapon lethality).
- Military efficiency, also known as economy of force. Don't spend trillions to destroy enemy forces worth millions. Exhaust enemies without exhausting yourself.
- Economic efficiency, productivity, and GDP.
- Morale and efficient organization.
- Flexibility and resilience.
- Terrain and Weather. Take unoccupied high ground or other advantageous ground. Travel the less unexpected way. Use fog and other weather to advantage.
- Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative when advantageous. Deny assets to unethical forces, especially assets an enemy cannot afford to lose. Be unpredictable.
- Have one overall commander, who is easily replaced if someone else is more competent.
- Hire the more competent. Delegate to them. Hold them accountable. Fire the less competent.
- Speed and maneuver, including mobile reserves.
- Delay until situations are most beneficial, but do not delay merely for laziness or cowardice.
- Hide or strengthen weaknesses, including flanks.
- Use extreme clarity in communication, keeping forces from blundering because of confusing orders or suggestions.
- Protect own communications from interception and code breaking.
- Hold or seize valuables: crops, ports, ships, bridges, aircraft, airfields, scientists, engineers, crossroads, factories, technologies, energy plants, media centers, storage centers, precious elements, marshaling yards, administrative centers. If it can't be held or seized, destroy it or otherwise deny it to enemies.
- Negotiating prowess.
- Medical care.
- Ambush or cut off enemy movements without falling into ambushes and other traps yourself.
- Deception, including smoke, decoys, surprise, sniping, minefields, camouflage, espionage, infiltration, false flags, night actions, code breaking, feigned movements, other demonstrations, bait-and-switch, recon by fire, attacking the rear, tying down their forces (self-imprisonment), tricking them into attacking where you want, tricking them into moving where you want. Etc.
- Probe for weaknesses, especially on flanks or social weaknesses.
- Defeat piecemeal with concentrated power.
- Self-test, including self-reconnaissance.
- Own the sea, air, and night.
- Avoid salience to current enemies and potential enemies. Contemporary interventionists talk loudly and carry rotten sticks. Keep unethical peoples far away. Individuals breeding with unethical outgroups must be permanently ostracized. Avoid letting ethnoracial outgroups bribe your leaders in any way, including "no strings" gifts. The recipients of such bribes must be executed or otherwise severely punished.
- Maximize beneficial alliances and spurn harmful alliances. There were no good ethical reasons for NATO to expand to Russian border states.
- Stealthily sow divisions among aggressive enemies when forced into conflict, encourage them to fight each other rather than yourself or your allies. Do not allow greedy, treasonous elites to sow divisions among ethical peoples. Ingroups engaging in divide-and-screw practices must be severely punished, both to stop the practices and as a deterrent. Outgroups exercising power over you by divide-and-screw practices must face similar punishments.
- Avoid wasting your own lives and resources to help unethical peoples. If they won't make massive sacrifices to help themselves and their own people, neither should we. Avoid self destructive conflicts with guerrillas in foreign lands.
- Avoid recklessly reinforcing defeat. Ignore sunk costs. What was spent in the past is irrelevant to what we should spend now.
- Be careful with bluffs. They often backfire when enemies call them.
- Avoid hiring mercenaries. If mercenaries seem a beneficial solution, you probably are doing multitudes or other acts wrong.
- Ethics matters most, including having clear goals and cost-benefit reasoning, especially maximizing the ratio of harms to unjust enemies to harms done to oneself. Self-examination and self-knowledge must be ruthless. Military means and ends must be ethical means and ends. Contemporary forces talk about ethics but the talk is glib and poorly reasoned, often consisting of empty slogans and buzzwords.
- Eugenics is a must and ethnoracial homogeneity a worthy goal. Civilizations seldom progress if the demographics don't improve.
- Some ordinary whites regard agreements as binding. Most others regard agreements as disposable when opportune.
- Avoid intervening on behalf of lesser evils.
- Encourage risk neutrality, that is, avoid both overreacting and under reacting.
- Avoid fights when ethical people lack the will to fight.
- Avoid fights to engage in pseudo-ethical grandstanding. Some politicians are willing to fight wars merely to prove they have the moral high ground in some minor way. Others demonize opponents to distract from their own evils.
- Avoid viewing war as a game or as an entertaining escape from boredom. Have no interest in watching the world burn. If we are not self-possessed, others will crush our necks with their boots. We must find ethical escapes from boredom and depression.
- Avoid war or require all out sacrifices by all non-disabled adults and teens.
- Know commitment levels of allies. Have accurate recognition of allies, enemies, and noncombatants.
- Seek peace but not merely to allow probable enemies to buy time to defeat you in the future.
- Tests must be thorough in realistic conditions, no small sample testing.
- Prevent personality cultism from arising around unethical or incompetent leaders.
- Individuals must be treated justly.
- Commit to frequent improvements.
- Avoid military jargon, especially acronyms. They are alienating. Use language to inspire and provide evidence, including the best counter evidence.
- Reason. Avoid fanaticism. Those who dismiss ideas merely because the ideas offend them have a fanaticism problem.
- Ability and willingness to live off the land is a virtue.
- Ethical warriors must have a no surrender mentality.
- Support self-determination. Understand splintering, evolutionary egoism, psychological egoism, and misplaced altruism.
- Assume politicians, billionaires, and mass media are almost always slanted away from the whole truth.
- Support philosophical diversity among ethical patriots, but keep aggressors, including infiltrators, from gaining control of institutions used for persuasion.
- Assume enemies are more clever than they appear. Avoid overconfidence. Think of moves by enemies and likely counter moves to your moves. If you have advantages in numbers, technologies, and economic productivity, your enemies are probably working to gain other advantages. Never be smug.
- Avoid ruminations, self-pity, wishful thinking, futility beliefs, and permanent ironic detachment.
- Do right acts despite fear, ennui, anxiety, and other helpful or harmful emotions.
- Remember that attacks often reveal you to others and expose you to counterattacks, including rhetorical attacks.
- Opportunity costs of unjust wars are often greater than the direct costs.
- Better alternatives probably exist than the ones being promoted.
- If a potential adversary engages in mercantilism, avoid trade with them beforehand. Mercantilism is a sign of egoism, Machiavellianism, and future aggression.
- Persuasion or assassination are usually better than war.
Many of the strategies listed above do not apply to nuclear or biological warfare. But they do apply to the aftermath of nuclear or biological warfare. At some point during even the most gung ho nuclear war, the side that emerges most able to function, if any, would probably realize that further nuclear attacks would do more to poison their own land with radiation than harm their perceived enemies. In other words, they would not want winds to carry massive amounts of radiation back to their own lands. It is unlikely that even the most horrific nuclear war would kill every person on the planet. In the aftermath of nuclear wars, survivors would find themselves competing or cooperating with other survivors depending on their characters and ethnoracial traits, though some would attempt to be complete hermits. But we can't build or rebuild civilizations with hermits. The infrastructure for building more nuclear weapons would also likely be gone. Many would find themselves in local turf and resource conflicts where conventional military tactics and strategies would reemerge since hungry, desperate individuals would not play the asinine game of counterinsurgency warfare. Unethical insurgents and the "civilians" who aid them would get scorched earth treatment, not kid gloves treatment. The contemporary lobbies for long distance interventionism and counterinsurgency war profiteering would be gone. Groups of survivors clinging to contemporary norms will find themselves exploited and wiped out.
It should be obvious by now that almost every Western military strategist for over half a century has stunk up the place. Yet they keep getting paid and socially promoted.
Monday, October 16, 2017
Marriage Policies and Gay Marriage
Though many individuals have short political memories, if you're reading this blog, you probably remember the massive media coverage given to the government supported gay marriage issue a few years ago. By coverage, I mean the deluge of slurs and straw person attacks directed against anyone who criticized this new frontier of equality.
The short history: for decades, gays regarded marriage as an oppressive, patriarchal heterosexual institution. Then more gays discovered that marriage has financial benefits, including tax benefits and often health insurance for spouses. In a geological blink of an eye, heterosexuals went from being demonized for supporting marriage to being demonized for failing to support government funded gay marriage.
Given the gay desire for and gay availability of promiscuous sex, gay partners must be careful they don't get ripped off in marriage. Partners gain tax benefits and one partner often gains health insurance, but a potential cost is divorce, where one partner takes a large chunk of the other's assets. Many gays likely engage in assortative class mating to avoid financial pitfalls. Many have open marriages of semi-convenience.
But jealousy happens.
Gays often have excessive self-interest. That interior decorating doesn't get done for free. When physical anthropologist Greg Cochran argues, homosexuality is hell on genetic fitness, what he also states or implies is that gays provide little help to their breeding relatives. Gay estrangement from relatives results from more than intolerance on both sides.
What to do:
Compared to nonwhite invasions and other aspects of cultural Marxism, government supported gay marriage is of minor import. But the debate reeks, partly because it was yet another example of activists achieving their goals by demonizing opposition and excluding the best counterarguments from public consciousness. And also because some Christians incited counter-demagoguery, while maintaining their support for far worse aspects of cultural Marxism. Evangelicals continue to grandstand on gay marriage while lives and societies fall into ruin from ethnoracial diversity.
Activists should seldom be rewarded for despicable rhetoric, no matter which sides they belong to.
The short history: for decades, gays regarded marriage as an oppressive, patriarchal heterosexual institution. Then more gays discovered that marriage has financial benefits, including tax benefits and often health insurance for spouses. In a geological blink of an eye, heterosexuals went from being demonized for supporting marriage to being demonized for failing to support government funded gay marriage.
Given the gay desire for and gay availability of promiscuous sex, gay partners must be careful they don't get ripped off in marriage. Partners gain tax benefits and one partner often gains health insurance, but a potential cost is divorce, where one partner takes a large chunk of the other's assets. Many gays likely engage in assortative class mating to avoid financial pitfalls. Many have open marriages of semi-convenience.
But jealousy happens.
Gays often have excessive self-interest. That interior decorating doesn't get done for free. When physical anthropologist Greg Cochran argues, homosexuality is hell on genetic fitness, what he also states or implies is that gays provide little help to their breeding relatives. Gay estrangement from relatives results from more than intolerance on both sides.
What to do:
- governments should get out the marriage tax entitlement business (along with most other existing tax entitlements). Marriage tax entitlements are an inefficient way to help families with minor children, especially since many married couples have no minor children. Instead, the government should use tax entitlements and other policies to promote eugenics. Eventually, governments should abandon the marriage business altogether, leaving marriage to private entities. Marriage has great value, but its value should not be based on government policies that encourage divorce and gold digging. Alimony and palimony must be banned.
- health care within a society must not be based on who your relatives are.
- "But without government run marriage, a hospital can keep my partner from visiting me as I'm dying." Simple solution: require everyone to put a list of those who can and cannot visit on their government ID and in their medical records.
- Women are hypergamous, that is, they believe they deserve the partners they consider best, no matter how far from the best those men or women are. Government run marriage encourages women to divorce, legally steal a man's assets, and move in with supposedly better man. It requires men to pay child support when cuckolded. It also grants marriages quickly and with little thought. Private entities, especially churches, are more likely to require counseling and waiting periods before marriage, leading to better marriages and beneficial break ups before harmful marriages occur. Churches should be strict about marriage, willing to tell some couples they are not a good match. Some men are also hypergamous.
Compared to nonwhite invasions and other aspects of cultural Marxism, government supported gay marriage is of minor import. But the debate reeks, partly because it was yet another example of activists achieving their goals by demonizing opposition and excluding the best counterarguments from public consciousness. And also because some Christians incited counter-demagoguery, while maintaining their support for far worse aspects of cultural Marxism. Evangelicals continue to grandstand on gay marriage while lives and societies fall into ruin from ethnoracial diversity.
Activists should seldom be rewarded for despicable rhetoric, no matter which sides they belong to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)