That "Right Wing Authoritarianism" Study

PsyPost ran an article based on a recent study concluding that individuals high in "Right Wing Authoritarianism" score higher in meaning in life. PsyPost inserted a photo of individuals acting ridiculous at Unite the Right in case any reader did not get the hints.

A problem: here is a list of survey questions for such studies. The people who would score highest for Right Wing Authoritarianism are not nonmulticulturalists. Multicultural, neoconservative movement conservatives and probably some multicultural, philosemitic monarchists would score much higher, the sort of individuals who listen to Roosh V, Glenn Beck, Max Boot, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity or Dennis Prager.

For example, the first statement on the survey asks for agreement with "The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protestors are usually just 'loud mouths' showing off their ignorance." Nonmulticulturalists vehemently and ethically oppose "established authorities."

A bigger problem: governments run by multiculturalists caused more unjustifiable deaths over the past century than any other type of government. Nonmulticulturalist leaders committed to principles self-determination for all seldom commit aggression.

So why aren't social scientists more interested in studying why multiculturalists are so prone to unwarranted violence and tyranny, including multiculturalists who allegedly oppose hate and oppression?

Strange Partisans

If this were a film from generations ago, audiences would have rejected it for being too preposterous.

Donald Trump is president. Trump is on the same policy side as Never Trump Neoconservatives, but Never Trumpers hate Trump, partly because of Trump's slur filled demagoguery. Much of Trump's inner circle consists of individuals who would otherwise be Never Trumpers. Predictably, they stab Trump in the back once they resign or get fired. Witness the recent comments by John Kelly and Michael Cohen. Trump pretends to be on the rhetorical side of an assortment of non-wealthy conservatives, and they like Trump, but Trump has stabbed them in the back hundreds of times. Much of the former Alt Right has abandoned Trump. To top it off, Never Trumpers spew lots of slur dominated demagoguery themselves, albeit with differing targets than Trump.

Paul Krugman, no stranger to slur filled demagoguery, moved from lavish praise of Hillary Clinton, a New Democrat Neoconservative with a disastrous tenure as Secretary of State on her resume, to praise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, an individual prone to crypto Marxism, all without much apparent change to his own totalitarian ideology. The D next to Ocasio-Cortez's name matters more.

Barack Obama now claims his presidency was based on "facts, reason, and logic," though the percentage of his presidency based on logic was much closer to zero percent than 100 percent.

Meanwhile, George W. Bush, who produced a horrendous presidency, has had his "favorability" among Democrats go from "only 11% in February 2009 to a majority 54% now." One political but not ethical lesson: farm out many evil deeds to the likes of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz. Another: pretend to be altruistic with tokenistic acts. And another: act presidential even if it's only an act.

The ethical lesson: this colony has too many rotten cultures and dysgenic genes to produce rulers with well-reasoned political actions.

Break it up.

Nonmulticulturalism: Worth the Bother

Sometimes variations of the following question arise: why bother reading or writing nonmulticultural arguments when many forms of political participation are unavailable to nonmulticulturalists or produce counterproductive results? Almost all individuals who bribe politicians support dysgenics and anti-white tyranny. Similar views exist among the mass media and other institutions. They punish well-reasoned dissent. Street activism causes mass media to go into anti-white demonization frenzies, manipulating millions despite the onslaught of fallacies contained in mass media versions of events. It wouldn't surprise me if establishment politicians smile inwardly when street violence occurs.

So why bother?

Facing ethical facts has personal development value. Being in the habit of ignoring or rejecting well-reasoned ethical evidence tends to infest most of a person's worldview. Thus, Marxists, Neoconservatives, and various other establishments tend to be not just wrong about ethnoracial issues but massively wrong about the majority of issues.

Some research suggests that political participation increases happiness and boosts "participants' vitality levels."

What else should we do with spare time? Hedonistic activities are sometimes expensive. Even when not expensive, hedonism runs into the paradox of hedonism, where the direct pursuit of happiness produces long term unhappiness, not to mention alienation. (The pursuit of happiness through politics does not mean we should spend thousands of hours reading fallacious Alt Wrong memes for infotainment purposes.)

There's something grotesque about individuals who don't care about the well being of future generations. They are nihilistic and loathsome company.

We should help the millions of nonmulticultural newcomers make better choices. These individuals bring decades of intellectual baggage with them. If we don't provide them with good arguments, they will settle for totalitarian garbage such as Hitlerism or Civic Nationalism, the latter a euphemism for slightly altered Libertarian Neoconservatism. Some newcomers are cheap political dates. They settle for a slight improvements on a handful of issues. If we ignore the ad hominem filled Twitter distractions and focus on policy, the Trump presidency resembles a third term from George W. Bush.

It matters little to them that political opportunists have been betraying their voting bases for generations. These newcomers brought the my political team right or wrong mindset with them. That mindset has got to go.

What politicians have done for years matters, not what they say they will do once in office. What individuals did they hang out with? What individuals did they get money from? What individuals have they helped? How much time did they spend on shameless self-aggrandizement? Barack Obama choosing Joe Lieberman as a mentor and taking large Wall Street donations in 2008 were gigantic red flags. Donald Trump's donor class, choices of advisers, and refusal to knowingly meet with any nonmulticulturalists were also massive red flags. Not surprisingly, Trump rewarded his donor class. Trump likely pushed the Overton Window in one direction while campaigning and in a reverse direction while in office. Trump is on a nearly identical political side as Never Trump Neoconservatives, yet those Trump has consistently betrayed remain Trump's staunchest supporters, an astounding absurdity of the present situation.

It's not enough to recognize that races and cultures have differing ethical characteristics. If individuals keep falling for blatant con artistry, something is massively wrong with them, especially the ideas they permit to enter and dominate their brains.

The current establishments are so wrong that they will eventually cause disasters, not merely long declines. We must have millions of individuals already prepared to fill the void with good ideas, especially a willingness to fight off egoism. Human history is replete with free riders being replaced by new free riders pretending to be reformers. The U.S. constitution contains several excellent ideas, for example, the First and Second Amendments in the Bill of Rights. But the constitution left out dozens of ethically and legally important ethnoracial rules. In a future article, I will cover some ideas a constitution should contain.

Avoiding Humble, Passive-Aggressive Con Artistry

'Tis the season for dealing with relationships--good and bad.

Many arguments warn us about what are euphemistically called fast men and fast women. More difficult to detect are individuals devoted to subtle, manipulative psychological and evolutionary egoisms, especially during falling in love periods when they feign being reciprocal altruists. Such individuals are sometimes described as nice, pious, humble, hard working, and family oriented by acquaintances. Former partners are less effusive. Feigners will be most motivated to hide their characters when opportunities to exploit a sugar daddies or sugar mommas exist.

How do we separate humble, ethical, hard working reciprocal altruists from those feigning such traits? What are some warning signs behind the humble, manipulative masks?

Often feigners appear to be good ones among bunches of bad kin. Feeling compassion for a potential partner's terrible family situation is not a good reason for a romantic relationship. Why? First, the feigned good ones often regress to their behavioral means after falling in love periods. They'll blame others because their relationships did not meet their fantasy expectations. "So disappointed." Second, bad kin gradually make spouses' lives hellish. In the long run, many feigners will take the side of terrible kin over spouses and other non kin. Third, if they are actually good, but have bad kin, such good ones still carry terrible genes, which will often be expressed in children or grandchildren.

Feigners are seldom cruel enough to treat service workers poorly, but often treat such workers with indifference, unless the service worker is sexually attractive.

Feigners talk often about hopes, plans, and goals but do not put massive efforts into achieving them.

Feigners treat artistic or religious assertions as if they override well-reasoned ethical conclusions, for example, the belief that birth control is a violation of God's will--as their relatives give birth to dysgenic offspring. Watch for very, very narrow pre-conceptions of what constitutes ethical issues.

Watch for contradictions: they feign great interest in your more substantial, well-reasoned intellectual pursuits but remain overly fascinated in celebrities, TV news, pop psychology, spectator sports, and other aspects of mass cultures, treating hedonistic lifestyles as cool, edifying or empowering. Once they get the ring they lose interest in your pursuits, preferring the intuitive appeal of mass cultures. Then what will you talk about over dinner? They'll praise their low character relatives, but during moments of frustration, when one kin harms another, they'll reveal truths that contradict the praise. Feigners exhibit excessive grouchiness over their own minor illnesses such as small cuts, but lack sufficient compassion for health problems experienced by non kin, including spouses. Feigners excessively or inaccurately criticize acquaintances behind their backs while making excuses for terrible behavior by self and close biological kin.

Many who describe themselves as family oriented are often merely family oriented toward close biological kin.

The fact that individuals work 40 plus hours per work is some evidence but not sufficient evidence that they have good work ethics. Being stuck in ethical, low paying jobs because of outside circumstances is acceptable. But do they treat physical effort as drudgery despite having no physical disabilities? Do they work as slowly as they can get away with? Do they take an excessive number of days off work because they don't feel like working? Are they often late to work? Such feigners seek partners to rescue them into a couch potato lifestyle. A good person is self-possessed, a go getter, having little interest in wasting hundreds of hours sunbathing, watching TV or using Facebook. Some individuals are intimidated by go getters, even when they themselves are go getters. Don't be.

I should briefly mention politics. Politically, feigners cause mass destruction, including via their support for mass dysgenic, non white immigration with small sample images of allegedly pious, humble non white women and children, seldom mentioning those women and children are prone to great evils, especially as the children age.

Even in countries where most migrants are on welfare, media and economists keep insisting that non white migrants are humble, hard working, economically beneficial, and beneficial in other ways--and will "pay for retirements."

Their descendants will be far worse.

Suspicious Economic Statistics

While evidence of increased inequality is overwhelming, other economic survey research looks more suspicious.

Inequality has generally increased during Republican presidencies and decreased during Democratic presidencies, but New Democrats don't advertise the fact that inequality also increased during most of Obama's presidency. New Democrats pull a slight of hand, trying to take credit for gains correlated with long gone presidents, having differing policies.

Democrats have been wedded to the narrative that wages for nonwealthy workers have "stagnated" for decades because evidence of decline would make their own neoliberal, free riding policies look bad, though Republican neoliberal policies are much worse.

Part of this seems driven by the intuition that median per hour wages have increased simply because people now have more toys, ignoring that individuals have more toys because values changed, more wives work now, individuals have fewer children to support, and the nation is older, meaning more individuals have had more years of collecting toys, not to mention wealthy economists simply generalizing from the small sample, availability error of their own circumstances.

Among Consumer Price Index errors, hedonic pricing appears to be a major contributor, especially when applied to housing. Technologies that are more harmful and habit forming should not be treated as hedonic pricing positives. This and other errors leads to alternative Consumer Price Indexes.

Turning to unemployment and some other issues, unrepresentative sampling is a big problem: Because of increases in caller ID and illegal telemarketer calls, a large percentage of working class individuals do not answer phone calls from strange numbers or numbers outside their area codes. Many have pre-pay, pay per minute plans. Almost every time such individuals answer a call it costs them a minimum of ten cents per minute. Since the top one percent today mostly engages in free riding and dark triad activities, they are also less likely to answer calls from strange numbers. Upper middle class individuals, individuals with middle class values, are more likely to be helpful on the phone, making such individuals over sampled.

We have neocolonial establishments that produced thousands of fallacious statistics that we were winning the various counterinsurgency wars, that nonwhite immigration is beneficial, that racial diversity is also beneficial, that genetic factors should be ignored or discounted when doing research, that epigenetics is massively important, that priming has big effects, that early childhood environmental factors have huge impacts on adult behavior, etc. Why should we simply simply assume their economic stats are accurate when economics is not far from sociology and criminology in junk science tendencies?

Countries with Substantial White Minorities: Yeesh

The following countries are or were one to 49.9 percent White within the past 60 years according to The World Factbook: Cuba, Peru, Brazil, Belize, Mexico, Georgia, Bolivia, Panama, Suriname, Armenia (maybe), Ecuador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Paraguay (maybe), Zimbabwe, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Costa Rica, South Africa, and Northern Cyprus (the latter not recognized by Western countries). I have probably inadvertently left off some others. (The World Factbook reports Paraguay is 95 percent mestizo and five percent other. I don't know what that other five percent is.) I won't include White Russians in Israel since they pass and self-identify as part of the Ashkenazi Jewish majority.

What important characteristic do the above countries have in common? With the plausible exception of Costa Rica, they are all terrible places to live for ethical, non-wealthy, civic minded individuals. Costa Rica owes much of its semi-development to White tourism, White investments, White technologies, and low levels of militarism.

Unlike Costa Rica, Western countries with increasing racial diversity are all ruled by multiculturalists devoted to police state militarism, especially Sweden, Russia, and several NATO nations.

The counter argument: thousands of additional factors cause those lands to be terrible. Most were not settled by Northwest Europeans. Northeast Asians and Brahman Caste Indians will pick up where whites left off.

The counter counter argument: racial diversity and cultural Marxism make those thousands of additional factors worse, especially dysgenic breeding and bait-and-switch-divide-and-screw politics. Northwest Europeans failed to stop mass failure in Zimbabwe and South Africa, the two white minority countries settled by Northwest Europeans. Despite their high IQs and work ethic, Brahmans and Northeast Asians devote themselves to egoism and other unethical causes. Numerous countries have Brahman or Northeast Asian minorities combined with low IQ nonwhite majorities--those countries stink, except a plausible few with massive earnings from natural resources such as Trinidad and Tobago. Western countries are also infected with more cultural Marxian demagoguery than the White minority countries listed above, making mutually destructive conflicts more likely.

The takeaway: no one with a smidgen of ethical character should try to make White majority nations into White minority empires. The probabilities and negative expected values of dystopian results are too damn great.

Satirical Headlines Unlikely to Appear in the Onion, Part Three

See if you can guess which two headlines below are actual media headlines, not intended as parody:

Trump's America First Strategy So Stealthy No One Can Distinguish It from the Israel and Saudi Arabia First Strategies

Elizabeth Holmes Says She Can Now Detect Gullible Investors from a Single Drop of Blood

Decorated, Shell Shocked World War II Veteran Remembered As Coward After Fleeing with Gun Wound from His Final Battle by Individuals Too Craven to Oppose Multiculturalism

Local Middle Class Man Brags to Friends That He Has a House Cleaner, Declares That He Too Would Rather Be Murdered in His Bed Than Make It

Study: Spending $500,000 on Booze and Hookers Now Does Less Social Damage Than Donating $500,000 to Crooked Contemporary Charities

Local Man Doesn't Remember Trump Scandal He Thought Was Most Important Event in the World 89 Days Ago

Max Boot Determined to Prove Alleged Einstein Quote Right About Human Stupidity Being Infinite

Local Muslims Concerned Local Progressives Are Out Competing Them for Terrorism Funding

Woman with Hepatitis C Infection from Tattoo and HIV Infection from Vibrant Neighbor Calls Old Men Disgusting Perverts

In Vitro Quintuplets Argue About Who Was the Planned One

Feminist Fights for Right of Saudi "Kill the Infidels, Adulterers, Blasphemers, and Apostates" Women to Drive

Migrant Proud He Lowered Median Per Capita Incomes on Both Sides of the Border

Local Woman Concerned Neighborhood Girls Becoming "Too Slutty," Making It Harder for Her Slutty Daughter to Compete

Biologist in Bad Marriage Admits to Fear of Talking About Mantidae Sexual Cannibalism with Wife

Philosopher Stunned to Learn He Was Fooled by Clickbait Headlines 58 Times in a Row

Heads Explode as White Village Declares Itself a Tenth Amendment Sanctuary City

Curbing Hate Speech Isn’t Censorship – It’s the Law

Fearing Assaults, Feminist Admits She Tells Only White Men to Stop Manspreading

University of California Guide: Saying “I’m Not Racist” Is Racist

A Stunning Headhunting Quote

The gruesome quote below first appeared in a 1909 issue of the Sarawak Gazette. A longer excerpt of the worthwhile article is in A Stroll Through Borneo by James Barclay, which I cannot find an electronic version of. I snipped the excerpt below from Adventure Without End by Richard Bangs. (Obviously, the quote exaggerates how much time Dayaks spend thinking about headhunting.)

Another Plausible Eugenic Policy: Refundable Tax Credits for Home Schooling

Single parents tend to engage in dysgenic breeding. Research suggests a large percentage of the harmful results to personality traits of single parenting are due to genes, that is, terrible sex choices rather than the psychological absence of a spouse or most other in home environmental factors. Married couples much more often engage in eugenic breeding, at least when married, middle class whites breed.

The US educational mean amount spent per public school child is currently around $11,762. New York spends roughly $22,366. Special ed students cost much more.

Home schooling parents receive little help from the government. Basic fairness would require the government to provide help since societies gain the benefits of home schooled children while paying few costs. Home schools are not much different from being family based charter schools. Governments pay for charter schools, including charter schools that teach stealth jihad.

A refundable tax credit for home schooling would work like this: If a family with three home schooled children owes $32,000 in federal taxes, a refundable tax credit of $4,000 would reduce their taxes to $20,000. If a similar family owes $11,000, the tax credit would refund the family $1,000.

One counterargument is that home schooled children act a little odd, but that is because they inherited genes for eccentricity from their parents. Such children often inherited beneficial genes for creativity, intelligence, conscientiousness, self-reliance, and higher character in general. Such children also seem weird because today's normalcy is so depraved. In today's world, raising your hand with enthusiasm to answer a teacher's question is considered weird. But students bouncing off walls and raising hell is considered tolerable.

Another counterargument is that children would supposedly benefit more from exposure to public school education, meaning exposure to racial diversity and liberal arts. But exposure to racial diversity is massively destructive and the liberal arts are now devoted to banalities, psychobabble, and cultural Marxism. So this counterargument is bunk.

The other counterargument is the cost of the tax credit but if home schooling becomes more common, it should reduce costs since home schooling is much more economically efficient than today's schools.

First caveat: an only child who never socializes with anyone other than their parents will develop severe mental illnesses. On rare occasions, the media publish stories about vile parenting, locking an only child in a room or closet. So refundable tax credits for home schooling should apply only to families with two or more children, which more importantly, encourages good parents to have more than one child.

Second caveat: the tax credit must be large enough to encourage eugenic breeding and other beneficial results but not so large that some parents, especially single parents, view it as welfare and quit their jobs. A refundable tax credit of $10,000 would be too large. Those predisposed to dysgenics and free riding would have nine children, collect $90,000 per year, and stop working. Research could easily identify a near optimal size for such a tax credit.

Third caveat: home schooled children should be required to take standardized tests at the end of each school year. Children failing such tests should be required to attend public schools and their parents ruled ineligible for home school tax credits. This banning will also discourage such parents from further dysgenic breeding and encourage other parents to engage in competent teaching.