Out from Under the Killing Moon

In tribal wars, clever bands ambushed others, often in the early morning under a bright killing moon. If the ambush was not a lopsided victory, the clever ambusher fled to fight another day. If pursued, they hid, set additional ambushes or outraced pursuers. If ambushers scored a lopsided victory, they exterminated rivals and gained assets, including nubile females. Victims were often disorganized by the chaos of the initial assault. Children cried for their dead parents and siblings. Casualties often exceeded 50 percent. Among Amerindians, only 13 percent "did not engage in wars with their neighbors at least once per year." More gentle peoples were enslaved or eliminated. Torture was incessant, a form of control and entertainment. In tribes, fight or be annihilated was no idle warning.

Tribal members were seldom mere disposable parts of the tribal whole. They valued their lives and sought to spread their individual seed. (I use the word seed since they knew almost nothing about individual genes spreading self-copies.) Members sometimes toppled leaders they considered unfair. Trade made matters worse, increasing tribal conflicts. Many settled peoples outproduced nomads, but nomads sometimes won by being better at killing and being more difficult to find. Nomads had an overlooked disadvantage: they suffered higher rates of miscarriages, especially when women rode horses.

In more complex societies, some wars created large, long term benefits.

But who benefits now? The direct and opportunity costs of contemporary empire wars far exceed benefits.

In many so-called professional militaries, ruling groups make personnel hyper obedient, to make soldiers regard their own lives as low value, to fight for fallacious rhetoric masking as virtue. Behind the rhetoric lies the naked psychological egoism of ruling groups and their vile outgroup allies. Research on wars refers to this egoism as opportunism.

Powerful individuals frequently look for opportunities to undermine the legitimate self-interest of others. Organ donors expect nothing while medical establishments walk away with millions. Economics is largely a sham science, promoting the excessive self-interest of free riding individuals over more deserving individuals, especially pro-immigration junk science that leaves nearly all harms out of the analysis. Military elites likewise propagandize low ranking personnel into thinking their own legitimate self-interest crass.

Military elites side with rulers in encouraging hostility toward establishment critics, regardless how well-reasoned the criticism, inculcating misplaced us versus them mindsets, even when elites operate as a them. The more rulers try to make their rule coup proof, the worse they perform at national defense.

Trying to make make professionals out of individuals predisposed toward tribalism often fails because such individuals value their individual lives and seed too much to waste it on behalf of platitudes and low value medals. In addition, many such individuals have IQs too low to function militarily in complex militaries.

In recent decades, Western militaries taught personnel to ignore unethical orders--burning villages and killing inhabitants being a paradigm case. But they do not teach personnel to disobey big picture wrongs. Note that ethics would require personnel to organize strikes to boycott the wars in Southwest Asia, yet few personnel pursue that option. The so-called emphasis on ethics seems mainly a rear end covering exercise. Blame falls on those at the bottom of the hierarchy for alleged atrocities. Institutions downplay the bigger wrongs of wasting lives and massive resources in unwinnable wars. The Vietnam war wasn't worth one American life.

The definitions of winning become ever more bad and bizarre. We enter wars with terrible or  inadequate goals. Helping powerful political parties hostile to yourself gets called winning. Wasting money to cheer for victorious, fan despising athletes is considered winning. Getting corrupt outgroup leaders to bend to the will of our own corrupt leaders is labeled winning, even when harms far exceed benefits. The tribal band member might well say, "Where is the loot? Where are the nubile females from your so-called winning? Where are your children and grandchildren? Oh, you have a ribbon, a ribbon you had to purchase yourself at the commissary, a ribbon civilians seldom comprehend. Will you wear that ribbon if you find yourself sleeping in an alley?"

To which many might correctly reply: character matters more than winning. Looting, murdering, torturing, and kidnapping are execrable. But we must go further. We must avoid evils of tribe and empire.

Multicultural empires rampantly engage in bait-and-switch and divide-and-rule strategies. They antagonize other groups with salami slicing and spirals of tit-for-tat acts. China salami slices via  emigration, trade policies, and South China Sea thefts. Salami slicers often find to their surprise that past trends change. Hitler sliced off Czechoslovakia, but was shocked when he could not slice off Poland. Such ruling groups are decadent and willfully blind to their power cravings, blind to their unjust treatment toward those outside the ruling groups. Nevertheless they love to play the victim. The Third Reich's rulers excoriated degeneracy while lying their rear ends off, while stuffing their faces with alcohol, amphetamines, and synthetic opiates. It's astonishing how corrosive concentrated power is in empires. Female rulers deserve their share of blame. "Europe's queens were 27 percent more likely than its kings to wage war."

Even smaller lands such as Sweden should be viewed as mini multicultural empires, where elites use ethnoracial diversity to bait whites into fighting each other instead of corrupt rule. Elites consolidate  totalitarian power under the banner of security, a lack of security they deliberately caused by pursuing diversity.

When one multicultural empire fights another, citizens find themselves thrust into dilemmas. Their own ruling classes commit evils, yet some outgroup ruling classes commit more evils. Should one fight and perhaps die on behalf of lesser evils? Maybe one should sit the war out. Truth is a rampant casualty of war. No aggressive government admits to being the greater evil. Shirking becomes more common in diverse units. Should it even be regarded as shirking when totalitarian governance denies one's right to self-determination? But should one turn his back to family and friends?

Many warn against Thucydides traps, but even somewhat well meaning members of ruling classes seem clueless about how to avoid such traps.

Outsiders have a better grasp:

1. emphasizing no more brother wars (not the biological meaning of brother) 
2. avoiding salience to outgroups
3. keeping good fences to make better neighbors
4. increasing credible local deterrents, for example, providing smaller, better nations with nuclear deterrents sufficient to extract massive costs on aggressors
5. avoiding being the victim of a fait accompli, especially the rhetoric of inevitable white genocide by multiculturalists.
6. recognizing that outside interference often prolongs civil wars or other conflicts. (Often prolongation and mutual destruction is what the outsider seeks.)
7. recognizing that long lasting rivalries make wars more destructive.

But ruling classes will not pursue policies based on "no more brother wars" because they regard nonwealthy whites as an enemy. They would punish any elite member uttering those four words. They pursue salience and globalism because it gives billionaires more play money, no matter how much conflict globalism creates and how many harms globalism creates for nonwealthy Westerners. They will not provide nuclear weapons to smaller nations because doing so threatens arbitrary nonproliferation rules and threatens their nuclear oligopoly. It also threatens their profiteering, their ripping off of taxpayers, demanding we defend people who dislike us or who are disinclined to fight themselves. A mere eleven percent of Japanese Gallup poll respondents said they would fight for their nation, though that a number is malleable by mass media. Pew polling suggests a host negative views towards Americans by Japanese. Contempt would not be too strong a word for their attitudes. But multiculturalists expect us to suffer and die on behalf of people who hold us in such contempt.

Despite its reputation for being, well, byzantine, the Byzantine Empire managed to survive far longer than the Western Roman Empire by employing crafty diplomatic and military strategies. But such leadership exists almost nowhere among contemporary Western ruling classes. They likely consider such acts not even part of their duties.

Resolve often works, but for what ends should we direct our resolve?

If Japan, Poland, Taiwan, Ukraine, Australia, South Korea, and a few other nations had nuclear arsenals, the world would be a safer place. Instead, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal for empty globalist promises that backfired spectacularly. A status quo bias exists. It is considered acceptable for aggressive Pakistanis to have nuclear weapons, but not for more logical individuals in Taiwan.

In the long run, despite technological advances, nuclear mistakes, pathogen evolution, natural disasters, and dysgenic overpopulation will likely cause havoc. The recently arising dysgenic paradox is thus: The worse genes individuals have, the more likely they will breed. The better the genes, the less likely. The most dangerous enemies often reside from the neck up. One way or another, the totalitarian xenocentrism of many whites will end. Racial cooperation out competes xenocentrism. And unethical winners become even more aggressive toward losers.

In Praise of a Few Minor Improvements

In 2006, Yale's Brady-Johnson program on grand strategy included the likes of  David Brooks, Walter Russell Mead, John Negroponte, Peggy Noonan, Victoria Nuland, Paul Solman, and Evan Wolfson. Ugh. The most recent program includes Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer.

Legal immigration visas are on track to drop 12 percent during the first two years of the Trump presidency.

Facebook usage is down.

Far more Americans than ten years ago identify immigration as the most important issue, including 19 percent of Republicans.

On the negative side, the Federal Government plans to drop charges against 38 individuals accused of crimes during the Trump inauguration.

Ruling Groups Believe Much of What They Say They Believe About Multiculturalism

I sometimes read comments that our ruling classes' beliefs about ethnoracial issues aren't as willfully inaccurate as they appear to be, that elites can't be that ethically unaware.

Oh, but they are.

Otherwise, many idle rich individuals or powerful retirees, having little to lose from defecting, would defect. Instead, nonwealthy whites, individuals with much to lose from doxing and other totalitarian punishments, drive nonmulticultural thought. Elites are almost nowhere found. Nonmulticultural websites struggle for tiny sums of money while institutions do trillions of dollars worth of propagandizing on behalf of establishment views. Morrissey, James Woods, and a few other C-list celebrities have made a few politically incorrect comments, but their comments barely scratch the surface of nonmulticulturalism. Such celebrities have almost no political power. No nonmulticultural website ranks among the top 500 most popular websites. Despite its many agitations, Breitbart is mostly an assimilationist, neoconservative site on policy issues.

When someone wealthy or famous gets punished for saying something offensive to multiculturalists, the thought expressed is usually some knee-jerk intuition. Such individuals don't get punished for talking about behavioral genetics because they know next to nothing about such matters. Ideologies driven by egoism, including egalitarianism, are simple. Fact facing is complex. Most ethnoracial issues require careful study. If you asked random politicians and billionaires about behavioral genetics, you'll have a tougher time than asking them about the Phillips Curve. They have little idea. They have lived their lives in the fallacy dominated mass media universe, where whites are the overwhelming majority of those committing evils and knowledge of nonwhite evils is suppressed.

Philosophers, supposed experts in logic and thought leadership, nevertheless believe Richard Lewontin's preposterous corn analogy.

Notice how we seldom see elites secretly undermining cultural Marxism. Politicians pretend to be pro-worker on the campaign trail, then turn anti-worker in office. They pretend to support non-interventionalism, then switch to militarism in office. We see similar contradictions between campaign rhetoric and policy behavior on dozens of other issues. Yet multiculturalists remain steadfastly multicultural in both campaign rhetoric and policy actions. Yes, they aren't as multicultural as the likes of Robert Mugabe and Keith Ellison, but that's because elites are devoted to profiting from the decline of the West. If they blow the West up all at once, they lose, too.

Powerful individuals are spoiled rotten. They have dark triad tendencies. They don't care about ethical facts, except when they see some benefit to themselves and their close associates. They live culturally isolated lives. Their "war rooms" are groupthink rooms. Television tells them nonwealthy whites are "deplorables," and they believe it. The things they think privately about whites are worse than the things they say publicly. They live in a world of knee-jerk talking points. They do vile acts, then engage in tokenism and grandstanding to pretend they are ethically superior. Treating nonwealthy whites as worse than mere objects is their normalcy. Harms to whites outside their social milieu don't register to them. Forcing nonwealthy white children to attend diverse, hostile schools worse than many prisons seldom bothers them, but they become enraged when individuals having no business in the West are incarcerated for their crimes. Their ethnoracial ideas come though a mass media filter that constantly uses slurs, straw person attacks and other fallacies to demonize those who disagree with them, including those telling the truth. (They don't have to look far to find straw persons to ridicule since much of the Alt Right preoccupies itself with horrendous memes and other infotainment garbage.)

Most humans don't say to themselves: "Let me find the most well-reasoned conclusions wherever they may be." Instead, they at least unconsciously think: "I can't go down the ethical truth rabbit hole because the media says X is somehow associated with Y, and the media says Y is a Nazi." Carefully and accurately weighing the good points from various sides is simply not something they do. The more reality contradicts their ethnoracial views, the more they fanatically cling to their political teams. Confirmation biases become a lifestyle. They live their political lives in a mental fog of manipulations, cocksure that fallacies are truth.

It doesn't matter to them that 100 percent of Muslim run countries are totalitarian, that nonwhite rule over large groups of whites has been disastrous 100 percent of the time, that racial diversity makes most individuals behave worse than they otherwise would, that eugenics for IQ and character offers fantastic opportunities, that mass dysgenics almost guarantees horrors. Sticking to their self-interested narratives matters more to them, as does finding plenty of people they regard as inferior to mock.

The ability to experience cognitive dissonance (contradiction anxiety) rises with logical skills. Individuals practicing new age cultism--plus other aceticisms and aestheticisms experience little or no cognitive dissonance when spewing fallacies. Believing what they want to believe makes them feel good, even when cult leaders exploit them. If they quit and start reading with a more logical and open mind, their ability to experience cognitive dissonance increases. Feeling anxiety when telling untruths is an ethically beneficial mental price of being logical. Ethical persons feel anxiety when they say something fallacious. Unethical persons feel more anxiety when they violate their groups' norms. Our rulers are genetically and culturally ill-suited to experience cognitive dissonance. They have little psychological incentive to believe the truth when believing fallacies benefits them far more in the short term.

Fanaticism doesn't require secular or avuncular fundamentalism. Glib, quiet, casual dismissal of unwanted evidence does the job, often without a second thought.

Freedom of Association at Restaurants Helps Self-Determination on More Important Issues

Multiculturalists remain self-oblivious to billions of their self-contradictions. On the rare occasions they notice, they treat their self-contradictions as unimportant and resume the rhetorical offensive, considering such self-contradictions good for the cause, notably their support for self-determination in nonwhite lands and their opposition to such important rights for whites in white lands.

But Red Hen refusing to serve Sarah Sanders seems to have struck a strange nerve. Many multiculturalists claimed Red Hen went "too far." Other multiculturalists praised Red Hen, viewing it as a legitimate response to an "assault on democracy." Oddly, they didn't consider thousands of acts of terrorism by Antifa and other multiculturalists as going too far. (Luckily for them, they control nearly all the mass media and other institutions, making it easy for them to whitewash multicultural terrorism.) Nor do they consider importing millions of individuals devoted to aggression, free riding, and anti-white tyranny as an assault on democracy.

Several months ago a black man I know demanded that all white males be deported to Norway. But, he too, regards regards Sanders' expulsion as an act too far. (Try to twist yourself into that mindset.)

Trying to keep the freedom of association for whites genie in the bottle accounts for much of the multicultural response. Denial of service to customers is a easy to notice policy. If multiculturalists start using their freedom of association rights to rampantly deny white customers "for political reasons," it will become harder for them to keep denying self-determination rights to whites legitimately seeking political separation. It becomes more difficult for them to manipulate whites with spurious charges of "racism" when whites merely seek to avoid multicultural totalitarianism and extermination.

Future Constitutions

For generations, Western ruling groups avoided punishment for their crime sprees. Currently, punishment probability is inversely proportional to power. Worse, they treat citizens as merely a means to their legalized mass destructive ends.

In any ethical nation, punishment for evils should be highly probable, strong enough to deter others, and somewhat proportional to undeserved harms done or attempted. For deterrence, the punishment should sometimes greatly exceed undeserved harms done or attempted. Otherwise crime and other evils pay. X amount of punishment for X amount of undeserved harm done seldom deters if the probability of being punished is only two percent.

With their massive wealth and power, our rulers are able to buy distance from citizens. The greater the distance, the more they commit false cause and false denial of cause fallacies, blaming and despising citizens for the results of rulers' own evils. They are devoted to egoism, after all. And they all hold their positions by practicing Machiavellianism.

In a ethical, self-determining nation, individuals in power must be close to citizens. Punishments must be severe and highly probable for undeservedly harming citizens.

Therefore, in future, ethical constitutions:

1. politicians receiving gifts and other bribes must be severely punished, especially bribes from ethnoracial outgroups.
2. individuals in positions of power must be required to have middle class or below wealth, so they cannot afford to distance themselves in fortresses surrounded by armed guards. This applies to politicians and other political opinion makers.
3. when rulers commit evils and try to cover their evils by subjugating and indoctrinating citizens with bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw practices, citizens have an ethical duty to make huge efforts to regain self-determination. Eugenic policies should strive to produce ethical character above all else for a variety of reasons, including to prevent populations driven by egoism, groupthink, and loyalty to big men and women over fellow citizens. The best constitution is not worth much in the wrong hands. Nor will such a constitution last. Groups being undeservedly harmed should have self-determination.
4. duties should exist for schools, media and other institutions to promote character development and beneficial skills, not hedonism, parasitism, and destructive status competitions.
5. groups that attempt to unethically undermine and harm citizens should be forced to form or migrate to separate nations. 
6. all elements of constitutions and important laws should require popular vote renewal once every eight years. Additions to constitutions should also be voted on once every eight years, including former elements the constitutions that might have been erroneously removed.
7. citizens should have a right and duty to perform extrajudicial punishments on elites for evils committed when justice systems refuse to do so. Such extrajudicial punishments should focus on elites themselves, not their followers. Such a duty should not be implemented without careful thought about consequences.
8. judges should be banned from ruling on the constitutionality of laws.
9. provisions mostly similar to the American Bill of Rights should exist.
10. hundreds of other constitutional provisions should fit the genes and character of the people in a nation.

Satirical Headlines Unlikely to Appear in the Onion, Part Two

Holy Koran Originally Recorded on Bones, Stones, and Branches Because All-Knowing Allah Didn't Give His Chosen People Traits to Invent Better Materials

Study: Opposing Junk Science Undermines Faith in Science And Must Be Stopped

Nonprofit Officials Who Never Had a Real Job Defend Six Figure Salaries by Claiming Lower
Salaries Would Cause Them to Lose Too Much Talent to the Private Sector

Elderly Establishment Politician Says He Wishes He Could Change but Only Knows Bait-and-Switch Politics

Heiress Donates $85 Million to Local Multicultural Business School, "to Help Others Pull Themselves Up By Their Bootstraps"

Onion Jumps the Shark, Breaks Funny Bone

A Short Summary of Big Picture Alternatives for Whites:

seasteading
Pros: good for protecting children from destructive mass cultures. If done properly with difficult initiations and proper training, an esprit de corps develops. Cons: expensive, boring, crowded. Poor self-defense. Dependent on shore supplies. Some individuals will act stir crazy. Not a good idea.

separate lives or villages within present states
Pros: easier to adopt, less alienation. Cons: at the mercy of tyrannical political whims from  multicultural populations, forced to work for and pay taxes in support of people seeking your destruction, that is, supporting their evolutionary and unethical egoism.

unilateral secessions
Pros: many. Con: police states responding to unilateral secessions with sanctions and aggressive violence.

purchasing land from existing poor countries for settling
Pro: less expensive land. Cons: difficult to find sellers, nonwhites will eventually break deals. Terrible idea.

leaving Earth 
Pros: greater safety from multicultural aggression, greater freedom to implement preferred societies. Cons: currently too expensive and technologically unfeasible.

paying nonwhites to leave the West 
Pros: many. Cons: expensive and politically unfeasible for now.

negotiated single secession
Pros: larger population for defense, economics of scale. Cons: free rider problems in a large nation. It would probably be dominated by present powers. If Texas seceded, for example, multicultural neoconservatives like Ted Cruz and Rick Perry dominate in the short run. Marxism will dominate in the long run.

negotiated multiple secessions
Pros: multiple experiments in living, less ideological strife, less alienation as whites find groups that fit their views, ability to develop esprit de corps. Cons: worse economics of scale, fewer citizens for self-defense. Counter argument: nuclear weapons would lesson need for large militaries.

encourage extreme multiculturalism now while whites still have a large enough population, leading to a great awakening among whites (the worse now, the better in the long run)

Pros: many. Cons: difficult to pull off, might lead to fascism. Many whites are so fanatically committed to groupthink, hedonism, and individual self-interest they might never experience an ethical awakening.

convert to Islam 

Pro: reduces power of Marxian feminism. Cons: implements a vile form of patriarchy. Nonwhite self-aggrandizement and self-justification is based in large part on misguided hatred of whites. "Hello, fellow Islamic multiculturalists," will look like an obvious ruse and won't significantly reduce their hatred of whites. Islam destroys ethical character, including via gene and culture co-evolution.

continue slow death with the occasional destructive lashing out gesture until multiculturalists believe they have enough power to engage in massacres, as in Zimbabwe, South Africa, the Ottoman Empire, and elsewhere 
Pros: few. Cons: loss of self, progress, and posterity. The worst evil in human history.

combinations of the above

other
several more I can't think of at the moment.

Steven Pinker Peddles Rhetorical Bullcrap

I learned of Steven Pinker around the turn of the century after Pinker wrote The Blank Slate. He shot to pop culture fame. I took a look and thought: he's paraphrasing Judith Rich Harris among many others--fine if it were fascinating paraphrasing, but The Blank Slate was stupendously boring, at least it should be to the well-informed. Judith Rich Harris remained in comparative obscurity. In most bookstores, the mom and dad sections are riddled with the nurture assumptions of helicopter parenting while The Nurture Assumption remains difficult to find. Psychologists still publish multitudes of studies each year as if genes do not exist.

Imagine my surprise when I found out Pinker wrote, The Sense of Style, a writing guide--also stupendously soporific.

Pinker gained more fame with The Better Angels of Our Nature, based on a small sample fallacy of human history.

But those books had many good points.

Pinker's newest work, Enlightenment Now, is more poorly reasoned. It is filled with multitudes of slurs, straw person attacks, and false cause claims while plowing rhetorical ground Greg Easterbrook and many others previously covered. It contains few good points.

It promotes misleading, feel good buzzwords and catch phrases--"sympathy," "optimism," "cosmopolitanism," "classical liberalism," "liberal democracy"--that those who treat politics as infotainment relish. Cosmopolitanism is a euphemism for hedonism and totalitarian rule by remote billionaires, who despise us. Classical liberalism is a feel good phrase for a 19th Century egoism, also known as robber baronism or laissez faire economics. Today liberal democracy is a euphemism for ruling groups deciding among themselves what they will do to the rest of us, often Randian neoconservatism and third way militarism. Liberal democracy meant something different 70 years ago, but as Pinker knows, the meanings of words change with time. Upbeat rhetoric doesn't turn Randian neoconservatism beneficial. Sympathy is compassion minus the urge to help. Many times compassion is misplaced. Sometimes it is well-placed, but sympathy is a vapid substitute.

Pinker claims life is much better now than a few decades ago and provides statistics on that point, but provides no evidence that his ethical and political prescriptions were a cause of those improvements. Technology, high Chinese IQs, people who oppose Pinker's prescriptions, and other factors were far more important.

Pinker invokes "moral sense," which is about as accurate as saying chemistry sense. The field of ethics is not a sense. For many enlightenment figures, reason was mainly a buzzword. The same can be said for Pinker. The casual reader will likely come away from Enlightenment Now with little idea of what reason is. According to Pinker's acknowledgements, dozens of intellectuals helped Pinker with Enlightenment Now. I bet none of them said, "Hey, Professor Pinker. We have a problem here. Your slurs and irrelevancies aren't acts of reason." The individuals who benefit most from contemporary rule seem constitutionally incapable or unwilling to see and fix its flaws. So where is their "moral sense?"

Pinker warns us about numerous sorts of "extremists." But he doesn't warn us about his own glib fanaticism. Russia, China, and the West are all run by optimistic, cosmopolitan globalists despite the fact that elites like to call any globalism that conflicts with their own "nationalism," yet they are marching toward war. Studies have suggested that optimism and opportunism are two of the leading causes of unjust wars. Neoconservatism and classical liberalism are partly driven by optimism and opportunism. Books on wars are loaded with ridiculously optimistic military assessments of self and enemies, leading to disasters. Social scientists have also noticed the dangers of optimism. Pinker describes himself as "more libertarian than authoritarian," but that is a false dichotomy. Because in the long run, libertarianism leads to authoritarian rule by the likes of Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers despite libertarian writers sometimes emphasizing civil liberties.

Pinker claims to oppose tribalism, yet he politically allies himself with the most tribalistic force on contemporary Earth, that is, multiculturalism, including Islam. Pinker opposes the blank slate as a scientific matter but supports politics based in large part on egoism and blank slates. I doubt Pinker thinks he can browbeat nonwhites out of egoism and ethnocentrism. His book is for white individuals, who are already too xenocentric. Pinker claims "more people have been murdered to mete out justice than to satisfy greed." Well, then show us the evidence. The two run together. Greed is excessive self-interest. Humans think their murderous acts of excessive self-interest serve justice. Most humans have lived in tribes. As Napoleon Chagnon's research on tribes suggested, tribal humans fought for an excessive share of resources, especially access to fertile females: "Women! Women! Women! Women!"

More global individuals are more selfish, an apparently unpublished study for reasons I do not know. It appears to have flaws teasing out factors. But the study greatly understates the problem. Most ruling class individuals would not participate in such a study, But we don't have to look far. It is difficult to think of a single ruling class individual having good ethical character. They view others as sexual, financial, and ethnoracial prey. We see it constantly around us: Their idea of compassion is wrecking the jobs, lives, schools, families, and neighborhoods of nonwealthy whites while they benefit from cheaper labor and divide-and-screw politics. A paradigm case for the elite individual of generally horrendous character, who nevertheless thought himself ethically superior because he supported cultural Marxism, was Lyndon Johnson. Johnson stuffed ballots and rigged his way to a World War II medal. His presidency was a disaster of atrocious, Machievellian policies, the most notorious being the 1965 Immigration Act, which was opposed 58 percent to 24 percent by the people. In true low character, self-superior elite fashion Johnson not only signed the bill, but felt compelled to slur the American people as "cruel" for opposing it. Elites use the mass media to propagandize the people into supporting rotten policies and when that fails they do what they want despite democratic opposition.

Pinker criticizes "cynicism about the institutions of modernity." Let's see: Politics dominated by legalized bribery and mass deception. Ditto for national defense. Health care that costs roughly twice what health care costs in other comparatively advanced countries. Education systems devoted to propaganda and debt peonage. A financial, insurance, and real estate sector devoted to ever greater free riding. On the plus side, hard industries and cottage industries are more efficient than ever, but they make up a fraction of the economy.

When the subject is psychology, Pinker appears to somewhat weigh arguments. But as with most individuals, when it comes to ethics and politics, I never get the impression that Pinker sits down and carefully weighs the good points from various sides against each other, which is what we have an ethical duty to do.

Pinker doesn't spew hard demagoguery the way Hitler and Trotsky did. Pinker uses soft demagoguery reminiscent of motivational speakers--many emotively loaded generalities without specific arguments on specific issues. Like other motivators, Pinker's views are vague enough to not offend uninformed readers.

Steven Pinker also produced this essay:

Thomas Hobbes's pithy equation "Reasoning is but reckoning [false with reasoning defined as calculating]" is one of the great ideas in human history [false]. The notion that rationality can be accomplished by the physical process of calculation was vindicated in the 20th century by Turing's thesis that simple machines are capable of implementing any computable function and by models from D. O. Hebb, McCullough and Pitts, and their scientific heirs showing that networks of simplified neurons could achieve comparable feats [faulty measures]. The cognitive feats of the brain can be explained in physical terms: to put it crudely (and critics notwithstanding), we can say that beliefs are a kind of information, thinking a kind of computation [bad definition], and motivation a kind of feedback and control [bad definition].
This is a great idea for two reasons [false]. First, it completes a naturalistic understanding of the universe [false], exorcising occult souls, spirits, and ghosts in the machine [false and straw person]. Just as Darwin made it possible [irrelevant] for a thoughtful observer of the natural world to do without creationism [irrelevant], Turing and others made it possible [irrelevant] for a thoughtful observer of the cognitive world to do without spiritualism [straw person].

Nowhere in that essay does Pinker mention consciousness, that stunning state of being that somehow arises from brain meat. Whether empirically true or not, an overwhelmingly biomechanical explanation of human existence is profoundly dispiriting to most human beings, making it ethically problematic: rah, rah, sis boom bah--you're a bunch of matter-energy in an indifferent universe.

(Steve Sailer calls Pinker "perhaps the finest public intellectual of our time," which tells us something terrible about Sailer's own worldview. Sailer also dismisses The Nurture Assumption because it doesn't devote enough space to teaching how parents can teach vocational skills, pages 328 plus in The Nurture Assumption, though the book is about personality traits. A listing of vocational skills parents teach would be banal.)

Pinker's arguments don't pull us from unethical chasms, they push us closer to them.

Social Science Watch: Crime Sentencing Edition

A new study examines disparities in sentencing, finding that blacks receive three month longer sentences from Republican appointed judges than similar non blacks while women receive two month shorter sentences from these judges.

The authors write, "These differences cannot be explained by other judge characteristics." Cannot as in impossible? Social science authors who treat study results as certain have questionable expertise.

Then the authors seem to contradict that claim with, "racial disparities by political affiliation are largely driven by drug offenses.” So is the judicial characteristic of being tough on drug offenders an explanation?

Did the authors tease out other alternative causal factors for sentencing differences:

1. accurate accounting of criminal history.
2. miscounting nonwhites as white.
3. geographical differences. Republican appointed judges in white, close knit towns probably sentence softer than Republican appointed judges from neoconservative areas having more black crime.
4. differences in insolent behavior by defendants in court.
5. disparities in willingness to plea bargain. It seems likely that judges give harsher sentences when the evidence is closer to slam dunk. Maybe whites with more evidence against them have already plea bargained since whites are more likely to tell the truth on self-reports. It is well known in law enforcement that blacks serving long prison terms demand DNA tests even when guilty because admitting guilt would cause them to lose face and hamper their innocent victim narratives.
6. disparities in crime circumstances. It seems likely that a car jacker murdering a driver will receive a harsher sentence than someone murdering his brother in the midst of a family argument.
7. Democratic appointed judges giving softer sentences than sentencing guidelines recommend.

A probability also exists that the study results are accurate. That's another argument against races living together. Multicultural Republican judges feigning race blindness are still biased. Getting accepted into multicultural political establishments requires biases on thousands of issues. Truth telling gets ostracized.

(Not surprisingly, the authors did not investigate jury nullification, law enforcement nullification, and unjust civil trial awards by progressives and Democrats, so-called restorative justice. Such individuals barely give lip service to equal treatment before the law. The probability of being caught and punished for crimes in diverse neighborhoods is low. And the probability of hate crime reporting, investigation, and conviction for hate crimes against whites is minuscule, but good luck finding scientists to investigate anti-white tyranny. There should be a study on how many more times likely a social scientists are to look for racial biases in whites than nonwhites.)

Reason: Giving the Right Weights to Arguments

Reason, also known as logic, is the sufficient finding and creating of premises and conclusions on some specific issue, plus weighing of those premises with sufficient care and accuracy to figure out which conclusions are best supported by good premises, that is, most likely to be true. Both premises and conclusions are called claims. Anything that is logically insufficient, that should be ignored when weighing arguments, is called a fallacy. Combinations of premises and conclusions, the argument, in informal logic, most everyday reasoning, are degrees of strong or weak, depending on how well the premises support the conclusions.

Argument:
The moon no longer exists (conclusion). I looked outside the last three nights and it was gone (premise).

Counterargument:
The moon still exists (conclusion). It's been cloudy for over a week (premise). Only a dummy could think it's gone (premise). One hundred percent of astronomers believe the moon still exists (premise). Just because you watched the sky one night doesn't mean garbage (premise). The problem is the way your brain is wired (premise).

The conclusion in the second argument is better supported, that is, more well-reasoned despite the fact that it contains three glaring fallacies.

The cloudy and sufficient expertise of astronomers premises outweigh the premise in the first argument. The "dummy" abusive ad hominem premise, the straw person "one night" premise, and the circumstantial ad hominem "your brain is wired" premise should be ignored, treated as worthless. Those three fallacious premises are also irrelevant to the specific issue, so it doesn't matter to this issue whether they are true or not.

There are dozens of types of fallacies beyond false claims, ad hominems, and straw persons.

Individuals make fallacious claims because they want to persuade or because they're making a joke or because they don't know any better or because they know better but regard persuasion as more important than giving an audience logically sufficient claims. It is common for professional opinion makers to glibly reject arguments by saying, "I'm not persuaded." Being persuaded or not is irrelevant to the value of an argument.

It is also common in everyday life for an individual to reject or otherwise under weigh an argument because some claims offend them or some claims are fallacious. This is wrong. What matters is how good the conclusions are and how well the good premises support them. It is often ethically wrong to use abusive ad hominem attacks and carelessly use other fallacies, but that doesn't tell us how well-supported the conclusions are.

Reason is often dismissed as linear, uncreative thinking, but it requires a large amount of creativity and resourcefulness to find or brainstorm the best premises and conclusions. Most arguments omit the best premises and conclusions.

What Mr. Spock does often in Star Trek is not logic, as the show states. He spits out intuitive claims without arguments.

Reason is not the slave of passions, nor should it be. Differing cognitive states can help or harm our reasoning abilities, for example, our arguments might come out worse when we are bored, but our passions when creating arguments are irrelevant to their worth.

Science is one branch of reason. Ethics, technology, art criticism, and many other human endeavors also use reasoning.

Good reasoning is the only legitimate way to find out how likely claims are to be true. A true claim accurately describes something. Because many promoters of tyranny claim to be men or women of reason and science does not make reason to blame. Such individuals reek at reasoning and are throwing out reason and science as empty buzzwords to attach prestige to their horrendous plans. The ability and willingness of most human beings to reason well is extremely, extremely poor. Many individuals with prestigious degrees are abysmal at reasoning outside their areas of expertise. Some lawyers, physicians, professors, and other professionals are terrible at reasoning in every field. They managed to become professionals because they are smart, good memorizers, and hard working, not because of the quality of their their reasoning.

There is far more to the reason story, and those stories can be found is logic texts, ethics works, scientific reasoning writings, etc.

Learning from Abortion, Infidelity, and Legalized Bribery

I didn't follow much of the Roy Moore saga, but from what I remember, it consisted of certain mass media rampantly screeching that Moore was a pedophile and that his voters were depraved supporters of pedophilia. The position of Moore's supporters was more nuanced: Moore was guilty of statutory rapes, not pedophilia, the latter an attraction to or sex with pre-pubescent children. In their view, supporting Moore was defensible because the alternative to Moore was support for what they consider mass baby killings. It didn't matter to Moore's supporters that Doug Jones, Moore's opponent, was labeled "middle-of-the-road." In today's Washington speak, middle-of-the-road means stealthy support for Randism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism.

Jones supports neoconservative Mike Pompeo and "has voted with President Trump's position 63.6% of the time." Other Moore supporters were immigration patriots.

Research suggests a large percentage of pro lifers are single issue voters, who readily adopt the worldview of politicians on other issues as long as the politicians are pro life or pretend to be pro life.

Now we learn Donald Trump or Elliott Broidy, a Wall Streeter and former deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Commitee, had an affair with Playboy Playmate Shera Bechar, resulting in a pregnancy and abortion. Broidy paid Bechar at least $1.6 million in hush money, over ten times what Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal were each paid. Maybe Bechar is a better negotiator than Daniels and McDougal, but more likely, abortion accounts for the difference.

Whoever had the affair with Bechar, Broidy has motive to pay a large sum. It the potential child were his, Broidy avoids millions in child support and an awkward family situation. If it were Trump's, the indirect bribe helps Broidy's unethical business dealings through the Trump Administration--and helps Trump avoid the wrath of pro-lifers, not to mention saving Trump child support and family problems.

Since the 2016 election, an election Trump could not have won without nonmulticulturalists, Trump has betrayed nonmulticulturalists hundreds of times, yet nonmulticulturalists cling to him, with some exceptions. Because of this, Trump has little incentive to protect his nonmulticultural flank, other than reducing refugee numbers (while at the same time increasing the number of guest workers).

Trump dares not throw screw pro lifers with as much vehemence. Pro lifers will get pro life judges from Trump.

Trump's main agenda remains the agenda of his largest donor, Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino owner (a business that should be illegal). For $25 million, a comparatively small sum, Adelson was able to excessively influence Trump, billions of lives, and a roughly $20 trillion US GDP. Most comically, movement conservatives, many unable to even find Jerusalem or Tel Aviv on a map, were suddenly urged to care deeply about moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Adelson keeps Republicans loyal by promising more in the future. Sure enough, Adelson just gave another $30 million to the GOP a few hours ago. But tiny sums from nonmulticulturalists are treated as money with no strings attached by politicians who dare not even meet with nonmulticulturalists. It's shocking how much destruction tens of millions in legalized bribes can cause the formerly greatest nation on earth.

The lesson: Until nonmulticulturalists get more organization and more big donors, they will keep getting screwed, as they have for generations.

Satirical Headlines Unlikely to Appear in The Onion

Irish Import Nonwhites to Atone for Their History of Being Persecuted by Brits and Africans

Gentrifier Makes Sure to Buy Iron Window Bars from Corporation Committed to Diversity

Nonwhites Demanding Rule Over Whites Call Whites Wanting to Be Left Alone "Supremacists"

"I'm Tired of People Judgin' Me by My Skin Color," Says Man with 78 IQ and Long History of Crimes

Hate Crimes Up 201 percent According to Organization with No History of Rigging Research Whatsoever

If a Muslim Had Committed Toronto Van Attack, There Would Be Wall to Wall Media Coverage Say Muslims Who Committed Thousands of Unreported Jihad Acts

Germany Successfully Assimilates Millions of Africans and Southwest Asians Onto Welfare

Diverse Team of Scientists Impresses Everyone by Calling Themselves a Diverse Team of Scientists

Seventy-Two Virgin Goats with Anal Seepage Await Latest Suicide Bomber

Aggressive Descendants of Genocide Practicing Migrants from Cameroon Say Whites Have No Right to Live in Zimbabwe and South Africa

"There Is No Gay Agenda," Remarks Activist Professor of LBGTQ Studies

U2's Bono Applies for Handicapped License Plate, Declaring Himself Cognitive Dissonance Impaired

School Desegregation Plan Praised for Wrecking the Lives of 4,991 Local Working Class White Children While Improving the Education of Six African-Americans

Writer Obsessed with Russian Influence Calls Millions of Harmful Influences by Israel, Turkey, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia "Conspiracy Theories"

Humorist Made Famous for Making Faces in Front of Millions of TV Viewers Should Be Trusted for His Policy Expertise

White Man Divorced from Two Asian Wives Plans to Marry Another Because "Asian Women Are More Affectionate and Family Oriented"

George HW Bush Visits Pearly Gates, Becomes First Man Sent to Hell for the Acts of His Sons

Teenager Contemplates Whether to Continue Living in a Society Where Millions Casually Use the Word Maroon Without Being Aware She Considers It a Slur

Alzheimer's Victim Chuck Woolery Spends Final Years of Life Giving Progressives a Straw Person to Attack

Black Converts to Judaism Feel Discriminated Against by Jews Worried About Intermarriage: "We Ain't Gonna Marry None Them We Inseminate Anyway, at Least Not for Long."

Local Hitler Supporter Does Not Believe DNA Tests Suggesting Hitler Was Part Jewish or Berber: "How Could Der Fuhrer Be Part Carpet?"

Stoning Victim Requested Rock You Like a Hurricane for Final Song

The American Eugenics Society Proves the Evil of Eugenics Claims Scholar Surrounded by Billions of Dysgenic Victims

Catalonia's Secession Plan Postpones Date of White Genocide by One Day

Democrats, Progressives, and Republicans Responsible for Genocultural Totalitarianism Strategy Demand Republicans Apologize for Southern Strategy

Area Teachers Boycott Teaching Tenth Amendment Because Judges Ignore It Anyway

Multicultural White Flighter Says She Is Leaving Neighborhood for No Reason She Can Discern

Brexiter Happy to Be Ruled by Anti-White Tyranny in London Rather Than Anti-White Tyranny in Far Away Brussels

Adopted White Twin Reared Apart Envies Twin Sister with Hispanic Last Name and Cushy Affirmative Action Job

Museum of Lynching Reports That Whites Are Incapable of Being Lynching Victims

Globalist Multiculturalist Finally Admits His Ideology: "Fuck It. Everything Is Permissible for Me, Except Opposition to Diversity."

"Everywhere West of Manhattan Is Inhabited by Inbred Mouth Breathers" Reports Endogamy Practicing Wall Street Supporter of Randism and Genocultural Totalitarianism

Multiculturalist Who Never Read a Counter Argument to His Views Unsure Whether an Immigration Patriot Is Someone Who Opposes or Supports Mass Immigration

Philosophy Text Replaces Truth Value with Offended Value

"White Privilege Must Be Fought Everywhere," Reports Millionaire from Ethnoracial Group Off Limits to Mass Media Criticism and Higher Than White Median Incomes

Supporters of Globalism and Militarism Decry the Alleged Nationalism of Leaders Devoted to Globalism and Militarism in China, Russia, and NATO

Devil Plans to Kick John McCain Out of Hell for Having Sins Too Heinous for the Devil to Tolerate

Man with Gold Plated Bathroom Fixtures Whines About the Alleged Whining Everyone Else Does

Dog Is God Spelled Backward Says Supporter of Interspecies Multiculturalism

Man Claiming to be Universalist Admits He Says That Only to Fool Others and Serve His Short-Term Self-Interest

Sheep Reports Halal Meat a Pain in the Neck

Defense Industry Profits Win War on Terror and War on Their Own Poverty in Twilight Doubleheader

Multiculturalism Fails 171,582 Times in a Row, Only Common Sense to Keep Trying It

Job Interview with Last White Person on Earth Turns Awkward When She Reveals No Person of Color Will Give Her a Reference

Generalizing About the Ease of Miseducation

Many blank slate ideas from our thought leaders arise from small sample fallacies: "I took chemistry in high school. It was fun and easy." Or among science teachers: 200 or 300 level "astronomy, modern physics, and quantitative analysis were a breeze." Mr. X can "teach calculus to a spoon," the problem must be merely bad teaching by other teachers or other environmental factors. Ergo, they believe those classes should be not too difficult for most students not in special ed; more low IQ peoples of color should be scientists, engineers, and programmers. I've read and heard hundreds of similar comments extolling the massive power of teaching skill over IQ deficits, even from a psychologist married to a physicist!

Worse, our rulers have no awareness that some math and science classes are many times more difficult than the classes mentioned above.

Despite their ethical failings, our rulers generally have above the mean IQs. They are smart enough to manipulate, but not wise enough to face facts.

My theory differs: If you are smart enough to master many difficult 300 and 400 level classes despite terrible teaching, that's when you are cut out for STEM fields. Bad teaching in difficult classes is a great test of IQ, resourcefulness, and conscientiousness. (Note this is not an endorsement of bad teaching.) The student who can figure out differential equations simply by reading textbooks is more cut out to be a scientist or engineer than the student who passes because of great teaching.

Nearly as important: for most individuals, especially those struggling with subjects, those fields are no damn fun. What was fun for Richard Feynman would be a nightmare for most individuals on this planet. And even more important: lower IQ individuals will contribute little or nothing to scientific advances and some will be a burden on employers fearing affirmative action holy war from lawyers.

Many opinion makers come from fields where few differences in difficulty among 200 level and 400 level classes exist, not to mention graduate coursework, so they generalize from their own experiences.

One study focuses on reducing anxiety about difficult classes. But students sometimes have good reasons for being anxious. Anxiety is a warning that we are engaged in or about to engage in the wrong activities or that we are putting in the wrong effort or that something is wrong with our beliefs. Another study focuses on overcoming perceptions of difficulty. This study is better: It advises students to focus on their "strengths, enjoyments, and needs," though it should do more to emphasize ethics.

If you are reading this article, you are probably aware Bad Students, Not Bad Schools by Robert Weissberg is a classic in demolishing overemphasis on environments.

It is better for students to find out early that they are not cut out for certain fields than to suffer large financial and opportunity costs, then run into intellectual walls. Most teenagers should never see the insides of physics, calculus, and chemistry classes.

Diversity and Western Militaries

A small sample video of a female sergeant criticizing her African-American colleagues emerged several weeks ago, but don't expect social scientists to do much well-reasoned research on these issues. Comments below the video include some wisdom. Fred Kaplan offers several studies suggesting low IQ recruits fail at simple military tasks, but Kaplan does not mention race and how diversity damages cohesiveness among lower ranking personnel. Nor does Kaplan mention how multicultural political influence creates militarism.

Neoconservatives wage war without paying attention to ethical, practical, and ethnoracial realities while pretending to be paragons of virtue. Note how they incite conflicts against both China and Russia while trying to accrue destructive or near worthless "allies." What the hell kind of grand strategy is that? Britain once had a grand strategy of allying with the second most powerful state on the continent against the most powerful. Sometimes that strategy paid off. Sometimes it didn't. But a strategy of one super power against two super powers is effing ridiculous, especially when contemporary Western ruling classes are deliberately incompetent at nearly everything ethically important.

Neoconservatives try to distance themselves from their disastrous practices, even claiming John Bolton isn't a Neoconservative because Bolton doesn't spew democracy slogans, despite the fact Bolton was a director for the Neoconservative Project for the New American Century. (The word American should be in scare quotes there.)

But few Neoconservatives support democracy in practice anyway. They seldom criticize gerrymandering and legalized bribery by Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson. They seldom excoriate anti-Western voting by migrant, ethically ersatz citizens. They abhor the idea of whites democratically demanding their rights to self-determination and an end to mutually destructive wars.

Let's speculate on why Western militaries readily adopt cultural Marxism, subject to further (unlikely) research:

1. Politicians and their donors demand cultural Marxism, and Western military officers seldom disobey non-military leaders to do the right things.
2. Nonwhites are good at manipulation and intimidation, making nonwhites useful as recruiters, drill instructors, and other positions where lying is rewarded and cognitive dissonance rare. But manipulation and intimidation are little substitute for technical skill and battlefield competence. As whites increasingly adopt African and Southwest Asian values, dysgenics increases while loyalty to worthwhile causes deteriorates.
3. Cultural Marxism makes senior officers feel ethically superior without them having to do ethical acts. Ominously, not only do they act as if might makes right, cultural Marxism makes them feel they are automatically on the sides of angels.
4. Small sample fallacies of heroic or pseudo heroic nonwhite soldiers.
5. Multiculturalism treats the harms created by multiculturalism as caused elsewhere.
6. Multiculturalism creates a larger pool of recruits, at least in the short term. In the long term, nonwhites almost always join anti-white sides, thus, creating the spectacle of Christian nonwhites in London helping to elect the pro-Jihad Muslim Mayor.
7. Cultural Marxism creates the illusion of fewer racial conflicts to officers. As with other wealthy individuals in sheltered neighborhoods, they seldom suffer the harms they create for others. They don't have to live and work in close proximity with low functioning individuals. Senior officers show up for macho posturing, then disappear to their sheltered retreats.
8. Critics of cultural Marxism are seldom able to rise up the ranks, resulting in disastrous egoism driven groupthink and strict enforcement of groupthink. Office politics trumps ethical decision making.

Whites resent being in the most difficult and dangerous jobs while rear echelon nonwhites pilfer desperately needed supplies. In World War II Tunisia, black U.S. soldiers had an STD rate of 451 per 1000 versus a US white rate of 34 per 1000, partly because they brought the STDs with them, and partly because they were exchanging stolen supplies for sex on black markets. George Wilson, given command of a black company of about 200 soldiers, wrote "Every day thefts were reported to me. Some of the men sold, traded, or gave away their personal equipment."

Counterjihadists often assert that Muslims in the U.S. military have killed more Americans than the number of enemy warriors such soldiers have killed, though accurately counting such data is unlikely in today's intellectual climate.

In the event of war with China and Russia, Western militaries would likely experience massive fifth columning by overseas Chinese and Russians.

If a major Neoconservative inspired war occurs, multitudes of non-white military personal would desert or announce that they are conscientious objectors, leaving whites to fight another nonwhite man's war. I wouldn't blame them. If such a war occurs, I would encourage whites to desert and not waste their lives for Randism, neoconservatism, third wayism, and cultural Marxism. Whites shouldn't suffer or die for the totalitarian ideas of those who despise them.

In the final stages of multiculturalism, the anti-white military will likely concoct plenty of excuses why white civilians need to be exterminated, as has happened in other multicultural lands where non-whites gain demographic and political domination.

Calexit and the Migrant Invasion

The Audacious Epigone writes that a several thousand person strong caravan of "alleged Hondurans are being ushered through the narco-state to our south with support from the Mexican government there and from 'humanitarian' groups here (groups that should be charged with criminal conspiracy)."

Jef Costello concludes this is a potential lose-lose situation: "the Left wins big if Trump caves and allows the migrants in... the Left also thinks it wins if Trump refuses to allow the migrants in. We will then see weeks of coverage painting him as cruel and heartless."

That's what happens when multiculturalists control nearly all the institutions. (Multiculturalists should never be permitted a toehold of control over a nation state.)

But a plausible lesser evil exists if Trump caves. The caravan seems headed for California.

It's ethically better if California quickly acquires third world status than for the entire country to gradually sink into third world status, with whites eventually being exterminated.

Paradoxically, welfare and sanctuary cities are less harmful if only California practices those acts--and the welfare is large enough to keep migrants from flooding into other states.

Multicultural Californians blame the rest of the country for its economic woes rather than the predictable failures of multiculturalism because hard core multiculturalists almost never ever blame multiculturalism for the harms multiculturalism causes.

Multiculturalists, especially fans of militarism, believe that somehow the Civil War proves whites don't have a right to self-determination. (Multiculturalists seldom argue we should revert to control by England or Amerindian tribes devoted to murder, torture, robbery, and mutilation. Nor do they often oppose self-determination by non-whites, except at Tibet, Taiwan, and a few other places.) They also act as if it is better for whites to be ruled by individuals who seek to destroy us than for us to be left alone.

If California secedes, it will be harder for multiculturalists to manipulate whites into thinking secession by whites is automatically wrong.

Yeah, it sucks to lose California, a land of fantastic beauty and outstanding coastal weather, but unless ethical white families regain control of institutions and start having eugenic total fertility rates closer to ten children per family rather than one child per family, little probability of saving California exists, except parts of Northern and Eastern California.

Radio and Television

I was wading through the trivia and junk science at Kevin Lewis' Findings blog when I found this study. During the John F. Kennedy administration, with "Kennedy's encouragement, the Internal Revenue Service audited conservative broadcasters to impair their ability to raise money while the Federal Communications Commission discouraged radio stations from airing their programs."

I doubt many individuals have read about this blatant partisanship before.

Not that political TV and radio are mediums for better politics. For every hour citizens spend learning political propaganda in schools, they spend dozens more learning sound bites from radio and TV. Repetition creates and increases belief. Tendencies toward hedonism and indoctrination are inherent in those technologies.

In an ethical nation, political discourse should take place primarily in print and on the internet. No political activists should own the electromagnetic spectrum--or TV and radio end up being dominated by terrible ideologies versus other terrible ideologies.

Politically driven oligopolies in print and on the internet should also face severe restrictions.

The domestic electromagnetic spectrum should be limited to military, emergency, cell phone, walkie talkie, and nonpolitical music uses.

In post America's case, TV and radio are a battle ground of Neoconservatism versus Marxism and Third Wayism, while more accurate worldviews get ignored. Restricting the uses of TV and radio violates the rights of politicians and billionaires, but there is no other ethical alternative. Political TV and radio are ideological weapons of mass destruction.

We live in Western lands, where millions of whites face firings and other punishments for telling the truth about cultural Marxism. Meanwhile multiculturalists ignore their totalitarianism and keep lecturing us about McCarthyism. In McCarthy's defense, communism waged violent, physical war against the West in addition to the far worse "boring from within." Politicians and billionaires used the media to goad us into focusing on economic Marxism while ignoring the more destructive cultural Marxism.

Whataboutism and the Establishments

Whataboutism is the quick raising of irrelevancies, often of the those guys also do terrible acts variety.

Examples:
Person one: Putin is a terrible leader.
Person two: What about Saudi leaders? They are more evil than Putin. Every ruler on Earth is terrible.

Person three: I can't believe Jarad Kushner is permitted in the White House.
Person four: Al Sharpton was permitted in the Obama White House.

Whataboutism infuriates establishment individuals more than expected because they don't want us to see or hear anything that contradicts poorly reasoned establishment political beliefs. Hence, their efforts to obtain total domination of mass media and all other major institutions. Even total institutional domination is not enough for them: they resort to totalitarian speech restrictions.

Seldom able to recognize and articulate the existence of logical fallacies, the shout of whataboutism is their way of saying some claims are unfair or irrelevant. Note how they are blind to the straw person, ad hominem, and other irrelevancies they bombard the rest of us with.

Masters of confirmation bias, they would prefer we talk about only their favored issues, framed in mythical ways.

How should we deal with poorly reasoned establishment narratives without resorting to irrelevancies: "Okay, let's argue about your issue. Then let's talk about other issues thousands of times more because other issues are thousands of times more important--dysgenics, migration, militarism, self-determination, et cetera."

Cohn Jobs

Donald Trump's former chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, bashed Trump on the way out of the White House, reportedly for Trump's steel tariffs and Trump's handling of Charlottesville. So great was Cohn's outrage over Trump's Charlottesville response that he waited over five months to resign. Notably, Cohn expressed no outrage over thousands of acts of terrorism and intimidation by "activists." Trump, in full kowtow mode, praised Cohn, but claimed Cohn is a globalist, thus attempting to distance Trump from his own globalism. Mass media, of course, went into hysterics over the word globalist because totalitarian thought policing is the media's gig.

Cohn was likely a source of some of Trump's redistribute to the top agenda, not that it mattered much. If not for Cohn, thousands of other Wall Streeters would have lined up to fill a similar role. Cohn likely took the the top adviser role merely as a temporary gig to boost his resume.

Most human beings believe they are ethically superior to most other human beings, so predictably, even the likes of Cohn grandstand about tariffs and Charlottesville, but serving the public interest is an utterly alien concept to Wall Streeters.

Cohn will probably now write about so-called free trade, not including such topics as tax entitlements, military spycraft, human trafficking, OxyContin peddling, industrial espionage, environmental destruction, currency manipulation, disastrous conflicts, downward wage pressures, international legalized bribery, rule by outgroup tyranny, militarism on behalf of crooked businesses, and excessively lengthy intellectual property rights.

Trump's tariff exemptions for Mexican and Canadian steel will help Mexican and Canadian steel producers compete in America. Maybe now Mexico will pay for the wall.

Or not.

The assertion that Mexico should pay for the wall was a clever tactic by Trump to leave him with an out for not building the wall himself.

The cost of the wall is comparative chump change for the US federal government, a government that wastes more money every month than the cost of an adequate wall. The cost of landmines behind the wall would also be minuscule compared to the benefit obtained. A fence behind the landmines to keep individuals from accidentally stepping on mines would also be inexpensive. The mass media would commence screeching, commenting with the "that's not who we are" irrelevancy. Defending America from demographic mass destruction is a job American politicians just won't do.

Trump surrounds himself with neoconservative multiculturalists and practices neoconservative multiculturalism. Trump has yet to publicly meet with a single nonmulticulturalist, but that doesn't fit the narrative, so our ever media keep calling him Hitleresque.

Nonmulticulturalist pro-Trumpers need to distance themselves from Trump. They're being set up to take the fall for Trump, though Trump gives nonmulticulturalists little but policy crumbs.

Reducing School Gun Violence Without Violating Gun Rights

Let's lower the age children may voluntarily drop out of school to 13, requiring students to have no arrest or expulsion record and be in the top 30 percent of their sixth grade class to attend seventh through twelfth grade public education. Let's require teenage public school students to remain arrest and expulsion free. Let's prohibit anyone above 13 from attending primary grade classes. Let's relax child labor laws for individuals above age 12.

For most students, public secondary schools are more propaganda shows and custodial institutions than important learning institutions.

Many severe behavioral problems begin during the teenage years. The above policies will rid many such problems, not to mention many students enraged because they are bullied or don't fit in. Some of these students will improve if they hang around adult groups and have adult responsibilities.

Most shooters of humans shoot themselves or acquaintances. Those who never attend high schools are unlikely to shoot up high schools.

Use media to spread knowledge of behavioral genetics, to change cultures from pretending that secondary education makes students much smarter or prepared for life outside schools. Help students grow up. Two hundred years ago it was common for teenagers to take on many adult duties--and they did them well. Adolescences that last decades are cultural and dysgenic creations. Globalist multiculturalists created a world with a demand for low skilled service workers. Teenagers should do many of these jobs.

Are any of the above policies probable? No. But so are most other worthwhile reforms. It's good to talk about policies that should be done, to shift the Overton Window and have ideas for newer, better societies.

Comedy

Mark Ramsey and many others assert, "Comedy tells the truth." But that is often wrong. Comedy thrives on the fallacious (and unexpected)--puns, exaggerations, small samples, bad definitions, false analogies, straw person attacks, false cause claims, and irrelevant ad hominem points, not to mention various other false or irrelevant or otherwise worthless claims.

Jaded by hedonism, some audiences demand ever more shock value.

A good sign of ethical growth is an ability to see most political comedy as banal or destructive, consisting of glorified talking points. In strident believers, the banal becomes humorous. Cliches become group identification symbols. In previous decades, saying "thanks Obama" hundreds of times would be considered a sign of a hackneyed, tiresome sense of humor.

The problem is not limited to multiculturalists. Many memes on Voat and other sites are terrible.

The talking point hammers increase while clever, subtle, and sophisticated humor declines.

Not laughing at political humor is seldom a sign of lacking a sense of humor, but a sign of seeing through the BS. Especially irksome is when comics pretend their pathetic attempts at humor are over your head.

Emo Phillips once had a damn poignant joke:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

(Monty Python had a similar joke. I don't know which came first.)

Now we're stuck in a country where Republican Neoconservatives for John Kasich and Jeb Bush act as if Republican Neoconservatives for Donald Trump are heretics, deserving of death via multiculturalism or World War III, along with most of us, despite the fact that Trump keeps kowtowing to their policy demands.

Truthful dissent from multiculturalism results in expulsion or other punishments.

It's hardly a laughing matter.

Ivy League Home Cramming

Many noticed when Ron Unz wrote his article noticing that people of African, Hispanic, and recent Southwest Asian ancestry and cultures were over represented at Ivy League schools, that Whites and Northeast Asians were underrepresented, based on academic performance. To the extent that the mass media noticed, they ignored the White part and emphasized how Northeast Asians were wronged (the mass media almost never notice anti-White wrongs).

Lots of noticing.

The strongest counterargument: Peoples of recent Southwest Asian descent live disproportionately in the Northeast and therefore should be expected to be a disproportionate number of Ivy League students. Also, Andrew Gelman claims Unz overestimated using nontransparent methodology. But Gelman's methodology is also nontransparent. For all we know, Unz, Gelman, and Gelman's allies are all making up numbers.

Whether Unz or Gelman is closer to the truth, that's still a weak counterargument. Ivy League schools demand affirmative action. Peoples of recent Southwest Asian descent rank among the most IQ and economically gifted peoples in post-America. They also benefit from massive ethnoracial networking. Given their gifts, affirmative action would require that Southwest Asians be close to zero percent of Ivy League students, not many times their proportion of the general population.

Another counterargument: Ivy League schools are private. They should admit those they want. Despite being allegedly private, Ivy League schools receive massive infusions from student aid and tax entitlements. We're paying for our own tyranny. Universities are increasingly "hedge funds" with indoctrination centers attached. Harvard had an endowment of roughly $38 billion in 2016. And the individuals managing those funds make fortunes from allegedly non-profit institutions.

Difficult to get into but also difficult to flunk out of, decent educations seldom happen at Ivy League schools. Many community colleges have more difficult classes. They are instead places where unjust elites make connections with each other and reaffirm their fallacious, groupthink worldviews--finishing schools for  totalitarianism.

To the extent that the Ivy League looks like post-America, it looks like psychological and evolutionary egoism, especially from parasitic sectors of the economy: finance, insurance, multiculturalism, and real estate. Future ruling classes shouldn't come from among those already devoted to bribery and tyranny.

In addition to antitrust actions against tech and other oligopolies, we need antitrust actions against the Ivy League.

If a Jewish individual genuinely has a goal of winning a Nobel Prize in chemistry, she can do it elsewhere.

Self-Control: Let Them Smash Cakes?

Here's a what the hell thread: young children enter a store and start smashing expensive cakes on the floor. Guess how the threadsters explain it? MrNogi's parental "ripple effect" gets over 1,000 upvotes.

Well, it just so happens a new study suggests that 64 to 75 percent of variance in self-control among seven to 12-year-olds has genetic origins, with the rest caused by non-shared environments, but the study relies on self-reports, so that's a caveat.

Of course, the study stats don't tell us about the smasher's specific situation, so we shouldn't rush to causal conclusions about them, although I know what I would do if they were my kids, and it wouldn't be pretty.

Scandals of the Century or Nanosecond

Dozens of new scandals arose this week involving somebody or others.

Sigh.

Scandals turn into bashathons while the media ignore or downplay bigger wrongs.

To wit:

1. trillions wasted for decades on overpriced OPEC oil because it almost never occurs to politicians and media types that we could create a buyer's cartel to counter OPEC. (Most opinion creators have probably not even heard of the phrase buyer's cartel.)
2. trillions lost because we tax productive work far more than harmful finance and negative externalities.
3. global warming treated as more important than deforestation, other pollution, ocean overharvesting, and dysgenic overpopulation. Several million dead each year from non carbon dioxide air pollution alone. 
4. mass invasions by nonwhites devoted to free riding and anti-white tyranny.
5. trillions wasted defending Asian and African states pursuing our destruction. Post-America's military: doing the jobs that no one else is wrong enough to do, including trillions wasted on no win counterinsurgency wars.
6. hidden in plain sight: ordinary Muslims and other multiculturalists have beliefs worse than individuals the media pretend are neo-Nazis.
7. financial tumors (bubbles) treated as legitimate measures of economic performance, trillions wasted on housing bubbles created by individuals fleeing the neighborhood diversity they shove down our throats.
8. few restrictions on modifying bird flu to murder billions. Freedom of political speech of gets damned by colonial occupiers of the West, but don't interfere with 'muh scientific freedom.
9. antagonizing Putin and risking a world war because he does rotten acts while billions of others devoted to rotten acts get praised. Great idea. Let's antagonize the one person who can cause us the most harm. What could go right?
10. trillions wasted on health care systems that serve profits better than health.
11. education systems increasingly devoted to indoctrination. In Soviet Post-America, students and tax payers pay fortunes for indoctrination. What a country. No two kopek struggle sessions for you.

Decades of scandal mongering have not been enough to reform the Green, Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian Parties. Perchance a new approach in this divide-and-screw near sleep of near death? Nah.

No doubt the winners of the scandal wars will turn their attention to doing the right policy things just as soon as they finish up the winning (sarcasm).

Remember the scandal involving Kimba Wood? Me neither.

The industries of media and legalized bribery lack senses of proportion, but they do have a sense of opportunism.

Ethnoracial Diversity Thought Experiments

Let's suppose we did some survey research of whites, asking which they would prefer:

1. being a convenience store cashier, living in an apartment in the most diverse neighborhood in Baltimore or being homeless in a 99 percent white, middle class neighborhood, assuming the police don't remove you.
2. owning a 5,000 acre farm in Zimbabwe or having a similar homeless situation as above.
3. attending 1970s Detroit Cooley High School or living in 1970s Poland, assuming you speak fluent Polish.
4. earning $100 thousand per year as a contractor in a Pashtun Afghan province or earning five dollars per hour in the white, middle class neighborhood.
5. living at frigid, isolated South Georgia Island or living in the US if diversity inspired Putin, Xi Jinping, neoconservatives, and Democratic Party interventionists incite World War III.
6. being an eighth grade teacher at a random middle school named after MLK or being unemployed.

It would be difficult to get honest answers, but I bet a majority of whites would select the second options.

Most whites would consider high levels of diversity to be worse than being homeless in brutal heat and cold, worse than living under 1970s Polish communism, and so on.

There's worse. End stage multiculturalism would be probably something like Somalia, without the foreign aid. Bad trends keep getting worse unless good individuals deliberately stop them. And multiculturalists almost always prefer ever more diversity over less.

(By the way, credible estimates suggest nearly half of Pushtun men sodomize young boys, so the next time a multiculturalist points at a middle aged white man and tells you he looks like a pedophile, tell her about our pashtun "allies.")

Book Observations: Invading Mexico: America's Continental Dream and the Mexican War, 1846-1848 by Joseph Wheelan

Not surprisingly, Invading Mexico contains much cultural Marxism, but some thought crime facts sneak through that don't fit the mere "land grab" story lines of today.

1. Mexico had no right to the lands that became part of the American Southwest, a claim more preposterous than a dementia patient claiming ownership of the moon. Most individuals living in those lands were non-Mexican. Mexico's claims violated inhabitants' rights to self-determination. (A major reason so few Mexicans lived in the Southwest was they were terrified of the Apache, Comanche and other hostile Amerindians.)
2. It was not a war between a slave holding nation and an anti-slavery nation. In Mexico, the slaves were females, often treated worse than farm animals while Mexican men drank, gambled, lounged, acted macho, and watched bull fights.
3. Mexico did not have the genetic and cultural abilities to effectively govern the lands south of the Rio Grande, let alone the lands north of it. Mexico's required retirement payments to its veterans alone were over two times its government revenues.
4. When Mexicans started losing battles, they would demand a truce--to regroup and continue the fight on better terms for themselves. When Mexicans surrendered during a battle and promised not to take up arms again, they lied. Like agreements with most humans, agreements with Mexicans were worthless. Mexicans lied whenever they saw some advantage.
5. Winfield Scott was a helluva general, except when he kept falling for multicultural assumptions about nonwhites and their leaders.
6. After the war, Texas Rangers quickly, brutally, and ethically stomped a nascent Mexican guerrilla movement. I shudder to think what would have happened if the likes of Max Boot and John McCain had been running the war. We'd probably still have umpteen thousand soldiers in Mexico.
7. Mexico engaged in numerous acts of murder and robbery in borderlands during the years leading up to the war, plus many acts of piracy in the Gulf of Mexico.
8. Mexicans constantly asserted their rights and demanded compassion while showing almost no concern for the rights of others.
9. Despising their own government, many Mexicans wanted to make Mexico part of the US after the war. Another shudder moment that would have created massive opportunities for multicultural, bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw practices by ruling groups.

Sound familiar?

Poor America. So far from God, so close to Mexico.