Personal Irresponsibility

Personal responsibility is a good thing. But there are serious flaws with it as a direct political preoccupation, including its genocidal implications.

First, individuals with serious behavior problems don't care what writers in the National Review think. They don't read the National Review. "Just say no" fails.

Second, the so-called personal responsibility people are also committed to dysgenics, massively increasing the number of individuals who act irresponsibly for genetic reasons.

They are pro-life. They oppose paying people with problems to self-sterilize. They support open borders. They support miscegenation. They support economic policies that result in better individuals not having children or putting off childbirth until later in life when when harmful mutations are more prevalent. The result is mass destruction and increasing numbers of individuals with low IQs and behavioral flaws because of high testosterone or genetically caused autism or low activity variants of the MAOA gene or other genetic causes.

Third, establishments are committed to loose labor markets, having a much larger supply of potential workers than available jobs (cheap labor). Sure, we can find some small sample fields where demand for workers outstrips supply. Markets are never anywhere near perfectly efficient. If everyone developed a great work ethic, establishments would enact policies to keep labor markets loose.

Northeast Asians are not lazy, yet their personal responsibility does not overcome loose labor market policies. One reason, among many, Northeast Asia failed to develop modern technology before the West: there was little incentive to develop technology with so much spare labor around.

Fourth, personal responsibility is a bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw distraction. It focuses attention on poor individuals with bad behavior while establishments do multitudes of evil actions.

Wealthy individuals, establishment politicians, and the chosen thinkers act incredibly irresponsible, yet the focus is not on their much more destructive evils. High IQ establishment individuals have little ethical self-development. What makes them think lower IQ individuals, who spend life in a daze, will do what they themselves refuse to do despite huge cognitive and environmental advantages? Kevin Williamson and multitudes of others like him regurgitate establishment nostrums despite having a high IQ.

High IQ establishmenters are  unwilling to study the issues and weigh the evidence accurately--grave character defects.

Fifth, the globalist ideology of the personal responsibility crowd allows drugs, gambling, trash entertainment, cultural Marxism, and other vices to dominate the environmental landscape, again harming character development.

Polling Philosophers on Ethics

Many years ago a poll of philosophers, I can no longer find, indicated most philosophers believe in deontology, virtue or natural law ethics. Another poll suggests they same thing, with only 23.6 percent of philosophers supporting consequentialism, though some philosophers mix intuitive beliefs with consequentialism.

Worse, many consequentialists are deontologists in disguise. Peter Singer and similar philosophers demand Westerners give any income above $30,000 per year to aid agencies (often aid profiteering).

Singer never gets around to making a well-reasoned argument why current aid regimes would have anything other than horrific long term dysgenic and dystopian consequences.

In other words, philosophers act as if their intuitions trump the evidence. This should not surprise. It is a selection effect. Think about the types of people who become a philosophers, people in their teens or young adulthood, who decide they know more about the world than almost everyone else, people who spend much money for degrees in a field with uncertain financial rewards, but know they have to act politically and socially correct to get jobs in that field. Philosophers are genetically and culturally predisposed to intellectual hedonism and verbose blather to arrive at simple, wrong rules. These are not the people you should have teaching logic and ethics. Logic and ethics should be separate fields from the rest of philosophy.

(Preachers, politicians, celebrities, and billionaires are terrible at logic and ethics, too, but preach they do.)

The Dangerous Mix of Cultural Marxism and Neoclassical Economics

Paleo-Marxism, the combination of cultural Marxism and economic Marxism, murdered over 90 million.

But the combination of cultural Marxism and neoclassical economics, sometimes called globalism or neoconservatism or third wayism, brings even more long term challenges than the combination of cultural Marxism and economic Marxism, especially when combined with the militarism of third wayism and hyper militarism of neoconservatism.

Eastern European countries slightly rebounded from the damage of nazism and paleo-Marxism, though those individuals murdered or chronically wounded never rebounded. The opportunity costs of Marxism and nazism will never be recovered.

But whites in South Africa and other majority nonwhite countries, under cultural Marxism mixed with neoclassical economics, have almost no chance of rebounding.

All forms of Marxism look for total mass media control and individuals to blame for Marxism's disasters.

In full Marxism, ordinary whites are too poor to care much about imagined racism and Islamophobia. The contradictions are too big. The consequences of hunger and economic failure on everyday life are too great. Few are fooled, with fallacious statistics, into thinking slow decline is progress. The attachment to ever more degraded normalcy at all costs is less. There are few powerful classes that seek nonwhite maids and other cheap nonwhite labor in pursuit of their own wealth, status, and hedonisms, no matter the costs to nonwealthy whites. Despite incessant propaganda, it becomes harder to believe distant capitalists debilitate the economy when your own rulers control almost everything you see, though in North Korea and some other places, the ruse continues, partly due to Northeast Asian genetic and cultural tendencies.

But whites shouldn't gloat. Whites and other humans also have strong tendencies toward conformity and obedience.

Cultural Marxism mixed with other ideologies is more sustainable than full Marxism, currently enjoying over six billion adherents, who show few signs of improving.

When cultural Marxism mixes with neoclassical economics, more blame gets directed at nonwealthy whites. Rulers seldom blame their own corruptions. And Western rulers have an increasingly hard time blaming economic Marxism for Western living situations. If Bernie Sanders wins the pseudo-election, criticism toward economic Marxism will be reinvigorated but mainly to reinstall near total establishment domination.

For the rulers, nonwhites and non-Western religions are off limits to criticism.

That leaves obscure belief systems and the blame whitey campaigns.

Divide-and-rule doesn't work as well when trying to blame obscure ideologies. But it does work well when blaming people, especially nonwealthy white people, especially given white tendencies toward misplaced empathy and unethical guilt. Look at the whites preoccupied with loving pets and celebrities. Whites feel more sadness or outrage when a celebrity dies than about girls in Rotherham. Many whites are easily browbeaten while imagining themselves rebels and great thinkers. Pro-establishment whites mentally wall off huge swaths of the moral universe to ethical reasoning, often without being aware they do so.

Establishments act as if whites living in trailer parks wrecked the country while all those multicultural billionaires bribing politicians and making policies did not.

White multiculturalists think it hilarious when poor, white Southerners are targeted for ridicule and elimination, but white multiculturalists are not wise enough to realize that they, and especially their children and grandchildren, are also being targeted.

Cultural Marxism mixed with neoclassical economics exhibits increasing fanaticism and group polarization among its adherents.

It's gonna be a bumpy ride.

The Character of Multicultural Establishmentism

It is fascinating that almost every multiculturalist also supports rent seeking, a euphemism for parasitism, on other issues. No matter whether they call themselves liberals, conservatives or something else, when individuals dive into the xenocentrism rat hole, general ethics suffers.

Reformers hate evils in societies while acting with deep commitment to bettering lives. Followers of Hitlerism, multiculturalism, and other totalitarianisms hate the people in societies while they themselves pretend to be holy. The former make societies better, the latter make mass destruction.

Have anyone ever met anyone else who wanted to improve the lives of individuals they hate, no matter how misplaced the hate?

Sure, they talk about reforms, but their actions betray them.

Oddly, once the mask slipped, Kevin Williamson and some other multiculturalists decided to yank it off.

Those unable to experience cognitive dissonance on massively cognitive dissonance causing multiculturalism simply aren't able or willing to experience cognitive dissonance on other political issues. They might tell the truth in their personal lives simply out of self-interest, to avoid being dumped by friends and family. But in the the political realm, they're rewarded for spewing fallacies and living contradiction filled lives.

The next time the establishment narrative on a major issue is correct it will be the first time in the past half century the establishment narrative on a major issue was correct.

Think about that. Most individuals living today have never ever seen their rulers do the right things on a major issue.

Establishment thought is wedded to a one dimensional view of totalitarianism, with Stalinism at one end and Hitlerism on the other of an imaginary spectrum. In reality, multitudes of totalitarianisms exist, including autocracy, Armageddonism, neoconservatism, multiculturalism, crypto jihadism, third wayism, robber baronism, flat earthism, and dysgenic fanaticism.

We pay a huge price for this every day when these additional totalitarianisms are viewed as moderate.

If You Deliberately Wanted to Destroy the West and Its People

1. You would promote migration by nonwhites, but not too much, too fast because that would cause a quick collapse, then expulsion of the nonwhites. You'd want the apocryphal frogs in pots to feel pleasantly warm, as if they were falling asleep in a whirlpool bath. You'd emphasize migration by poor character, fast breeding nonwhites. But you'd mix in some higher character nonwhites to use as poster children and to help prevent a quick collapse.
2. You would try to make biocultural Marxism off limits to criticism, especially its policy prescriptions. 
3. You'd have some multiculturalists act as tough minded assimilationists, though there are few policy and consequentialist differences between assimilationists and other multiculturalists.
4. You'd get whites to hate one another and to hate their ancestors for specious reasons.
5. You'd redefine patriotism as support for globalism, cultural Marxism, reckless militarism, and following orders.
6. You'd take over every major Western institution from within.
7. You'd try to make dysgenics off limits to criticism and eugenics off limits to fact facing.
8. You'd welcome Muslim migration to China, Russia, and the West, so those nukes eventually end up with Muslim fingers on the switches. In the meantime, you'd encourage misanthropism, so egoism and reckless militarism controls the nukes. You'd call criticism of bioweapon engineering a violation of scientific freedom.
9. You'd distract the population with hedonism and techno-utopianism.
10. You'd create policy and environmental circumstances that are pro-natal for nonwhites and anti-natal for whites.
11. You'd praise interracial couples as an ideal, but only when the male half of the couple is nonwhite or Muslim or both.
12. You'd promote massive economic redistribution to globalized pseudo-citizens at the top.
13. You'd use policy and culture to encourage polygamy, endogamy, philandering, and single parenting. You'd make philandering look like sophisticated aestheticism.
14. You'd encourage useful followers to fight on behalf of the things destroying them.

In short, you'd do pretty much what the establishments are doing right now.

The Alien Wants to Know

If an alien arrived on earth and wanted a very, very short summary on human ethics, the following principles would help him quickly develop a better worldview than many professional opinion makers have after decades of opinion making:

1. The prescriptions of Hitlerism, cultural Marxism, and economic Marxism are almost always wrong.
2. The prescriptions of neoclassical economics and foreign policy interventionism are mostly wrong.
3. Media, schools, governments, and other businesses will try to browbeat you into believing official myths. Don't let them. The best arguments and solutions to ethical problems are often found on obscure websites, often by writers demonized by powerful interests. Almost everything in the mass media is there for entertainment or bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw purposes. Or both.
4. Secessions and democracies are good things, but both are rare on earth because of the power of globalism, neoconservatism, third wayism, cultural Marxism, and bad religions, including secular quasi-religions.
5. Secessions and democracies are necessary to prevent to utter takeover of the planet by genes and individuals devoted to egoism and misplaced altruism, often both in the same individual.
6. The most important human philosophical goods in order of importance are a) ethical character, b) freedom, c) respect, and d) purposefulness. Character includes ethical reasoning performance and political justice, not merely being a good family member. It is not the same as merely being a nice guy or gal. Character entails a love for good actions and individuals. Freedom includes strength of will and personal freedom from destructive outside forces, plus freedom of association for both solitary individuals and individuals in groups. Respect includes the basic self-respect we owe ourselves and the respect we owe other conscious beings. An obsequious person lacks sufficient self-respect. Autocracies and kleptocracies lack self-respect for others. Respect should not include admiring individuals merely because they are famous, wealthy or powerful. Purposefulness includes living with zest, not succumbing to constant bouts of ennui, anxiety, alienation, rumination or laziness. Purposefulness contains a deep emotive attachment to life and our missions in life.

Trading Down

So "free" trade is supposed to benefit us with minor improvements in efficiency due to specialization and economics of scale. The fact that such trade redistributes even more wealth and power to individuals at the top doesn't bother globalists. That's a legalized bribery bonus for the thought leaders. It doesn't seem to bother globalists that these are individuals committed to treason (George Soros, Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush) and foreigners committed to our destruction (Prince Bandar, Carlos Slim, Xi Jinping).

We could magically re-redistribute their gains elsewhere.

Those with unjust wealth and power will somehow give wealth and power away based on evidence despite their long, long histories of not being influenced by well-reasoned evidence.

Having important industries and the knowledge base of those industries destroyed is another bonus.

Nor do shortfalls in demand, sometimes known as depressions and recessions, bother globalists. Neither do the harmful items traded (oil, diamonds, celebrity worship, human trafficking among many). The branch of ethics called economics somehow trumps all the other branches of ethics. Heck, it's not even good economics. Comparative advantage is somehow the trump card.

Just wave that magic wand.

They Get Away with It

For the past several decades, many politicians have acted on an interplay of three unspoken questions:

1. Is it what I want?
2. Is it what my financial sponsors want?
3. Can I get away with it?

If the answer to all three is yes, then politicians do it.

They don't eliminate capital gains taxes and raise payroll taxes to 60 percent of work income because they can't get away with it. An anti-ruler war would result.

What the people want is considered irrelevant, except when the people have been propagandized into wanting what establishments want.

Tony Blair, Angela Merkel, and George W. Bush are paradigm cases of this behavior, Bush having almost no moral accomplishments during his reign, except the Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Monument and a few other policies.

The slur barrages directed at holders on non-establishment beliefs represent an aspect of the establishment assault on democracy. Establishments cannot criticize democracy itself without exposing their oligarchism. So instead, they demonize the people to bolster their support for their own corruptions as if to say, "We have a right to do as we please because you're so horrible. You don't deserve anything. We're better than you, and that makes us good."

Humans almost always think their political actions are justified. 

Politicians will dig up junk science, deontological assertions, and other fallacious rhetoric to justify what they prefer. 

**********

Even public libraries have become corrupted shells.

Cities buy expensive new libraries to replace adequate buildings. But inside the architectural fantasy buildings, the Internet is often worse than dial up and the book selection abysmal and getting worse.

Spending on materials declined from 25 percent of library spending in 1942 to 11.7 percent in 2010. Even if major publishers were willing to publish copies of non-establishment books, few libraries would buy them. Librarians are near uniform in support for cultural Marxism and other establishment ideologies. They put up displays about the horrors of censorship, but think little about one-sided acts of omission.

Bruce Bartlett's Familiar Quotations

Bruce Bartlett, a disciple of Jude Wanniski, spouts establishment totalitarianism, er, narratives again:

Our system of government works best when it is balanced between roughly equal political parties, one on the center-right and the other on the center-left.

Unfortunately, what we have is a centrist Democratic Party and a far-right Republican Party.

Wrong.

There is no such thing as a one-dimensional political spectrum. And the kleptocratic system has not worked well for over half a century, especially via those Bartlett considers center-left and center-right. One increased problem now is that the terrible decisions made decades ago are causing increasingly worse consequences now than in the past, for example, the 1965 immigration law.

And how can the Tea Party be both "f*r right" and "[not] easily characterized as either right or left in terms of policy?"

The Tea Party resulted from astroturfing by the same Republican establishment that Bartlett often praises.

The Democratic Party will nominate Hillary Clinton, a third way neoconservative, for the presidency. What does Clinton politically have in common with Ferdinand Pecora? Not much. How does Clinton qualify as whatever a "centrist" is?

Mark Thoma and other third way economists act as if Reagan fan Bartlett is a superb guy. Democratic economists seem to prefer Bartlett over heterodox independent economists. In some minds, being a slight Republican heretic makes you more worthy of attention than those who were right far more often.

By my count Bartlett's argument contains at least 25 logical fallacies, often abusive ad hominem attacks.

Many years ago Bartlett wrote an article about a technical issue in economics that I've since forgotten, which I can no longer find. But I remembered what Bartlett did. Bartlett appeared to thoroughly present two sides of the issue, as if he were being the most even handed man in the world. Yet, on this issue, there was one counter premise that would have demolished Bartlett's conclusion. Bartlett almost certainly could not have known all those other counter premises without knowing the main counter premise. But Bartlett left that main counter premise out.

What sort of man does that? Bruce Bartlett. That's who.

Partners: Evolution at the Relationship Level

Living beings exist on an  r/K continuum. Here, r refers to rapid practices to spread genes. Bacteria and dandelions are r practitioners.

Northeast Asians are K practitioners, investing heavily in few offspring.

I prefer to use the phrase r/K practices over r/K strategies because genes are incapable of strategies and many individuals are unconscious of their practices. JP Rushton's chart details evolutionary practices for three human races. Africans are closer to the r end of the spectrum.

After a few days or years of a relationship, individuals toward the r end feel rage at their spouses or partners for petty reasons. Sometimes the rage wells up from seemingly nowhere. The more self-controlled among them do not escalate to violence. They assume fault lies with the partner or figure the relationship is not a good match.

Yet earlier in relationships, they somehow fell in love or convinced themselves the relationships were worth pursuing. They fell for empty, heartfelt promises when warning signs abounded.

Those toward the r end use ad hominem attacks with their partners. Unlike the political realm where slurs easily manipulate, partners resist. Mutual contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling infect their relationships. They expect partners with feet of clay to provide endless amusement. They seldom assign self-blame for their own boredom or anxieties or character defects.

They look to save face and make partners villains.

In one night stands, there is often no rage, merely a little awkwardness the next day. The same goes for friends with benefits. Some may adopt an ironic triumphalism to mitigate awkwardness. High fives all around.

Pump-and-dump.

Time for a new partner.

"But don't you dare criticize my wanton, unconscious, mass destructive dysgenic escapades with your eugenic thinking. I can criticize you, but you can't criticize me."

Genetically adapted ("fit") behavior is not synonymous with genetically better or ethically better behavior. It's simply the practice that might leave the most copies of the same gene years from now. Some behaviors have no purpose at all.

Many r practitioners are not vaguely aware of being at the mercy of genes and environments. Others are fully aware they want to spread genes. Many low IQ tribal members understand seed spreading better than wealthy aesthetes.

"I did the work of making all these babies. Someone else should provide for them."

Egoism and misplaced altruism are both disastrous for societies and ethical individuals. Misplaced altruism is often worse than street crimes.

Humans generally engage in assortative mating, that is, mating with those similar to themselves. But r practitioners love tricking K practitioners, among others, into breeding. In ethical societies, r practitioners are severely punished for tricking or failing to provide. In unethical societies, they are rewarded. Societies decay. Contemporary propaganda from political, Hollywood, and Madison Avenue leaves many individuals vulnerable to exploitation.

An individual must make radical belief and environmental improvements to evade corrupting erosions, often with little outside help.

Even hate has an ethical purpose. Hating evils provides motivation, often enough to avoid corrupting erosions. In just wars, those with the most hate fight the hardest. They are more efficient. They have the most will to survive. They are less likely to have misplaced alienation and devotion.

But misplaced hatred leads to massive harms, especially in the political and personal relationship arenas.

Instead of clear, ethical individual roles, confusion and destruction reign. But there are ways out.

At the hedonic level, the promise of more fun seldom matches the reality. Individuals not predisposed to the dark triad (narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism) copy the fashionable dark triad practices of peers and celebrities, leading to abysmal results. Direct attempts at happiness lead to unhappiness and character destruction, the double paradoxes of hedonism.

Pursuing ethical goals, an indirect method, causes greater happiness as a side effect, the paradox of character. Partners pursuing shared ethical goals transcend self-defeating quests for hedonism.

The 100 Percent Rules

Friendly reminder: 100 percent of OIC states are totalitarian, 100 percent of racially diverse empires became long-term moral disasters, 100 percent of majority Muslim states subjugate infidels, and 100 percent of oligarchies in racially diverse lands use divide-and-rule practices.

Any legitimate historical expert would tell you these facts if only they gave a crap about moral truths.

If I were a billionaire, I'd slap these facts on billboards.

We don't need in depth causal factor analysis to see these facts, though sometimes analyzing causal factors is helpful. No matter the multitudes of genetic and environmental causal factors, the long-term results are similar.

To rephrase Orwell, the hardest and most important things to see are sometimes right in front of our noses.

Where Things Stand

The increase in pro-Western beliefs, evidenced by increases in alternative right political candidates that would have been improbable 30 years ago, does not seem to be causing massive overall declines in support for cultural Marxism within the former United States, especially among college freshmen.

Direct measures of support for cultural Marxism are difficult to find. A decent proxy measure for multicultural support is support for restricting free speech. One ongoing poll hints that restriction support remains roughly constant, at around 60 percent. (The use of the self-contradicting R-word slur in the article does not help.)

The overall number of whites fleeing cultural Marxism appears to roughly equal the number of nonwhites imported into the cultural Marxian fold.

It will be intriguing to see what the 2016 poll finds.

Seventy-one percent of U.S. college freshmen in 2015 supported speech restrictions, the highest level since such polling began.

(When I was a naive teenager and heard an individual attended a prestigious university, I thought, wow, that individual must be far superior to me. Now, when I hear individuals attended a prestigious university, I imagine individuals devoted to egoism, careerism, groupthink, fanaticism, cultural Marxism, and general moral cluelessness, despite having far more IQ, educational, and other advantages than myself.)

Alternatives to multiculturalism still have a long, long way to go. Despite improvements, no alternative right website ranks anywhere near the top in Quantcast website visitor rankings for 2016. Amren ranks 30,259 and Vdare 30,971.

The power of unethical taboos is immense.

Daniel Pipes, and several other semi-alternative sites do manage higher ranks, but are hardly pro-Western.

Evidence on migration issues is hopeful.

But most Westerners remain unaware of ethnoracial facts. Listening to establishment thinkers talk about ethnoracial issues is a surreal experience, worse than listening to children talk about chemical engineering would be. Rachel Maddow is still a household name. JP Rushton is not. Trump tapped immigration patriot ideas, but multitudes of other ethnoracial issues are neglected.

Reddit and similar sites provide side benefits for cultural Marxism. Individuals visit Reddit for entertainment, then get subtly or splenetically indoctrinated with anti-white narratives in most political subreddits. "I'm going to hell for this," and similar subreddits do not help, making the alternative right look cruel to ordinary Redditors, serving as convenient straw persons. The HBD, European, and New Right subreddits have few visitors compared to the 234 million unique visitors Reddit received per month in 2015 (if Wikipedia's source is accurate).

Establishment propaganda techniques are powerful, almost never letting a crisis go to waste, meaning redirecting the crisis response toward nefarious agendas, especially "security measure" profiteering.

Some writers might emphasize group polarization in the multicultural divide. But most of the alternative right might be less polarized. In establishment lingo, alt righters are big tent moderates compared to the neoconservatives who dominated conservative parties for decades. Newcomers to the nonmulticultural left and alternative right are simply starting to face facts despite lifelong indoctrination and intimidation tactics. The group polarization model does fit multiculturalism.

Kudos to the race realists who have brought us this far. Seriously.

The long, hard, happy work to escape the death grips of cultural Marxism is still in its infancy. But it beats wasting our lives reading puns on Reddit.

Separations or Bust

Many individuals act as if the only ethnoracial alternatives for societies are segregation or cultural Marxism. Or mixtures of both, combined into contradiction riddled biosocial monstrosities.

Segregation is separation within the same state.

Nonwhites mix segregation and cultural Marxism without widespread condemnation occurring, for example, segregation is rampant in Muslim countries. Policies in nonwhite countries massively discriminate against various ethnoracial groups (Copts, Mandeans, "guest" workers) without much wailing from multicultural media..

Nonwealthy whites get demonized for segregation by wealthy whites and others who self-segregate on the basis of their wealth. The moral views of wealthy whites are beyond warped. Wealthy whites act as if they become better persons by using totalitarian government actions to force dystopian integration on nonwealthy whites.

In sum, nonwhites and wealthy whites enjoy freedom of association, free to create groups that exclude others.

(Almost everything wealthy whites do in the public moral realm is immoral BS. They believe combinations of Randism, neoconservatism, third wayism, and cultural Marxism. They drive SUVs while acting smug for doing environmentally worthless activities like recycling plastic.)

But segregation and cultural Marxism are both evils.

The only ethical alternatives are complete peaceful separations. Whites must form their own self-reliant societies with no nonwhites. Other ethnoracial groups should do the same.

Trump is not great. He's an ethnoracial improvement, but he's a non-open borders multiculturalist with atrocious ideas on non-multicultural issues. Trump will make the white percentage of the population decline at a slower rate, but he will not reverse the decline.

Under Trumpism, millions of African-American men will continue to impregnate and abandon nonblack females, leaving the massive personal and social costs to whites, especially the family members of white females acting with naivete or recklessness. The main cuckolding is of nonwealthy whites. Despite being slurred as cucks*rvatives, wealthy Republican politicians seldom get cuckolded. Republican politicians engage in free riding via divide-and-rule, cheap labor, and other atrocious practices of neoclassical economics. Establishment politicians force the costs of cuckolding on the rest of us.

Trump will not enact eugenic and pro-natalist policies for whites. The total fertility rate for white-white matings will continue to decline or remain low.

The ethical costs of empire, militarism, dysgenics, and rotten ideologies will continue to rise.

Nonwhites will have less to feel discriminated about in white only nation-states since they will not live in these nation-states. And if nonwhites want to believe Marxian fallacies about Western wealth being dependent on exploitation of nonwhites, let them do it in their own societies where they can do less harm to whites.

Nonwhites act hyper-tribalistic. They notice most real or imagined slights while whites are indoctrinated to ignore evils by nonwhites and establishments. We regularly read about "microaggressions" and "code words" and "racially charged" and "dog whistling," even as the mass media fail to report that blacks are dozens of times more likely to commit violent stranger-on-stranger crimes against whites than vice versa. The dog whistling charade is risible. The Democratic and Republican establishments engaged in massive anti-white destruction for decades, yet we are supposed to worry about secret dog whistles from establishment Republican politicians, no matter how anti-white these politicians' actual policies are.

Since the supporters of cultural Marxism imagine group genetic differences are insignificant and view nonwhite cultures as superb, almost all suffering and misbehavior by nonwhites must, in their view, have whites as the most important cause. No matter what whites do, whites will be constantly be blamed and punished. Anyone who thinks the blame whitey campaign will end in the next thousand years is wrong.

If the last white person takes their last breath several hundred years from now, nonwhite leaders will continue to blame whites with their own far worse divide-and-rule practices.

Many mass media organizations ban their opinion makers from using slurs, yet simple Google searches reveal millions of anti-white slurs being used by the mass media (r*cist, b*got, Isl*mophobe, white supr*mecist, white tr*sh). Again, multiculturalists are not attuned to contradictions in their own behavior or contradictions in the behavior by other multiculturalists.

With the exception their own white friends and relatives, white multiculturalists act as if other whites are creepy subhumans. (Thanks Hollywood and Washington and corporate boards!)

The facts of dysgenics and group socialization theory indicate conflicts will rise exponentially as the white population plummets and nonwhite population soars.

Genetic engineering will not stop the problem because nonwhites want their children to act tribalistic and excessively self-interested toward outgroup individuals. They don't want their children acting white, that is, with xenocentrism or outgroup altruism. Almost no parent, except white parents, will select genes for outgroup selflessness and unethical guilt.

If white only societies are re-created, nonwhites in other societies will be livid. Nonwhites will act as if they have a god given right to wreck white lives and societies.

Big deal.

Let them howl.

Whites must stop being intimidated by fallacious rhetoric. Nonwhites can't do as much damage from the outside. Nonwhite behavior toward whites is predictable from selfish gene theory.

But white only societies do need to keep a low profile and not be salient to anti-white totalitarianism. The multicultural media will try to infiltrate such societies, then demonize whites based on small samples fallacies and other fallacious rubbish.

Several varieties of white only societies must exist. Evangelical race realists and other race realist whites will not get along well within the same societies. The same goes for Libertarian and non-Libertarian race realists, to name but a few fault lines.

Those differences must be treated as minor and must not escalate into violence.

The biggest threat is from multiculturalism, and whites must peacefully unite to peacefully separate.

On Conspiracies

The word conspiracy means to plot in secret, often to harm others. Companies, political parties, and other organizations regularly do it. We aren't invited to their meetings. Yet we are subtly urged not to use the word conspiracy to describe such activities.

During just wars, just groups have good reasons for plotting in secret. Some other groups also have justifiable reasons for plotting in secret.

The phrase conspiracy theory is a combination straw person and circumstantial ad hominem attack used to dismiss opponents and treat them as mentally unhealthy. The phrase is used equivocally, meaning crazy, preposterous or a secret plot (or all three), often by establishments to associate critics with those who believe in alien abductions or other preposterous ideas. Calling alien abductions a conspiracy theory has little ethical importance. But the conspiracy theory phrase is a big deal when used to demonize well-reasoned political criticism.

Today, many facts get treated by establishments as "conspiracy theories." To name a few:

1. Marxian states failed to return some allied POWs.
2. Cultural Marxism not only exists, it is the major form of Marxism, with 71 percent of college freshmen opposing speech freedoms, but not their own speech freedoms, of course.
3. Fast jihad is Islamic and is done by Muslims.
4. We live in an intellectual climate far worse than McCarthyism. (The linked list is a fraction of those punished or threatened with punishment.)
5. Nonwhites have worse ethnoracial behavior than whites and their behavior gets worse when their numbers increase.
6. Words have more than one meaning: Jihad means both inner struggle and anti-Infidel totalitarianism, though the former meaning is used for equivocation to fool infidels.

Conspiracy matters are riddled with ironic contradictions. Writers pointing out plots by establishments get slurred as conspiracy theorists by establishment writers whose opinions are, in fact, preposterous.

Which Group Is More Ethnoracially Unethical? A or B?

A: Supports freedom of political speech for all.
B: Supports freedom of political speech for Muslims, establishments, and followers of Marx.

A: Opposes imperialism.
B: Supports anti-white imperialism.

A: Supports self-determination for all ethnoracial groups.
B: Supports self-determination for only Muslims and nonwhites not subjugated by Muslims.

A: Supports pan-Europeanism or pan-Arcticism.
B: Supports wars among whites, war against China, plus wars for egoism, cronyism, globalism, and cultural Marxism.

A: Supports evidence from science.
B: Supports scientism and junk science for the cause.

A: Allows philosophical diversity.
B: Acts as if humans must live in cultural Marxian ideological bubbles.

A: Uses slurs sometimes. Uses neutral terms sometimes.
B: Almost always uses ad hominem attacks to refer to ethnoracial fact facers.

A: Supports Austerity.
A: Supports Austerity.

A: Uses relevant statistics sometimes. Uses small samples sometimes.
B: Uses small sample fallacies for worldwide demonization of whites

A: Tolerates criticism.
B: Demonizes whites. Treats Muslims and nonwhites as if off limits to well-reasoned criticism.

A: Tolerates political dissenters.
B: Believes political dissenters should be fired, sued, assaulted, murdered or ostracized.

A: Supports eugenics.
B: Supports dysgenic totalitarianism.

A: Good, enforced fences make better neighbors.
B: Permits Muslims to do evils in infidel countries. Supports Muslim subjugation of infidels in Muslim countries. Permits nonwhites to do evils in white countries.

A: Supports self-reliance or ethnoracial self-help.
B: Sacrifices almost nothing themselves to help nonwhites but destroys the jobs, lives, wages, schools, nations, cultures, families, and neighborhoods of nonwealthy whites to help nonwhites. Demands cheap labor races to bottoms.

A: Sometimes supports merit. Often supports rent seeking.
B: Almost always supports rent seeking.

A: Sometimes democratic. Sometimes autocratic. Sometimes kleptocratic.

B: Almost always authoritarian kleptocratic.

A: Cares little about environment.

B: Pretends to care about environment.

A: Supports sustainable societies sometimes.

B: Supports dystopian hells in the name of equality and other buzzwords.

A: Capable of cognitive dissonance.

B: Seemingly unaware of thousands of self-contradictions.

A: Opposes cultural imperialism.

B: Supports cultural imperialism.

A: Sometimes acts as if claims should correspond with reality.

B: Acts as if repeating falsehoods turns them into facts.

A: Bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw.

B: Bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw more often.

A: Opposes genocide.

B: Supports anti-white genocide.

A needs some reforms. B does inverse weathervaning.

A List of Causal Factors and Other Ideas to Consider When Weighing Causal Claims

Let's say we plan to do a social science study or evaluate one or weigh an argument positing causes.

We should consider plausible alternative causal factors left out by a thinker.

I keep a book on my nightstand. When I read or think of a causal factor or other idea I should keep in mind, I sometimes write it in the first few pages of the book.

The list:
IQ, age, war, race, time, luck, laws, wealth, stress, fraud, zest, genes, diet, height, weight, BMI, wealth, income, culture, status, habits, power, gender, famine, crowding, apathy, egoism, altruism, anomie, placebo, nocebo (feeling harm from a harmless treatment), boredom, honesty, ethnicity, weather, fatigue, religion, diversity, seniority, incentives, geography, popularity, patience, hedonism, confusion, standards, novelty, naivete, sadism, nihilism, obeisance, anxiety, isolation, commitment, experience, solipsism, nationality, expectations, misanthropy, proximity, fanaticism, busyness, motivation, scientism, triumphalism, salience, replicability, ruminations, militarism, aggressiveness, suggestibility, masochism, desensitization, optimism, labor unions, obsessions, compulsions, groupthink, misandry, misogyny, careerism, xenocentrism, ethnocentrism, infrastructure, desensitization, self-loathing, nonbelief, corruption, ruthlessness, credentialism, cronyism, nepotism, competition, cooperation, victory, defeat, tax rates, tax targeting, participant compliance rates, street smarts, mortality rates, faulty study design, family size, tokenism, trustworthiness, skill level, arrival dates, leadership quality, overconfidence, underconfidence, one-sidedness, divorce rates, imitating others, democracy, non-democracy, self-pity, self-contradictions, noise levels, exercise levels, body image, employment status, confirmation bias, perceived weakness, career specialty, opportunity costs, pathogen load, educational level, youth bulges, genetic load, abortion rates, free riding, new discoveries, self-control, shared struggles, shared danger, unethical guilt, guilt proneness, shame proneness, false positives, false negatives, mutual causation, shell shock, Stockholm syndrome, witch hunting, misplaced loyalty, alliance quality, organization level, Hamilton's rule, educational field, absence of study controls, age at which a participant practiced a skill, perceived victimization, availability of distractions, feeling needed, perceived equality, unrepresentative sampling (including survivor bias and self-selection effects), ethical character, monocausal fallacies, body language, faulty study controls, voice tone, group polarization, development rates, job mobility, perceived fairness, drug use (including alcohol and smoking), improved police tactics, residential mobility, moral hazard, laziness, task persistence, hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen), crowd psychology, savings rates, monitoring effects (white man effect), study protocol violations, brain size, brain tumors, brain trauma, availability errors, halo effects, wedge issues, purposefulness, happiness, depression, despair, group cohesion, asceticism.

Plus some more: jealousy, anchoring (believing first claim heard on a subject), antinomianism, anthropomorphism, anthropocentrism, moral aestheticism, mechanical failures, math errors, hindsight error (easier to see errors after the event), chronic pain, acute pain, commitment level, conspicuous compassion, expected value, nutrient deficiencies, Duchenne smiles, political stability, single influential individual, repetition effects (believing claims repeated most often), other popularity effects, feeling entitled, celebrity worship, world weariness, legalized bribery, philosophical farsightedness, probability of success, belief in sacredness, small sample sizes, transitory situational factors, hyperbolic discounting, declining marginal utility, other cognitive impairments, enforcement or nonenforcement of standards, level of cognitive dissonance, perceived legitimacy, belief in karma, tit for tat, belief in ontological guilt (blood libel), inaccurate self-reports, tragedy of the commons, improved 911 service, substance poisoning (lead poisoning), publication bias, self-esteem, feeling superior, religious subtypes, the "big five" (openness to experience, agreeableness, neuroticism, extroversion, conscientiousness), framing effects (slanted questions, leading questions, and bad definitions), paradoxical effects, goal related effects, social skills, public policies, teacher quality, historical factors, teacher training, fatalistic beliefs, scaling effects (inaccurate extrapolation), relativistic beliefs, birth control rates, blood sugar levels, the dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), belief in scientism, peer group types, nation-state formation, divide-and-rule, time spent on activities, threshold effects (straw that breaks the back), social pressure, statistical insignificance, media influence, environmental aesthetics, study confederates influencing results, beliefs about hell, high, unstable self-esteem, chips on shoulders, faith in experts, length of employment, beliefs about grace, belief in authoritarianism, treasonous leadership, bait-and-switch, population increases, population decreases, faulty tests to measure alleged factors, study participants dropping out, fear of losing face, various other isms, chips on shoulders, non-parental environments, failure to ignore sunk costs, regression to the mean, ability to delay gratification, no causal relationship exists, perception of decay, follow the money, follow the power, errors due to random chance, belief in plausible deniability, homogeneous unrepresentative sampling, strength of will, time spent using electronics, browbeating and struggle sessions, viewing others as objects, reversing cause and effect, winner-take-all markets, results are statistically significant but too small to be important, swiftness and probability of punishment, monopoly and oligopoly effects, variance in genotypes and phenotypes, ratio of performance IQ to verbal IQ.

Wait.

I'm not done: number of working adults in a family or household, increased survival of big brained c-section babies, increased survival of small hip genotypes, belief in reciprocation, improved test taking skills, belief in exploiting weakness, belief that the feel good end justifies any means, belief that a feel good means justifies the result, ingroup and outgroup beliefs, improved emergency room medicine, economic opportunities in early adulthood, other technological factors, the probability of being caught, plus numerous other genetic and environmental factors I haven't thought of.

Good luck.

Figuring out causes is a pain in the rear.

"Correlation is not cause" is a banal statement. Correlation by itself does not prove cause is a better statement.

Most plausible study factors aren't looked at in most studies. Many studies are designed to fit the scientist's favored conclusions.

Six Loathsome Genres of Political Arguments

1. Trying to prop up atrocious ruling group worldviews by ridiculing something worse (the Westboro Baptist Church, for example).
2. The man or woman of "reason."
3. The team or party stands for [insert specious platitudes]. Popular among the likes of George Will, David Brooks, Paul Krugman, and party platform writers. Bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw.
4. Contradicted by reality: neoconservatives and Third Wayers pretending they support America and democracy, egalitarians pretending they support equality, neoconservatives and Third Wayers pretending to be pro-worker, multiculturalists pretending they own the moral high ground.
5. Fake centrism: mixing totalitarian ideas from left and right (Randism, neoconservatism, third wayism).
6. Pretending to defend the nation but in reality, more divide-and-screw profiteering, salami slicing, shoring up political support or escalating tit for tat.

More Contradictions

Helicopter parents fret about the miniscule probability their children will be abducted by strangers, but act unconcerned about the high probability their children will be indoctrinated with hedonism, nihilism, neoconservatism, third wayism or biocultural Marxism.

Almost nobody tells these parents that their childrens' phenotype IQs not vary much from their genotype IQs by adulthood, no matter how many faddish "enriching activities" parents provide. Children are far more likely to die driving to and from an enriching activity than die from abduction by strangers.

*********

We're supposed to believe white racism is society's greatest evil, yet any behavior multiculturalists don't like, including ethical behaviors, can get whites fired, sued, unhired, boycotted, assaulted or ostracized.

And far worse actions by multiculturalists get ignored by establishments.

*********

Multiculturalists demonize Westerners for refusing to take more "refugees" during World War II, but multiculturalists refuse to take white refugees at risk of genocide in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Those former refugees had moral duties to stand and fascism and Marxism. Instead, they left the fighting to others.

And Muslim migrants should not be labeled refugees.

*********

They think: "democracy is a certain way of thinking, a specific set of opinions, and if you do not share them, then you aren’t democratic, and then we condemn you and you ought to be eliminated. The People? That is not democratic. We the Elite, we are democracy."

Human Reasoning Tendencies

Some who easily change beliefs have little willingness to stand up for those beliefs. They change beliefs with social pressure and feel good fads more than ethical evidence. In other words, they act wishy-washy not because they are guided by good evidence, but because they are easy to trick with rotten ideas.

Others care little about ethical beliefs, except trudging forward or backward with their own egoism, hedonism or selflessness. Just do it might be their motto.

Still others, pretend. They say, "Bro, do you even science?" But they wall off most of the moral universe to good reasoning. They think of themselves as scientific, philosophical, and open minded, but in practice, they use intuitions on moral issues, often reserving good reasoning for self-interest or the natural sciences. Albert Einstein was a paradigm case of this type.

Many unconsciously anchor with what they heard first or float with what they hear often.

Then we have those with minds even more closed to ethical reasoning. They will fight hard for whatever horrible ideas they have. They are also easy to manipulate, but once they choose a belief system, or more specifically, a team, they will fight like hell for the team. In tribes, they team up for life, unless they are sold, bartered or kidnapped. Evidence on individual issues seems irrelevant to them. Team beliefs on an issue matter more. That's why Trump was loudly booed for saying there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (unless we define Islam, endogamy, and demography as weapons.) Trump's claim violated still existing team beliefs. And that team is no fan of Trump's team. Some switch teams for ideological reasons--David Brock and P.J. O'Rourke, for example--but devotion to a team often remains.

In tribes, even the most preposterous superstitions manage to survive.

The old witticism about a liberal being so tolerant that he will not take his own side in a fight now seems like a sick, cruel joke.

The fanaticism of establishments is so great that even societal or personal ruin might not change their beliefs. They attribute ruin to their political enemies and anything but their own egoism, militarism, and multiculturalism, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. Every Western city could be in ashes, and they would still chant the R word as the main cause.

The fact that contemporary mass media are able to create such fanaticism, combined with so much glitz, is both creepy and horrifying.

The above is neither an exhaustive nor non-overlapping list of tendencies. Some individuals move from one tendency to another. Many other tendencies exist, especially policing the boundaries of acceptable myths, keeping out unwanted facts with straw person and ad hominem attacks, plus searching for reasons to feel morally superior to others, without having to make any sacrifices oneself.

We could write thousands of books describing logical fallacies, psychological errors, and ethical wrongs.

But I will eat a roll of paper towels if anyone can show me an establishment donor, thinker or politician who gathers and accurately weighs the good points from various sides.

How do we teach and eugenically build better humans out of that mess? Contemporary logic and ethics textbooks are atrocious. Today's parents and thought leaders likely dysgenically engineer children to be worse.

But improving reasoning is even more important than increasing intelligence.

The Demonization of Eugenics

For those who demonize eugenics with ad hominem attacks or fallacious appeals to tradition regarding Nazism: Why the inconsistency?

Why not demonize the thousands of other sciences and technologies practiced by Nazism? No more physics, chemistry, medicine, agriculture, and so on. Why not demonize the Islam, atheism, occultism, Lutheranism, and Catholicism practiced by Hitler's supporters?

And don't say it is because eugenics is evil and the others good.

Eugenics is beneficial. Otherwise no ethical humans or other animals would have evolved. An earth with only single celled organisms would be a worse place, as would an earth filled with ISIS supporters.

Hitler didn't practice eugenics. Hitler's allies practiced dysgenics, murdering individuals smarter and more ethical than themselves.

Many other fields produce numerous benefits but overall worse consequences than eugenics.

Physics brought us nuclear weapons. Biology brings bioweapons. Automotive and petroleum technologies cause evils of sprawl, OPEC, diversity, lung cancer, corruption, collision deaths, and jihad funding. Electronics technology helps indoctrinate billions with Islam, Randism, Marxism, Nazism, neoconservatism, multiculturalism, and third wayism.

Islam spread the hyper tribalism of Arabia to hundreds of countries.

Demonize dysgenics instead. Should we believe it better for individuals devoted to rent seeking, often with justified criminal convictions, to outbreed ethical citizens? We shouldn't help those with genes for aggression breed with gusto, yet we do.

Do liberal opponents of "idiocracy" not realize they're criticizing dysgenics and providing de facto support for eugenics?

Is cowardice so great they can't bring themselves to believe ethical facts that establishments oppose, even when there is little cost and many potential benefits? What will the establishments do? Hunt us down because we read about eugenics on the internet? Establishments have plenty of more self-interested reasons for wanting to crush us. We can keep eugenics beliefs to ourselves if necessary. We can also politely argue with acquaintances and their fanaticism about eugenics. Acquaintances may dump you, but big deal. Do you want to be acquainted with those who will not face easy facts?

Multitudes of individuals have been assaulted or murdered for telling the truth to multiculturalists or their Muslim pals, but has anyone been assaulted or murdered in the West merely for having eugenic beliefs?

The Return to High Growth: What Would Do It

Recent arguments focus on the preposterousness of returning to high growth with Democratic and Republican Party prescriptions, raising the question of whether any set of policies would achieve high growth.

Yes, they could by:

1. Enacting large Pigouvian taxes on negative externalities.
2. Stopping migration to the West.
3. Reducing one-sided, totalitarian trade ("free trade").
4. Sending most secondary students to work or vocational schools.
5. Enacting eugenic policies.
6. Eliminating the U.S. Army, Marine Corps, and the Department of Homeland Security. (No army, no COIN. Less temptation to pivot to Asia or elsewhere. Let fake allies pay for their own armies. And less temptation for the ruling groups to use the military against American civilians.)
7. Providing fiscal stimulus equal to shortfalls in demand.
8. Strictly regulating finance.
9. Slashing government spending on post-secondary schools, bringing back civil service exams.
10. Increasing taxes on the super rich.
11. Eliminating most tax entitlements.
12. Eliminating payroll taxes.
13. Paying Muslims and other individuals of mass destruction to leave the West.
14. Implementing thousands of other reforms.

But these are policies establishment parties will not do.

Big Ben and the Benjamins

The late Ben Wattenberg claimed neoconservatism is about reducing crime. Yet Wattenberg's articles were devoted to promoting cultural Marxism and the career of Joe Lieberman, the former senator devoted to militarism, Wall Street, cultural Marxism, and grandstanding on minor issues. (Don't wait too long for that tough on Wall Street crime article from neoconservatism.)

Wattenberg also said neoconservatism would be more popular if it were called chocolate.

**********

Tough on crime Democrats and Republicans are surprisingly pro-rich and anti-worker, as if the tough on crime stance is a pretext to increase establishment power. Crime reduction and pro-worker policies are a double movement of the soul the modern politician dares not enact.

Principles of Democracy

At a minimum, a democratic country must contain all of the following:

1. a self-determined group of individuals with each individual member capable of roughly equal voting influence via direct vote or party list proportional representation or both.
2. roughly equal meritocratic opportunity for individuals to have well-reasoned media influence.
3. swift, severe, highly probable punishment for both illegal and legalized bribery.
4. no media ownership by non-citizens or pseudo citizens.
5. speech freedoms for all political speech by all citizens.
6. mass media forced to act in the public interest of citizens.
7. eugenic policies for IQ and character since non-eugenic policies will destroy the democracy and the people.
8. freedom for splinter groups to secede when the above conditions, especially freedom of association, are not met.

The former United States is not democratic, and no current Western land is adequately democratic, no matter how often establishments use democracy as a buzzword to cover their evils, though Iceland shows democratic tendencies in fighting the financial industry.

The United States had a few democratic traits during the 1940s through the 1960s when minor checks on establishment power existed,

mostly via private sector labor unions. Unfortunately, unions are now increasingly public sector, adding to corruption and anti-democratic tendencies.

Studies comparing democratic versus other governmental systems are junk science since no nation states in history has been adequately democratic.

No form of governance is an end in itself. All governments should exist to serve the citizens.

Why democracy?

Almost everyone in Western ruling groups is devoted to militarism, cultural Marxism, and neoclassical economics, including almost all the descendents of Western monarchs and other autocrats. In other words: official myths. Overwhelmingly, the people, despite massive indoctrination in militarism, cultural Marxism, and neoclassical economics, represent the opposition to those evils.

Elite rule will be worse since elites devote themselves to psychological egoism, at the expense of the people, for both genetic, cultural and other environmental reasons, no matter whether the the elites create hereditary autocracies, other autocracies or the currently common kleptocracies. Power corrupts. Elites use bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw policies.

For most of the past millennia, these non-democratic policies consisted of various combinations of Randism, slavery, dysgenics, extortion, austerity, polygamy, neoconservatism, debt peonage, sweat shops, tenant farming, paleo-Marxism, third wayism, caste systems, cultural Marxism, excessive usury, and various other forms of militarism, multiculturalism and redistribution to the top.

Various Thoughts

Wealthy establishmenters frequently toss the circumstantial ad hominem "whining" around, apparently unaware of the self-contradictions involved. If the claims of people being screwed are whines, what does that make the trivial complaints of establishments?

**********

From The Week on Trump supporters:

Kevin Williamson implies in National Review Online that I am indulging in “racial identity politics to help poor whites feel better about dependency.” Tom Nichols writes in The Federalist that I want to play the “bitter card of victimhood and entitlement that liberals use.” 

Williamson says that he’d rather poor whites “took the necessary steps to improve their condition in life.” Nichols outlines some of these necessary steps, saying these men need “to stop fleecing the disability system, to kick their addiction, to be fathers to their children, to get a job no matter how low or unappealing it is, and to stick with it until you get a better one.” He implies that I’m against this kind of virtue. That’s wrong.

When confronted with the fact that the Republican establishment did little more than engage in treason and rent seeking for decades, the establishment replies with irrelevant, circumstantial ad hominem attacks against their supporters.

A demographic look at Trump supporters:

Slightly over half of Trump supporters are female, about half are between 45 and 64 years of age with another 34 percent being over 65 years old and less than two percent younger than 30. One half of his voters have a high school education or less compared to 19 percent with a college or post-graduate degree. Slightly over one third of his supporters earn less than $50,000 per year while 11 percent earn over $100,000 per year.

Those demographics don't look similar to fleecing and child abandonment.

This leads to a more massive contradiction: the way you get fleecing, addiction, and child abandonment is by supporting the dysgenic, rent seeking, and cultural Marxian policies of the Democratic and Republican establishments. Personal responsibility rhetoric won't accomplish much in the face of those policies.

**********

Establishment political celebrity ranks among the easiest jobs, provided the celebrities are articulate and attractive.

They don't care about cognitive dissonance. Heck, they might not be capable of anything more than slight amounts. They don't have to carefully weigh pros and cons of competing arguments. They don't have to come up with ideas. They parrot the talking points of whatever teams they choose. Dead air time, especially awkward pauses to think, get them in bigger trouble than fallacious opinions.

Arianna Huffington raked in hundreds of millions from her sweatshop website while doing little work herself.

The danger is letting slip something critical of cultural Marxism as Rick Sanchez and dozens of others found out.

**********

Look how emotively powerful The American Conservative is in defending Yemen from Saudi totalitarianism--"wicked," "atrocious," "shameful," "disgraceful," "indefensible." Compare that with their pathetic defense of the West (if they are even defending the West). Perhaps a spin-off magazine, The Yemeni Conservative, is in the offing.

The American Conservative might counter argue that Saudi aggression is causing a large death toll in Yemen. But if you count suicide, pollution, and other deaths from issues largely ignored by The American Conservative, the Western death toll from Randism, globalism, third wayism, and cultural Marxism is much larger.

The American Conservative also tries to blame "the U.S." for Yemen as if we weren't under a non-democratic, occupation government dominated by wealthy global ruling groups, including the Saudis.

**********

Overheard at work
Worker: I met my girlfriend the night we was running a train on her. I hate her. I want to punch her all the time. I want to punch her most when I mix [two drugs I don't remember the names of]. I have a baby with her. I want to punch my daughter, too. But I don't punch them because girlfriend has a good job.

Rhetoric Matters

Rhetoric is any communication attempt to sway individuals, whether fallacious or non-fallacious. Today's outsiders have a very, very difficult time gaining adherents This is not to place most of the blame on outsiders. We live on a planet dominated by power rather than evidence. Most ethical blame resides with the mass media, wealthy multiculturalists, and establishment political powers. Attempts to undo their powers face immense difficulties.

But.

The SJW slur ranks among the most pathetic frigging slurs I have ever seen in my life, almost as if it were a neutral term. I doubt anyone will reevaluate his life after being called an SJW. Justice and warrior are regarded as positive terms. Combining them with the word social does not make an effective slur. Slurs from multiculturalists make whites feel unethical guilt. The SJW slur likely makes multiculturalists feel ennobled.

It is better to avoid fallacious rhetoric. Better to use well-reasoned evidence, to form alternative communities, to prepare for when things get so bad, establishment supporters will begin to open their minds. Well-reasoned arguments have rhetorical value, too.

A massive flaw with slinging mud is individuals become worse than their enemies. Karl Rove is a worse human being than most of the planet. Millions of young Marxians, quite certain of their own virtue, became far worse human beings than their enemies.

Why bother putting in massive effort to change societies when those efforts will produce rotten results? Political ideologies should be means to more important ends, not ends in themselves.

Jared Taylor and others in similar situations realize that slurs they use will be used against them several dozen fold.

Yes, it stinks to hell that establishments can dominate the world with abusive ad hominem attacks and other fallacious rhetoric while pretending to be paragons of centrism and respectability. It's infuriating that the mass media almost never calls non-multiculturalists anything but slurs, almost never calls outsiders the terms outsiders call themselves, almost never permits outsider arguments to appear in the mass media. It's grossly unfair that those with power use despicable tactics to punch down at those with little power while being rewarded for doing so.

Ecumenical rhetoric with establishments is not a good idea, except ecumenical rhetoric that permits secessions and other separations. Establishments are devoted to rent seeking and to our destruction. Such ecumenical rhetoric doesn't change establishments. It changes outsiders from feeling bad about mass destruction to feeling good about mass destruction. Outsiders sell out. What have ordinary Christians gained from Christian leaders' ecumenicalism with Muslims? Massive harms. Polls and other evidence suggest most Muslims still believe that infidels, apostates, blasphemers, and females accused of adultery should all be murdered. Groups practicing endogamy and totalitarian ideologies seldom give up their fanaticism.

What are the Rovian and cultural Marxism playbooks? One tactic is calling others what they call you. "I know you are but what am I." It's a fallacious, but it works on adults and children alike. Enron ally Bush attacked Democrats for Enron ties. When called a B-word, they call others a super B-word or worse slur.

Rove attacked alleged strengths. George W. Bush, of AWOL fame, was able to hammer John Kerry's far greater military accomplishments. Marxian regimes, in all their hellish glory, continually attacked Westerners on civil rights issues. They still do.

Rove's tactics worked because the neoconservative media machine aided him at almost every step. And because neoconservatives don't care about evidence, so even the most blatant fallacies were and are ignored.

Over-the-top slurs such as the C-word do not work, nor do other slurs that the mass media will not print.

More promising are some tactics from the so-called civil rights era. It would be great to see Rotherham victims and allies marching outside the establishment occupied buildings with "I Am Human" placards, daring the police to arrest them for thought crimes. A "Letter from a Rotherham jail" would be superb. Establishments would reply to the letter with their usual demonizations tactics, but all it takes is a few media moguls to face some facts.

The Bundy occupiers in Oregon failed spectacularly because:

1. they were armed and used the threat of violence not for self-defense.
2. they occupied a building.
3. they did not look downtrodden. They needed to be poor and look like dust bowl survivors.
4. they had few likely allies. They believed in Randism mixed with cultural Marxism, comparing themselves to Rosa Parks. Few outsiders look kindly at such beliefs and insiders reflexively oppose almost any opposition. The alternative right ignored them. They opposed the results of establishment Randism, militarism, and cultural Marxism with their own versions of the same three evils. They tried to play the establishment's game with millions of times less power.

Some might argue that it is worthless to point out thousands of contradictions to devoted establishment believers when devoted establishment believers act as if self-contradictions were nothing important or a good thing. "I'm so random." Whee!

But we are seldom trying to win over the devoted believers, we are trying to convert the victims of globalism, militarism, multiculturalism, neoclassical economics, and other establishment totalitarianisms. Individuals become astonishingly open to change when their hedonistic lifestyles take a hit.

We live in a uniquely desultory period. There are no easy, accurate, and guaranteed maps to get out of this mess. Beyond making well-reasoned arguments, there are multitudes of rhetorical tips here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here.  Here. Here. Here. Some of them more dubious than not.

Establishments persuade many by attacking opponents for alleged "extremism."

Alternative beliefs are increasing but so are beliefs in establishment totalitarianisms. Ordinary whites lack self-respect and have even less respect for other whites. Wealthy whites compete in conspicuous xenocentrism competitions, to see who can be the most anti-white. The self-degradation is astronomical.

Establishments focus on bogeymen. Our job is to focus on fighting wrongs using peaceful means.

Leave the aggression to the establishments. Avoid letting fallacious rhetoric dominate over well-reasoned rhetoric.

When Establishments Collide, Collude or Divide

One nasty side effect Western institutions colonization by free riding is that many plausible reformers are demoralized or have little interest in participating in those institutions. For ruling groups, this is a bonus, assortative mating in ruling class occupations, rent seeking teamwork. The road to ruin is long, the roads to reforms even longer.

The political realignments of the past 60 years played a major role in wrecking the West. Almost all political power was co-opted for the ruling groups.

No matter which groups win the upcoming Supreme Court nomination battles, non-wealthy Westerners will be the losers. The battles will be between multicultural third wayers and multicultural neoconservatives, who have more in common than most voters realize. Citizens will be baited into picking an establishment side. The fights will be distractions from important issues. No matter which sides win, various competing parties will end up aggrieved and highly motivated to cause more revenge ruin, that is, more neoconservatism, third wayism, and cultural Marxism, with both sides claiming they had no choice but to fight fire with fire.

It seems as if some establishment Republicans have realigned so far that they care more about cultural Marxism than redistributing income to their allies, as if they'd prefer Bernie Sanders over your neighborhood ethnoracial fact facer, perhaps because Sanders is little threat to their power. Sanders cannot accomplish much against courts and Congress filled with Republicans and Third Way Democrats. But the alternative right poses the threat of re-realigning the Republican Party. Establishment Republicans would rather risk the destruction of the West than lose the financial support of multicultural evangelicals and other multicultural conservatives.

The media treat the word indoctrination as if it were a taboo word, as if it were something that happens with only old timey totalitarianism.

But let's be honest, almost all of us have had thousands of fallacious ideas rattling around in our brains at one on time or another. And we didn't get those ideas by under rocks. We got them from peers, politicians, celebrities, and other influential individuals with help from our genes. At one time, those ideas sounded good to us. We were fooled by the persuasiveness of arguments rather than the well-reasonedness of arguments.

Most of those ideas came from the mass media, the same mass media that almost never delivers well-reasoned arguments. In other words, we were indoctrinated.

When visiting mass media sites, it almost seems as if parrots have been genetically engineered to type.

Time for Some Classic Links

Fear of an Erudite White by Jim Goad

The Elusive X-Factor, or Why Jonathan Kaplan Is Wrong about Race and IQ by Dalliard

Muslim Statistics (Shari'ah)

Cousin Marriage Conundrum by Steve Sailer

Solutions, Again by Jayman

Most Likely to Secede by Ron Miller, Rob Williams

OECD: Air pollution costs $ 3,600 billion and kills 3.5 million people annually (much of it caused by migration and commuting, the latter often caused by neighborhood ethnic cleansing)

But the middle-class and the poor are essentially unrepresented (unless they happen to share the preferences of the well-off)

A Success Story? by Jayman

The Koran Online Type in unbelievers and dozens of synonyms for unbeliever, including "right hand," a euphemism for captured rape slaves.

The Madonna or the Whore?

“Human Directionals”—The Cheap Wage/Expensive Land Economy Personified by Steve Sailer

The Political Violence of the Bible and the Koran by Bill Warner

Thomas Jackson and Jared Taylor at Amren back issues

The Color of Crime

Family Structure

An increasingly Muslim world will be, ipso facto, most likely, an increasingly less enlightening world by Geoffrey McArthur

Denmark: Muslims 218 percent more criminal in 2nd generation than first

Beliefs About Sharia

Opinion Polls

Persecution

Free Speech

Let Us Meditate About Bias

Noted philosophers and health experts Oprah Winfrey and Deepak Chopra launch a weight loss meditation challenge.

I saw The Oprah Winfrey Show only a few times, always while visiting.

One time, an activist showed a map of the world with the Southern Hemisphere on top, then hectored the audience with the usual pseudo profound accusations of bias. (But maybe, just maybe, the Northern Hemisphere should remain on top because there would be transition costs to turning the map upside down.)

To the best of my memory, no one asked Wile E. Activist, Super Genius why she used a flat map to represent an oblate ellipsoid and whether that might invoke some sort of bias self-contradiction. And no one stated that holding up a map at a talk show is a faulty measure of bias. Some might even call it a biased measure using a biased sample.

Another time, an attractive astrologer debated a physicist about the preposterous notions of astrology. The physicist had stage fright, and those present could barely contain their smirks.

But I won't judge Winfrey based on a small sample fallacy of two shows because that might be biased.

The Grave Threats

In the 1930s, the West faced many major, long term issues: China, Japan, Muslims, dysgenics, globalism, neoconservatism, super volcanos, cultural Marxism, Hitler's Germany, mass hedonism, legalized bribery, super pathogens, propaganda technologies, artificial intelligence, space impacts, nonwhite immigration, WMD technologies, neoclassical economics, fatalistic Armageddonism, the Soviet Union, low white birth rates, widespread, opposition to moral reasoning, the near absence of ethical religions or pseudo religions, and several other issues, plus some more, though few would have recognized all the issues at the time.

Few do now.

Luckily for the West, the ethnoracial groups mentioned above did not unite against the West. Instead, Japan sought to conquer China and Germany wanted to conquer the Soviet Union before moving on to the West. Both Japan and Germany might have bogged down fighting guerillas in China and the Soviet Union. We don't know. Eventually, American nuclear weapons would have changed the strategic calculations of Japan and Germany. But French and British rulers made matters worse by vowing to defend Poland without the fully mobilized will to defend Poland, not to mention themselves. Bedraggled British soldiers came back from Dunkirk to see university students playing sports. Poland itself refused to put in a fully mobilized effort.

Lives should not be wasted to defend a nation that refuses to put in a full bore effort to defend itself.

The threats from most of the above increased. Hitler's Germany and the Empire of Japan are gone. But globalism, neoconservatism, cultural Marxism, neoclassical economics, and creeping Sharia have conquered the West or are in the process of doing so.

White birthrates plummeted. Propaganda, wrapped in mass infotainment, became more sinister and insidious. Nonwhite immigration skyrocketed. WMD technologies keep developing. The mean genotypic IQ of the West keeps decreasing and the genotypes for moral character traits probably decline at faster rates. So-called Western leaders are puppets of Southwest Asians and wealthy, globalized citizens, who are citizens in legal terms only. Hard, moral work is taxed and punished while evils rewarded. The ruling class grandstands about global warming while refusing to implement far greater Pigouvian taxes.

Incentives matter. You get more of what you reward and less of what you punish.

Most intellectuals live in bubbles of fanaticism and obliviousness to facts that contradict their worldviews. Whites are at each others' throats for few good reasons--thanks to indoctrination and the divide-and-rule strategies of the ruling groups.

The funds provided for defense against comets and other rock strikes are pitiful. Against super volcanos, there is little defense but prepping and relocating. The era of antibiotics nears an end, and little work to find replacements exists. Even the prediction that by 2050 pathogens will cause 10 million more deaths per year, sparks little action. The oceans are overharvested, non-Western lands deforested.

Sustainability gets mentioned most often with the environment, but bigger sustainability problems result from Islam, dysgenics, militarism, ruler egoism, free riding, cultural Marxism, and nonwhite immigration.

The ruling class calls Russian and Chinese leaders nationalists, but like Western leaders, they are driven by egoism and cultural Marxism. Like multiculturalists much of the West, their subjugated peoples serve as useful for the ego cause.

Those who face facts about the threats are ignored or demonized with slurs and other fallacies.

So now here we are.

Fun times.