Outsiders see the Amish as a people primarily preoccupied with low tech, old fashioned living. That's not how the Amish see themselves. They primarily see themselves as Christians. So here's to the religious holiday itself and the non-hedonistic spirit of Amish Christmas, to Amish Second Christmas the day after Christmas and to Amish Old Christmas on January sixth.
May they and Christmas still exist 50 million years from now. Because when the Amish disappear, it likely means the multiculturalists have succeeded in their extermination campaigns against other whites.
Monday, December 25, 2017
Friday, December 22, 2017
Not Baited by Me Too Issues
The recent sex crime accusations involving celebrities are not big picture important, mainly matters for accusers, accusees, whistle-blowers, investigative reporters, and law enforcement agencies to sort through.
Almost all contemporary celebrities are people of terrible actions. Celebrities that do and do not commit sex crimes have other vices, especially hedonism, self-contradictions, and cultural Marxism.
Given the rates at which women make false accusations, some celebrities are probably not guilty of some alleged crimes, but the harms from cultural Marxism are and will be millions of times worse than any harms celebrities suffer from false accusations. Let's not waste time defending multicultural celebrities from accusations from multicultural accusers, including slightly edgy, alt light celebrities. If vibrant multiculturalists kidnapped a dozen children, chopped them up, and dumped their remains in a vat of sodium hydroxide, celebrities would care little, except to grandstand in favor of more cultural Marxism and perhaps to make a film about it with whites playing the villain roles.
Humans have the unfortunate, reflexive tendency to pick sides, even when several competing sides are terrible.
In the ghetto where I spent most of my childhood, the local library had dozens of shelves devoted to true crime. True crime is not a genre ethical individuals should be fascinated with. It is a genre for those who admire crime or those predisposed to wantoness. The librarians probably thought that if the local residents didn't read true crime, they probably wouldn't do much reading at all. Multiculturalists act as if almost any education is good education as long as it doesn't include unwanted political facts.
Better to be illiterate than deluge yourself with rotten ideas.
Hitting on coworkers reeks of desperation and lazy cowardice in approaching women elsewhere, unless you have such a rotten job you don't care whether you get fired or humiliated.
Long ago I adopted a policy of not talking about sex, looks, politics, religion, relationships, female attire or behavioral genetics with women coworkers. When coworkers talk about such subjects, I merely make pithy, banal statements--"Wow," "Yeah," "Uh-huh," and "That terrible." It prevents awkwardness and misunderstandings.
The last time I talked about sex with female coworkers: several women talked about why women have large breasts and nipples. I mentioned that a social scientist had the bizarre theory that large nipples evolved as large eye spots to scare away predators. They thought that hilarious. Then I said large breasts were sexually selected and maybe large breasts also evolved for fat storage. Not so hilarious.
Maybe it is because I'm happily married, but I have no desire to have glib sex related conversations with female acquaintances.
Almost all contemporary celebrities are people of terrible actions. Celebrities that do and do not commit sex crimes have other vices, especially hedonism, self-contradictions, and cultural Marxism.
Given the rates at which women make false accusations, some celebrities are probably not guilty of some alleged crimes, but the harms from cultural Marxism are and will be millions of times worse than any harms celebrities suffer from false accusations. Let's not waste time defending multicultural celebrities from accusations from multicultural accusers, including slightly edgy, alt light celebrities. If vibrant multiculturalists kidnapped a dozen children, chopped them up, and dumped their remains in a vat of sodium hydroxide, celebrities would care little, except to grandstand in favor of more cultural Marxism and perhaps to make a film about it with whites playing the villain roles.
Humans have the unfortunate, reflexive tendency to pick sides, even when several competing sides are terrible.
In the ghetto where I spent most of my childhood, the local library had dozens of shelves devoted to true crime. True crime is not a genre ethical individuals should be fascinated with. It is a genre for those who admire crime or those predisposed to wantoness. The librarians probably thought that if the local residents didn't read true crime, they probably wouldn't do much reading at all. Multiculturalists act as if almost any education is good education as long as it doesn't include unwanted political facts.
Better to be illiterate than deluge yourself with rotten ideas.
Hitting on coworkers reeks of desperation and lazy cowardice in approaching women elsewhere, unless you have such a rotten job you don't care whether you get fired or humiliated.
Long ago I adopted a policy of not talking about sex, looks, politics, religion, relationships, female attire or behavioral genetics with women coworkers. When coworkers talk about such subjects, I merely make pithy, banal statements--"Wow," "Yeah," "Uh-huh," and "That terrible." It prevents awkwardness and misunderstandings.
The last time I talked about sex with female coworkers: several women talked about why women have large breasts and nipples. I mentioned that a social scientist had the bizarre theory that large nipples evolved as large eye spots to scare away predators. They thought that hilarious. Then I said large breasts were sexually selected and maybe large breasts also evolved for fat storage. Not so hilarious.
Maybe it is because I'm happily married, but I have no desire to have glib sex related conversations with female acquaintances.
Monday, December 18, 2017
Cognitive Impairments and the Establishments
The current Senate is the oldest in the history of the former United States. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both behave as if they have serious age related cognitive problems.
Research hints that the part of the brain responsible for skepticism (the ventromedial prefrontal cortex) suffers severe decline in the elderly, leading to the elderly falling victim to even the most obvious scams by self-proclaimed Nigerian princes and others.
This is the way grifting industries--energy, defense, finance, lobbying, globalism, multiculturalism, education, insurance, mass media, health care--like it. They don't want law makers with skepticism. The don't want mental flexibility. They don't want anyone in the establishment making the effort to accurately weigh arguments. They want their thousands of lobbyists to write laws, then walk them over to Congress for approval.
Unlike many older individuals, George W. Bush earned his brain damage from drugs and the establishment cultures he lived in. Studies suggest drug addiction causes lifelong cognitive impairments. Bush's advisers raced to be first to reach him since Bush often implemented the first idea he heard. Condoleezza Rice claimed Bush was not his own "fact witness," meaning Bush allegedly had a right to lie with impunity because he didn't know what the hell was going on and didn't want to make the effort to know. Close to being an inverse weather vane on important issues, Bush remains unrepentant.
Dick Cheney, a man without a pulse, almost certainly had and has vascular dementia.
Growing old sucks. Ethical older individuals realize this and exhibit the moral character to step aside when their brains start having severe problems.
Imagine an unmitigated skeptic, who pays little attention to politics, a person who unthinkingly assumes everything said by our rulers is fallacious. Such a person would be closer to truths than the true believers who spend thousands of hours watching political infotainment and pretending such indoctrination leads to wisdom. Mass consumers of political infotainment have little sense of proportion, having more concern over minuscule levels of Russian influence over elections than the threat of nuclear super wars, treating Russian influence as worse than far more egregious influence by Israel, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia.
Though we should not be unmitigated skeptics, most humans would do well to have much more skepticism of what they see and hear from propaganda industries.
To be able to recognize important contradictions, an individual must be sufficiently smart and have logical habits. Trump doesn't see anything wrong with his bait-and-switch rhetoric because he doesn't see complex self-contradictions at all.
Despite his Randian neoconservatism, Trump gets little credit from neoconservatives, part of their Br'er Rabbit strategy of plausible deniability. When the mess collapses or blows up, they will claim Trump, Clinton, and others were not one of them despite Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban being the largest donors to Trump and Clinton respectively. Neoconservatives will blame the Alt Right for the failings caused by Trump's neoconservative policies, another reason nonmulticulturalists should avoid getting in bed with Trump.
Young and old members of the establishments alike are carefully vetted for their unwillingness to reason well. None of the younger members of Congress show deviation from their donor classes. Hundreds of memes excoriate Mark Zuckerberg, a billionaire testing the public mood for a presidential run in 2020, for being a robot. Remember when 1990s crowds cheered Chelsea Clinton as if she were some precocious guru? Quite a piece of work she turned out to be.
Fanaticism redistributes to super rich globalists and calls it freedom, supports anti-white totalitarianism and calls it equality, engages in self-destructive militarism and call it security.
I call it lying.
Research hints that the part of the brain responsible for skepticism (the ventromedial prefrontal cortex) suffers severe decline in the elderly, leading to the elderly falling victim to even the most obvious scams by self-proclaimed Nigerian princes and others.
This is the way grifting industries--energy, defense, finance, lobbying, globalism, multiculturalism, education, insurance, mass media, health care--like it. They don't want law makers with skepticism. The don't want mental flexibility. They don't want anyone in the establishment making the effort to accurately weigh arguments. They want their thousands of lobbyists to write laws, then walk them over to Congress for approval.
Unlike many older individuals, George W. Bush earned his brain damage from drugs and the establishment cultures he lived in. Studies suggest drug addiction causes lifelong cognitive impairments. Bush's advisers raced to be first to reach him since Bush often implemented the first idea he heard. Condoleezza Rice claimed Bush was not his own "fact witness," meaning Bush allegedly had a right to lie with impunity because he didn't know what the hell was going on and didn't want to make the effort to know. Close to being an inverse weather vane on important issues, Bush remains unrepentant.
Dick Cheney, a man without a pulse, almost certainly had and has vascular dementia.
Growing old sucks. Ethical older individuals realize this and exhibit the moral character to step aside when their brains start having severe problems.
Imagine an unmitigated skeptic, who pays little attention to politics, a person who unthinkingly assumes everything said by our rulers is fallacious. Such a person would be closer to truths than the true believers who spend thousands of hours watching political infotainment and pretending such indoctrination leads to wisdom. Mass consumers of political infotainment have little sense of proportion, having more concern over minuscule levels of Russian influence over elections than the threat of nuclear super wars, treating Russian influence as worse than far more egregious influence by Israel, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia.
Though we should not be unmitigated skeptics, most humans would do well to have much more skepticism of what they see and hear from propaganda industries.
To be able to recognize important contradictions, an individual must be sufficiently smart and have logical habits. Trump doesn't see anything wrong with his bait-and-switch rhetoric because he doesn't see complex self-contradictions at all.
Despite his Randian neoconservatism, Trump gets little credit from neoconservatives, part of their Br'er Rabbit strategy of plausible deniability. When the mess collapses or blows up, they will claim Trump, Clinton, and others were not one of them despite Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban being the largest donors to Trump and Clinton respectively. Neoconservatives will blame the Alt Right for the failings caused by Trump's neoconservative policies, another reason nonmulticulturalists should avoid getting in bed with Trump.
Young and old members of the establishments alike are carefully vetted for their unwillingness to reason well. None of the younger members of Congress show deviation from their donor classes. Hundreds of memes excoriate Mark Zuckerberg, a billionaire testing the public mood for a presidential run in 2020, for being a robot. Remember when 1990s crowds cheered Chelsea Clinton as if she were some precocious guru? Quite a piece of work she turned out to be.
Fanaticism redistributes to super rich globalists and calls it freedom, supports anti-white totalitarianism and calls it equality, engages in self-destructive militarism and call it security.
I call it lying.
Thursday, December 14, 2017
The Logical Inescapability That Some Genes, Cultures, and Personal Beliefs Are Better
Let's say an individual wishes to pass on her or her relatives' genes, cultures, and personal beliefs to future generations because:
Every other claim that does not rely on some things being better is likewise fallacious.
We now have a large percentage of the population inconsistently willing to avoid procreation to prevent inherited genetic disorders on behalf of eugenics but who reject eugenics where eugenics would be massively beneficial.
So calling better things better isn't supremacism. It's simply facing facts. Supremacism is demanding logically unjustifiable preferential treatments for groups, for example, bombarding some groups with slurs while demanding some other groups be off limits to even well-reasoned criticism or supporting self-determination for some groups while denying self-determination to other groups. White self-determination is both a right and duty supported by overwhelming evidence, not supremacism. Demanding a group be enslaved or otherwise exploited is supremacism.
- variety merely for variety's sake is good (false).
- genes, cultures, and personal beliefs are equal, so it makes no difference who procreates (false).
- everyone has an ethical right to spread their seed (false).
- that's the way she rolls (circular).
- some future environmental fixes will make life superb even if people who do terrible acts do most breeding (false and almost certain to lead to worse environmental changes).
Every other claim that does not rely on some things being better is likewise fallacious.
We now have a large percentage of the population inconsistently willing to avoid procreation to prevent inherited genetic disorders on behalf of eugenics but who reject eugenics where eugenics would be massively beneficial.
So calling better things better isn't supremacism. It's simply facing facts. Supremacism is demanding logically unjustifiable preferential treatments for groups, for example, bombarding some groups with slurs while demanding some other groups be off limits to even well-reasoned criticism or supporting self-determination for some groups while denying self-determination to other groups. White self-determination is both a right and duty supported by overwhelming evidence, not supremacism. Demanding a group be enslaved or otherwise exploited is supremacism.
Friday, November 10, 2017
Research on Stereotype Accuracy: Dubious
Social science research claims stereotypes are generally accurate (narrowly defined as "beliefs about groups").
But such research is easy to rig. If you ask participants for generalizations on easy questions, they'll give accurate answers. If you ask harder questions, accuracy plummets. Important issues generally have difficult answers.
That is not a major knock on stereotyping itself. We should stereotype when we have the evidence, even when the probability of harm is low. Being wrong about con artistry even once in 20 times over a long period of time will cause major harms.
If stereotypes were generally accurate, cultural Marxism would be almost nonexistent. Instead, most adults on this planet believe in some form of cultural Marxism, with its multitudes of inaccurate ethnoracial stereotypes. Most individuals believe false stereotypes about the secular or avuncular groups they belong to. Etc.
Some probably doubt me because stereotype accuracy has the edge-o-sphere seal of approval. Below are some questions. Most humans would not produce remotely accurate stereotypes.
Origins of Ashkenazi Jews?
probable stereotypes: white or Khazar or Middle Eastern.
more accurate stereotype: Mixture of Southern European and Middle Eastern ancestry
Multicultural groups?
probable stereotype: tolerant
more accurate stereotype: intolerant with ever increasing totalitarianism
Black-white interracial aggression in US?
probable stereotypes: whites are more likely to attack or blacks are somewhat more likely to attack
more accurate stereotype: "a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa"
Serial killing?
probable stereotype: disproportionately a white thing
more accurate stereotype: disproportionately a black thing
Reducing ethnoracial injustices?
probable stereotype: reduced once individuals proclaiming equality have total power
more accurate stereotype: multiply once individuals proclaiming equality have total power
Racial supremacism?
probable stereotype: a white thing
more accurate stereotype: concentrated among nonwhites who believe they have rights to mercantilism, self-determination, affirmative action, speech freedoms, terrorizing nonbelievers, while denying speech freedoms, self-determination, and other rights to whites
We could sit around for years creating millions of questions about groups that humans would answer with false stereotypes.
If we switch to a broader, everyday definition of stereotypes, meaning any generalizations, the general inaccuracy remains.
Cause of changing seasons?
probable stereotype: distance from sun
more accurate stereotype: tilt of Earth affecting length of days and amount of solar radiation striking earth per square meter
Tobin Tax?
probable stereotype: tax on something
more accurate stereotype: taxing spot conversions of currency
Congressional Franking?
probable stereotype: legislators naming kids Frank
more accurate stereotype: legislators mailing "informative" propaganda at little cost to themselves
Pigouvian tax?
probable stereotype: something pigs
more accurate stereotype: taxing harmful activities to reduce their frequency and harms, making harm causers pay the costs they create for others
Div, grad, curl?
probable stereotype: American football receiver jargon
more accurate stereotype: vector calculus
Stop Corporate Inversions Act?
probable stereotype: something inverted
more accurate stereotype: would ban corporations from re-incorporating outside the US to avoid taxes
Minamata Convention?
probable stereotype: something Minnesota or Japanese
more accurate stereotype: regulation of mercury usage
ACHE Act?
probable stereotype: something indigenous tribe
more accurate stereotype: would ban mountain top destruction
Truman Committee?
probable stereotype: something nuclear weapons
more accurate stereotype: investigated corruption and inefficiency during World War II
Davis Bacon Act?
probable stereotype: mmm... bacon
more accurate stereotype: required prevailing wages on federally funded projects, including contractors and subcontractors
Instead of focusing on whether individuals' current stereotypes are accurate, we should focus on how to make stereotypes more accurate by teaching reasoning, improving cultures, and breeding individuals with a strong tendency toward extreme cognitive dissonance when they get stereotypes wrong, especially generalizations about ethical issues.
But such research is easy to rig. If you ask participants for generalizations on easy questions, they'll give accurate answers. If you ask harder questions, accuracy plummets. Important issues generally have difficult answers.
That is not a major knock on stereotyping itself. We should stereotype when we have the evidence, even when the probability of harm is low. Being wrong about con artistry even once in 20 times over a long period of time will cause major harms.
If stereotypes were generally accurate, cultural Marxism would be almost nonexistent. Instead, most adults on this planet believe in some form of cultural Marxism, with its multitudes of inaccurate ethnoracial stereotypes. Most individuals believe false stereotypes about the secular or avuncular groups they belong to. Etc.
Some probably doubt me because stereotype accuracy has the edge-o-sphere seal of approval. Below are some questions. Most humans would not produce remotely accurate stereotypes.
Origins of Ashkenazi Jews?
probable stereotypes: white or Khazar or Middle Eastern.
more accurate stereotype: Mixture of Southern European and Middle Eastern ancestry
Multicultural groups?
probable stereotype: tolerant
more accurate stereotype: intolerant with ever increasing totalitarianism
Black-white interracial aggression in US?
probable stereotypes: whites are more likely to attack or blacks are somewhat more likely to attack
more accurate stereotype: "a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa"
Serial killing?
probable stereotype: disproportionately a white thing
more accurate stereotype: disproportionately a black thing
Reducing ethnoracial injustices?
probable stereotype: reduced once individuals proclaiming equality have total power
more accurate stereotype: multiply once individuals proclaiming equality have total power
Racial supremacism?
probable stereotype: a white thing
more accurate stereotype: concentrated among nonwhites who believe they have rights to mercantilism, self-determination, affirmative action, speech freedoms, terrorizing nonbelievers, while denying speech freedoms, self-determination, and other rights to whites
We could sit around for years creating millions of questions about groups that humans would answer with false stereotypes.
If we switch to a broader, everyday definition of stereotypes, meaning any generalizations, the general inaccuracy remains.
Cause of changing seasons?
probable stereotype: distance from sun
more accurate stereotype: tilt of Earth affecting length of days and amount of solar radiation striking earth per square meter
Tobin Tax?
probable stereotype: tax on something
more accurate stereotype: taxing spot conversions of currency
Congressional Franking?
probable stereotype: legislators naming kids Frank
more accurate stereotype: legislators mailing "informative" propaganda at little cost to themselves
Pigouvian tax?
probable stereotype: something pigs
more accurate stereotype: taxing harmful activities to reduce their frequency and harms, making harm causers pay the costs they create for others
Div, grad, curl?
probable stereotype: American football receiver jargon
more accurate stereotype: vector calculus
Stop Corporate Inversions Act?
probable stereotype: something inverted
more accurate stereotype: would ban corporations from re-incorporating outside the US to avoid taxes
Minamata Convention?
probable stereotype: something Minnesota or Japanese
more accurate stereotype: regulation of mercury usage
ACHE Act?
probable stereotype: something indigenous tribe
more accurate stereotype: would ban mountain top destruction
Truman Committee?
probable stereotype: something nuclear weapons
more accurate stereotype: investigated corruption and inefficiency during World War II
Davis Bacon Act?
probable stereotype: mmm... bacon
more accurate stereotype: required prevailing wages on federally funded projects, including contractors and subcontractors
Instead of focusing on whether individuals' current stereotypes are accurate, we should focus on how to make stereotypes more accurate by teaching reasoning, improving cultures, and breeding individuals with a strong tendency toward extreme cognitive dissonance when they get stereotypes wrong, especially generalizations about ethical issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)