Thursday, March 9, 2017

Into Arcadia

Or as David Brooks puts it (along with a bunch of false analogies):
I can’t figure out why so many Republicans prefer a dying white America to a place like, say, Houston.
One reason is rural people, cultures, and environments. Though attachments to people and place diminished for decades, many remain. It's thousands of shared stories that become parts of ethical narratives, a strange concept to some, whose idea of a narrative consists of anti-white fictions. It's thousands of regional recipes such as grandma's homemade bread, the best you ever tasted. A good recipe off the internet is just something that tastes good, not a part of you.

It's rituals. It's doing specific activities during certain calendar dates each year.

A tree in a contemporary city park is a random tree, often a semi-dwarf cut to look the same as its neighbors. A tree in the woods behind your home becomes the special place where you had your first kiss with your spouse. These sacred attachments cannot be adequately conveyed by the mediums of film and television, which often reduce rural life to satire or mawkishness.

Big cities can be decent or excellent places, as long as they are racially homogeneous. They can be places deserving of great attachment. But not now.

Even those who believe nurture assumptions, have an inkling that moving to a contemporary big city results in handing children over to ghetto and Hollywood cultures, leaving parents with teenagers who seem like hostile strangers in the nest.

Rural areas are not immune to these destructive cultures, but they are better.

Many whites do move, including high IQ whites, causing brain drain in rural areas. Attend rural advanced placement classes and you will hear big city and big college dreams. It's quite unfair for city dwellers to mock country folks for low intelligence when big cities poached millions of bright, rural graduates. Farm boys make especially good engineers.

When poorer, lower IQ individuals move to big cites, they often end up exchanging one low paying job for another in a higher cost of living area, including the costs of being surrounded by hostile individuals. Fifty years ago, working class individuals could walk off farms and into decent paying factory jobs, even when they were unskilled. Now, it's often better to make $7.50 per hour in a rural area than $10.50 per hour in the big city.

The often unmentioned big attraction of contemporary cities is massive opportunities for semi-anonymous philandering, avoiding walks of shame. It's much easier to be abusive toward someone you probably will never see again anywhere. But philandering is usually reserved for high status men and is always accompanied by lies to self and others--and I do mean always. In a few cases, it involves the raping and trafficking of runaways. In places like Rotherham, the drugging, raping, and trafficking happens to non-runaways, not far from home. If you are predisposed toward guilt and other ethical traits, such philandering holds little appeal.

The "respectable" mass media seldom talk about philandering and its consequences.

Instead, the mass media emphasize their cultural activities, often claiming there is little to do in rural areas. But if you have a low paying job, many big city cultural activities are off limits anyway. Most big city cultural activities are overrated hedonistic behaviors, propped up by pedantry and advertising. Someone once called Los Angeles, with some exaggeration, the world's biggest city with nothing to do. Paintings can be viewed in books and on the internet less expensively. And much contemporary art should be ignored.

For most people, outdoor activities are more ethically and personally rewarding than didactic cultural activities, which often involve destructive status competitions.

One purpose of agitprop is to make us alienated from sources of purpose, except cultural Marxism, making us willing to psychologically flee and fill voids with cultural Marxism's lies and "activism."

Small towns are often sources of petty and malicious gossip, but often the individual complaining about the gossip earned the gossip through their own actions.

Big city work places have their own social treachery. You have to keep your mouth shut while your coworkers spout their political narratives, lest you get fired by coworkers who have never honestly studied and weighed issues. And nothing is quite like the horrors of multicultural, big city schools for whites.

Even if co-workers cared about finding more of the whole truth, well-reasoned arguments seldom turn up on the first few pages of Google results.

Some urbanites create more purpose with gentrification, community gardens, and other activities, but the result is hollow and ephemeral, often childfree and philosophically sterile. Gentrified children end up in expensive private schools, which have problems with spoiled children. And gentrification makes neighborhood nonwhites livid when they see their property taxes rocketing upward.

Economists, of course, will rightly lecture rural areas about wasteful farm subsidies, but they usually avoid the non-tax entitlement ways governments redistribute far more to big cities, especially the free riding financial industry. The economic vibrancy of some big cities is not driven by nonwhite immigrants, It's driven by crooked redistributions. Working migrants move to big cities to provide services to the free riding individuals. Other non-working migrants join in the free riding.

The better economies in certain coastal and sunbelt cities aren't due to neutral policies. They're due to deliberate corruption favoring rent seeking industries in those cities.

Rural individuals often underestimate the costs of driving.
The risk of injury death — which counts both violent crime and accidents — is more than 20% higher in the countryside than it is in large urban areas.
Long distance driving also causes cardiovascular disease and large negative externalities. But many whites seem to loath cities so much that they work in cities but drive over 100 miles per day to make a home in the country.

Rural areas have drug problems but those addicted would probably be addicted in cities as well. Alone in a city is not where you want to be if you have self-control problems. Selection effects are a bigger problem than people realize. High functioning, eugenically bred individuals know better ways of responding to boredom than drugs.

Most of all, rural areas provide better protection from nuclear wars and other human inflicted catastrophes, the sorts of disasters the establishments and defense industries are right now prodding us into.

David Brooks, the self-anointed social science expert, will never ever move to Houston's vibrant neighborhoods. Instead, he noted this about his $120,000 cosmopolitan vacation:
But sometimes money allows you to see too many things, too quickly. Sometimes if you seize all the opportunities your money affords, you may end up skimming over life and nothing is deep enough to leave a mark.

Friday, March 3, 2017

We Live on a Creepy, Evil Planet

The reality of this planet is worse than almost any horror movie. Imagine describing this planet to an alien.

We are in yet another Thucydides Trap. Good people should be screaming and doing their best to get the hell out of it, yet humans keep letting ego driven salami slicers rise to the top.

The threats of nuclear weapons, biological weapons, rapidly evolving pathogens, and potential space based calamities hang over the planet with greater ominousness than a Sword of Damocles, yet the latest social media outrages are treated with more seriousness.

Biting and sucking creatures, plus the pathogens they carry, have killed billions. Viewing these creatures under a microscope gives us shivers. Gut bacteria influence actions in surprising ways. Other organisms completely take over their hosts. Geological hazards add to the carnage. On much of Earth surface, humans seldom survive without protective technologies, in particular, weapons, clothing, and housing.

At our planet, the worse a powerful race or ideology behaves, the more off limits to reform or criticism it is.

With the exception of the Dalai Lama, Frank Salter, and a handful of other thinkers, almost every nonwhite public figure believes in freedom of association for their own races but not for whites. Few seem to notice the contradiction and its monstrous implications.

History books regale us with the horrors of McCarthyism, which harmed a handful of Marxians--individuals and ideologies that were and are waging aggressive, unconventional warfare against us. These books fail to enlighten about the thousands of whites fired, fined, imprisoned or ostracized for thought crimes against cultural Marxism.

The most admired individuals exhibit extreme egoism or misplaced altruism or both.

Powerful individuals are treated as if they have gravitas due to halo effects, when in reality, they are more articulate than wise. This also applies to military leadership, yet polling suggests more public trust in the military than other institutions. Let's hope the poll respondents meant they lower ranking military personnel. The jargon and banalities, especially multicultural, coming from military officers is nearly as bad as what exists in journals of neo-pragmatism.

Multiculturalists tell us nonwhites will treat us fairly when we become minorities in our own countries, even though nonwhites don't treat us fairly now and have relentlessly abused other minorities throughout history.

Professional ironists inform us (without irony) that reality (meaning truth) has a liberal bias (though there are millions of mutually contradictory worldviews calling themselves liberal), a self-contradictory claim. The truth cannot have a bias.

Those with long formal educations spent small fortunes to learn millions of trivial facts but do not face facts on the most important issues. Instead, they succumb to social pressures, availability biases, and other reasoning mistakes. And they aren't even dimly aware how skewed their worldviews are. If you point out their lack of accuracy, you will be demonized for anti-intellectualism. Almost every politician, intellectual, and wealthy individual born in the 20th century believed in one or more totalitarian ideologies. Almost. Every. One.

Billions form their unethical views based on how those views affect their own status and wallets. Multicultural billionaires, who acquired their wealth via inheritance or unethical activities, are viewed as admirable philanthropists merely for donating a small portion of their ill-gotten wealth to (mostly) crooked charities.

The results of economic models that weigh a small number of one-sided factors are treated as iron laws.

It is considered offensive to tell low IQ, low character individuals to have fewer children, even wards of the state and wards of international charities. But it is cool to tell productive Westerners to stop having children on behalf of the planet. Let's get rid of the people who saved billions of lives with their altruism and scientific revolutions (sarcasm)! Dysgenic supremacism cannot continue forever. At some point, individuals will become so bad off they will no longer understand the simple, fatuous slogans of cultural Marxism, then they will start breeding for worthwhile traits or their groups will become extinct.

The ruling groups think its wrong to make the world better by spreading better genes, as if things will get better as genes gradually get worse, as if the right environmental schemes will make things better, even though they haven't yet figured out such a scheme and even though doing right things contradicts their own perceived self-interest. Nevertheless, they are very, very careful about not marrying someone with genes far beneath them.

Fathers are often stripped of their children without an ethical process of law or even due process of law.

These realities must not induce fatalism. There are good things on this planet. The fight for good things is a good in itself. J.K. Rowling now finds herself facing a petition to make her mansion a home to migrants. This is a good thing. Hammer their contradictions. If she decides to invite a small, unrepresentative sample of obsequious migrants into her home and pronounce it a success, excoriate her for using small, unrepresentative sampling.

There are worse things than being socially ostracized. Multiculturalists hate whites for existing and many other specious reasons. Groveling doesn't eliminate their misplaced hatreds. They need their hatreds to give their lives purpose, to increase social status for themselves. While their expertise at many professions is abysmal, multiculturalists are experts at exploiting the self-loathing of whites. I write this so that we will find warranted confidence, so that we will not be browbeaten by the tactics and technologies of mass manipulation.

Our rights and duties do not disappear because others behave poorly or cleverly.

Saturday, February 25, 2017

Test Scores: Dazed and Confused

Scott Alexander, a much beloved writer from the alt very, very light, argues that the reason "minority students’ scores [increased] by about 20%... almost entirely during the period from 1975-1985..." was due to "the general improvement in minorities’ conditions around that time, giving them better nutrition and a more stable family life." White students' test scores increased by 1.4 percent, writes Alexander.

Come on, man.

The median income of young families with children (officially) declined 26 percent between 1973 and 1986, probably more than that unofficially when gimmicks such as hedonic pricing are more accurately weighed. That was the era when OPEC, globalists, educators, neoconservatives, multiculturalists, Wall Street, New Democrats, establishment Republicans, and people born before 1950 unilaterally decided America should not be a broad middle class society. Divorce was also more common during that era. That does not sound like a recipe for improved nutrition and a more stable family life.

Many factors, pushing in a variety of directions, are going on here:

  1. increased cheating.
  2. increased teaching of test skills.
  3. changes in residential mobility.
  4. small dysgenic and eugenic effects within races.
  5. the Flynn effect.
  6. increased integration in some years, harming learning environments for whites. (People of comparatively recent African and Southwest Asian descent have excellent skills at dragging others down from where they otherwise would have been, especially gullible whites).
  7. decreased integration in other years, improving the learning environments for many whites.
  8. changes in pollution.
  9. changes in test questions.
  10. the era of open classrooms and dozens of other education fads in some schools, which resulted in students goofing off most of the day and failing to learn the basics.
  11. changes in teacher quality, including the percentage of burned out teachers.
  12. changes in school size.
  13. changes in rates of reading for pleasure over time.
  14. changes in how cultures valued education, including during the Dazed and Confused Era, which the film by the same name did not adequately re-create.
(As a general rule, contrarians whose world views differ little from establishment world views, get most of the important issues wrong.)

Saturday, February 11, 2017

More Crime and Migration Junk Science

A new study asserts there are "no links" between crime and immigration. That's because most street and financial crimes in the United States are committed by the descendants of nonwhite migrants. In other words, the first generation of nonwhite migrants may commit fewer crimes than "natives." But it is because native, nonwhite descendants of migrants commit more crimes than the first generation and whites do. First generation nonwhites are also more clever about avoiding arrests for their crimes than their nihilism, hedonism, and cultural Marxism loving descendants.

The article commits the lump of migrants fallacy, making no distinctions among high crime and low crime ethnoracial groups. But multiculturalists now act to flood the West with more harmful types of migrants.

High IQ Asians do have low rates of street crimes but have high rates of far more harmful bribery, espionage, and other high-functioning crimes. A handful of espionage acts often causes far more harm than millions of burglaries. They also support terrorism against whites exercising their speech rights and other important rights, another type of crime that causes harms far out of proportion to the number of crimes committed.

The article also does not say whether the study relied on self-reports, where many nonwhites are many times more likely to make false statements.

I also doubt the study counted visa fraud and illegal entries as crimes.

Saturday, February 4, 2017

The Establishment Distraction Strategies Disaster

Establishment distraction strategies have three main attributes:

  1. demonizing perceived outgroup individuals as dangerous threats, while real enemies remain allies of the ruling groups (Saudi Arabia, for example).
  2. keeping well-reasoned opposition out of voter's and donor's minds.
  3. keeping the focus away from the establishment's own evils.

All of the above falls into the straw person category.

Expect mass denunciations of Trump's tweets for the next several years, including from neoconservatives, even as Trump surrounds himself with neoconservatives and implements neoconservative policies, especially regarding China, tax shifts, Wall Street, and our ersatz allies in the Middle East. The slightly more honest neoconservatives must be ecstatic. Trump surrounds himself with neoconservatives and does what they want, yet they chant that he's not one of them. The media blame for Trump falls on nonmulticulturalists, who get little in return for delivering the Oval Office to Trump.

Expect a continued litany of trivial scandals:"Alternative Facts," "Bowling Green Massacre," etc.

Expect to see obscure social media users vaulted to brief fame as establishments attempt to demonize them as representative of any opposition.

Expect numerous KKK stories, though many KKK members are now federal agents. The KKK is now partly an anti-white false flag operation. It wouldn't surprise me if federal agents actively recruited gullible, low IQ whites for the KKK. Imagine the opposite. Imagine a KKK meeting. The "serious" member asks the undercover agents why they seem lukewarm. That might become awkward. Federal agents probably recruit simply to fit in and keep an eye on KKK types.

The KKK has no business being a part of any white liberation movement. Groups with histories of aggressive acts have no business existing, nor do they have any business being a part of any white liberation movements.

Group polarization keeps the focus away from accurately weighing issues and doing the right things. And ethnoracial diversity is the all-time world champ at creating group polarization.

I often encounter individuals whose political thinking consists of slurs, establishment talking points, and lengthy enemies lists. The emphasis on enemies lists keeps increasing as establishment policies and ideologies increasingly consist of greed mixed with self-contradictory Twitter slogans. Not surprisingly, establishment individuals accuse others of being the Dunning-Kruger "idiots." The ability to experience cognitive dissonance seems almost non-existent among the establishment thinkers. Lord knows they are great successes at contradicting themselves.

Establishment actions matter more than their words.

One problem for establishments is that by giving publicity to those perceived as among the worst, establishments increase the fame and influence of those individuals.

Saturday, January 28, 2017

Their Interest Is in Harming Us

Theresa May, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, talks interests:
"But nor can we afford to stand idly by when the threat is real and when it is in our own interests to intervene. We must be strong, smart and hard-headed. And we must demonstrate the resolve necessary to stand up for our interests.
"And whether it is the security of Israel in the Middle East or Estonia in the Baltic states, we must always stand up for our friends and allies in democratic countries that find themselves in tough neighbourhoods too," she said, to applause from her audience.
When establishment people start talking about the interests of the West, they're not talking about helping us or preventing harms. They're talking about the helping anti-Western individuals, including themselves, who sometimes happen to have mailing addresses in the West. And the same often applies to magazines with misleading names such as The National Interest and The American Interest.

Our rulers regularly conflate or confuse their interest in their own egoism with what would be beneficial for the people they rule over.

In general, we should be wary of the word interests. Nonmulticulturalists frequently say the interests of nonwhites clash with those of whites. But the word interests is vague and euphemistic, making it sound as if whites and nonwhites have minor differences in preferences. Writers seldom define interests in the context of their essays.

Instead of differing interests, we should use more accurate words and phrases such as invasions, massive harms, dysgenic hells, mass destruction, beneficence lost, stealth annihilation, globalized totalitarianism, long-term horrors, anti-white genocide, massive opportunity costs, and ideological weapons of mass destruction. While the political record of whites is poor, that record is far better than that of nonwhites, who create mass totalitarianism and mass Machiavellianism almost everywhere they have the power to do so, especially in ethnoracially diverse societies.




Monday, January 23, 2017

What Is Neoliberalism?

Neoliberalism has a multitude of meanings. In economics, neoliberalism is any type of capitalism that unjustly redistributes income to the top or to other allies, from laissez faire economics to the Third Wayism of the New Democrats. (Marxism also unjustly redistributes to the top or other allies but that is a topic for another day.)

In broader meanings of the term, neoliberalism mixes these economic policies with militarism and cultural Marxism. Neoliberalism's adherents usually label their redistributions as something else: merit, equality, freedom, democracy, etc. Almost anything that conflicts with such redistributions gets demonized as racism, class warfare and other dysphemisms. Neoliberalism is a comparatively transparent ruse, but attracts followers because of its simplicity, because many of its supporters profit from it and because its supporters control massive amounts of propaganda power. Neoliberalism accepts de facto affirmative action because boycotts, lawsuits, and negative publicity interfere with redistributions to allies. Neoliberalism pretends to oppose welfare but in practice supports tax entitlements and other stealthy forms of welfare.

Neoliberalism is tricky for New Democrats. Most New Democrats cannot support tax shifts from allies to nonwealthy workers or future generations without losing millions of votes and donations, though some neoconservative and Blue Dog Democrats did so without severe repercussions.

New Democrats unjustly redistribute using policies that voters don't understand: by accepting legalized bribery, by supporting pro-Wall Street policies, by creating austerity while pretending to be anti-austerity, by tolerating monopolies and oligopolies among their allies. Many voters remain unaware that more money gets redistributed by the combination of these other methods than by tax shifts. Austerity, for example, redistributes to the top by increasing unemployment, which decreases worker bargaining power. Austerity also makes some products of financial engineering more valuable.

How do New Democrats get away with it? First, by overemphasizing the minor benefits of trivial reforms. Second, New Democrats claim that they would do the right things if only the Republicans weren't stopping them. But the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House in 2009 and 2010, yet still governed using neoliberalism. Third, New Democrats use cultural Marxism, especially hostile migration, for divide-and-rule strategies.

Almost all supporters of neoliberalism also support globalism, ignoring massive counter evidence while emphasizing comparative advantage and economics of scale.

Almost all neoliberals support cultural Marxism, a faith based belief that if whites treat nonwhites as equals or superiors, nonwhites will reciprocate the altruism, though nonwhites in power have seldom behaved with such fairness. Nonwhites and white multiculturalists are quite willing to kill the proverbial geese that lay golden eggs, as has happened in Zimbabwe and numerous other places.

Why globalism and cultural Marxism? Because they are profitable for those engaged in free riding. Realtors make money every time you buy and sell. Realtors don't want you living in the same house for the rest of your life. They want white flight. Realtors call it block busting, wanting whites to move regularly. Software manufacturers want nonwhites to move to the West, where nonwhites are less likely to pirate software. The marginal cost of each additional software copy to software manufacturers is comparatively tiny. Most donors in the ruling groups reap short term benefits from globalism and cultural Marxism. But in the long-term, the results are war, mass destruction, and genetic dystopias, even for the ruling groups.

Militarism distracts the population, helps neoliberal war profiteering, and helps suppress alternative belief systems. Libertarians often claim to oppose militarism but since Libertarians support legalized bribery and defense industries do massive amounts of bribing, Libertarian rhetorical opposition is largely a small gesture.

Most living Westerners have grown up under neoliberalism and many conceive of little else. They know little about public policies and thus reflexively recoil at different ideas unless the establishment propaganda machines hop on board the different ideas.

Many opponents of neoliberalism reflexively flee to socialism, having never studied the real history of socialism and having never lived under socialism, leading to even worse results.

Since few individuals admit to their ruthless behaviors, even to themselves, neoliberalism come up with tokenistic altruistic policies to hide scams and "prove" themselves as good people. In the 1980s, it was the Earned Income Tax Credit. In the 1990s, it was Marvin Olasky's compassionate conservatism. In the 2000s, it was George W. Bush's aid to Africa and Barack Obama's Cash for Clunkers, to name but a few. The wealthy typically donate about two percent of their wealth to (mostly) crooked charitable activities, another way for them to feel good about themselves while not actually being good.

What else is wrong with neoliberalism: free riding. Every type of neoliberalism creates massive free rider problems, especially for future generations. It is not sustainable for individuals and environments. Neoliberals would see nothing wrong with flooding the West with several hundred million welfare and affirmative action seeking nonwhites. Their easily indoctrinated hostility toward whites is worse.

In all types of neoliberalism, productive workers end up worse off than those engaged in parasitic activities. Since most humans think they are ethically better than most other humans, multicultural neoliberals will invent multitudes of rationalizations to justify parasitism. Wall Streeters, who contribute far more harms than benefits, described themselves as Masters of the Universe. Ethical work is highly taxed socially and economically. Negative externalities are supported or lightly taxed. The financial industry causes umpteen trillion dollars per year in direct, indirect, and opportunity costs, yet the search for killer comets and asteroids starves for want of a few million dollars. The result is increasing chaos combined with increasing tyranny to prevent the chaos from spilling into the lives of ruling groups.

Thousands of important policy issues exist. Neoliberals offer few good solutions, except to give more money and power to those who already have too much money and power and to those who have little interest in the people.

Neoliberals care more about the label democracy than the reality of kleptocratic kakistocracy.

Monday, January 2, 2017

Thomas Sowell: a Mixed Legacy

Thomas Sowell ranks among the more notable of 2016's casualties. What I remember most about Sowell was his willingness to investigate alternative causal factors for differences in family incomes (ages, cultures, education types, education levels, work preferences, number of working adults) at a time when most establishment thinkers fanatically and erroneously chanted sexism and racism. If anything, the situation is worse now. Establishment thinkers still won't face facts, acting as if their rage and belief in a thing makes the thing true. Groupthink and epistemic cowardice keep escalating.

(Sowell developed a devoted following. At a university I briefly attended, someone went to the trouble of stuffing photocopies of Sowell's articles into thousands of library books.)

Inside American Education was probably Sowell's greatest book, a work even William Raspberry praised.

Unfortunately, Sowell largely ignored genetic factors. Even as Sowell railed against those he slurred as "intelligentsia," Sowell was blinded by his own neoliberalism and cultural Marxism.

Almost all forms of assimilationism are and were variants of cultural Marxism, including Sowell's.