Thursday, December 31, 2015

Junk Social Science Watch

This study claims racial prejudice is driving opposition to paying college athletes.

Using a bad definition, the study, apparently, defined prejudice as having a negative view, but prejudice is judging without evidence, not having a negative view.


If negative views were a good definition of prejudice, the study would be self-condemning because it expresses negative views toward whites. Also every negative view would be considered prejudice. But negative views on ruling group actions are usually beneficial because almost all public policies are wrong or at least grossly sub-optimal.

Pew polls indicate large percentages of Muslims believe infidels, apostates, accused blasphemers, and accused female adulterers should all be murdered. Whites have negative views of such murders. Does that make whites prejudiced?

The study claims it controls for a host of factors. Did it control for genes? Beliefs about neoclassical economics? The evidence? Dozens of other factors that typically get left out?

(Some whites do deserve criticism because they believe college coaching salaries are decided by imaginary free markets while denying that freedom to athletes.)

(For the record, I think organized sports at public funded schools should be eliminated. As a second best alternative, I support paying athletes at universities with profitable athletic departments. I support eliminating athletic departments at every school that uses taxpayer money or student fees for athletic departments. The unprofitable represent the overwhelming majority of athletic departments. I also support stricter academic standards, a $60,000 annual salary cap on athletic department salaries, stricter restrictions on time spent on sports, and severe restrictions on money spent for facilities.)

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

The D Word

Demagoguery is poorly reasoned, emotively strong political language, especially slurs. The word demagogue is a slur, so those calling others the D word contradict and condemn themselves.

When the name Huey Long pops up, so does the slur demagogue. The frequency of the correlation indicates that demonizing Long as a demagogue is part of the establishment narrative. We should be skeptical of ruling group narratives because ruling group narratives are almost always poorly reasoned, designed to make horrific ideas pass as "centrism."

I read Long's much reviled speech, a speech made with no teleprompters or focus groups. Long's speech contains only one slur, the mild ad hominem "financial barons." Long's speech does contain numerous fallacious claims. It is not my point here to pick on all of Long's bad ideas. But the speech barely consists of demagoguery.

Contrast that speech with today's ruling group opinion makers when they write on ethnoracial issues. Their writings are packed with multitudes of super slurs "racist," "far right," "Islamopbobe," "bigot," "libtard," "right wing." Yet the ruling classes imagine that they are ethical and tolerant, almost never get fired or even criticized for spewing antiwhite super slurs. I have never heard of our rulers calling each other the D word.

Their heads would probably explode before they could write 3000 slur free words on ethnoracial issues.

Outright supporters of Marxism, self-described activists, are treated as somewhat mainstream, as if it were some accident that millions died and billions suffer from Marxisms, including multiculturalism.

The D word is usually reserved for ethnoracial fact facers or those labeled as economic populists, those who support capitalism but not crooked capitalism. To put it bluntly, you a more likely to be labeled with the D word for telling the truth to the ruling groups than for fallacious claims.

Monday, December 28, 2015

Trump and Sanders

Neither Donald Trump nor Bernie Sanders would produce much good if elected. They'd be facing, in courts, Congress, and country clubs, thousands of individuals devoted to various combinations of Randism, militarism, and biocultural Marxism. Ruling groups would gang up on Trump or Sanders to stop policies dead.

Mass media, already vehemently opposed to beliefs from outside the ruling groups, will gleefully blame Trump or Sanders for the inability to get things done. The mass media would demand fake "centrism" and "compromise," code words for more establishment totalitarianisms. Reporters would be dispatched to get the breathless "inside story," interviewing Congress persons devoted to fanaticisms. Expect scenes like this: "We tried to reach out to the president. It's his own fault he's isolated. I invited him to dinner. The president never replied," knowing full well Congress wasn't going to budge their fanatical behaviors.

Powerful individuals, in their wealthy bubbles, consider their beliefs be the most perfect normalcy ever, their monstrous contradictions blissfully ignored. In them, evidence is no match for intuitions.

Trump and Sanders are largely self-driven movements. They have millions of supporters. But negligible support from powerful groups.

Sanders' mask would slip. Sanders would fill his administration with individuals devoted to excessive self-interest and antiwhite totalitarianism, younger variants of Eric Holder and Morris Dees and Tim Wise and Ibrahim Hooper. Sanders ranks among the most well-meaning self-described socialists, comparatively speaking, but where would Sanders find other well-meaning individuals? Not in the armies of progressives devoted to self-contradictions and antiwhite totalitarianism. Almost all contemporary politicians devote themselves to bait-and-switch, but those who follow Marxisms are the worst at it.

Trump's mask would do likewise. Trump tends to agree with Randism or third wayism on most nonimmigration issues. Trump's past behaviors reek of excessive self-interest. On immigration, Trump would rely on signing statements and executive orders. A coup attempt or impeachment over a minor scandal would not surprise.

That's why individuals need to organize and create their own groups and fiercely protect their groups from rent seeking and from being co-opted by establishment totalitarianisms. Those engaged in rent seeking must be expelled from ethical groups.

The likely best result from Trump or Sanders would be decreasing the foreign policy destruction caused by neoconservatism and third way militarism.

Trump and Sanders have shifted Overton windows of acceptable thought but mostly among nonwealthy individuals. Research from Gilens and Page, plus mountains of other evidence, indicates this country hasn't been a democracy in a
long, long time.

Power, repetition, and organization still rule.

Saturday, December 12, 2015

What If They Created a Fanaticism and No One Believed

While watching the barrages of slurs and straw person attacks being directed at Donald Trump, the following dawned on me: Our opinion makers would rather have those devoted to neoconservatism and third way militarism, to inciting a World War with China or Russia or both, ruling us.

In other words, they think opposing the invasion and destruction of the West is worse than courting a World War.

The antiwhite totalitarianism of the ruling groups is beyond astronomical, a fanaticism worse than cultish fanaticisms.

Uncivil Contradictions

Whatever one thinks about the American Civil War, there exists one massive contradiction I have never seen mentioned: those who praise the invasion solution to the evils of American slavery--the Ken Burns types in Western ruling groups--are also allied with dozens of Muslim countries where various forms of forced labor are widely practiced. 

Why the contradictions? 

Rulers agree with the mass slaughter of whites and more than a few blacks to end slavery, but take marching orders from Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other Sunni nations. 

Why the moral relativism? 

The least Western rulers could do is create a buyer's cartel and large Pigouvian taxes to oppose OPEC, plus bans on migration invasions and legalized bribery.

But Western rulers are Westerners only in a legalistic sense. And logical and ethical in almost no sense. No self-contradiction is too great for them to ignore.

Contemporary whites often ridicule their ancestors. But in 100 years, the few remaining whites will have a field day with today's totalitarian neo-Marxism, neoconservatism, and third wayism.

Social Science

There are good reasons for believing that almost all multicultural (read: anti-white) social science is junk science.

Evidence suggests that over half of psychology studies cannot be replicated. That percentage is probably much higher on ethnoracial issues where multicultural devotion to evidence plummets.

Studies that can be replicated have multitudes of other flaws. Many, if not most, studies fail to account for hundreds of alternative causal factors, especially genetic factors. Social scientists test for genetic factors on noncontroversial issues, then magically forget to test for genetic factors on familial, educational, and ethnoracial issues. Wonder why?

Studies often rely on self-reports but evidence indicates non-whites are many times more likely than whites to make false statements on self-reports.

Other studies fallaciously frame issues, for example, using leading questions.

Some social scientists have been caught fabricating data. Given how easy it is to fabricate data, the scientists caught probably represent a minuscule fraction of scientists fudging numbers.

Studies often rely on unrepresentative or small samples of participants.

Much research measures things other than things claimed.

Bad definitions abound in social science. Defining racism as "prejudice plus power" is garbage, and ironic as well, since multiculturalists have had power for over half a century. Ethical behaviors somehow get defined as discrimination.

Publication bias causes studies with desired results to be published more often than studies that find no effects.

Many social scientists call whites super slurs such as N*zi, r*cist, big*t, f*scist, white suprem*cist, and so on. We should be skeptical of any research coming such individuals, just as we should be skeptical of any social scientist throwing around the other n-word.

Many studies attempt to measure r*cism only in whites, a clear indication of bias.

Multitudes of other logical errors fill studies. Many scientists have never even studied logic, leaving fallacious ideas about reasoning to enter into voids.

Most social scientists support cultural Marxism and cultural Marxism demands individuals be willing to do almost anything for the cause. Predictably, multiculturalists have developed the habit of calling behavioral genetics and fact facing research "scientific racism." That habit, of course, contradicts where the real scientific racism dominates.

Friday, December 11, 2015

A Slur Thing

Among the most difficult problems fact facers face is the fact that the mass media almost always refer to fact facers with slurs: r*cist, b*got, N*zi, nat*vist, cr*zies, Isl*mophobe, cr*cker, r*dneck, extr*mist, f*r right, goose st*pper, white supr*mecist, right w*ng populist, and so on.

I can not remember ever once reading the mass media refer to non-multiculturalists with anything other than slurs.

It's as amazing as it is despicable.

Many mass media outlets, including the New York Times, have rules banning their writers from using slurs. Yet the media ignore their own rules when deluging whites with slurs. But, of course, we know they don't count nonwealthy whites as human beings.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that most humans have no idea what non-multiculturalists call themselves: Race realists. Immigration patriots. Real conservatives. Counter-jihadists. Pro-Westerners. Identitarians, Paleoconservatives. Traditionalists. Pan-Europeans. The Alternative Left.

That tells you how thorough the indoctrination into cultural Marxism is.

Some may consider the slurs no big deal. We've grown up with the slurs as some sort of warped normalcy. They're wrong. People who get treated as subhumans almost never get fair treatment. You cannot get fair treatment when powerful groups constantly respond to well-reasoned evidence with slurs, straw person attacks, small sample fallacies, and poorly reasoned arguments.

People with knee-jerk slur responses almost never accurately weigh moral evidence. They almost never even look for counter-evidence to their world views. Opinion makers, who are near certain in their fallacious opinions, cannot even tell you who JP Rushton was or who John Glad and Christopher Heath Wellman are.

The inability or unwillingness to give good evidence the weight it deserves is called fanaticism, especially when coupled with slurs and other dirty tricks. The most respected and articulate people in the world rank high in fanaticism. Unfortunately, most celebrity thinkers get judged on persuasiveness, halo effects, groupthink compliance and other poorly reasoned attributes, not on the logical content of their arguments.

Well reasoned arguments deserve belief, even when they are unpopular or cause anxiety.

We will have difficulty peacefully seceding from people who constantly call us slurs. Those who refer to outgroups with nothing other than slurs often support genocide, blaming the victims. It is imperative that the mass media get boycotted and excoriated for constantly calling whites slurs. We must keep pointing out the billions of contradictions involved in multiculturalism, especially among the ruling groups, who imagine themselves to be the most noble and tolerant while ranking among the least noble and tolerant.

After all, we are men and women, too.

Pic Problems

This picture exudes fallacious expertise, the type of thing novices fall for, then imagine themselves experts.

But almost everything on that list is unclear, too unspecific or otherwise fallacious.

There are hundreds of important logical principles, not ten.

1. Fails to distinguish between abusive ad hominem and circumstancial ad hominem claims, including when circumstancial ad hominem claims are relevant such as when character is the issue.

3. Unclearly refers to small sample fallacies, not hasty generalizations.

4. Arguments must contain some assumptions, otherwise they would be infinitely long.

5. False cause is failing to provide strong evidence for a causal claim, not merely stating a prior thing caused a later thing.

6. Alternatives, not "possibilities."

7. Unclear.

8. Unclear and unspecific.

9. Unclear. Most people have no idea what that first phase means or that non sequitur means irrelevant.

10. Appeal to popularity (bandwagon) is a fallacy of irrelevance, thinking the existence of larger, smaller, increasing or decreasing numbers of believers lends support to some conclusion, the exception being what should legally be law in a legitimate democracy (which no existing national government practices). It is not about whether the ad populum premise itself is true or false.

An important, if not the most important, principle of logic is to search thoroughly for arguments and counterarguments, then accurately weigh the good points of all sides, regardless of pre-existing inclinations, giving no weight to fallacies, that is, doing the sorts of things almost no one does, especially since most people fanatically repeat the arguments of powerful groups.

Any list of logical commandments must emphasize accurately weighing competing good points.