Wednesday, December 26, 2018

Avoiding Humble, Passive-Aggressive Con Artistry

'Tis the season for dealing with relationships--good and bad.

Many arguments warn us about what are euphemistically called fast men and fast women. More difficult to detect are individuals devoted to subtle, manipulative psychological and evolutionary egoisms, especially during falling in love periods when they feign being reciprocal altruists. Such individuals are sometimes described as nice, pious, humble, hard working, and family oriented by acquaintances. Former partners are less effusive. Feigners will be most motivated to hide their characters when opportunities to exploit a sugar daddies or sugar mommas exist.

How do we separate humble, ethical, hard working reciprocal altruists from those feigning such traits? What are some warning signs behind the humble, manipulative masks?

Often feigners appear to be good ones among bunches of bad kin. Feeling compassion for a potential partner's terrible family situation is not a good reason for a romantic relationship. Why? First, the feigned good ones often regress to their behavioral means after falling in love periods. They'll blame others because their relationships did not meet their fantasy expectations. "So disappointed." Second, bad kin gradually make spouses' lives hellish. In the long run, many feigners will take the side of terrible kin over spouses and other non kin. Third, if they are actually good, but have bad kin, such good ones still carry terrible genes, which will often be expressed in children or grandchildren.

Feigners are seldom cruel enough to treat service workers poorly, but often treat such workers with indifference, unless the service worker is sexually attractive.

Feigners talk often about hopes, plans, and goals but do not put massive efforts into achieving them.

Feigners treat artistic or religious assertions as if they override well-reasoned ethical conclusions, for example, the belief that birth control is a violation of God's will--as their relatives give birth to dysgenic offspring. Watch for very, very narrow pre-conceptions of what constitutes ethical issues.

Watch for contradictions: they feign great interest in your more substantial, well-reasoned intellectual pursuits but remain overly fascinated in celebrities, TV news, pop psychology, spectator sports, and other aspects of mass cultures, treating hedonistic lifestyles as cool, edifying or empowering. Once they get the ring they lose interest in your pursuits, preferring the intuitive appeal of mass cultures. Then what will you talk about over dinner? They'll praise their low character relatives, but during moments of frustration, when one kin harms another, they'll reveal truths that contradict the praise. Feigners exhibit excessive grouchiness over their own minor illnesses such as small cuts, but lack sufficient compassion for health problems experienced by non kin, including spouses. Feigners excessively or inaccurately criticize acquaintances behind their backs while making excuses for terrible behavior by self and close biological kin.

Many who describe themselves as family oriented are often merely family oriented toward close biological kin.

The fact that individuals work 40 plus hours per work is some evidence but not sufficient evidence that they have good work ethics. Being stuck in ethical, low paying jobs because of outside circumstances is acceptable. But do they treat physical effort as drudgery despite having no physical disabilities? Do they work as slowly as they can get away with? Do they take an excessive number of days off work because they don't feel like working? Are they often late to work? Such feigners seek partners to rescue them into a couch potato lifestyle. A good person is self-possessed, a go getter, having little interest in wasting hundreds of hours sunbathing, watching TV or using Facebook. Some individuals are intimidated by go getters, even when they themselves are go getters. Don't be.

I should briefly mention politics. Politically, feigners cause mass destruction, including via their support for mass dysgenic, non white immigration with small sample images of allegedly pious, humble non white women and children, seldom mentioning those women and children are prone to great evils, especially as the children age.

Even in countries where most migrants are on welfare, media and economists keep insisting that non white migrants are humble, hard working, economically beneficial, and beneficial in other ways--and will "pay for retirements."

Their descendants will be far worse.

Tuesday, December 11, 2018

Suspicious Economic Statistics

While evidence of increased inequality is overwhelming, other economic survey research looks more suspicious.

Inequality has generally increased during Republican presidencies and decreased during Democratic presidencies, but New Democrats don't advertise the fact that inequality also increased during most of Obama's presidency. New Democrats pull a slight of hand, trying to take credit for gains correlated with long gone presidents, having differing policies.

Democrats have been wedded to the narrative that wages for nonwealthy workers have "stagnated" for decades because evidence of decline would make their own neoliberal, free riding policies look bad, though Republican neoliberal policies are much worse.

Part of this seems driven by the intuition that median per hour wages have increased simply because people now have more toys, ignoring that individuals have more toys because values changed, more wives work now, individuals have fewer children to support, and the nation is older, meaning more individuals have had more years of collecting toys, not to mention wealthy economists simply generalizing from the small sample, availability error of their own circumstances.

Among Consumer Price Index errors, hedonic pricing appears to be a major contributor, especially when applied to housing. Technologies that are more harmful and habit forming should not be treated as hedonic pricing positives. This and other errors leads to alternative Consumer Price Indexes.

Turning to unemployment and some other issues, unrepresentative sampling is a big problem: Because of increases in caller ID and illegal telemarketer calls, a large percentage of working class individuals do not answer phone calls from strange numbers or numbers outside their area codes. Many have pre-pay, pay per minute plans. Almost every time such individuals answer a call it costs them a minimum of ten cents per minute. Since the top one percent today mostly engages in free riding and dark triad activities, they are also less likely to answer calls from strange numbers. Upper middle class individuals, individuals with middle class values, are more likely to be helpful on the phone, making such individuals over sampled.

We have neocolonial establishments that produced thousands of fallacious statistics that we were winning the various counterinsurgency wars, that nonwhite immigration is beneficial, that racial diversity is also beneficial, that genetic factors should be ignored or discounted when doing research, that epigenetics is massively important, that priming has big effects, that early childhood environmental factors have huge impacts on adult behavior, etc. Why should we simply simply assume their economic stats are accurate when economics is not far from sociology and criminology in junk science tendencies?

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

Countries with Substantial White Minorities: Yeesh

The following countries are or were one to 49.9 percent White within the past 60 years according to The World Factbook: Cuba, Peru, Brazil, Belize, Mexico, Georgia, Bolivia, Panama, Suriname, Armenia (maybe), Ecuador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Paraguay (maybe), Zimbabwe, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Costa Rica, South Africa, and Northern Cyprus (the latter not recognized by Western countries). I have probably inadvertently left off some others. (The World Factbook reports Paraguay is 95 percent mestizo and five percent other. I don't know what that other five percent is.) I won't include White Russians in Israel since they pass and self-identify as part of the Ashkenazi Jewish majority.

What important characteristic do the above countries have in common? With the plausible exception of Costa Rica, they are all terrible places to live for ethical, non-wealthy, civic minded individuals. Costa Rica owes much of its semi-development to White tourism, White investments, White technologies, and low levels of militarism.

Unlike Costa Rica, Western countries with increasing racial diversity are all ruled by multiculturalists devoted to police state militarism, especially Sweden, Russia, and several NATO nations.

The counter argument: thousands of additional factors cause those lands to be terrible. Most were not settled by Northwest Europeans. Northeast Asians and Brahman Caste Indians will pick up where whites left off.

The counter counter argument: racial diversity and cultural Marxism make those thousands of additional factors worse, especially dysgenic breeding and bait-and-switch-divide-and-screw politics. Northwest Europeans failed to stop mass failure in Zimbabwe and South Africa, the two white minority countries settled by Northwest Europeans. Despite their high IQs and work ethic, Brahmans and Northeast Asians devote themselves to egoism and other unethical causes. Numerous countries have Brahman or Northeast Asian minorities combined with low IQ nonwhite majorities--those countries stink, except a plausible few with massive earnings from natural resources such as Trinidad and Tobago. Western countries are also infected with more cultural Marxian demagoguery than the White minority countries listed above, making mutually destructive conflicts more likely.

The takeaway: no one with a smidgen of ethical character should try to make White majority nations into White minority empires. The probabilities and negative expected values of dystopian results are too damn great.

Monday, October 15, 2018

Satirical Headlines Unlikely to Appear in the Onion, Part Three

See if you can guess which two headlines below are actual media headlines, not intended as parody:

Trump's America First Strategy So Stealthy No One Can Distinguish It from the Israel and Saudi Arabia First Strategies

Elizabeth Holmes Says She Can Now Detect Gullible Investors from a Single Drop of Blood

Decorated, Shell Shocked World War II Veteran Remembered As Coward After Fleeing with Gun Wound from His Final Battle by Individuals Too Craven to Oppose Multiculturalism

Local Middle Class Man Brags to Friends That He Has a House Cleaner, Declares That He Too Would Rather Be Murdered in His Bed Than Make It

Study: Spending $500,000 on Booze and Hookers Now Does Less Social Damage Than Donating $500,000 to Crooked Contemporary Charities

Local Man Doesn't Remember Trump Scandal He Thought Was Most Important Event in the World 89 Days Ago

Max Boot Determined to Prove Alleged Einstein Quote Right About Human Stupidity Being Infinite

Local Muslims Concerned Local Progressives Are Out Competing Them for Terrorism Funding

Woman with Hepatitis C Infection from Tattoo and HIV Infection from Vibrant Neighbor Calls Old Men Disgusting Perverts

In Vitro Quintuplets Argue About Who Was the Planned One

Feminist Fights for Right of Saudi "Kill the Infidels, Adulterers, Blasphemers, and Apostates" Women to Drive

Migrant Proud He Lowered Median Per Capita Incomes on Both Sides of the Border

Local Woman Concerned Neighborhood Girls Becoming "Too Slutty," Making It Harder for Her Slutty Daughter to Compete

Biologist in Bad Marriage Admits to Fear of Talking About Mantidae Sexual Cannibalism with Wife

Philosopher Stunned to Learn He Was Fooled by Clickbait Headlines 58 Times in a Row

Heads Explode as White Village Declares Itself a Tenth Amendment Sanctuary City

Curbing Hate Speech Isn’t Censorship – It’s the Law

Fearing Assaults, Feminist Admits She Tells Only White Men to Stop Manspreading

University of California Guide: Saying “I’m Not Racist” Is Racist

Wednesday, October 3, 2018

A Stunning Headhunting Quote

The gruesome quote below first appeared in a 1909 issue of the Sarawak Gazette. A longer excerpt of the worthwhile article is in A Stroll Through Borneo by James Barclay, which I cannot find an electronic version of. I snipped the excerpt below from Adventure Without End by Richard Bangs. (Obviously, the quote exaggerates how much time Dayaks spend thinking about headhunting.)

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Another Plausible Eugenic Policy: Refundable Tax Credits for Home Schooling

Single parents tend to engage in dysgenic breeding. Research suggests a large percentage of the harmful results to personality traits of single parenting are due to genes, that is, terrible sex choices rather than the psychological absence of a spouse or most other in home environmental factors. Married couples much more often engage in eugenic breeding, at least when married, middle class whites breed.

The US educational mean amount spent per public school child is currently around $11,762. New York spends roughly $22,366. Special ed students cost much more.

Home schooling parents receive little help from the government. Basic fairness would require the government to provide help since societies gain the benefits of home schooled children while paying few costs. Home schools are not much different from being family based charter schools. Governments pay for charter schools, including charter schools that teach stealth jihad.

A refundable tax credit for home schooling would work like this: If a family with three home schooled children owes $32,000 in federal taxes, a refundable tax credit of $4,000 would reduce their taxes to $20,000. If a similar family owes $11,000, the tax credit would refund the family $1,000.

One counterargument is that home schooled children act a little odd, but that is because they inherited genes for eccentricity from their parents. Such children often inherited beneficial genes for creativity, intelligence, conscientiousness, self-reliance, and higher character in general. Such children also seem weird because today's normalcy is so depraved. In today's world, raising your hand with enthusiasm to answer a teacher's question is considered weird. But students bouncing off walls and raising hell is considered tolerable.

Another counterargument is that children would supposedly benefit more from exposure to public school education, meaning exposure to racial diversity and liberal arts. But exposure to racial diversity is massively destructive and the liberal arts are now devoted to banalities, psychobabble, and cultural Marxism. So this counterargument is bunk.

The other counterargument is the cost of the tax credit but if home schooling becomes more common, it should reduce costs since home schooling is much more economically efficient than today's schools.

First caveat: an only child who never socializes with anyone other than their parents will develop severe mental illnesses. On rare occasions, the media publish stories about vile parenting, locking an only child in a room or closet. So refundable tax credits for home schooling should apply only to families with two or more children, which more importantly, encourages good parents to have more than one child.

Second caveat: the tax credit must be large enough to encourage eugenic breeding and other beneficial results but not so large that some parents, especially single parents, view it as welfare and quit their jobs. A refundable tax credit of $10,000 would be too large. Those predisposed to dysgenics and free riding would have nine children, collect $90,000 per year, and stop working. Research could easily identify a near optimal size for such a tax credit.

Third caveat: home schooled children should be required to take standardized tests at the end of each school year. Children failing such tests should be required to attend public schools and their parents ruled ineligible for home school tax credits. This banning will also discourage such parents from further dysgenic breeding and encourage other parents to engage in competent teaching.

Thursday, September 6, 2018

The Lost Willingness to Accurately Read Between the Lines: a Look at the Anonymous White House Official

The establishments are going gaga over an anonymous New York Times editorial by a senior White House official. But where are the smoking guns? The author states "many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations." But the author doesn't list one specific example. Does Trump drown puppies? Does Trump ship plutonium to North Korea?

In short, the official basically implies that Trump's brand of neoconservatism somewhat differs from the establishment's brand of neoconservatism, a great scandal in establishment circles. "The root of the problem is the president’s amorality." If so, then that implies neoconservatism is amoral.

"Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people." Get real. Neoconservatives don't support freedoms, except the freedom to purge fact facers, the freedom to commit billions of evils of omission, the freedom to rig markets for the well-connected, the freedom to create police states, the freedom to create mutually destructive wars--the "bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more."

"President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations." So merely engaging in diplomacy with dictatorships indicates a "preference for" dictatorships, unlike other neoconservatives who subjugate us to totalitarian Southeast Asian nations and ideologies while trashing our allies as "surrender monkeys."

"But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective... he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back." No, that's not a reference to George W. Bush and his habitual willingness to pursue whatever the first adviser to reach him tells him, the advisers carefully placed by those best at bribery. Nor is it a reference to every other president for over half a century, though it should be.

"There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans." Uh, the ethical reason for having a government is to put the people and other conscious beings first, not the country. The anonymous author acts as if we should be blind to the fact that elites have a long history of "reaching across the aisle" to screw the people over.

"Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making." Every argument I have seen with the phrase first principles attempts to makes virtues out of vices. Establishment first principles are garbage principles.

This is what Trump gets. He surrounds himself with neoconservatives and supports most of their policies, then acts surprised and outraged when they keep stabbing him (and far more importantly us) in the back.

Meanwhile, Trump has never even so much as met with a single supporter of White freedom and self-determination.

Wednesday, September 5, 2018

Visiting a Psychiatric Hospital

I visited a friend a few times at a psychiatric hospital.

The hospital did not fit the One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest image or other Hollywood images. For starters, nearly every patient was a comparatively young adult, a large percentage were young, attractive women. Most seemed friendly. From talking to patients, I gathered that many were there for social media caused mental illnesses. Computers and personal phones were banned. The main connection patients had with the outside world were phone booth style pay phones in a hallway. And patients couldn't leave the building to use the internet. They were locked in. (Doctors and lawyers are also probably concerned about patients photographing other patients and committing suicide with charging cords.)

Visitors were surprisingly rare. Maybe some patients had ticked off friends and relatives. Others probably had few friends, other than imitation internet friends.

I don't know whether other psychiatric hospitals are similar.

Don't expect Mark Zuckerberg or other social media titans to pay these patients' bills, though Facebook admits that Facebook damages mental health. Facebook acts as if "connecting" people needs no justification--amazing what people believe when it benefits their wealth.

Though the hospital was less tragically weird than Hollywood style psychiatric hospitals, the great tragedy here was so much wasted human potential, mentally ill individuals who should not be mentally ill.

Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Starting Over with What We Should Know About Free Riding

A large percentage of contemporary jobs are harmful, parasitic (free riding) jobs or are designed to reduce the harm caused by harmful, parasitic jobs.

So we suffer a) the direct costs of parasitism, b) the opportunity costs of parasitism, and c) the costs of fighting and repairing the parasitism.

If the only jobs available to free riders are productive and free riders ruthlessly rooted out, they are stuck begging, stealing, being fired or being productive against their desires. We should also create incentives to keep them from reproducing.

Politicslobbying, and mass media rank among the most destructive parasitic industries on a per capia basis, creating serious character defects. Social media riddle many individuals with insomnia and other mental illnesses. Lobbying is the most common career chosen by ex-Congress persons, a career chosen by roughly half of exiting legislators, up from less than five percent of exiting legislators in the 1970s. Lobbying increases their incomes by a mean of 1,452 percent. Almost all the top lobbying industries act highly parasitic. Comcast and most of the rest of communications industry have corrupt monopoly or oligopoly power.

Big religion helped fight atheistic communism but now supports cultural Marxism and stealthy, avuncular communism or the Randian gospel. The number of DC based religious advocacy groups increased from 67 in 1980 to 211 in 2010.

Medical specialists spend much of their time trying to reduce or prevent damage from drugs, nihilism, vehicles, militarism, alienation, multiculturalism, junk food, sports injuries, destructive status competitions, and various forms of hedonism. Drugs include alcohol and tobacco. If alcohol and tobacco were invented tomorrow, even the corrupt FDA would not approve them. The fortune of "heroic" John McCain came from his wife's father--drug peddling in the alcohol industry. Nearly all the supplement industry is parasitic. The FDA requires producers of red yeast rice to remove the ingredient(s) that reduce cholesterol. Purchasers of red yeast rice often remain unaware their supplement is an expensive placebo. It's not clear whether reducing LDL cholesterol is particularly helpful anyway, since the taking of cholesterol lowing statin drugs has little correlation with cardiovascular health. Triglycerides, pulse rate, blood sugar, blood pressure, and c-reactive protein are much better indicators of health than LDL cholesterol levels.

The health insurance industry is entirely parasitic. It should not exist. Lobbies limit the number of American students studying medical fields--escalating costs and leading to the importation of incompetent nurses and doctors from developing countries.

The Department of Homeland Security is mostly parasitic, designed to reduce the harms elites deliberately created with multiculturalism, while doing little to reduce those harms.

Much of America's military exists to serve the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia, defense contractors, and other imitation allies. Western grand strategy seems partly based on Hollywood fiction. Any major war will likely turn nuclear. Russia's military is largely based on their massive nuclear arsenal, including tactical nuclear weapons. How many $94.6 million F-35s equal the military power of one tactical nuke?

Financiers--the self-described masters of the universe--provide small benefits, which they use to justify creating harms and opportunity costs dozens of times greater than benefits, costing several trillion dollars per year in economic harms alone. (If plumbers cost the nation several trillion in direct and opportunity costs every year, there would be mass outrage. Imagine getting a $29,000 bill to fix a clog.)

Most individuals in the education industry free ride. Administrators and support staff outnumber professors at some universities. Most professors in business, education, the humanities, and social sciences teach faulty worldviews. A large percentage of social science studies are not replicable. Most of the replicable rest are junk science due to small samples, unrepresentative samples, protocol violations, faulty study designs, failure to tease out alternative causal factors, etc. Instead of blaming themselves and colleges, graduates and drop outs in debt peonage support Marxism and blame the rest of society for failing to pay more for their miseducation.

Ethical individuals become alienated from parasitic jobs. But egoists adamantly assert that they serve the public, protecting society from people with pitchforks. It's astonishing how viciously smug progressives, Neoconservatives, New Democrats, and supporters of Hitlerism are.

Charles Murray estimated that affirmative action costs roughly $1 trillion per year many years ago. The direct and opportunity costs are far larger now.

Westerners working in low paying, ethically productive jobs are rightfully resentful, often having worse lives than individuals living in developing countries. It's easier to live on $3,000 per year in developing countries than $18,000 per year in the West, except for those living rent free with relatives.

Motor vehicles mainly serve to take individuals to parasitic jobs, to schools with harmful curricula, and to neighborhoods far from low functioning multiculturalism. The ethical costs of money sent to OPEC countries alone outweigh the benefits of internal combustion vehicles. It would be comparatively easy to design a society where only those working in rural areas would purchase personal motor vehicles.

Tragically, never before has so much beneficial knowledge existed, yet most of it is ignored or buried. If you search for the pros and cons of some medical procedures, most search engine results are ads or other propaganda, even if you reach page 15 in the results.

If a group wants to secede from a country or global system dominated by free riding, establishment economists would list costs, all else remaining the same. But all else shouldn't remain the same. The masses employed in parasitism should be fired and forced to get beneficial work, even if it means people with advanced degrees working in day care. Bans and strictly enforced regulations should eliminate many free riding jobs. Large taxes on negative externalities should rid most of the rest.

Brexit doesn't start over. It replaces globalist, multicultural power in Brussels with globalist, multicultural power in the UK. It has economic costs with few non-economic benefits.

If Texas secedes, it will be run by Rick Perry style multiculturalists in the short term. In the long run, it will be run by the likes of ISIS and La Raza. It would add a leaky border without ridding the free riding rot.

Evolutionary models point out that groups of altruists must separate from larger groups if they are to survive, as the percentage of individuals devoted to egoism increases. But we are human. We reason, sometimes poorly.  We can expel free riders. We can create eugenic policies to reduce the fertility of free riders and misplaced altruists while increasing the fertility rates of ethical individuals. Ethnocentric strategies out compete other strategies.

In short, ethical self-determination requires more than just separation from diversity. It requires a colossal re-ordering of societal priorities.

Saturday, August 25, 2018

Comparing So-Called Centrists with the So-Called Far Right

The one-dimensional political spectrum line is a fallacious fabrication by those supporting tyranny, but who see the advantage of having themselves labeled centrist and moderate. Individuals who tried to pass themselves off as moderates include Jon Chait, Karl Rove, Joe Klein, John McCain, William Kristol, David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan, Haim Saban, James Kirchick, Cory Booker, Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman, Chris Matthews, Ben Shapiro, George Will, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Joe Lieberman, Bill O'Reilly, Charles Krauthammer, Rachel Maddow, and George W. Bush.

Let's compare the contemporary acts of those labeled centrist with nonmulticulturalists, those slurred as far right.

So-called centrism: supports self-determination, except for Whites, Igbos, Tibetans, non-Muslims in majority Muslim lands, and many other weak groups, treating self-determination as contingent upon establishment self-interest and how much comparative power a group has. Some increasingly support self-determination for Palestinians. Others view Palestinians as not a real people, which is far more ethnocentric than anything most nonmulticulturalists believe. Centrism pretends to be "humanitarian" but that is merely cover for excessive self-interest and demographic warfare.
Nonmulticulturalism: most support self-determination, though some individuals do not.

So-called centrism: often uses the words democracy and liberal democracy but vehemently undermines real democracy. Supports legalized bribery and the importation of tyranny, using migrant ringers to vote for establishments in the short term--Marxism and Sharia in the long term. Any public, establishment figure who decides to oppose such ersatz democracy gets kicked out of the establishment.
Nonmulticulturalism: many individuals support real democracy. Some support fascism, some Hitlerism, some monarchism.

So-called centrism: almost always uses slurs and other irrelevant ad hominem attacks to describe real political opponents while pretending to be bastions of civility.
Nonmulticulturalism: often uses slurs, often does not. Sometimes unwisely refers to themselves using the slurs concocted by others.

So-called centrism: almost always one-sided and constantly distorts the views of opponents. It acts as if repeating fallacies turns them into a good points. It behaves as if no other alternatives to establishment worldviews should enter our consciousnesses.
Nonmulticulturalism: some media are as one-sided as establishmentism, but others tolerate a variety of views, for example, many of the articles on Amren, the New Right Subreddit, and many other nonmulticultural sites come from establishment, pro-multicultural media (much of it illegally copied and pasted).

So-called centrism: caused millions of unwarranted deaths over the past two decades from terrorism, overpopulation, unethical wars, extra pollution, etc. Uses nonwhites and multicultural whites as anti-white proxy forces, including useful supporters of Marxism.
Nonmulticulturalism: caused a handful of terror deaths over the past few decades, causes far fewer unwarranted deaths on a per capita basis.

So-called centrism: tends to overemphasize global warming at the expense of other important environmental issues--fanatically ignores dysgenic overpopulation.
Nonmulticulturalism: not much interest in environmental issues, except those caused by dysgenic overpopulation.

So-called centrism: supports ever more mass destruction by dysgenics, which they post hoc blame on factors other than dysgenics.
Nonmulticulturalism: supports eugenics.

So-called centrism: views arguments as good for one's causes or not, with the latter being deemed "offensive" and fit for demonization, no matter how ethically well-reasoned. Thus, dozens of individuals received Pulitzer Prizes and MacArthur Genius Grants, who seldom, if ever, wrote a well-reasoned argument. For them, persuasive power trumps evidence. Centrism uses a corporate-government alliance to spread fallacies and destroy free speech while pretending to be guardians of truth.
Nonmulticulturalism: some of the above, but also more likely to believe ethical evidence even when it contradicts one's causes. Strongly supports freedom of speech.

So-called centrism: Russia. Russia. Russia! They care little about whether they start World War III. The Democratic Party matters more to them than most of our lives. A few million dollars of Russian influence matters far more to them than billions in despicable influence by Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt, Turkey, Israel, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Nonmulticulturalism: recognizes that many other countries have and have had far worse influence over US elections and politics.

So-called centrism: willing to create or enter wars with almost no regard for long term consequences to nonwealthy individuals. It still supports contemporary counterinsurgency tactics despite their horrific track record. Believes utter nonsense such as the main mistake in Iraq was not having enough troops to secure Iraq, unaware that tribal humans despise the presence of foreign troops, unaware that insurgents play the long game and counterinsurgency surges only temporarily dent their efforts. Centrism is willing to tell almost any lie on behalf of their wars.
Nonmulticulturalism: wary about entering unjust wars, mutually destructive wars, and self-destructive wars.

I could go on for days.

But in general, so-called centrists are more supportive of tyranny, with the exception that supporters of Hitlerism and some other horrible ideologies are bigger supporters of tyranny, which helps explain why so-called centrists try to slur everyone who tells the truth about multiculturalism as a Nazi.

The good counterargument is that we should also compare best versus best, even if today's so-called centrists have abandoned such good beliefs and good belief systems have little chance against those in power.

If we compare the best so-called centrists (Richard Lugar, William Proxmire, etc.) versus the best nonmulticultural worldviews, as we should, then the best nonmulticultural worldviews are still better since the best nonmulticultural worldviews will also include good ideas from Lugar, Proxmire, etc. But multiculturalists such as Lugar and Proxmire would not face eugenic and ethnoracial facts.

But what about progressivism, libertarianism, and other isms? The same problem exists. Libertarians and progressives will not face facts on eugenics and ethnoracial issues without being expelled. But the best nonmulticulturalists will freely pick ideas from progressivism and libertarianism.

In the long run, New Dealerism also trended toward cultural Marxism and so-called centrism. (It would also be rejected by multiculturalists because it interned Japanese, included Dixiecrats in its coalition, etc.)

Economic Marxism is not included above because every major variety of economic Marxism has been a disaster. Scandanavian mixed economies in the 1970s were not Marxian. Economic Marxism is the attempt by the state to control all means of economic production and distribution, though black markets predictably arise. Other forms of progressivism all trend toward Marxism and Sharia in the long run.

In short, nonmulticulturalists have multitudes of different worldviews. Some support anti-whatever bigotry. Some support nonwhite rights but also demand that whites get their rights as well. Some are environmentalists. Some don't care about environmental issues. Etc.

Unlike so-called centrists, nonmulticulturalists are far less likely to be manipulated by groupthink and totalitarian power to spew one ethnoracial fallacy after another.

Monday, August 20, 2018

A Brief Look at Establishment Worldviews as They Are Practiced

A chasm exists between the rhetoric of many worldviews and how they end up being practiced. The poor performance often results a) because such worldviews are practiced by dysgenically bred humans, b) because many humans use ideology as bait-and-switch in the service of egoism, and c) because the ideologies stink--often such ideologies do not match human genetic predispositions.

The specifics of these ideologies stretch into billions of words, but if we seek a brief overview, this is one.

Libertarianism in practice: Let humans do what they prefer, except theft, violent crimes, and freedoms that conflict with the preferences of more powerful individuals. When humans do massively harmful acts permitted by libertarianism, too bad for you and others. It's a fake individualism that leaves you at the mercy of gangs of hostile thinkers, politicians, lobbyists, foreigners, and billionaires.

Neoconservatism in practice: libertarianism and Southwest Asian militarism plus self-aggrandizing, tokenistic or wasteful compassionate conservatism.

Civic nationalism in practice: a euphemism for a semi-neoconservatism with somewhat less migration and less one sided trade deals, a way for some elites to poke sticks in the eyes of other elites while pretending to be men of the people. It's neither nationalistic nor civic minded overall, doing little to reverse harmful trends.

Third wayism in practice: mixes some libertarianism and neoconservatism but supports somewhat more progressive taxation, somewhat more regulation, and much more education spending, much it it wasteful spending.

Marxism in practice: equality is mere bait. Those seizing power make the decisions, including everything from Chavezism, to Maoism, to Stalinism, to Unism, to Mugabeism. Though most ideologies make it easy for the rise of dictatorial power, Marxism makes it especially easy because of "no enemies to the left" cowardice and cluelessness.

Progressivism in practice: a euphemism for Marxism despite less Marxian rhetoric.

Scandinavian mixed economy in practice: a semi-third wayism with more taxation, more regulation, more public services, and less militarism. Doomed by dysgenics, feminism, and misplaced altruism.

Glass ceiling feminism in practice: one or more of the above ideologies plus an emphasis on the claims of wealthy, powerful women (acts as if ordinary women should live vicariously through the power and wealth and status of other women).

Marxian feminism: similar to other Marxisms but with more emphasis on the claims of women, except when nonwhites harm or manipulate women. The patriarchy they oppose is the now nearly nonexistent White, Western patriarchy.

Islam: crypto sharia plus mixtures of the above as alliances of convenience--alliances disposed of once Muslims gain enough power in a society.

What do all the above have in common: support for globalism, dysgenics, blank slates, crypto nihilism, nurture assumptions, evolutionary egoism, psychological egoism, bait-and-switch acts, divide-and-rule tactics, anti-white tyranny, hedonism as a lifestyle, and disregard for long term consequences. Cultural Marxism runs through all of them.

They are all simple ideologies for ordinary followers to understand. For the high priests, complicated writings exist to allegedly justify unjust acts.

Ethical reasoning and weighing the evidence on individual issues seldom matters for them.

Feel good narratives matter more to them than beneficial results. Communicating the fact that one is a sympathetic person by supporting early childhood education matters more to them than the fact that Head Start and similar early childhood interventions are a waste of money and efforts better put elsewhere. Signaling that one is tough on national defense matters more to them the fact that nonwhite immigration and contemporary, Western counterinsurgency warfare are national defense disasters. Self and the political team matters more for them than the citizens they supposedly serve.

They support freedom of political speech--for their perceived allies. For dissenters, social and government punishments abound. Some use corporations to restrict speech, making it appear as if some imaginary free marketplace of ideas exists. They narrow the range of acceptable political thoughts to official myths--ignoring or whitewashing evidence that doesn't fit their narratives while demonizing opponents with fallacies.

They support freedom of association for their perceived allies. For others, self-determination gets mistakenly labeled as discrimination.

They are all ethically terrible ideologies.

Thursday, August 16, 2018

The Most Important Broad Sense Issues

They are in no order:

  1. eugenics and dysgenics.
  2. courage, free speech, and ethical reasoning.
  3. migration, demographic conquest, developing country overpopulation, and the eagerness of some governments to eliminate their own people.
  4. non-demographic warfare, especially nuclear weapons and biological weapons.
  5. low probability, disastrous expected value existential threats, for example, super volcanoes or a collision with a large comet.
  6. pathogen evolution.
  7. economic free riding, destroyers-take-most economies.
  8. religions, especially religions supporting misplaced altruism, unethical escapism, and dysgenic, evolutionary egoism.
  9. self-determination
  10. kakistocracy and the ease with which the worst or near worst individuals influence or take over governments via bribery, Machiavellianism, divide-and-screw, and other methods.
  11. purpose, hedonism, and lack of self-respect--especially via TV, social media, mood altering drugs, politics as infotainment, and the increasing shortage of ethical, purposeful work, resulting in misplaced hostility and alienation or worse: desperate attachments to harmful acts and groups.

Many of these issues overlap, for example, dysgenics, migration, and overpopulation. Overlaps cannot be eliminated.

Multiculturalism, including Islam, isn't just wrong on all of these issues, it is spectacularly wrong, fanatically opposed to being right, willing to severely punish well-reasoned dissent and reforms. Many other belief systems are poor on these issues as well, but few are as horrendous as multiculturalism.

Contemporary establishments have more commitment to spouting insipid buzzwords than willingness to efficiently accomplish big, good goals. My Google search for "under cost infrastructure project," "under cost highway project," and "project finished under cost" produced a total of two results, both on minor projects. Many similar search phrases would likely produce similar results.

Bill Gates calls flu the biggest threat, yet he wastes billions on educational nostrums, managing only $12 million for flu research.


Tuesday, August 14, 2018

Meet the Elites

Man, I keep having incongruous, small sample personal experiences. I shouldn't conclude from small samples but holy hell. I'll read, talk to or work for wealthy individuals, many having degrees from prestigious universities, who describe themselves as Democrats or Libertarians or moderates or lifelong Republicans or something similar. The results aren't pretty. It's difficult to maintain more than basic human respect for them.

(I left the direct quotes below unedited, except for adding some periods, ellipses, cutting for brevity, bracketed clarifications, and turning some double quotes into single quotes.)

The elites on Whites: "We already have enough redneck hillbilly white trash cousin fuckers... we don't need to pile on with more toothless okies." And "All Trump voters are racists." And referring to whites "where's an Assad gas attack when you need one?" And it's "crazy how much white trash is in Ohio, how was Ohio formed north of the Mason-Dixon line?" And "Coonass in La and parts of texas is more like calling someone a hillbilly, redneck, or trailertrash. It isn't reference to race or color." And "A bunch of racist, white trash, trailer park, cavemen ,standing in a line on election day to cast a ballot." And the shooter of whites "should have done to Bill Goodmans gun and knife show and picked him up some real fire power. Could have been much more efficicient." And Trump voters are "shitheads" and "Trumpanzees." And they're glad they moved because "everyone back home is fat and stupid."

On foreign policies: "Please nuke the fuck out of us China." And Russians "control American power plants." And "2 of the 3 have pretty good reps (Mattis and Kelly) and they are in defense related roles." And "don't believe" any poll that says "Crimea wanted to be part of Russia."

On so-called activists: Antifa's "actions deserve labelling them as heroes." And "I love Antifa. Wish I could donate to them. Can I?" And "Love seeing them kick the shit out of nazi clowns with american flag pants." More incoherently and unaware that Antifa was the name chosen by Antifas "they're 'antifa' which is short for 'anti-fascist'. The people wielding that word will often insist that they are not racists, not Nazis, and are the persecuted ones. But they're fine with implicitly assuming the label of 'fascist. Weird."

On economics: workers "are bacteria." And "the big growth rates in the 60s fueled the terrible inflation in the 70s and 80s and was fueled by massive government spending and redistribution. Would you prefer going back to those policiies?"

On Trump: Trump is a "shit gibbon." Trump is "Der Fuhrer" of the "Alt Reich." And Trump is a communist "because his father-in-law" is a "card carrying commie." And it's "1939 Germany" again.

On politics: Jeb Bush and George H.W. Bush are "basically the same." And "When did the shitheads start using 'fake news' about reporting they think is biased?" And "The only way I can be happier is if [Trump] appoints Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court." And "I'm hoping Zuckerberg can be that kind of [good president] guy." One such individual claimed he have voted for Trump if Trump promised to eliminate daylight savings.

On immigration: the "chance of a being killed by a refugee terrorist in the US is one in 3.64 billion, according to a new report that studied the tangible risk posed by immigration,'' among the most blatantly false stats ever. And Melania's lucky her parents "aren't Muslim. They'd never be able to come to American."

On shootings: Nikolas Cruz "trained with a white-supremacist group." And "How come I am just now learning that the Kate Steinle death... was an accidental shooting?"  And there was a shooting--"probably a white guy" and the media "will cover it up" or say "he was mentally ill."

On South Africa: Some analogy is "like saying blacks in South Africa mistreated English and Afrikaan minorities."

On life in general: "Shooting to the top of my punch in the face list -- people who say 'How do I tell me child that....'." And "Love how these maudlin fat fucks with goatees are on the verge of tears when they burn their [sports] gear." And "[His] mom raped a retard and had [a baby]."

On police: "In my experience cops are pretty much the worst people in the world and Sessions is going to make it so much worse." If someone gets arrested, they'll assert "he's lucky he's not black." He would "have been shot."

On freedom of association: "Everyone in America" should be forced to watch the Abraham Lincoln film.

They'll spew one fallacy after another, spouting ethnoracial garbage roughly as bad as Stormfront and progressives. I almost never see a well-reasoned argument from them.

They're usually divorced or womanizers or have major marriage problems. They'll call women "cunts" and "bitches." They'll trash most women they're dating. One claimed, "Your body of work as an embarrassed Trump supporter makes you a racist cunt, obviously." Then they'll say they can't believe we have such a misogynistic president.

They'll incessantly complain about petty stuff: the weeds in driveway cracks, the faulty propeller on a yacht, the roommate who called his daughter a "spoiled, racist bitch" and now his daughter wants to transfer (the latter from a guy who frequently calls other whites "racists"). And the "muskets they were using during the Battle of Borodino last night weren't widely used until around 1815. Borodino was in 1812. Idiots."

They frequently refer to other whites as "Dunning-Krueger" political buffoons, regularly misspelling Kruger. They can name dozens of Trump administration officials. But ask them about their opinions on Pigouvian Taxes, Race to the Top, etcetera, and they have no idea what you're talking about.

One admits he "was duped" into supporting the Iraq war, as if most of his worldview didn't consist of a long series of dupings, plus unwillingness to find unwanted facts.

They support smug, self-aggrandizing tokenism: "My company is matching hurricane relief donations up to $1000. I just donated $100, most of my profit from the Mayweather fight, to the cause. I challenge each and everyone to do the same."

One financier brags about the Zig Zigleresque tactics he uses on clients: the Nazis apparently had a bunch of tanks sitting around. When they tried to start the tanks, the tanks wouldn't start because rodents chewed the tanks' electrical wires (an apparent warning to expect the unexpected and don't let assets sit).

I try to understand their minds. Maybe they think multiculturalism, neoconservatism, neoliberalism, and classical liberalism are forms of ethical altruism, a light unto the nations. Maybe they regard their jobs or former jobs in law, finance, medicine, and upper management as far more difficult than the jobs other whites have. They think they deserve every penny of their wealth. But those other whites are beneficiaries of privilege, who must be forced to sacrifice everything.

But the reality is much worse.

What our ruling classes peddle for mass public consumption is highly self-censored.

The odd thing is that if Trump self-censored more often, never said or wrote anything vulgar, never mentioned trade or immigration, many elites would have voted for him in the general election--or someone similar.

These are our elites.

Monday, August 13, 2018

A More Logical Look at Definitions, Including Definitions of Racism

It must be election season. National Review is again running bait-and-switch articles slightly critical of multiculturalism for the party partisans made "uneasy" by multicultural tyranny.

This poorly reasoned mess is about defining racism.

(After the November election, it will be back to the same old Randism, neoconservatism, and anti-white tyranny from the National Review.)

Contra the National Review author, definitions on ethical issues should not be authoritatively decided by dictionaries, communities or "how most people use" words. Academics have an ethical right to make good definitions, too. Everyone has an ethical right to introduce new, good words and new, good meanings. Everyone should have that legal right as well, but in some totalitarian places, individuals will be punished for blasphemy or political incorrectness for good definitions.

Let's look at what good definitions should be. Logically, definitions are degrees of good or bad. Many bad definitions are unclear, circular, too broad, too narrow, too unspecific or slanted. Slanted definitions are fallacious attempts to manipulate individuals into conclusions via definition. Some bad definitions are fallacious in other ways. Good definitions are none of those things. Good definitions sometimes list, give examples or accurately describe in other ways. The fact that people disagree about definitions is irrelevant.

Let's look at some bad definitions of racism I have seen over the past few decades:
Racism is privilege plus power or prejudice plus power: in practice, multiculturalists imply this means racism is being white, ignoring that multiculturalists have nearly all the power and that individuals can't be born with ontological guilt for beliefs. It's not white self-determinationist's fault that Marxian multiculturalists despise the results of William Kristol's or Mark Zuckerberg's more powerful brands of multiculturalism. This slanted, too narrow definition includes the false assumption that nonwhites are godlike since they are supposedly incapable of racism.
Racism is that which offends multiculturalists: another slanted, too narrow often implied definition. When some individuals read or hear something that offends them, they reflexively respond with "that's racism" or various anti-white slurs, no matter how ethically truthful the claims are. This is also a bad definition because being offended is irrelevant to arguments.
Racism is treating someone a certain way solely because of their skin color: this is slanted, too narrow, and a straw person. Ethical whites seek self-determination because differing races have very differing behavioral tendencies, not mere skin color differences. Nonwhites are fanatically committed to the long term subjugation and extermination of whites whether they admit it or not.
Racism is the belief that some races are superior to others: unfortunately, races are superior to other races in various ways. Some run faster. Some survive better at high altitudes. Some create better cultures. Some have more compassion. Individuals should ethically improve their races instead of attacking the truth. This is also a bad, slanted definition because facts shouldn't be described with dysphemisms like racism. Never mind the contradiction that most nonwhite races regard their own races as superior (while expecting racial immunity from racial criticism for themselves). Individuals should support eugenics and cultural reforms rather than attacking the truth.

A better definition of racism:
Racism is a worldview that individuals should be treated unjustly because of their race: This unslanted definition is neither too broad nor too narrow. Perhaps someone will come up with an even better definition.

Note that separation and self-determination do not treat races unjustly because no race has a right to cause massive, undeserved harms to other races. Nonwhites demand self-determination for themselves and self-determination is the only ethical living alternative for many whites, especially in the future.

When someone shouting anti-white racial comments murders a white individual, you'll sometimes see or hear many responses similar to, "Nuh-uh. That's not racism. Racism is prejudice plus power." Such rampant demagoguery is even more reason to stay far away from other races.

Sunday, August 12, 2018

If Vietnam War Thinkers Had Been Ethnoracially Informed

Instead of facing facts, Vietnam era thinkers believed the fallacies of everyone is the same deep inside or can be made to be the same deep inside.

They should have known that Vietnam was little threat to the West--unless we foolishly allowed Vietnamese to migrate to the West, which we did. China would not allow Vietnam to develop nuclear weapons because the two are regular antagonists. Nonwhites hold historical grudges far longer and more vehemently than whites.

Western elites should have known that importing nonwhite "refugees," no matter how loyal they may seem on the surface, leads to cultural and sometimes economic Marxism in the long term. We imported many Hmong having IQs in the 80s. Hmong behave in America not far different than others with IQs in the 80s. Nonwhites will say almost anything to save face and serve their self-interest. That doesn't make them trustworthy.

So much for assimilation.

They should have known that rule by a small Catholic minority would be deeply resented by Buddhists and others. What did they think? The nonsense that all religions share the same basic truths? That most Vietnamese Buddhists were similar to chilled out white neo-Buddhists in the West?

North Vietnamese rulers weren't nationalists despite what the likes of Daniel Ellsberg say. They slaughtered various nationalist factions in Vietnam, sometimes with the help of French elites. North Vietnamese elites were devoted to egoism and communism.

Even if Vietnamese communism conquered all of Southeast Asia, Vietnamese would have been hoisted on their own petard, stuck with corruption, incompetence, wrecked economies, and simmering ethnoracial feuds. It didn't matter much for the West whether the Domino Theory in Southeast Asia was true or not. Even in Vietnam, Vietnamese communists were hoisted on their own petards . The Vietcong, who struggled under horrific conditions for years, were shoved aside once the North Vietnamese Army overran South Vietnam, having almost no say in "united" Vietnam.

South Vietnamese saw their incomes grow immensely from free riding on American taxpayers and from new strains of rice developed and spread by Americans, but they didn't like Americans. Why? Because most humans despise foreign armies in their lands, especially violent armies of a differing race. Because Marxism is more skilled at propaganda than non-Marxisms. Because Marxism will use any means to sway a population, including torturing and slaughtering villagers to gain compliance from other villagers. When Marxists promote "by any means necessary," they mean it.

Various estimates place mean Vietnamese IQs somewhere between that of Malays and Northeast Asians--high enough to be excellent at guerrilla warfare but not high enough to create and project conventional types of military power across oceans, given their egoism, Marxism, population size, and lack of natural resources, other than rain and soil.

Western elites should have known that defending NATO was far more important than wasting lives and resources in Southeast Asia. (The contemporary multiple meanings of the word wasted come from Vietnam. All that a man could have made and become, including his children and his grandchildren, were often wasted in Vietnam.)

They should have known that demographics and long term consequences matter more than Pyrrhic body counts and other fallacious statistics.

But they didn't.

Saturday, August 11, 2018

Character and Trustworthiness Matter Far More Than General Trust

Sean Last reports that the famous Robert Putnam study, suggesting that ethnoracial diversity in America is a cause of reduced trust, has major defects.

This is not surprising.

In addition to the reasons Last mentions, white Americans share many cultures of trust and distrust across the country. For generations, ruling groups regularly succeeded in propagandizing Americans to trust individuals Americans should not have trusted--gurus, athletes, celebrities, politicians, billionaires, smooth talkers, and ethnoracial outgroups, keeping whites from noticing important facts.

Even whites living in run down apartments, surrounded by hostile ethnoracial outgroups, are more trusting of the wrong ideas and peoples than they should be. For decades, whites have been more distrusting toward political factions they don't identify with than diversity, though that seems to be changing.

Generalized trust is not that important. Being generally trusting is not far from acting gullible. Trustworthiness is more important, as is knowing when to trust and when not to trust. Character counts most.

Various media empires have been calling themselves the "most trusted news source" for decades. But what do such sources specialize in: greed, gossip, trivia, sensationalism, sex scandals, war mongering, celebrity worship, emotive manipulation, anti-white bigotry, personalities over policies, knee jerk deontology, and horse race political coverage. Television itself is a poor method to convey well-reasoned arguments. The word is more important than the picture. Tune in, turn off your reasoning. The beloved Tom Brokaw and Walter Cronkite were talented in con artistry.

As much grief as Baby Boomers get, the fact is that leaders born before 1946 enacted many major multicultural policies, including Brown v. Board of Education and the 1965 Immigration Act, before most Boomers were old enough to vote, bribe or propagandize. High levels of trust probably aided individuals born before 1946 in organizing for their own economic benefit but also helped their elites screw future generations culturally, genetically, and economically.

The now elderly or dead elites played the biggest roles in shoving Randism, neoconservatism, third wayism, and cultural Marxism down our throats.

The Silent Generation and the Greatest Generation had stable, middle class jobs with defined benefit pensions unlike most individuals since. Despite what many Millennials and others imagine, the economy became much worse for young working families with children between the mid 1970s and mid 1980s. As part of the then new normalcy, older Americans decided that high seniority workers should be paid two to three times what younger workers receive for doing the same jobs. Pre-Boomers decided that finance and various other parasitic activities should be rewarded far more than ethical work. Pre-Boomers created the McJobs economy for younger individuals in the 1980s and late 1970s. It was a Grand, Unstated Bargain. Older workers keep their union jobs. Younger workers get McJobs. Never mind that young families with children have greater expenses for child rearing and other costs. Some young wives worked out of preference and some out of the new necessity. Pre-Boomers decided that television and other forms of hedonism were good things. Pre-Boomers supported integration or segregation instead of self-determination. Pre-Boomers implemented the deluge of bait-and-switch politics we live with now. Nixon ran on getting us out of Vietnam in 1968, then he ran on the same thing in 1972. as if getting out of Vietnam were spectacularly complicated.

Individuals born after 1945 deserve our share of blame. Whereas the oldest generations organized for perceived economic self-interest and horrible political fads, younger generations did little to stop the fads and advantage taking. Instead of organizing for good causes, younger Americans wasted efforts on street protesting and other showboating that the lobbyists, politicians, and billionaires largely ignore (or use for their divide-and-rule practices). Younger generations keep falling for fallacies. When you don't have power and leverage, bait-and-switch is what you get. Older Americans had leverage with private sector labor unions but corruption and multiculturalism wrecked many unions. Public sector unions still have considerable leverage, but they are even more prone to corrupting influences.

Many individuals from the Lost Generation, GI Generation, and Silent Generation got a raw deal, especially chronically disabled veterans, not to mention from the austerity of the Great Depression. The biggest problems aren't generational. The bigger issue is the groupthink fanaticisms of various elite factions across generations, the casual treatment of the rest of us as mere means to their own arbitrary, horrendous ends.

Downwardly mobile individuals should look at the bigger pictures over time rather than simply comparing themselves with their parents. Parents and their friends are a small sample and unrepresentative sample of a cohort.

No one should convert to cultural Marxism simply because Putnam other social scientists made mistakes in survey research. The overwhelming majority of evidence against cultural Marxism comes from other areas.

Friday, August 10, 2018

Flawed Studies Claim Multilingualism Is Better

In recent years, social scientists published a flurry of studies touting the cognitive superiority of being multilingual because of direct multilingual affects on the brain.

Most multilingual individuals fall into two general categories: many speak one language at home and live in societies where another language dominates. They pick up both languages as young children without much conscious effort because young children evolved to easily pick up languages. Other multilingual individuals are higher in IQ, wealth, conscientiousness, and education level than the societies they live in. They learned additional languages, often through media, schooling, and more effort. Even in poor countries, the children of cognitive elites tend to be multilingual, often having English as a second language. Of such studies I could easily obtain and control F, the words IQ, conscientiousness, and educational level were nowhere.

To some extent, knowing additional languages helps international workers and travelers earn more money. In other words, income and multilingualism mutually cause each other for some individuals. Some jobs require multilingualism.

But unless social scientists tease out results due to IQ, conscientiousness, educational level, and other potential causal factors, such direct cognitive benefit studies are worthless.

Sunday, August 5, 2018

Avoiding Industries Devoted to Cultural Marxism

Major corporations are predictably anti-white because a) low skill, short term profit seeking industries pursue downward labor costs, no matter whether migration invasions destroy civilization in the long term, b) other industries seek to avoid boycotts, terrorism, lawsuits, media demonization, and other "activism" by multiculturalists, c) they would rather be greedy and cowardly than ethically courageous and less wealthy, d) groupthink dominates the thinking of most contemporary humans, e) contemporary whites seldom organize for the ethical good of civilization, f) media, finance, software, real estate, and several other industries devoted to parasitism benefit from ever more customers and status competitions despite the costs to others, even in European countries where most migrants are on welfare, g) they benefit from the bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw aspects of multiculturalism.

We end up with advertisements featuring black men, white women, and mixed race children, though in reality, such mixed race families feature single white women or grandparents or siblings taking care of part black children, who grow up supporting genocultural tyranny.

Hollywood and Madison Avenue are ethical opposite world. Whites behave like blacks. Blacks behave like whites. Evil villains in fiction are overwhelmingly white, though sometimes blacks play sympathetic antagonists. In the Hollywood logic of the fictional film Nurse Betty, for example, Betty's white partner, the Faulkneresque named Del, is the evil villain because he spews vicious  insults. The characters played by Chris Rock and Morgan Freeman murder Del and also use slurs, but that's acceptable because they are African-Americans, and Freeman's acting skills lend pseudo gravitas to his characters' poorly reasoned lectures.

How should whites boycott when ethical alternatives are few? Since almost all major corporations are philosophically anti-white, we don't need to carefully pick and choose. Avoid them all when wise:

  1. avoid debts and harmful products that benefit the financial industry. When investing, buy index funds, but if you don't already have index funds, wait until after the next housing and financial crash. Good research consistently suggests index funds outperform actively managed investments.
  2. avoid name brands. The bigger the brand, the more likely they practice anti-white grandstanding. Name brands are overpriced and encourage unethical status competitions. Publicly express your contempt toward status goods. Make it cool to hate corporate products. In the t-shirt and jeans 1970s, for example, it was common to hate on flashy clothing. We should make such attitudes far more prevalent. Mock the greenest lawn in the neighborhood. Ridicule every unethical product mass culture adores. Pursue additional white children rather than status competitions.
  3. buy quality used vehicles and keep them in good shape. Better to give money to white mechanics than mass destructive corporations. Pay cash for vehicles, so you can get by with only liability insurance and avoid helping Joe Lieberman's beloved industries.
  4. move near your job or school to reduce dangerous commutes and oil funded jihads. Walking distance is best.
  5. seek out white professionals. They are far more competent and ethical.
  6. get goods from Freecycle and buy from thrift stores. Many individuals think used goods are gross, but new products often give off harmful volatile substances.
  7. donate to Freecycle and non chain thrift stores in overwhelmingly white areas when products no longer benefit you.
  8. avoid mass media products, especially if you have a Nielsen recording meter. If necessary, borrow such products from libraries and other free or used sources.
  9. plant leaf lettuce and other easy to grow vegetables to reduce reliance on food giants.
  10. be consistent about telling children no. Tell them if they want something, they can buy it with money they earned from a job. Don't take them to stores if they act bratty. Don't give them cell phones and computers. Keep them away from mass media products. Put fact facing books on your bookshelves. If they get bored, tell them to go play or read a book.
  11. use freeware rather than major corporate software.
  12. flirt at stores, churches, meet ups, volunteer groups, and other public places if single. Avoid corporate night clubs and online dating.
  13. prepare for nuclear wars or natural disasters with inexpensive alternatives. Sugar and hardtack last ages but are unhealthy. (Healthy eating probably won't be a big concern for many survivors.) Canned foods last a lifetime or more. Unsweetened canned beans rank among the healthiest foods available and store sales often make them as inexpensive as dry beans.

Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Eugenics, Dysgenics, and the Bizarre Contradictions of Ruling Class Coercion

The ruling classes dominating the West believe they have the right to engage in many forms of harmful coercion, including:

  1. forcing individuals to pay fines for not having health care semi-insurance from corrupt industries, including working individuals unable to afford treatment for their illnesses. "You can't afford treatment? Too bad. Here, pay a fine to not be treated."
  2. sending individuals to fight in mutually destructive wars on behalf of ersatz allies and war profiteering.
  3. stripping whites of self-determination.
  4. having truency laws, forcing children of working poor whites to attend hellish black majority schools.
  5. taxing productive working individuals with regressive state, local, excise, and payroll taxes.
  6. punishing individuals legally, socially or financially for telling the truth about multiculturalism.
  7. forcing white prisoners to live in integrated prisons, where the ruling classes ignore the fact that they will endure millions of sexual and nonsexual assaults from nonwhites.
  8. putting prisoners in solitary confinement, causing massive psychological damage (though the likes of Hannibal Lecter deserve solitary confinement or the death penalty.)

Despite their lofty rhetoric, contemporary establishments often use legal coercion to increase free riding and other harms.

And yet the ruling classes consider massively wrong any form of coercive "negative" eugenics. Men with repeated rape convictions will seldom be surgically sterilized. By eugenics, I mean both genetic improvements to IQ, health, and ethical character or practices that reduce the prevalence of harm causing genes.

Establishments even consider voluntary "positive" eugenics massively wrong despite the fact that every human evil throughout history was partly or mostly the result of dysgenics. Over 100 billion humans have been harmed by dysgenics. Hidden in plain sight, dysgenics remains the world's most massive preventable evil.

Eugenics gets demonized, in part, because several generations ago, some German individuals put a eugenic label on their dysgenic practices. In addition, a few others elsewhere practiced excessively coercive eugenics. But ethical civilizations and conscious, intelligent species cannot be created, or exist in the long term, without eugenics. Dygenics ranks among the worst forms of immoral nihilism. Yes, every establishment thinker and power broker practices colossal nihilism, no matter how friendly they appear in front of television cameras.

Until roughly the Twentieth Century, doctors caused far more harms to patients than benefits, yet anyone demanding the abolition of most medical fields would be rightly regarded as wrong, but few see evil in attempted abolition of eugenics and the mass promotion of dysgenics.

Eugenics ranks among the most cost effective ways to massively improve human lives. A trip to a eugenic sperm bank is often the difference between parents being stuck in 18 plus years of hell or a splendid, loving family life.

Establishments assume without evidence, and in the face of massive counterevidence, that positive eugenics is wrong, yet nevertheless treat the right of the worst individuals on earth to breed as often as they please as absulute and unalienable.

If we had the ethical and political will, we could raise mean IQs in Western countries by over 20 points in less than 100 years, even without expensive gene editing. We could slash the percentage of individuals devoted to egoism, misplaced altruism, and other evils. We could likewise cause the prevelance of genetic illnesses to plummet.

At the very least, the government could fund a chain of massively eugenic sperm banks, using media and schools to promote the hell out of them. Television ads about dysgenics should feature feature screeching, violent children. Other ads should show children throwing tantrums in stores, the types of acts that send shivers down the spines of would be parents. Eugenic ads should feature children peacefully playing and hugging their parents. Some evidence suggests that public information campaigns targeted in the right ways do well.

Not surprisingly, a forthcoming study suggests that much of the variance in parental stress and warmth comes from their childrens' genes. In other words, some kids' genes make their parents' lives hell. Parents and children mutually create downward spirals in their relationships. One counterargument to frequent use of eugenic sperm banks is that men are more violent toward unrelated children, but a major reason is that, in general, individuals who become step dads and step children have terrible genes, cultures, and behavior. Parents who adopt infants with good genes have far fewer problems.

I listed some other eugenic suggestions before.

We waste umpteen trillion dollars every year in direct and opportunity costs promoting dysgenics and massively inefficient environmental interventions to (sometimes) reduce the damage from dysgenics. Political fanaticism is partly a result of dysgenics, including the current mass culture of believing environments are almost all that matter for IQ and character.

To reverse and prevent disasters, we must have massive improvements in gene-culture co-evolution.

Thursday, July 19, 2018

Some Types of Anxiety with Solutions

Ongoing, pathological anxiety: arises when doing the right acts but the anxiety stays.

Ongoing, general anxiety: feeling a vague, frequent anxiety but can't pinpoint specifics.

Social pressure anxiety: anxiety about others' acts or norms influencing you. Social pressure is higher when those with powerful halo effects attempt to manipulate. Occurs, for example, when the cool kids try to pressure you into terrible decisions. Social pressures cause many unwarranted anxieties among nonmulticulturalists.

Imitation contradiction anxiety: often arises when media frame a nonexistent contradiction to look like a contradiction. Example: the bible says love your neighbor as yourself, yet these Christians oppose immigration. Many Christians dismiss the bible as a poor ethical guide. Every prescription in the bible contradicts some other prescription in the bible. The "all things are possible" passage by itself contradicts everything else in the bible. In addition, helping evil spread is not love. Media regularly attempt the you belong to group X, yet you believe things that contradict some doctrines of group X gambit, as if groups have a right to dictate your values. (Not surprisingly, those accusing others of ersatz contradictions live lives riddled with despicable self contradictions.)

Deserved cognitive dissonance: arises when acts or beliefs contradict evidence or each other.

Solutions: The right solution to deserved cognitive dissonance is to change acts and beliefs to fit the evidence. For harmful types of anxiety, make massive improvements in beliefs, actions, and environments. Exercise more or harder. Use strength and interval training. Look for more opportunities to socialize. Eat healthier foods. Take more well-reasoned risks. Take fewer reckless, desperate risks. Act as a person of dignity. Develop a sacredness mindset toward beneficial things. Avoid thinking the grass is always greener or is that all there is? Be grateful for things worth being grateful for. Wanting the wrong things leads to disasters. Many who appear to have superb lives quietly wish they had different lives. Change the things you can and should change. Forget the things you cannot or should not change. Develop a hatred for mass culture products. If you are constantly tempted by corrosive things, up your hatred of those things. Make environments very, very helpful, so that constant exertions of will aren't needed. Drugging yourself or chasing other forms of hedonism is the wrong solution to anxieties. Individuals trying to trick you into hedonism are not true friends.

Let's examine a paradigm case: Ian Jobling. Years ago Jobling, an anxious man, created the now defunct website. Jobling became troubled by some vile thoughts promoted by some nonmulticulturalists. Some nonmulticultural ideologies are good. Hitlerism, KKKism, and some others are evil. Jobling wanted to go back to the multicultural, middle class world. He gave a fallacy filled interview with the Southern Poverty Law Center, denouncing his former beliefs. (a great way to prove to corporate employers that you support cultural Marxism.) Now a logical, ethical person would think: since all known multicultural belief systems are evil and some nonmulticultural beliefs are also evil, I should promote nonmulticultural belief systems that are good and oppose the evil. That's not what Jobling did. Consciously or unconsciously, he let misguided anxieties dictate. But Jobling, apparently, didn't feel anxiety about the SPLC, an organization with a long track record of lies, greed, and other evils. The interview contains numerous anti-white slurs, but apparently, Jobling didn't feel enough anxiety to stop the interview. Jobling had a defective approach to anxiety. Despite being an academic, Jobling behaved with unethical wantonness.

(You can lead academics to logic and ethics, but it's difficult to make them logical and ethical. A selection effect seems to exist where the people wanting to be professional academics are predisposed to being terrible at logic and ethics. Doing right things is more important than careerism.)

Since we feel anxiety for a variety of reasons, anxiety by itself is not a good guide for finding the truth. Anxiety is an often haywire warning system. We should be conscious of what causes our anxieties, especially when dealing with social influences or misweighed evidence.

Friday, July 13, 2018

Homes Versus Borders

Ilya Somin attacks the straw person analogy of houses and borders. But the point immigration fact facers make: it is a contradiction for multiculturalists to support the sanctity of one and not the other. Homes and borders are not analogous. Violating the borders of otherwise ethical individuals by peoples causing long term mass destruction is a worse violation than violating a home. The sanctity of an otherwise ethical person's home may be violated for many reasons, including failing to pay rent, mortgages, and property taxes. Borders should never be violated by worse beings.

"But my home is my castle" is circular or a bad definition, depending on the meaning used for castle.

The other major point: multiculturalists support militarism and cheap labor, plus divide-and-screw politics while shifting the massive costs of harmful invasions onto nonwealthy whites--wrecking lives, schools, nations, careers, freedoms, and neighborhoods--all while multiculturalists try to live far from the low functioning diversity they create.

No right for more harmful peoples to immigrate exists. And no right for more harmful peoples to live in others' homes exists unless they happen to be multiculturalists who refuse to sacrifice while coercing others to pay massive costs.

(The above argument will not sway multiculturalists and their fallacious intuitions but that is irrelevant. Fanaticism is difficult to reform.)

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Out from Under the Killing Moon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outsiders have a better grasp:

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

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

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

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

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

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