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.