Their Interest Is in Harming Us

Theresa May, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, talks interests:

"But nor can we afford to stand idly by when the threat is real and when it is in our own interests to intervene. We must be strong, smart and hard-headed. And we must demonstrate the resolve necessary to stand up for our interests.

"And whether it is the security of Israel in the Middle East or Estonia in the Baltic states, we must always stand up for our friends and allies in democratic countries that find themselves in tough neighbourhoods too," she said, to applause from her audience.

When establishment people start talking about the interests of the West, they're not talking about helping us or preventing harms. They're talking about the helping anti-Western individuals, including themselves, who sometimes happen to have mailing addresses in the West. And the same often applies to magazines with misleading names such as The National Interest and The American Interest.

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

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

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

What Is Neoliberalism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas Sowell: a Mixed Legacy

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

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

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

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

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

Getting Serious About Defending Speech Freedoms

When multiculturalists and their allies demand ever increasing fines, firings, imprisonments, and other punishments for thought crimes, Westerners increasingly either agree with the totalitarianism or offer milquetoast defenses of free speech, often repeating the slurs spewed by the multiculturalists, as if to say, "I hate #@#$, too, but we have this free speech thing for the time being."

Instead, a more robust defense of free speech must be argued, explaining why free speech is crucial and why multiculturalism causes mass destruction to speech freedoms and ethical societies.

A you first reply should be adopted. Those who demand punishments for "hate speech" should be told they should fire or arrest themselves and their allies first before they fire or arrest anyone else. Most establishment thinkers have spewed multitudes of anti-white slurs (big*t, r*cist, far r*ght, white tr*sh, white suprem*cist, etc.) When such writers demand arrests for whites for telling ethnoracial truths, we should demand they make an citizen's arrest of themselves first for their far worse rhetoric.

IQ Paradoxes in Warped Cultures

Individuals with extra low IQs receive compassion, protected by paternalism from states and families, for example, victims of Down Syndrome. But, oddly, individuals with IQs somewhat above that receive unmitigated contempt, especially if white, as if they were escapees from the set of Deliverance. The latter groups are sometimes worse off than the former, having few individuals to look out for them, often having severe behavioral problems. In both cases, they suffer from genes and environments they have little control over.

Yet establishment leaders keep working to make dysgenics and environments worse.

Hard working overachievers also face unexpected problems. They may choose a career beyond their IQ capabilities or other capabilities. Thanks to grade inflation and the college for everyone dogma, many ex-students end up fired or unhired, burdened by unused degrees and miseducation debt peonage. A would be scientist, for example, could find and mechanically memorize solutions to three dimensional wave equations (the internet contains many solutions manuals) while having little understanding of three dimensional wave equations. Despite the explosion in staff and costs, few individuals at colleges care about about the long-term interests of students. I don't know which is worse: administrators financially taking advantage of naive 18-year-olds or educators believing that almost any formal education is good education, especially non-vocational formal educations.

Some students may think their six figure educations are a ticket to the middle class, only to be undone in unexpected ways, being unattractive or performing poorly during job interviews, for example.

The pro-austerity, pro-parasitism, and pro-cultural Marxism policies of Republicans and Democrats add to the carnage

Students would often be better off performing an internship or apprenticeship before spending massive sums on careers they end up hating or failing to find employment in.

No one will sit down with students and say, "I love you, sister, but this career is beyond your capabilities to perform well. It's not a good fit for you." Instead, people tell students to follow their dreams and you can be good at anything if you work hard enough at it, then telling students if you're not good at it, you must work harder.

The brain regions responsible for scam skepticism deteriorate in elderly individuals, yet few powerful individuals do anything to prevent rampant scamming, leaving many elderly citizens destitute. Instead, leaders promote the scams.

Environmental semi-determinism and free will exaggerations rank highly among the causes. Maybe humans are capable of free will, but if so, humans do so on rare occasions. Most daily actions are driven by habits and other intuitions, especially among lower IQ individuals. Many individuals who fanatically dismiss genetic causes in the social world, nevertheless accept genetic facts when diagnosed with a genetically caused physical illness, that is, when their own health is at stake.

The future will be neither ethically easy nor pretty.

War and Multicultural Peace

Just fighters often view unhelpful wars as worthwhile simply because justice is on their side, ignoring the individuals wounded or sacrificed and disregarding that a much better solution would have avoided the war.

Multiculturalists, especially, don't care whether their side engages in aggression. They care about winning and that their allies get labeled as victims.

In war, hate and vengeance escalate on various sides, no matter which side is more just or less wrong. Unjust sides seldom suddenly decide they were wrong all along.

Wars among super powers likely will escalate into nuclear wars. Too many individuals are infatuated with Hollywood and military establishment notions of conventional warfare, paying little more than lip service to the dangers of nuclear and biological warfare.

The "world's only super power" phrase seems less common now.

Good.

The nation with the world's most powerful nuclear arsenal is a super power, unless many of Russia's nukes are defective.

For generations, the rulers of what is now called Russia have played by their own rules, violating most international treaties they signed, obeying the treaties when it was in their perceived interest to do so. The proper response to these violations is to be wiser, not agitate for war. Remember too, that Western leaders frequently violate ethical rules and constantly choose actions harmful to the people they rule over. Ethical violations are far more important than international agreements. International law consists largely of poorly reasoned pieces of paper signed by rulers with no business being in power.

Like many other nonwhite nations and some white nations, China prefers to pursue unfair trade. Humans are loss averse. Losing $400 from a pockets irks us far more than missing an opportunity to gain $400. Chinese leaders get outraged at anything Western nations do to decrease unfair trade. That's another point against so-called free trade. If the West avoided trade with China all along, China would not become nearly as outraged at never having lost something they now view as an absolute right. China will pursue mercantilism and espionage until almost every important industry is in their hands. If the West avoided Japan and Japan's mercantilism, nearly 30 million individuals would not have been murdered by Japan between 1931 and 1946.

China is now the world's largest industrial power. If China wanted, China could build umpteen thousand fusion bombs.

Many note that diversity plus proximity creates wars.

Another important factor is salience. It is better to lie in the bushes and be unnoticed than to be a hamfisted, multicultural empire. Distant, powerful rulers seldom rant about the leadership in Uruguay. Many can't find Uruguay on a map.

Multicultural writers like to blame nationalism for many, if not most, ills because it suits establishment agendas of unethical egoism and anti-white genocide. But states engaging in aggression tend to be multicultural empires with rampant bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw oligarchism, so empires, unethical egoism, misplaced altruism, and lack of self-determination are bigger issues. Almost every ruler pretends to be a nationalist in times of crises, even globalists seeking global conquest. Soviet leaders appealed to Mother Russia to save themselves.

Any nation state without ethical nationalism gets conquered by others devoted to genetic or unethical egoism or, most often, both, whether by military means, demographic methods or ideological tactics or all three. Non-aggressive, non-free riding nationalism is a good. Globalists and other multiculturalists support aggression and free riding by themselves and their allies. Not surprisingly, they fight any force that opposes their depredations. Without ethical nationalism, nothing would have stopped world conquest by Maoism or Stalinism or Hitlerism or Hirohitoism or various other horrors. Ethical nationalism is the most potent potential force to stop Islam, Randism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism.

Christianity?

Doubtful.

Most of Christianity is now punked by various combinations of Islam, Randism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism. Pope Francis, the leader of the largest Christian denomination, has more thoughts in common with Saul Alinsky than with most white Westerners.

The major problem: letting those prone to unethical egoism take over groups. The bigger and more ethnoracially diverse an empire, the more likely it will be infected by egoism and glory seeking by rulers.

The current Western establishments devote great efforts to indoctrination, especially military, economic, and multicultural indoctrination, an indoctrination made more insidious because it is presented as the result of consumer choice or informed choices, not ruling group Machiavellianism.

Before and during any war, the question of what are we fighting for should immediately arise. Frank Capra made several documentaries devoted to that question during World War II. What would we be fighting for during a war with China or any other super power? A chunk of land that we are currently giving away to Somalis and other unethical peoples? Should we die to save a land from the Chinese when the ruling groups are working to give the country away to far worse peoples?

The people ruling the United States, having minds closed to ethical evidence, act as if they are engaged in a colonial occupation, despising the people they rule over, These rulers should not be trusted to do right for the people because they have track records of doing wrong to the people for several generations. The fact that they wrap themselves in flags representing people they oppose makes them more dangerous, not less.

Consider the fact that for generations our rulers seldom took civil defense seriously for the people. Establishment writers often claimed life wouldn't be worth living after a nuclear war, yet rulers themselves thought otherwise, building underground cities for themselves in the event of nuclear war. Even the Soviets, who murdered tens of millions, provided far more civil defense for their subjugated peoples.

Aggressive foreigners, explicit and de facto, dominate nearly all American mass media. Imagine if whites dominated nearly all the mass media in developing countries. Multiculturalists would scream bloody murder. Yet Americans accept foreign domination as part of the crypto-totalitarian new normalcy. Rupert Murdoch gets the most criticism of the foreign owners, partly because he is worse than most and partly because he ranks among the few whites with massive media power, making him fair game.

What is worth fighting for?

We need new, white religions or quasi-religions devoted to good works, that is, well-reasoned, hard working religions that avoid and punish both egoism and misplaced altruism while rewarding ethical altruism. The so-called universal religions are a catastrophe. Even the best among them eventually evolve in anti-white directions, making them anti-universal, supporting egoism and misplaced altruism.

Let's imagine that the new religions devoted to good works arise. If the existence of God(s) is fantasy, at least we have the good works. If it turns out that supernatural beings are evil and send good individuals to hells, those beings can go eff themselves. Better to be right and ticked off in hell than insipid in pseudo-paradise. Individuals with massive chips on their shoulders will find more purpose in their existences than even the most refined of pleasure seeking individuals.

Boycotts

So we are urged to boycott Kellogg's now on behalf of Breitbart. And what will Breitbart do for us? Would it be too much to ask for Breitbart to actually support white self-determination more than the Republican establishment and various minor issues?

In general, we should boycott most global, multicultural corporations. Avoid the mass media, especially if you have a Nielsen meter. If there is a show you can't bear avoiding, leave the meter in its charging cradle while you watch it in another room. Television ad revenue in the former US is $73 billion in 2016. There are about 70,000 active Nielsen meters, so each meter carried by a boycotter can subtract a huge chunk of money from the mass media. And that's not including radio. When my wife and I did the Nielsen ratings, we watched fewer than one show per month. (I did watch part of a PBS show about logic. Not surprisingly, the show featured Boolean logic, which has little moral relevance, not informal logic.)

Buy more second hand and store brand stuff, though, unfortunately, some store brand stuff comes from global corporations. Many second hand goods are better quality than the new junk at the Walmarts of the world. Quality control at sweatshops seems to be plummeting in recent years.

Fake Centrism

In contemporary empires, the self-styled centrists and moderates rank among the worst human beings, individuals such as Jonathan Alter, David Brooks, Hillary Clinton, Ben Wattenberg, John Kerry, Rand Paul, Tom Friedman, Joe Lieberman, Tyler Cowen, Olympia Snow, Paul Ryan, Harry Reid, Charles Krauthammer.

If you made a list of the most important 100 policy issues, the individuals who try to position themselves as centrists are right or close to right on probably less than five percent of them. And by right, I mean their actual policy positions and the long-term consequences of those policies, not policies they pretend to support for grandstanding reasons. For example, someone who claims to support punishing Wall Street crimes, but supports legalized bribery, does not support punishing Wall Street crimes. Wall Street bribes their way out of punishments when Wall Street is able.

A goal of the democratic and republican establishments is to indoctrinate the population with the view that their corrupt behaviors are centrist and moderate, then trying to tar every else as some form of fascism or communism.

If Ferdinand Pecora and Dwight Eisenhower were around today, they would both be demonized as too far out.

Some might tell me to look at the Barack Obama campaign promises kept website and the goodness of those promises kept. I have. Few of Obama's worthwhile promises kept would make the 1000 most important issues. And Obama is wrong on some of those promises kept. That is a major problem with pretend centrism. They are bribed on all the important issues. They trumpet trivial reforms, where no major interest groups exist to bribe them. When Bush and Obama both created large Pacific ocean nature preserves, there were no billionaires with much interest in the issue. If some individual or industry were earning several billion per year overfishing those areas, those preserves would not have happened.

They Called It Civic Nationalism

So-called civic nationalism is slower multiculturalism. Civic nationalism merely postpones the date the last white will take his or her last breath by a few decades, a way for establishments to prolong the grift and better manage the decline until they and their loved ones die of old age.

The phrase civic nationalism is euphemistic and inaccurate. At the very least a civic minded nationalism must:

1. oppose almost all inward migration by racial outgroups.
2. oppose ethnoracial based affirmative action and other advantage taking by outgroups.
3. prevent racial ingroups from population declines.
4. try to avoid self-destructive and mutually destructive military activities.
5. prevent divide-and-screw oligarchism.

None of the above applies to Putin or anyone else commonly labeled a civic nationalist.