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.
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Politics, lobbying, 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.
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.
Politics, lobbying, 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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)