Minipedia of Multicultural Contradictions, Part V

1. Media assume that whites must be lying and blacks must be telling the truth despite the fact that blacks commit most ethnoracial hoax crimes and false flag crimes, ignoring the studies that suggest self-reports from blacks are inaccurate.
2. Free riding, empty suit generals and admirals claim diversity increases meritocracy.
3. Rod Dreher, and the other Soren Kierkegaardian practitioners of ethical nihilism, treat unethical religious beliefs as morally more important than 500 million living, breathing whites.
4. Americans spend trillions to export neoconservative values to recalcitrant Muslims, while helping Persian Gulf Sunnis, who rank among the worst beings on Earth, export their horrific values to the West.
5. Free riders, who owe most of their incomes to Westerners, complaining about alleged white privilege.
6. Universities give non-resident tuition waivers to foreign students from wealthy families with worse academic performance than working class native students denied non-resident tuition waivers.
7. Contemporary ruling classes agree that slavery was so evil that multitudes of individuals needed to be slaughtered in the 1800s to stop slavery--while being allied with frenemies in Africa and Southwest Asia who practice slavery and near slavery today.
8. Some multiculturalists claim that Antifa, cancel culture, the deep state, etc. don't exist, then the same multiculturalists cheer when those groups cancel or brutalize whites.
9. Multiculturalists treat humans as having value only if they exist in racially diverse groups or non-white only groups.
10. Twenty percent of blacks had interactions with police in 2015. Twenty percent of blacks self-report that they have been treated unfairly by police the past 30 days.
11. Multiculturalists consider 100 percent non-white groups to have maximum diversity.
12. Multicultural pundits and academics get treated as experts on non-multiculturalists despite their writings on non-multiculturalists being riddled with ad hominem and straw person attacks.
    

Minipedia of Multicultural Contradictions, Part IV

1. Multicultural assimilationists fail to notice that contemporary whites assimilate into non-white values more than non-whites assimilate into Western values.
2. Paul Krugman.
3. Multiculturalists consider unhealthy, impoverished whites more privileged than young, healthy, affirmative action non-whites.
4. Schools and libraries have displays decrying the evils of banning books while having wifi that blocks fact facing websites and employees refusing to buy books that contradict their poorly reasoned agendas.
5. This.
6. Multiculturalists—who control nearly all schools, corporations, mass media, and government entities—act as if they are a besieged minority.
7. Multiculturalists—whose media, schools and corporations spend several hundred billion dollars promoting their world views—gripe about the comparatively miniscule funding of dissenting media.
8. Non-whites act as if they should be granted the right to assault and murder whites why denying the right to self-defense to whites enduring unprovoked assaults.
9. Parasitic Persian Gulf states have per capita incomes larger than Americans defending them.
10. Political check points and road blocks: every case of a person being stopped at those from 2016 until now is a politically motivated felony of unlawful detainment, that is, terrorism. Yet it doesn't get counted in terrorism stats.

Minipedia of Multicultural Contradictions, Part III

1. Multiculturalists believe never let a crisis go to waste, meaning when multiculturalists create disasters, they regularly repeat that others deserve blame and pretend their disasters are evidence for their agendas, as is happening right now as they blame others for Afghanistan and demand more disastrous interventions and power for themselves.
2. Multicultural rulers demand ever greater sacrifices from non-wealthy whites while sacrificing almost nothing themselves. In fact, they benefit from the bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw multiculturalism.
3. From George Will to Thomas Friedman and Leonard Pitts, zero percent of Pulitzer Prize winning multiculturalist opinion writers deserved the award. Same for MacArthur genius grants.
4. Non-white countries receive almost no criticism from multiculturalists for having ethnoracial based citizenship laws.
5. Taleb.
6. Oligarchic, anti-white, neoconservative New Democrats tell pollsters they have no respect for oligarchic, anti-white, neoconservative Republicans.
7. Multiculturalists claim they will move to Canada because of political acts they oppose. Shouldn't they move to Haiti, Africa or Southwest Asia to get more to the vibrant diversity they use totalitarian coercion to force on non-wealthy whites?
8. The subhumanization of whites: European Parliament President Martin Schulz: “For me, the new Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.”
9. Multiculturalists alternate between bragging about eliminating whites and calling white elimination a "conspiracy theory."

Minipedia of Multicultural Contradictions, Part II

1. Multiculturalists excoriate US imperialism. But the United States is more like a colony than imperial power. Wealthy individuals who have nearly all the power over the United States are citizens in a legalistic sense, not a moral sense. Many are not citizens in a legalistic sense. The kings and princes of Saudi Arabia have more influence over US policies than millions of United States working class citizens. Billionaires living in the United States pay few taxes as a percentage of their ill gotten incomes. Those that renounce their legalistic citizenship face few punishments. Imperialism is rule by an emperor or a country controlling other countries or peoples. The United States does not legally control other countries. Nor does it indirectly control countries. Puerto Rico and other territories would be granted Independence if they demanded it. Contemporary Trade practices are rigged against the United States. The most imperialistic part of the United States is refusing to grant self-determination to natives. But multiculturalists oppose that.
2. Feign woke or go broke at the short term individual level. Be woke and go broke at the long term societal level.
3. Judges overturn laws, claiming the motives of white lawmakers were bad, regardless of the laws' merits. Does that mean most laws made by multiculturalists should be overturned because their motives are atrocious?
4. Racial egalitarians support equality in practice only when it coincides with their perceived self-interests.
5. Western ruling groups support both oligarchal sharia and oligarchal neoconservatism, wasting lives and trillions of dollars when the two conflict and when the two agree.
6. When they have the money to do so, white multiculturalists move far from the low functioning diversity they use totalitarian government coercion to force on non-wealthy whites.
7. Multiculturalists oppose ethically accurate stereotyping while promoting their false, unethical stereotypes.
8. Multiculturalists disparage Western values while promoting worse afro-semitic values.
9. Multiculturalists excoriate colonialism by whites but support or whitewash  worse colonialism by people of color.
10. Multicultural economists believe their iron law of supply and demand somehow doesn't apply when migrants reduce working class wages.

Minipedia of Multicultural Contradictions, Part I

Having ethical contradictions matters big time--in a terrible way. Multiculturalism, like all other evil ideologies, is riddled with them. My new project: providing a resource of multicultural contradictions.

1. Multiculturalists deny self-determination to whites, copts, tibetans, and some other groups, while extolling self-determination for others, despite the fact that those others have worse ethical track records.
2. Multiculturalists claim open borders will unleash massive untapped, beneficial creativity and brain power. Roughly: if a country has a mean IQ of about 80 and a standard deviation of about 12.5, a mere one in 30,000 citizens will have an IQ at or above a somewhat smart 130, four standard deviations above the country's mean. Most countries with mean IQs below 90 have zero citizens with IQs above 160. A large percentage of the higher IQ fraction in poor countries consists of totalitarian free riders, not the sort of people who should come to the West to prey on cuckish, altruistic, xenocentric whites. The remainder do important work in productive fields such as medicine and engineering, an ill affordable brain drain. Migrants and their descendents from higher mean IQ China specialize in espionage and anti-white activities, a creative but terrible brain power.
3. "National conversations" about ethnoracial issues include only anti-white Marxists, anti-white New Democrats, anti-white Libertarians, and anti-white neoconservatives.
4. The alleged protectors of Western Civilization protections against multiculturalism are harmful bait-and-switch dog whistles.
5. Whites who deny jobs to other whites, to increase opportunities for less qualified non-whites, almost never donate their own jobs to people of color.
6. Multiculturalists condemn non-multiculturalists for judging non-whites by their skin colors. Since Frank Salter, the Dalai Lama, and few others are the only prominent or semi-prominent non-whites to not be anti-white, judging non-whites by skin color is darn accurate. Non-multiculturalists are willing to make exceptions for the few non-whites who aren't anti-white, as they do for Frank Salter and the Dalai Lama.
7. The worse the multiculturalists, the greater their total fertility rates.
8. By falsely claiming to have been called racial slurs, non-whites increasingly get away with numerous crimes. In other cases, they treat being offended as a right to fine, assault, imprison, and murder whites. Being offended by a thing is irrelevant to whether the thing is good or bad.
9. "To be white is to be racist, period."
10. Ethnic studies lionize non-whites while whiteness studies demonizes whites.
11. Exactly zero percent of our highly paid multicultural thought leaders is a knowledgeable policy expert.

The Benefits and Harms of the Lab Leak Conclusion

The potential benefits:

1. As with almost every evil created by entrenched contemporary establishments, the pathogen alteration industry has carried on with little reform. The somewhat probable truth of the Covid19 lab leak conclusion creates more leverage to close many labs.

2. The truth has value in itself. Because nearly all establishments are dominated by individuals devoted to unethical egoisms and often outright psychopathy, they deluge us with falsehoods and other fallacies. Other individuals get jaded or lazy, becoming less willing to reason accurately. Devotion to truth seeking must be both willed and habitual. China's ruling classes, with monetary assistance from US ruling groups, have probably committed negligent homicide numbering in the tens of millions, no matter the origins of covid-19. The Chinese government engaged in a massive cover-up. They shuttered intra-China travel from covid-19 hotspots while permitting international travel from covid-19 hotspots.

3. The somewhat probable lab leak is another logical nail in the coffins of globalism and multiculturalism.

4. Supporters of evils by Western ruling classes habitually respond to claims they consider offensive with a deluge of ad hominem attacks, straw person claims, small samples, and other fallacies. People who care more whether something offends them than the moral truth almost always support totalitarianism, habitually demonizing those with the temerity to contradict their fallacies. A few of these individuals might now experience cognitive dissonance over their prior knee-jerk responses with r-slurs and conspiracy theory distortions.

The potential harms: China starts a super war or does other aggressive acts because their ruling classes are so thin skinned they can not tolerate criticism on important issues from thousands of miles away. The probability and expected value of this is tiny. Aggressive ruling classes almost always spew pretexts for their evils that have little to with their real reasons for doing evils: sadism, egoism, dysgenics, groupthink, kakistocracy, overconfidence, salami slicing, excessive power, dark triad traits, high-unstable self-esteem, and manufacturing belief with frequent repetition. Face value self-reported motivations by ruling classes should almost never be believed. Chinese ruling classes have committed billions of evils over the past several generations, almost always with fallacious pretexts. Paradoxically, outside ruling groups willingly excoriate China over far less important issues.

Median Household Racial Stats Mislead

Ruling class thinkers point out the alleged horror that the median white household has a much larger income and wealth than the median black household. 

But using medians to compare households is usually inaccurate because of large demographic differences.

Black households around the black median rent and have one working adult, often a single parent. White, Jewish, and Asian households around their medians have homes and two working adults. Hence the big gaps. Households with two working adults earn far more than households with one working adult.

The median white household has most of their wealth tied up in a home. Contemporary houses are poor investments. They extract large costs in interest, insurance, repairs, property taxes, and real estate prices. (But hey, people have to live somewhere. And property taxes tend to be wasted on overpriced schools that teach social Marxism and other worse than worthless subjects.) Multitudes of affordable working class and middle class white neighborhoods were ruined by the multicultural, real estate, and financial industries over the past 60 years.

If social Marxism continues its relentless advance, the median white household will one day be an individual adult or single parent. The median White household income and wealth will plummet to near the black level.

Medians are more accurate for comparing individuals, provided we adjust for relevant factors, including age, IQ, laziness, spending habits, criminality, education level, educational field, conscientiousness, job preferences, job experience, local cost of living, etc.

Not Falling for Specious Arguments

How should we logically and ethically weigh an extremely clever, specious argument from an economics expert, even if like myself, we have no formal training in economics? To wit: Noah Smith's argument that recent migrants do not lower wages, meaning the wages of natives. Below are quotes from Smith's argument. I left out most of Smith's irrelevancies, circular claims, and other fallacies for copyright reasons. Some of my comments are in parentheses because I can't do brackets on my phone.

"No one is going to be persuaded by this post (persuasion is irrelevant)." Polls suggest significant variation in immigration views from year to year.

"First, people don’t really believe social science evidence. It took years and years of empirical research — solid results, almost all pointing in the same direction — just to shift academic economists’ opinions on the effects of minimum wage (irrelevant to immigration)." Most social science studies aren't evidence, especially pro-multiculturalist studies. Surprisingly, Smith portrays economists as having closed minds while also treating them as the top experts on immigration issues. The views of Marxian, libertarian, and neoliberal economists all massively contradict each other, and more important, massively contradict reality. Economists in some European countries, where most migrants receive welfare or engage in free riding occupations, preposterously tell pollsters that migrants are not lowering wages of natives.

"The average person, not being an academic economist, has even less of an idea of how reliable social science research is (false claim)."

"Second, in my experience (small sample), anti-immigration people (irrelevant ad hominem) are completely set in their belief that immigration should be restricted (false claim). It’s their fixed north star (false analogy). The justifications change — Lower wages! Environmental destruction! Brain drain! Rule of law! Cultural change! (straw person, good reasons are additive and there are far more) — but the policy conclusion never wavers (false claim).

"So this post isn’t going to persuade anti-immigration people (irrelevant ad hominem) to change their stance, and it’s probably not going to persuade (irrelevant) many normies (irrelevant ad hominem) to be up in arms about the need to let in more immigrants, either. But it’s still important to write (false claim), and not just because I’m a stubborn S.O.B. who will die face-down in the muck fighting for The Empirical Evidence (false claim). It’s because in another 20 years or so, when America’s current freakout (straw person) over identity and nationhood has passed, we’re hopefully going to be ready to let in a bunch of immigrants again."

"Most people think of labor markets as determined by supply and demand (straw person). This is actually not a great model of the labor market in general (straw person, it is better than alternatives offered)."

"A positive labor supply shock pushes wages down. A positive labor demand shock pushes up wages. Maybe one of those effects is a little bigger; maybe the other. But they’re going to mostly cancel out (false claim)."

"And to see why this is true, just think about babies. Each new generation is bigger than the one that came before it. If those young people were just a labor supply increase, then as population went up, wages would go down. But obviously that’s not what happens, because young people also buy stuff, which pushes up labor demand, which pushes wages back up (false analogy and missing quantification)."

"Immigrants are just babies from elsewhere (false analogy)."

"As you might expect, economists have done quite a lot of research on the question of whether immigration lowers wages. It’s not the kind of thing where you can just wave your hands and... conclude that the former causes the latter... just a few reasons you can’t just look at overall correlations: Immigrants may compete with some groups of native-born workers more than others; for example, less-educated immigrants might compete mainly with native-born workers without a high school degree (no good reason to use the word may here)."

"Second, they try to compare places that get immigrants with places that don’t, but which are otherwise similar in all economic respects (false claim)." This is why all the pro migration studies are junk. Economists ignore dozens of long-term indirect factors, factors they consider offensive, and so on. They ignore IQ, faulty measures, unrepresentative sampling, character traits, economic effects of cultural changes, the low productivity of some migrant groups far more numerous descendants, and so on. Those groups' descendants then get counted as part of the native population in future junk science. It is extremely important to know whether the descendants of migrants will cause genocides, subjugation, totalitarianism, civil wars, societal collapse or massive amounts of legalized corruption. The historical track record of diversity is atrocious.

Smith does not stick to the wage issue. He raises the irrelevant issue of whether contemporary migration is good in general, treating the wage issue as if it decides the immigration issue, leaving out other  important issues, especially issues more important than the wage issue. Smith lists the junk science, some of it relevant to unemployment but not the wage issue. 

Smith never mentions productivity.

If an immigrant group, and far more important, their much less productive descendants, are less productive than the native population but disproportionately get hiring quotas, receive welfare benefits, and enter into multitudes of other free riding activities, they will almost certainly lower the median and mean hourly compensations of native populations, along with living standards. It's important to know the rates of Machiavellianism, psychopathy, evolutionary egoism, psychological egoism, unethical egoism, and other traits among differing ethnoracial groups, but that would be too offensive to know or mention. Immigration also turns native populations into worse and less productive people than they would otherwise be. Many immigrant groups become far worse as their power and numbers increase. A decades-old study tells us little about how ethnoracial groups will behave 50 years from now when they have more power.

There is also an ever decreasing quality in the character of ethnoracial groups entering the US, but they are all just lumped together as immigrants by Smith.

To weigh arguments, we should give no weight to fallacies and compare the relevant good points from various sides. Unfortunately, for Smith's argument, it contains no good points and thus no evidence despite his claims to the contrary. It matters little whether he has a dozen or 50 dozen evidence-free junk science studies to cite. We should not fall for rhetorical tricks no matter how clever. The long-term consequences for present societies' rampant glib, craven, and anti-reason views on dysgenic and multicultural issues will be disastrous for hundreds of future generations.

An Extremely Brief Guide to Current American Political Parties

Democratic Party: plutocratic globalism, multiculturalism, totalitarianism, and super neoconservatism. Democrats took the lead in neoconservatism by trying to start a super war over Russiagate exaggerations. Liberal interventionism and liberal democracy are merely euphemisms for neoconservatism.

Republican Party: super plutocratic globalism, multiculturalism, totalitarianism, and neoconservatism. Civic nationalism and American nationalism (Amnat) are also euphemisms for neoconservatism.

Libertarian Party: super plutocratic globalism, multiculturalism, totalitarianism, and stealth neoconservatism. Those who tolerate or support legalized bribery and control of the mass media by neoconservatives are stealth neoconservatives, no matter how they claim to oppose neoconservative militarism in their periodicals. Policies matter more than platitudes.

Green Party: multiculturalism, stealth communism.

Constitution Party: Republican party with more Yahweh and Tea Party stuff, including the elimination of social security.

Justice Party: more willing to reform plutocratic economics than the Greens but also has tendencies towards communism.

Reform Party: Yes, the party that Ross Perot made famous still exists. For specifics, the party insists it plans to "stop illegal immigration" and "get us out of NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA and the WTO now." Plus a balanced budget scheme, causing nightmarish austerity during depressions and recessions. Also some plans to fight corruption.

American Freedom Party: hard to tell. Could be a bait-and-switch party supporting Hitlerism. But at least their platform is semi-decent, albeit vague. It does claim to support self-determination universalism. Party members supported Trump in 2016, massively contradicting their platform.

National Justice Party: a few weeks old. Too soon to tell but does not look promising.

How evil are the establishment parties? They have been working to incite an anti-white civil war for the past several months, to distract the populace from establishment evils--classic divide-and-screw behavior. They expect unemployed gig workers, the formerly self-employed, recent graduates, part time workers, and millions of others ineligible for unemployment compensation to live until the corona crises ends on the $1,200 they received months ago.