Thursday, August 30, 2007

For Each Point of IQ Divergence, Upwards or Downwards, Those Further Divergent, Have Greater Incentive to Push for Freedom-For-Aggression...

...but for very different reasons. The high-end outliers are frustrated by democracy, facts of reality which can't be obliviated by reconceptualizing an elegant theory, and perhaps their own personal incongruities relative to what can go over with the multitude. For each point further out that they are, they will tend to feel it more acutely that they have the answers; that utopia can be stormed with allowance of enough freedom for official aggression, forcefully removing obstacles to their cardboard character notion of a theoretically ideal state. The bourgeoisie is more likely to then be seen as the major obstacle, while the poor and the retarded are more likely to be regarded as allies in the push for freedom-for-aggression, and increasingly so for each point of IQ divergence, in BOTH directions away from the middle. The retarded, for each point of IQ down that they are, have greater incentive to shift status competition towards ruthless and self-destructive violence, but at all events away from contests where the higher-IQ tend to dominate, and this means wanting more freedom-for-aggression for each point down. Now we have a common ground between the high and low, against the middle. The high end need maximal aggression to force through the elegant and purified, yet democratically non-comestible, theoretical approach. Does all this illuminate how it is that the Left everywhere is a coalition of the high school dropouts and the PhD's, or the high and low of conceptual ability?

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

'They will assimilate' Is a Deceitful Equivocation...

Proving this: 'they will assimilate' is utterly different from 'they will assimilate and we will not become at all more like them'. The consensus is that assimilation of any large numbers is always two-way; but the above equivocation treats the meaning of assimilation, at the same time, and in the same respect, as both the correct meaning and an absurd triumphalistic one.

Monday, August 27, 2007

Islamic Immigration is Not Known to be Compatible with the Continuity of the Advancement of Civilization

The burden of proof in this case is clearly on those who approve significant immigration of the Islamic kind, since they advocate a great change in what exists and has existed. Those doubting that assimilation can ever be all one way, when large numbers are involved, have the defensible position. Those who imply that Islam is so backward and weak that it cannot hold the loyalty of its own, who have moved to more advanced societies, have a position so weak that it cannot even be explicitly stated. Therefore, the conclusion should be drawn, that such large immigration must make the more advanced more like the more backward, and there will be less progress than otherwise would have been allowed-for, with a huge opening for an actual backsliding, where past improvements of knowledge and technique are lost.

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Faux-News Items From 50 and 100 Years Ago are Reported to Break Down Loyalty

We're told of an old lynching or a 100-year old race riot, not from whimsy, but to damage the loyalty which citizens have towards each other. The nation cannot mean less than that we owe loyalty to fellow citizens over against the foreigner, whose entry inside the borders raises the level of aggression here. The propaganda to the effect that America is evil has the purpose of breaking down this exact loyalty. To test the truth of this, observe in which contexts the propagandistic anti-American items are brought up, then ask them whether this means we don't owe loyalty to citizens over foreigners. Also consider the meaning of wanting people to feel that their nation is wrong by its very identity, and that the least that this identity can mean is the particular loyalty as described above. The left and the moderate right would seem to have long since concluded that resistance to aggrandizement of power is genetic, so that their only hope for a solid tyranny is to change the population by immigration or differential breeding of the tyrant-tolerant subgroups.
Additionally from an earlier post:
When Negative Facts from American History are Brought Up, This Must Now be Interpreted Also in a New Way
Whatever happened in the faraway past, all of us still owe loyalty to fellow citizens over against the foreigner. Events from far back are brought up so as to cause this loyalty to break down. It is often done this way, not only relative to foreigners, but also relative to the net taxpayer versus those on net public subsidy here, citizens or otherwise. When a journalist, professor or official brings up some lynching from 100 years ago, apropo of absolutely nothing, the first question must now be what loyalty is he trying to release himself or others from, by mentioning some remote incidents?

Friday, August 24, 2007

Every Disaffinity Has the Right to Freedom-From-Aggression...

...but the left and the moderate right do not acknowledge this.
The left especially, is not about to acknowledge any such rights, since that would mean giving up their best rhetorical trick. The way it works, is to choose issues so as to allow for attempted smearing of opponents, as being motivated solely by hatred against some group which is easy to hate or look down on. If, after more than forty years of this, the right still does not know that it is then necessary to point out that attempted smearing is being used, in the place of a rational argument, that same smearing method will be used over and over.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Voltaire's Definition of Liberty as: 'Only the Power of Acting' is Self-Contradictory and Subservient to Aggression

By not distinguishing between freedom-for-aggression and freedom-from-aggression, the above definition places itself outside of politics as the ethics of aggression; failing to acknowledge any difference, ethical or essentially political, between the constraint on aggression and desirable liberty. At the same time and in the same respect, though, the definition given by Voltaire and others since, is meant to be political. Therefore, such a definition is self- contradictory. Beyond that is the subservience to aggression shown by including it within the definition of liberty which is to be desired in the political realm. Locke says: 'to have only the law of nature for his rule', and this is very different from the approach of Voltaire, which, by placing aggression on a plane of equality with non-aggression, leads to the explosion of mass-murder, reigns of terror growing ever-larger, even for centuries, which has resulted from multiplying the worship of aggression through the government schools.
Added 7-9-08 Comparing American 18th century founding ideas:
How Did America Come To Have So Much More Freedom From Official Aggression?
This was the one country where the very smartest people believed, and would even conspire to establish it as the basic law that:"all men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree", as said James Madison July 11, 1787. Elsewhere and later, the idea was that power could be entrusted, if one had the brightest urging the theory that needed only to be forced one time. The founders here did not value openness to the gratification of power-greed, but were at pains to close openings by which it might enter.

Monday, August 20, 2007

Islamic Immigration has become Another Reductio ad Absurdum of the Anti-Discrimination Regime

Wanting to import and redevelop the Wars of Religion, and calling this a way of having government move against discrimination, is a gross absurdity. The contradictions-in-terms are as follows: we must work against discrimination even to the extent of discriminating against those who discriminate, and, at the same time, and in the same respect, we must not discriminate against those who discriminate, such as Islamic immigrants being brought in, in large numbers. More importantly though, the government uses aggression to push for anti-discrimination in many ways, and it continually increases the level of aggression used in this way, by bringing in more of those who are the special protected classes of anti-discrimination policies.

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Mass Immigration of Affirmative-Action Quota-Eligibles is a Manifest Evil to Continuity of the Advancement of Civilization

Each such cohort, just in arriving, causes further randomization of the information which merit standards give rise to. To further randomize this information, so far as its integrity is necessary for continuing the advancement of knowledge in significant degree, is an evil to that all-important continuity. Each increment of damage to that continuity increases the risk of something worse than a slowdown of this sort of progress, a backward slide.

Saturday, August 18, 2007

With Regard to Loyalty Such as May be Commanded, Civilization is Lacking in Attributes of Sovereignty, Except...

...that loyalty to the several nations which largely comprise it can, between them, add up to it. One is loyal to the citizenry of one's nation, at the very least, relative to foreigners whose entry raises the level of aggression within the boundaries of that nation. That minimum may be commanded to the extent of making resident aliens of citizens who refuse to give it. Beyond this, the loyalty to the continuity of the advancement of civilization, as an attempt at consistency in our accounts of what exists and a series of obstacles to freedom-for-aggression, may be seen to follow. To follow, that is, from the loyalty to citizens otherwise subject to aggression from outside, and from a literate development of attempts at consistency. From the above considerations, a remarkably un-cosmopolitan conclusion would follow: one cannot have loyalty to civilization, unless one first has loyalty to fellow citizens over against the foreigner, who increases the level of aggression upon some of these, to whom loyalty is owed, as through the nation, but not otherwise.
Mindful of the experience of Holland and Belgium where refugees had choked the roads and prevented their own forces from engaging the enemy, the advice was to stay put until told to evacuate an area.(11) Sonia Tomara, New York Tribune (14th June, 1940):
Refugees blocked the road by trying to get past the main line of cars, thus interfering with oncoming traffic.[...] We saw thousands of cars by the roadsides, without gasoline or broken down.[...] After three nights and two days we had made only seventy miles.
Fleeing Hitler: France 1940by Hanna Diamond -four million refugees joined nearly two million Belgians and 150,000 Dutch and Luxembourgeois who had been in flight since the Germans’ first attack, on May 10. //
there are soon up to 8 millions civilians on the roads of France, which is not without bothering the French – British military manoeuvres.
// The 5th Division in G.H.Q. reserves was moving up to the Senne, having now to stem an almost overwhelming stream of refugees flooding westwards.Streams of refugees added greatly to the danger and difficult of their task, making it impossible to close road blocks or prevent espionage. It was doubtless the difficulty of maintaining communications and control which led General Beauman to issue instructions that troops would hold on 'as long as any hope of successful resistance remained' and that 'Brigade commanders will use their discretion as regards withdrawal' which was to be 'to and across the Seine'.[36]...the B├ęthune behind them.[3] Withdrawal began during the night and, although greatly hampered and considerably delayed by congestion of refugee and other traffic on the roads, was duly completed." Axis History Forum Index » The Allies & the Neutral States » The Belgian's fought bravely ( May 1940): " more than one million Belgians (most of them on foot, as cars and horses had been requisitioned by the different armies) had become refugees. News of what happened at Vinkt would cause an additional one million to flee south or even west. By the middle of June, according to Red Cross figures, 30% of the Belgian population had left the country.
Arriving near the bridge on May 25, the German 225th Division, consisting mostly of badly trained soldiers from the Hamburg area, found it impossible to cross. They then took 140 civilians hostage and used them as human shields. "The Campaign of the Belgian army in May 1940:For several divisions it meant a retreat of 100 km, which had to be done on bad roads, clogged with refugees, which were their compatriots and who they couldn’t ask to free the roads. As the Belgian army had to take secondary roads, huge traffic jams were the result. At several places it took 24 hours to cover 20km.During the night of the 17th /18th of May all eight divisions on the frontline dislodged and started their retreat. From Blitzkrieg1940- "May 10, the Germans unleashed their Blitzkrieg against the Netherlands and Belgium. The attack sent the defending troops reeling. The roads overflowed with refugees fleeing the front. French and British troops rushing to the rescue were caught in the headlong retreat" "The High Command is mostly in a state of confusion, and civilian refugees are blocking up the roads. The whole plan rests on the strength of the Gembloux position and the ability of the Belgian Army to delay the enemy. Neither has turned out as expected. If they act without delay before this evening, they can still prevent the Dyle plan from being carried out and adopt the Escaut Plan. Only the First Army’s three divisions of motorised infantry are on the move, the rest of the infantry has not yet crossed the frontier. They can still be held back," wrote General Prioux.
At 10 pm Billotte countermands Prioux and insists they stick with the Dyle Plan."12 million people - fleeing soldiers and terrified civilian refugees - are crowding roads out of every city in the north as Panzers race across France and panic grips the country. In Nancy, students working in bomb-proof cellars at the university are being snatched from their end of term exams by worried parents to join the chaotic stream heading west and south - in any direction away from the Germans. The town council has ordered the evacuation of the city, unaware that the enemy is relying on confusion and blocked roads to prevent the French army from re-grouping.

Friday, August 17, 2007

The Era of Mass Killings Correlates So Highly with the Highwater Marks of Leftism, in Regard to Time and Place...

that an almost unspeakably impolitic question must be asked. It must be asked whether leftism is not mass-murder as an end-in-itself. That is, the apologists for, and loyalists of, the massacre-ing leftist regimes, need to be asked whether the murders of millions were not the goals of the left in its radical forms, rather than just means which ran away with themselves.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

New Evidence of Administration Betrayal of Merit and National Security to Pander to Minorities

The Class of 2004 includes 18% (223) minority midshipmen with ethnic backgrounds as follows: ...Hispanics (88)...
The Class of 2011 includes 24.1 % (290) minority midshipmen with ethnic backgrounds as follows:...Hispanics (134)
[] This kind of increase requires deliberate numerical preferences, involving a randomization of the information provided on merit considerations, substituting racial/ethnic ones. That this is done during time of war, surely deserves to be called a betrayal.

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

State Nihilism has Installed Anti-Discrimination as an Anti-Ethics, in the Place Where Real Values Should Be

Anti-discrimination is not a new value system or code of ethics; but a nihilistic replacement for real ones: it is an anti-ethics. Insofar as it is political, anti-discrimination establishes its rule by aggression, and annihilates real values, which involve a requirement for some sort of discrimination. The more a traditional value or ideal would have us discriminate more rather than less, the regime of anti-discrimination tends to subvert and obliterate that value or ideal.

Friday, August 10, 2007

Unspeakable Elite Malice, Assimilation, and Triumphalism so Improbable as to Show No Examples at All

The doctrine of assimilation so prevalent as to have been exposed to no dissent whatever, has it that assimilation is always a two-way process. It would require such an extreme triumphalism to claim that assimilation would sometimes be all one-way, from the dominant host culture to the immigrant one, with no influence at all from immigrants to the pre-existing culture. Therefore, necessarily, there is consensus that mass immigration will make us more like (dirty) Mexico, more like (dysfunctional) Latin America, and more like (the failed societies of) the third world in general. Only unspeakable elite malice could want this, though. The evil of leading elements wanting this sort of change, and to push for it in a way which requires extraordinary subversion of democracy, has to signify malice on the part of such rarefied powerful groups. If there are imposed codes of silence on the mention of such attitudes and where they fester, it is unspeakable malice. May the people become more aware of this unspeakable elite malice against them and their success, and may popular anger multiply a hundred-fold in result.

Thursday, August 9, 2007

Sailer on Putnam's Findings of Increasing Diversity Itself Yielding Negative Results

Since attempted smears are used, where rational arguments were rightly to be expected, what should be suspected? There is no rational argument for increasing diversity as if it were value in itself. Nor is there one for trying to randomize what built up a place, so we get smearing innuendoes instead. As diversity increases in a place, per capita innovation and creativity will tend to decline, not increase. If this were not so, the ancient centers of brilliance could have acumulated any degree of diversity and be still what they once were. Diversity is a marker of randomization as it increases, while merit systems homogenize. The creative and innovative will not congregate in the same degree, but less and less so, as a place randomizes through increasing diversity down and away from higher standards. Look at the places where anything of rare value occurs; they are highly homogenized for being above some standards. Pro-diversity is for increase of entropy; the creation of great new value is negentropic, and necessarily so. As for the motivations of those in power or state pulpits of influence, who wish upon successful peoples a genetic entropy, through increase of diversity, far fetched at great cost; there will be no further discussion of that just now.
From another post: Putnam's Findings That Increasing Diversity Elevates Suspicion, and Tends to Destroy Participatory Democracy...
...May the government still be allowed to get away with decreeing that increasing diversity is a compelling state interest? Do the federal courts have the brazen effrontery to believe that they might just establish pro-diversity as a compelling interest, when this would clearly mean a state interest in increasing division, suspicion, civic disengagement and other dysfunctions of society?

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Openness to Terrorists as a Value to be Sought by the Powerful and Power-Greedy Sounds Improbable? What Have We Here Then?

910 Group

"Here are the Frequently Asked Questions and answers for the dangerous and defeatist Democratic Iraqi refugee bill in the House - H.R. 2265 ( (S. 1651), with Kyle Shideler’s more detailed analysis here. It’s being sold as a way to get at-risk Iraqi employees - Iraqi translators, contractors, spouses and kids - into the U.S. as “special immigrants.” But the reality is that the bill seriously undermines provisions in US immigration law, opening immigration to those identified as terrorists or supporters of terrorist groups." [It is hard to see how this proposed legislation could be surpassed for malicious, disloyal and treasonable qualities in the history of our nation]

Monday, August 6, 2007

Anti-Prejudice, as a Literal Ideal, Reduces Immediately to a Contradiction-in-Terms

Demonstration of the above: It can't be both too early, and not too early, to judge that all prejudices are wrong, at the same time, and in the same respect.

With No Rational Arguments Available for Encouraging Subsidized Immigration- Which Also Spreads Infectious Agents- Smearing, False Dilemma,...

... equivocation and Slippery Slope can still be used. One can still pretend that one's opponent has characterized immigrants as being infectious agents themselves, rather than sometimes carriers or vectors thereof. That effectively smears, sets up a false dilemma (either foreigners are infectious agents, or can never be blamed for what they spread), equivocates people and infectious agents, and posits a slippery slope where one is always on the downgrade towards treating people as if they were infectious agents themselves. Such rhetorical approaches have to be used since there is no rational support for valuing openness to the spread of infectious agents, such that more and worse spread would be better. If, nevertheless, openness to such spread is treated as value without qualification, is this an intellectual error, or perhaps the result of someone's following an impulse to spread the evil that is upon them?

Saturday, August 4, 2007

A Foreigner Who Increases the Level of Aggression on Those to Whom Loyalty is Owed...

...such as the net taxpayers of our citizenry, is in an enormously different status than one of our citizens who does likewise. The foreigner who does that by moving inside our borders is accessory to treason, since his is an hostile act, and the officials who give aid to him in this aggression, as through the taking of net public subsidy, are guilty of a capital offense, namely: treason. Being accessory to treason can be a capital offense; it is, in any case, a very serious crime under our definition of treason. The citizen who increases the use of net public subsidy is not guilty of this. One-worlders try to wish away this distinction, as it is an obstacle to the destruction of civilization with efficiency.

Friday, August 3, 2007

Per Capita Investment Varies with Quality of Population But Mass Immigration is Toward High Per Capita Investment

As mass immigration increases in quantity, its quality has less and less chance to be high. As the flow is towards higher quality of population countries, and the correlation is very high as between per capita investment and quality of population, mass immigration tends to make per capita investment become lower than otherwise. Take away from quality of population, and investment per capita will systematically tend to be lower than otherwise. Loyalty to the continuity of the advancement of civilization then requires us to be providential regarding quality of population, and to oppose such immigration as takes away from this.

Thursday, August 2, 2007

Mental Infectious Agents & The Valuing Of Openness to Parasitical Lineages Will Preferentially Aggrandize Them

The more parasitical a lineage is, the more it depends on openness on the part of potential hosts. The less parasitical a lineage is, the more it will depend on exclusionism, on some kind of merit system, and be harmed by deviations from valuing merit, which move towards valuing openness.
Added 6-26-08 from: For Each Increment of Mobility of Net-Consumers, What is to be Expected?
Increasing the mobility of net consumers should be expected to also increase the damage that they do, preferentially selecting for damage-inflicting types. When their mobility is more constrained, they are that much more likely to have to live with the nest that they have fouled.
Posted by John S. Bolton
& this: Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Mental Infectious Agents, Openness-Value and the Fundaments of Memeology and the Spread of Evils
A purely mental 'infectious agent' is postulated to have to follow laws of nature in the same way as a biological infectious agent. Following Ockham, the simplest account is given precedence. The infectious agent needs you to be open to it just one time, and thereafter to try to command others to be open to it, or to value openness in general. This will then be the irreducible minimum form of the message of an infectious agent; try to command others to be open. Realizing this, one can evaluate anew the call to have entire societies value openness; isn't this what a mental or biological infectious agent would have to order, just to get itself transmitted and nothing else?
From Monday, August 6, 2007Insofar as an Infectious Agent is Damaging or Lethal Its Interest is Served by Getting its Carriers or Vectors to Command Openness on Others......or not? What are the chances that professionals in the relevant fields will mention this, and are they even less likely to do so in a country with many immigrants? Are the chances of the above being spoken of by such professionals even lower, in proportion as there is allowance of mass immigration from tropical pestholes?
Posted by John S. Bolton
added 7-4-08 from: Friday, June 27, 2008

A Gifted & Witty Reactionary Conjures With The Nature Of Mental Infectious Agents
Mencius says, in OLXI: the truth about left and right : " would choose the smart hosts over the less-smart ones. If you're a sexually transmitted virus, you want to be in a promiscuous gay host, preferably an airline steward. If you're an intellectually transmitted principle, you want to be in a smart and loquacious host, preferably a university professor. We expect to see some corollaries of this Q-M asymmetry, and we do. If smart people are more likely to host Q, we'd expect Q to be more fashionable than M. If you want to get ahead in life, acting smart is always a good start - whether you're smart or not. If smart people tend to host Q, hosting Q is a great way to look smart. Q becomes a kind of social lubricant. Anywhere, any time, the best way to meet and mate with other young, fashionable people is to broadcast one's Q-ness as loudly and proudly as possible. Also, if Q is more competitive than M, we'd expect to see Q progressing against M over time. Again, this is exactly what we see. The M-Q conflict is at least a hundred years old, and when we exhume the frozen thoughts of century-old Q-ists from dusty old libraries, their specific beliefs would put them deep in the M range - often at extreme M levels - if they lived today. But does any of this answer the question? It does not. At least one of Q or M is darkness. But we cannot tell which [according to his story-premise]. If Q is the dark side and M is mere sanity, we see immediately what Q is: a transmissible mental disease, which spreads by infecting education workers. If Q is mere sanity and M is the dark side, this same system is in the business of overcoming superstition..."JB comments: Although I don't suscribe to the dilemmas as stated, and intellectual fashion seems over-emphasized, this is still a fascinating exercise in contemplating the requirements of mental infectious agents.Q may possibly be the initial of a 'Quakerism' with horns and blood on its hands, and M may be a 'Militarism' with a sound mind and truth on its side; those are guesses...
Posted by John S. Bolton

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

Global Nation or Universal Nationality is a Contradiction-in-Terms

The nation means an allegiance to fellow citizens relative to foreigners; especially relative to foreigners who increase the level of aggression within the borders. If there were no foreigners and no borders, there would be no such allegiance, and no universal nation or nationality. To try to make an ideal of such a contradiction-in-terms, is subversive of values.

Valuing Openness to Diversity of Standards Means Preferentially Pushing Towards Ever Lower Standards

Any move towards higher standards requires us to exclude more possibilities of openness to lower standards. A contradiction-in-terms results from honoring the request to value openness to diversity of standards: by becoming more open to lower standards we become also more closed to higher standards.
Added 5-28-08:
Valuing Openness To Globalization Of Minimum Standards Is Not Known To Be Good
It would close off the possibilities of raising or maintaining minimum standards, such as are high above global norms. Therefore valuing openness in that more globalized sense, reduces to a contradiction-in-terms: valuing more openness and closing-off possibilities at the same time, and in regard to the same attributes, is self-contradictory