These are remarks to the article "Game Theory on Race Mixed Society turning Lawless"

Remark GoBu: Everyone feels as if good according to their own bunch of statements, and for non-self-contradicting bunches, being good would be a priori, because you add to your bunch only what you judge to be good. However, we are forced to have ‘Smelly Flowers in my Good Bunch’: Statements that are in our bunch because we “sold our soul”, by going along with a social system’s deception, thus proving loyalty to that system as the entrance ticket – this is why the social dance so often insists on lies even for justifying what could be better justified with the truth. A neurotypical ape, say one randomly taken from "Western democratic society", feels morally justified. Such an ape usually holds pride in that their leading apes are elected, in spite of simultaneously knowing quite well, yes most of them do and are proud of this knowledge in private communication, that, for example, the system contains sub-systems such as intelligence agencies, that at times even simply shoot undesired leaders that might be elected - or anyway, more generally speaking, to say that those in power are somehow freely chosen is wishful thinking. Or for another example, they think themselves to be somehow morally justified on grounds of things such as donations to NGO's while knowing that NGO's are quite usually found to do the very opposite of what they claim. Or they simply point out their "hard work" for society and their taxes, but know that the military they thus support and re-elect, daily via choices such as recreational consumption, often murder the innocent, support terrorists, ensure that the opium harvest in Afghanistan is plentiful and boys can be raped and so on - all these examples given here in view of the one characteristic of that what is actually done is often the opposite of what is claimed. On one hand, this conforms to the ‘Big Lie strategy’, making claims so outrageous that common folk just cannot believe it could be a lie. However, this must be seen on one continuum, starting with the pride of knowing about “Hollywood garbage” and that the news are fake, but still defending vehemently that all should keep undergoing this brainwashing, partially of course on grounds of that the true magnitude of the deception is not grasped and thought to be benign, because after all, “it cannot be possibly so bad as we still are living in a much better system than all the others, which everybody knows are bad – just watch the news”.
We all suffer conscious denial and hardly suffer from this ‘cognitive dissonance’ in our day-to-day affairs, and that is why it has evolved. So let me stress again: The relevant aspect here is not that apes as always kill and torture each other happily. The problem is that you internally somewhere know that you are, according to your own morals, whatever they are, evil! Even the religious who apparently "really believe" their religious nonsense, know it, and they do not change, but nevertheless also bath their brain, like all apes, in this feeling of that they themselves are still somehow excused despite knowing that there is nothing more behind it. Even those who in much of their mind believe that they are so wrong that according to their own religious belief they will end up in hell, they basically do not change! All these feelings are not evolved to dance in this way in order to change, but in order to function stably.
You are proud of being enlightened yet also insist on this social dance, and feel disgust against many that fundamentally do the exact same. For example, many of you vehemently insist on the label "liberal" rather than "racist". There can be no relatively rational social contract then beyond faking support for an ideology while thinking "well, it will be reasonable stable here at least as long as I am around".

Remark RatLib: There are for example liberals who support punishing the mentioning of race although they know better, all in the hope that mental progress and technology providing advanced solutions and security will come in to safe the day sufficiently soon – so there are different levels of “rational” also if two persons seem to agree on the same position such as that there are no races (one believes that this denial will work out for the best, the other one truly believes).

Remark AbsEth: Irrational Absolute Foundation (IrAbFo): I want "my own" safety, ready to defend it with all means including extreme violence, literally "over my dead body". This is the irrational interest for future continuers (me ten minutes from now) as what I cannot (!) compromise on; my urge for that all future continuers "have it good" is overwhelming. This is irrational because I cannot identify "my own". If I am now the same as I am now, then, "fundamentally" describing, there is no certain boundary and you are me (the same "feeling of being", mere Kantian a priori unity of apperception finding itself with memory, some story of a causal creation myth of embodiment in a world. My enjoyment is dampened whenever I identify broader, say along the time direction with future continuers or fundamentally, with the unity of apperception, feeling as if I live through all alternative lives eternally, perhaps in some way living the next life as that which suffers most from the way I act now.).
Given IrAbFo, a 'discourse enabling core mistake' (im Wittgensteinischen Sinne), the next step is rational relative to this irrational core:
I demand a "social contract" as follows. I desire the world and society around me to be safe and enjoyable until at least one second after "my" death. The desired state of enjoyed stability (stable non-suffering) necessitates social interaction with other, thereby "similar" apes, in order to, for one, mutually defend against most other, thereby relatively "dis-similar" (I do not identify as closely) apes, where A) Some of the apes die at times after I die but I need them to agree to the contract. Moreover: B) Probability of Stability, during my life time, increases with the average time of stability.
In other words: I am 'rationally' (!) interested in long-term stable future society for at least me and those apes "on my side", and for diverse others that relate to the demanded enjoyment, all choices fundamentally equally irrational, for example that cats have it good and survive while the source of cat food is cognitively suppressed, or more directly evolved urges such as that our own children should have it good, or some female that happens to be currently sexually available. The boundary of my identification consistent with a relatively rational social contract is a non-trivial problem with unavoidable conflicts. More fundamental to every individual is anyway how my own identification is best delineated in terms of a consistency between inescapably urged identification (me in one minute) and irrationally enjoyed identification (that poor guy over there). Iintense exercise in identifying only with the present now and non-worrying about my own death, anticipating the pain with mindful decoupling, is a “wise” strategy that can allow mindful suffering for all of suffering capable beings in the eternity of the realm of meta-logically possible mental states. More relevant for the social contract as a practical one involving real other apes: How to incorporate the fact of the evolved (and therefore quite stable) ‘irrationality’ of the apes that need to “practically agree” on the contract? That makes a rational social contract with most impossible.
Remark China: For China, it seems to be overall benevolent, allowing for many severe difficulties of course, one being that their control over information is rather clumsy and strongly influenced by Western information (e.g., the rabidly anti-Chinese Yahoo news are welcome while China friendly right wing outlets are censored, probably simply due to lazily copying “hate lists” from Western propaganda outlets such as the SPLC). For another example, China is very successful in combating the inefficiency of collectivist mindsets for scientific progress by demanding scientists to be successful internationally, but this sadly introduces all the (deepening!) problems of the selection processes that evolved in the West, the crisis of scientific integrity generally and versus political correctness. Chinese sociology departments would likely benefit from a strict rejection of the almost completely pseudo-scientific “social sciences” in Western universities, rather than rewarding those Chinese intellectuals who published in international “social science” journals, wasting their time competing in idiotic displays of sophisticated rhetoric, language games far worse than the traditional, characteristically Chinese emptiness of “theorizing” (see Sub-Remark) about the social. Western “social science” is one factor responsible for why the Western societies now decay, and China better imports none of it if it wants to assure a stable harmonious society.
Sub-Remark: The term “theory” must be carefully interpreted when talking about China. Often, if Chinese officially talk about a new “theory”, apparently insisting on that specific word in translations when advertising for example “Marxism with Chinese characteristics” and its “three represents”, they do not thus aim to emphasize the claim of a formal “theory”, despite doing so in the context of Marxism. Karl Marx argued rather scientifically, with a novel empirical analysis (sociological ‘materialism’) and thereby supported specific assumptions and conclusions, and so he had a true theory. The relevant aspect here is that Marx pioneered sociology as a proper science regardless of how mistaken we may judge the details in hindsight. The Chinese, forced to communicate (leadership to public, inside to international outside), for some reason employ the word or concept of “theory” as they do. To outsiders, this may easily appear as if every new party leader seemingly claims to have come up with an even better Marxist theory that should rule the world, but to start ridiculing under such an assumption would just reveal being conditioned by Western media. These “theories” continue the Confucian way, moral talk sufficiently vague to leave different interpretations and options open, as necessary for future contingencies, and putting simple minds at ease rather than being anti-social and disturbing to simple minds, like the philosophy of Laozi, who is obviously held in higher regard than Confucius by all who prefer abstract theories.

Remark AJ: Ashkenazim Jews largely control the West basically starting in the times they traded the Negroid slaves, leading to cotton and subsequently oil and financial empires. They dominated the trade of Negroes so much that it is questionable whether there would have been any of that particular slavery worth mentioning today without the Jews. When Caucasian Christians such as Quakers started to free the slaves, Jews did not participate. There were no Jews in the American Anti-Slavery Society of 1833, and the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Report of 1953 complained about the total lack of Jewish support. The Jews did not support the slave holding confederation much either, instead hedging their bets. Semitic races tend to support slavery (Jews buying Negroes from Arabs; slavery is in effect still prominent in the Middle East), but this does not directly imply whether they are benevolent! After all, many farmers love their animals and there were plenty of slave holders who ensured that their Negroes had a good life and experienced less violence than the average male Negro in US inner cities today. So, the proper question is not whether the Jews are in effect slavers of most Western apes, but are they conscious and benevolent slavers today? The Jews’ denial of their own role, partially forced upon them due to that the appearance of a “free democratic society” has to be upheld and largely honest self-deception (!), leads to that people are turned against each other. For example, people with Negroid admixture (so called “Blacks”) are made to believe (against better knowledge of their own intellectuals such as “Professor Griff” of the rap band Public Enemy) that slavery was supposedly due to “Whites” rather than that Caucasians sacrificed their own to free the Negroid slaves and intermixed to such an extend that today’s northern “Blacks” are on average a quarter Caucasian anyway – the more admixture the more they exploit “their own”. It is hard to see how the war-mongering and stirring of anti-Caucasian racial violence by the Western media and “social science” can be beneficial for anybody but those rich enough as to be well protected.
Once more to be entirely clear about this: The main problem is not that those “evil racist Zionists” are slavers benevolent only to their own race. Sure, there are some of those, too, but it is ridiculous to think that many Jews are like that rather than being usual irrational apes struggling with cognitive dissonance. The problem is that Western ideology, that we are somehow “free” and “equal”, even although intelligent people do not actually believe such much, still makes for that they are in neurotic denial about what their role is. You cannot be beneficial that way.

Remark NEA: The collectivism of North East Asian races lowers the value of an individual life, but this is compensated by relatively low violence and the correlated high IQ.

Remark Int: Intelligence is also, as usual, highly relevant, but you could claim more generally in game theory, namely for the ability to estimate utility in a complex technological world for which none of us apes are well adapted anyway. However, it is incorrect here to say that the modern human is genetically the same as in the Stone Age. The relevant changes are subtle but relevant. Northern races are not only more co-evolved with technology because they happen to have lived with it longer than people from the third world. Moreover, that complex society and technology had itself to wait until it could co-evolve in the biological stratum where such can possibly evolve. In that sense, only the races who co-evolved in these complex technological societies with modern laws are sufficiently “well adapted”, and it is not surprising that these structures invariably decay as the population’s average IQ decreases along with the racial makeup. Modern farming in Africa works only under supervision by outsiders.