The John Kasich Based Base

If the establishments want to see whether I can turn purple with anger, they can keep promoting the John Kasich is the "voice of reason" horse crap.

Kasich supports guest worker programs but also opposes sending illegals back, whether by force or punishing employers. If he won't send illegals back, how willing will Kasich be to get guest workers to go home at the end of their guest period? Kasich won't.

Kasich claimed to support the border wall, then became outraged when Trump ordered a travel ban on some of the worst individuals on the planet. Kasich is a bait and switch master.

Kasich's foreign policy views are straight out of the failed neoconservative playbook.

Kasich supports balanced budgets mixed with policies that would make the balanced budgets disastrous due in part to an economics accounting identity:
(exports - imports) = (private savings - private investments) + (government taxes - government spending)

If an empire (Lord knows which one) has a trade sector of -$502 billion (trade deficit) and balanced budgets for a given year, it must have -$502 billion net in the domestic private sector (-$502 billion = -$502 billion + O).

So what's wrong with that?

If you have -$502 billion in the domestic private sector now, you get financial tumors, also known as bubbles, including in the auto, housing, and tuition loan sectors.

In a nation with no trade deficit or trade surplus, it's splendid to have balanced budgets and no net amount in the domestic private sector (0 = 0 + 0), as long as the economy does not suffer from demand shortages. But that is not our economy.

Kasich's website supports the repeal of Obamacare and the replacement of it with a bunch of vague mumbo jumbo about cooperation.

When contemporary politicians talk in vague platitudes, that's when we need to protect our lives and wallets. When contemporary Democratic and Republican establishments cooperate, mass destruction results.

Secessions Must Be on the Basis of Race and Beliefs, Not Existing State Borders

Secession at the state level solves few major problems. Huge divides exist within blue and red states. If California secedes, New Democrats will run it, or at least be the public face of power, until Marxian Hispanics take over, then Muslims take over, including Hispanic and other converts to Islam. If Texas secedes, Rick Perry's donors will run Texas until the likes of Hugo Chavez take over, then the likes of Ibrahim Hooper replace them, with much violence resulting.

It is more accurate to call the left a coalition of incompatibles than what Steve Sailer calls a coalition of fringes. The same goes for the right.

In the long term, the following will not live together harmoniously:

1. black firsters
2. Muslims
3. Amerindian groups
4. anarcho-Marxists
5. Greens
6. New Democrats
7. New Dealers
8. Mexican firsters
9. many others

The few remaining New Dealers will opt out or be wiped out.

On the so-called right, little harmony will exist among:

1. open borders Libertarians
2. neoconservative secularists and Wall Streeters
3. neoconservative evangelicals
4. Amish and Mennonites
5. nonmulticulturalists
6. multicultural counter jihadists
7. many others

Neoconservatives and Libertarians will import more nonwhites until the current red states are bluer than the current blue states.

There is little to gain from US state or county level secessions because of large transition costs combined with few policy reforms. The same problem faces the UK. It doesn't matter much in the long term whether globalist multiculturalists rule you from London or Brussels. The totalitarianism is similar, though economic policies shift somewhat.

The mass media play down within blue and red divides because they are invested in maintaining the power of establishments, including themselves. So when the mass media occasionally encourage states to secede, what they really support is the maintenance of present power arrangements without interference from the other major political party, at least in the short term.

They are too fanatical and hedonistic to give a crap about the long term.

The Seldom Quotable Koran

Among the conspicuous by its absence items of our time is the fact that our Islam loving mass media seldom quote the Koran (or Hadiths). They far more often dig up quotes from The Bible. Nevertheless, Pew claims over 70 percent of Muslims "across most of the African nations polled," believe the Koran "should be taken literally, word for word."

One beloved assertion the media do print: "If anyone slays a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people. And if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people," is unclear, misquoted, and quoted out of context. No matter the meaning, one does not equal multitudes. Mass murder is worse than one murder.

Years ago I put a few synonyms for unbeliever(s) into this searchable Koran. By my count, the Koran contains at least 161 despicable claims about infidels and probably many more, a preoccupation in a comparatively small religious text, including at least nine rotten claims of the "right hand possess" variety, a reference to the rape slavery of unbelievers. It is easy to see why individuals imbued with egoism and sadism support the Koran. For the rest of us? No.

It is a text in which an ethical individual will find exactly nothing worth putting in their ethical toolkit.

But to our mass media, the Koran is simultaneously sacred, off limits to opprobrium, and seldom worth accurately quoting for some odd reason.

Legitimate Propinquity: Caring More About Evils in the West

Someone once criticized whites because we care more about Rotherham than evils in nonwhite places.

Here's one reason why we should care more: because nonwhites seldom take ethical advice from whites anyway, so there's little point. (You might as well waste time ordering a volcano to stop erupting.)

Yes, nonwhites take practical advice, for example, planting a new strain of grain. They'll also take advice on how to exploit and destroy whites, but the latter is not ethical advice.

Ironically, if you start writing about Boko Haram or other evils in developing countries, they'll slur you as a troll, racist or Islamophobe. (In 2016, an increase of the troll epithet was used to ban or dismiss unwanted truths. Where once trolling applied to inciting mindless internet spats, the word is now used to fanatically dismiss political counter evidence.)

Rotherham is part of our civilization, something we have a little influence over.

When it comes to multiculturalists, you get what you tolerate when they have the power to implement it. The more we acquiesce, the more evils explode. If we ignored Rotherham, which the British establishment tried to do for years, you get more Rotherhams. Opposing the events in Rotherham is more than just protecting the rights of girls in Rotherham. It helps prevent worse.

Every federal elected official in the United States is, to put it in ad hominem terms, crooked. Each is also, to varying degrees, a multiculturalist. The 1.0 correlation coefficient is no coincidence. It is extremely difficult to get multicultural whites to see beyond themselves, their friends, their close kin, and their feel good xenocentrism. Even a few nonmulticulturalists seem to care more about lifeless confederate statues than living whites in South Africa.

Most nonwhite adults, and many whites, support anti-white supremacism, waging an unconventional, long term war of aggression. Even the uber multicultural War Nerd admitted it in "War of the Babies." It is ethically wrong to aid individuals, who support aggression. Misplaced altruism created multitudes of horrors in the past and will create horrors for future generations. "Common humanity" is an irrelevant genetic fallacy. Fighting just, nonviolent, unconventioanl wars should inspire us as much as just, conventional wars.

Simply because nonwhites suffered from genetic and environmental bad luck doesn't relieve them from the bare minimum of ethical duties to not support aggression, no matter how unconventional.

Adults who won't organize and fight for their legitimate claims deserve less compassion, too. I have little sympathy for Soviet citizens who tolerated Soviet invasions and other evils. Solzhenitsyn noted that Chechen gangs (predictably) stuck together while whites were solitary gulag sufferers with their immoral universalism. There's a world of difference between an ethical martyr and a cowardly martyr. The latter's self-pity and hope in eternal reward has almost no power to make the world better. If there is an ethical God(s), who judges after death, why would that God send cowardly, fanatical, xenocentric individuals to heaven? Bertrand Russell had a few scathing remarks about pious, feeble religiosity.

Over a decade ago, Slate published dozens of articles about the poor, wonderful Kurds, many with "Kurd Sellout Watch" in the title. Guess how those wonderful Kurds behave when they become refugees? Like you would expect Southwest Asians to behave.

Obama hectored us about being afraid of women and children. Damn right we should be afraid. Fact facers know what those women have between their ears and what those children will grow into. We know their devotion to evolutionary and psychological egoism.