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.

The Cycle of Contemporary Ruin

1. wealthy, rent seeking multiculturalists run the country
2. wrongs increase
3. wealthy, rent seeking multiculturalists and their mass media affix blame
4. wealthy, rent seeking multiculturalists and their mass media support somewhat different wealthy, rent seeking multiculturalists
5. voters vote for somewhat different wealthy, rent seeking multiculturalists
6. back to step one, repeat for decades

The Hard Ways Out Are the Most Likely Ways Out of the Multicultural Catastrophe

After a this or that somewhat publicized evil by the multiculturalists, some whites announce that they have had enough. A few go into mad as hell Howard Beale mode. (Note that Howard Beale didn't offer specifics. That hurts movie sales. Most humans are so riddled with fanaticism they do not tolerate hearing specifics that differ from the official myths of their teams. And if Beale had offered specifics, he would have spewed Hollywood nostrums.)

So multiculturalism must end now, some say.

How? Or what?

Multiculturalists live in a massive ideological bubble but so do many nonmulticulturalists. We massively misperceive our power. We can't just stroll into institutions of power and force the present occupants out. They will arrest or murder us. Despite their wrongs over the past 50 plus years, multiculturalists are entrenched, controlling almost all the mass media and other Western institutions. Contemporary political violence increases their power.

Majorities or pluralities often tell pollsters they oppose mass nonwhite immigration, yet they won't vote for even Gert Wilders, Marine Le Pen, and other slightly edgy assimilationists. Millions did vote for Donald Trump's obvious bait-and-switch of mostly Randian neoconservatism.

The masses in the West have made it clear that they don't care enough about slowly escalating cultural Marxism to organize ethically and effectively, not wanting their work and hedonism interrupted with unpleasant truths. Multiculturalists figured how to manipulate us into a sickness unto death. Even evils committed by multiculturalists are followed by more demonizations of whites, attacking the moral and psychological weaknesses of whites, creating havoc and demoralization.

Our paths out of the cultural Marxism mess are limited. To wit:

1. Keep reasoning until at least one super rich individual converts to nonmulticulturalism and purchases a mass media outlet with quality commentators. It should eventually occur. And by conversion, I don't mean conversion to Nazism, empty counter-jihadism or crypto neoconservatism. Nazism and neoconservatism must be opposed wherever they appear. The problem is that almost nothing is sacred to most billionaires, except their own egoism. They despise the people they rule over. If their wives were murdered by a nonwhite, they would find a new model. Other humans are fungible objects to them. Piercing their bubbles will not be easy. But the increasing demands for economic Marxism by nonwhites could result in enough pearl clutching to change a few of their worldviews.
2. Build cities on a hill or in this case, villages on a hill. Organize a few whites to create model villages that say to other whites, "This is what you're missing." The villages must be religious to avoid government desegregation policies. They must be environments nonwhites want to avoid. They must have ethical bootcamps to weed out infiltrators, the lukewarm, and the indolent. They must be sustainable, not driven merely by a charismatic leader. Ideally, retirees and the independently wealthy would be driving forces since they can't be fired or boycotted into poverty.
3. Endure major disasters (epidemics, supervolcano eruptions, etc.) large enough to break the power of totalitarian governance. Famished whites won't support cultural Marxism. This is what is meant by a the worse, the better strategy, not the gradual infliction of ever greater cultural Marxism. Events like 9/11 are not large enough to change results for the better. Such events increase the power of multicultural police states, creating the worse, the worse. In an ethical society, 9/11 would have been more than enough to rid multiculturalism, but ethics left the establishment political houses long ago.
4. Encourage secessions almost everywhere. Let people separate by beliefs and genetics. A Calexit makes other exits more probable. Without separations egoism and misplaced altruism win.

Terraforming other planets and other radical alternatives are far beyond our financial and technological means.

The above requires hard work and imposes large short term transition costs but for greater rewards. Our ancestors made great sacrifices for us and many contemporary whites decided to repay those sacrifices by defecating all over the Western bed, rewriting history to fit only specious cultural Marxian narratives. There will be no great awakening from this or that small terror attack, no matter how many of them occur. And hoping for a spontaneous great awakening is a lazy fantasy that ignores the massive indoctrination power of the mass media and other powerful institutions.

We must be up to the challenges.

Traveling for Work. I May Not Post for Several Days.

Children in India Know Who General Dyer Was. Should we?

India is now the second or third largest source of legal migrants to the US and a fast growing source of illegal migration.

Establishments think little about the long term ramifications. The more Indians we import, the more political power they gain, the more they lobby for more Indian migration and anti-white privilege (as other nonwhite groups do). Instead of the comparatively high IQ Indian elites we import now, we will import more Indians having lower IQs and hypertribalistic behaviors, plus more of their increasing Muslim population. The estimated mean phenotype IQ in India is 82, probably a little lower than the mean genotype IQ because of the abysmal cultures and other environments in India.

Like other nonwhites, Indians are not shy about practicing egoism, kin nepotism, and racial nepotism. Stories abound of massive Indian cheating on tests, and of Indian workers taking over US companies, hiring kin, and firing non-Indians.

Something slightly similar happened before. The first Cubans to migrate to the US were whiter, higher IQ, and better working. The later Cuban arrivals, not so much. Much of Miami turned into hellholes, places many wouldn't recognize as part of the US, though other diverse groups deserve much of the blame.

A big difference is that India's population is about 150 times larger than Cuba's.

If China and India fight a war against each other, we face Indian and Chinese migrant populations fighting the war by direct or other means on our shores. If India and Pakistan fight, more imported destruction for us. If one or more have a nuclear or conventional war against us, even worse.

Most Indians cannot afford airfare to the US now, but as elsewhere, humanity movers will increasingly succeed with exploitative quid pro quo arrangements to deliver migrants. Some already have.

India has much potential for irrelevant historical grievance mongering, including the Bengal famine of World War II, though most of the blame for the famine belongs to Axis countries, Indian dysgenics, and Indian overpopulation.

Then there's General Dyer: "Every schoolchild in India knows the momentous effect this incident had on the course of nationalist politics in India [a somewhat exaggeration]." The fact that General Dyer was white matters more than the fact he wasn't American. And thanks to multicultural control of all our major institutions, grievances escalate via propaganda.

Some white children know who General Custer and Lieutenant Calley were, but they are sources of great white shame, not motivation to exploit outgroups. Few white children know who Lazar Kaganovich was. And it is probably best young children don't, at least until they are older. Because children are more easily manipulated than adults, who are themselves easily manipulated.

Good luck with importing peoples with culturally and genetically driven egoism and grievances, no matter how well they pursue the "bitch-goddess Success" in the short term.

But the establishments wouldn't be reckless enough to import several hundred million Indians, would they? Why not? Cultural Marxism hasn't lost a major political battle since the Eisenhower Administration.

Tangled Up in Blue Words

Words are symbols made by humans with meanings concocted by humans. If we wanted, we could replace the word apple with numbers or the word erteyu. Most individuals would reject or ignore our new apple word. Some words feel good and some feel rotten. Some start out feel good, then become dysphemisms--the euphemism treadmill. The word retard was once a euphemism. The  government once made compassionate postage stamps with the words "Retarded Children" printed on them. Other words start out as dysphemisms, then are reappropriated as neutral or euphemistic, often only in specific contexts, for example, the word infidel in They Call Me Infidel. Using infidel in a different context could result in violence. Even words as unimportant as first names acquire negative or positive feelings over time. Few parents name their children Ralph or Betty anymore.

Many words--shithead and scumbag, for example--will likely remain slurs in most English fluent minds for as long as English exists.

Establishments and many others are masters of language tricks, rebranding themselves with more euphemistic words, trying to attach positive feelings to terrible ideas. James Kirchik has a new book out. I bet it seldom contains the word neoconservative, though neoconservative was once a euphemism. Neoconservative became more neutral or dysphemic in many minds due to horrific neoconservative actions. Instead, Kirchick's book contains plenty of the phrase liberal democracy, though neoconservatives regularly destroy democratic practices and much else. 

One Third Way group calls itself the Progressive Policy Institute to attract unwary progressives to the Democratic Party.

Many individuals reply with demagoguery to innocently intended words. If an elderly person uses the archaic neutral word lady, colored or oriental, they can find themselves demonized. Activists don't care what individuals intend. They twist words and meanings to fit their own totalitarian causes.

A few individuals with alternative beliefs act as if they can turn dysphemisms into euphemisms. But they cannot turn them into euphemisms because they lack the media power to do so. Most whites will never support groups that label themselves white nationalist or national socialist, no matter the attached beliefs. Those two phrases are political poison. In most white minds, those phrases represent Nazism, meaning mass murder, economic cronyism, and pro-Hitlerism. It doesn't matter to political readers whether they actually support pan-Europeanism or nationalist universalism or Teddy Rooseveltism or neoclassical pan-Arcticism or self-determination universalism.

When you don't control the mass media, you should not describe your beliefs with dysphemic terms, unless you prefer losing or your beliefs really are evil. Our attachments to labels should be minuscule compared to our commitments to people and better reasoned beliefs.