Trump, Save Me from Your Followers

The past couple days makes me think that maybe Hitlery Clinton was right and half of Trump supporters really are deplorable.

I still think Trump himself is a decent guy. He is the only presidential* candidate I've ever wanted to vote FOR (as opposed to always voting against someone), and I'm glad he did become President, as I've wanted him to be President since 1999. That much is true. If I do vote in November I without question will vote for Trump again because the alternative is unthinkable.

Still, I've never been a boot-licker. He has done some great things, and I still think he's the only good President we've had since JFK, but I think the reason he's been successful is because he basically throws shit against the wall and sees what sticks. He changes his mind every day. Naturally, when you've had 7000 ideas it's no surprise that 3500 were good just by dumb luck. He burns through staff members faster than the company I work for, and that's saying something. He hires "The best person in the entire world" and then fires the person in a week because they all turn out to 1. be shit or 2. contradict him on his latest pet idea.

I've called him out on a number of shit moves he's made, mostly bombing Syria in response to bullshit chemical attacks and his eliminating certain environmental protections (NOT global warming, which is complete and utter bullshit, but stuff to do with national parks).

And while he has improved the economy a little bit, it's not as good as when I was a kid before Clinton sold our factories to China. Most of the improvement is just in the stock market, which was pumped with 10,000 points of artificial liquidity by the Fed to make it look like the best thing ever, "The strongest economy the world has ever seen." Nixon did the same thing. Nixon made it look like he fixed the economy by dramatically increasing the debt. It got him re-elected in a 49 state landslide, but it took decades for the US to recover, and when it finally did Clinton killed it again.

And now this quarter-assed approach to dealing with the Coronavirus pandemic is by far his worst move yet. Still, that's not the bad part. As some people have pointed out, Trump really has no power here. He cannot coerce states to lift their own quarantines, so when he says "America will go to work again in a week" he has no authority to enforce that. It's just bullshit rhetoric meant to inspire people. Individual governors can tell him to go pound sand and there's nothing he can do because of the Tenth Amendment† (unless it's to spread progressivism, then SCOTUS is willing to abrogate the Constitution and conjure up laws out of whole cloth‡).

No, the bad part is not Trump or anything he's done, but his followers. They seem to be almost as assaholic as leftists. Almost.

They really seem to be fucking stupid. They seem to be some sort of Team America parody of extreme reckless jingoism. In the span of two weeks Alex Jones went from saying Coronavirus would signal the death knell of globalism to now saying it is a globalist hoax designed to institute a one-world police state. He went from talking about how the disease was so horrifically deadly that China was burning tens of thousands of bodies, turning the rain over Japan black from soot, to saying that seasonal flu is tens or even hundreds of times deadlier.

Every one of them seems to have the Team America theme playing on a continuous loop at full blast. MURICA! FUCK YEAH! COMING AGAIN TO SAVE THE MOTHERFUCKING DAY, YEAH! MURICA! FUCK YEAH! FREEDOM IS THE ONLY WAY!

“Coronavirus be a globohomo§ plot! I gots to buy me some more guns! 15 ain't enough!”

Are you Sarah fucking Palin or something? How many guns do you need? It's just like the people who hoard enough TP to build a fort.

“Muricans ain't scared of no flu bug! Coronavirus is a hoax by the Democraps to usher in Agenda 21! Literally NO ONE has died from Coronavirus! 8 BILLION people die every year from flu. 9 BILLION! We're going back to work! Murica! Fuck yeah!”

“If you criticize any aspect of anything Trump ever says you're a commie lib prog bundle of sticks!|”

Trump supporters, conservatives, and LOLbertarians are just as bad as Bernouts and progressives. They do engage in the purity spiral just as well, only instead of kicking out anyone who isn't woke enough they kick out anyone who isn't jingoistic or contemptuous of the environment or worker's rights enough.

No group seems to be capable of understanding nuance or context. No group seems capable of tolerating difference of opinion. You either agree 100% or BTFO. It's almost as if humans really are shit-flinging apes that got lucky like the atheists believe. Humans are just intelligent enough to be dangerous and invent bio-weapons, H-bombs, and AI-controlled social credit scores, but not intelligent enough not to be assholes to each other.

I can't fucking stand these people who say “Real Americans want to go back to work!” So literally anyone who disagrees with you, no matter the reason, is not a real American? It's not just that they are uninformed or mistaken, or maybe just have a different opinion, no, they are literally an enemy of the state?

“Real Americans LOVE working!” Really? I've never met one. Everyone I've ever worked with has hated working, they just do it because they have to. That's why they have to pay you to do it, because you wouldn't do it for free because it's shit. Even people who I've known who are workaholics admit they hate working, they just want to get it done with so they can accrue enough money through savings and investments to retire as soon as possible. The only people who seem to enjoy their jobs are the Youtubers who make six figures through ad revenue or e-begging, or selfish retirees who already have enough money to live off of but go back to work out of boredom, and in so doing steal jobs from younger, less credentialed people.

I almost want to sit out the election in November because 1. I live in New Jersey so my vote literally doesn't matter because the state would vote for Pol Pot or Jeffrey Dahmer if he had a “D” after his name, and 2. because I don't want to contribute to the victory of Trump's assaholic fans. I don't want to make them happy.

Please, dear President Trump, if you really are God Emperor, save me from your asshole fans.



* There were a few NJ senate candidates I did really like and vote for in the primaries, but none of them got the nomination, and I still think Alan Keyes is the smartest person to run for President and not get nominated.

† The Tenth Amendment to the US constitution says that the states have the sole and absolute authority to decide matters that are not explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution.

‡ Whole cloth is the metaphysical substance from which blatant lies are made.

§ Globohomo = Globalized + Homogenized. I had to look it up too because I thought it had to do with gays.

| Not sure if big tech will allow me to use the other word, better to be safe.

Porn Is Free Speech

"We either all hang together or we all hang separately."
- Ben Franklin

Ben Franklin, who had sex with like five or six thousand women in his lifetime, was absolutely right when he said that.

Franklin was also quite familiar with porn, which existed in the 18th century, by the way. Since the photograph hadn't been invented yet, maybe, people had to use drawings, but what was acceptable for mainstream publication were very different than what they ware today. Porn could be printed in newspapers and no one gave a flying crap about that at the time. Many of these porn drawings depicted old Ben and his innumerable dalliances with everything that moved. One such image (that I unfortunately cannot find online) depicts Ben in standard porn pose, holding a woman sideways with one leg over his shoulder, and penetrating her with his massive cock. You could buy this on any street corner in Philadelphia.

"The things I do for my country."
- Also Ben Franklin, referring to seducing French aristocrats' wives and mistresses to secure the alliance that won the Revolutionary War

I'll discuss more on the history of porn later in the month, and the much freer attitude toward porn the founders had, and how radical leftists in the late 19th century invented the idea that masturbation was unhealthy as a means of controlling men, but for now let us focus on Franklin's first quote.

If the British attack each colony individually then they can defeat the colonies individually with their superior numbers, weapons, and training. However, if the colonies join together they can become a much more powerful force than the British would be willing to muster, and this new United States could win its independence. Only then, when the common enemy is defeated, should all the ancillary disputes colonies be debated.

Unity is strength. It's written into the motto of the United States: E Pluribus Unum, "Out of many, one." It's the rally cry behind Gengis Khan's rise to power, that a single arrow can be broken, but a bundle of arrows tied together cannot. It's what Maximus told his fellow gladiators, "Whatever comes through that door, we stand a better chance of surviving if we fight it together." Unity is strength, because many people can be in more places, fight more enemies, come up with more ideas, and accomplish more work than any single individual can.

Conquerors throughout history have employed the tactic of divide and rule to break any unity, because an individual can be dominated a lot more easily than a group. Napoleon famously brought his army to bear against a divided enemy, defeating each individual group in turn, and in so doing defeating a much larger enemy by creating several smaller enemies to fight one at a time.



This is a tactic we see being used in politics all the time. The elite have got us divided by race, sex, and all sorts of other bullshit to keep us fighting each other so we don't band together and overthrow them. I've spoken to people at length about this during the last election, people on the "left" and never-trumpers on the "right" and they all said "NO! Orange man bad! REEEEEEEEE!!!!!!! He will nut inside us!"

Now, after that rather long introduction, let's get on to the meat of the issue.



Paypal has banned Pornhub, which, according to this chart, is the 38th biggest website, and the second biggest porn site on the planet, so it's a pretty big deal (Paypal is number 68 on the same chart). Of course the anti-porn people are braying loudly over this, offering up ululations to their deified egos. Conservatives similarly chant "Good, get rid of the degeneracy!" and then go back home and beat off to men piledriving each other because they're all so deeply in the closet that they're in Narnia. Meanwhile the leftists can't decide whether porn makes women into livestock (they don't give a wet bucket of shit about men, who are just prop cocks), and the ones who call it "sex work" and praise it like certain ancient peoples praised temple prostitutes.

Of course all of these same people who cheer the deplatforming of their enemies hiss and complain when they are the ones who are being censored and deplatformed. As Styx alludes to in the above video, the vast majority of the anti-censorship people are hypocrites (just as I said a decade ago about the anti-war people).

It shouldn't matter whether it is the almighty government or "muh private corporation", it's about one thing and one thing alone: control. Authoritarians love to control people, and controlling access to private economic transactions and free speech (as well as the right to self defense, which they hate as well) is the ultimate form of control. You don't need to round people up in a concentration camp like the three million people China has incarcerated, or shoot people in the heads, like China does with its mobile execution vans. All you have to do is take away a person's right to earn money and that person will simply starve to death, or else turn to a life of crime, giving you a pretext for imprisonment.

Remember, liberals get the bullet too. No matter how far left you are (or how far right, when the pendulum inevitably swings in the opposite direction), you are never far enough. You are never pure enough. Any group, Antifa, the MRA, Alt-Right, they always enter purity spirals and eat themselves. They always crucify members who are not pure enough, and hate these not pure enough even more than they hate their supposed enemies. We are seeing in this election a growing number of people who think Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist who used to vacation in the Soviet Union and has lived in an actual communist village, is not far left enough.

And now we have a handful of big tech oligarchs, rich beyond the dreams of avarice, who are controlling what we can think, and say, and do, who can have a job, why can buy and sell goods and services. We have an authoritarian control grid whose power will soon be so great that it can never be challenged. And the only way to defeat them is together. Any attack on the free speech of anyone must be treated as an attack against everyone, whether you like the person or not. It doesn't matter if the elite are trying to censor Alex Jones, porn, Dave Rubin, Hasan Piker, that Nazi guy they made a movie about, anyone you don't like, if we don't stand together against censorship and deplatforming we will all surely hang separately. A tech oligarch or government powerful enough to give you everything you want is also powerful enough to take from you everything you have when, not if, when the pendulum of society inevitably swings in the opposite direction. The proper thing to do is to allow the free and open exchange of ideas, not to censor anyone. Let people reach their own conclusions. Try to be more persuasive and win people over to your side. Working together is the only way we can continue to live in a free and open society.

Let's Go Die at Area 51!

Some two million idiots have pledged to "Storm Area 51" because "They can't stop all of us." These idiots think they can run to the base, confident in the belief that the base's defenders will run out of bullets (and napalm) before all their ranks are devastated.

Storming Area 51 is a logistics nightmare. Even reaching it is something that's very difficult, and almost impossible on foot. The nearest civilian rest stop is 86 miles from the base. Even running at 200% capacity it may be able to supply a couple thousand people. As for Area 51 itself, the distance from the gate to the buildings themselves is 28 miles of some of the harshest desert on the planet. You would have to be in peak physical condition (and not the people who signed up to storm the base) just to make it there on foot. The world record for marathon, which is less than the distance that needs to be crossed than the perimeter around Area 51, is just over 2 hours. Imagine doing that in 110 degree heat on blinding white salt flats with no shade. The elements themselves will defeat 90% of the people attempting this stunt, and, given the lack of medical facilities in the area, several thousand will probably die from heat stroke even just camping out in the desert.

Assuming even 10% of the people stupid enough to go manage to cross the desert, Area 51 sits on a US Air Force base. The Air Force has napalm, and they're not afraid to use it, at least in built-up civilian areas in Iraq.

This is Napalm. Water cannot put it out. Yes, they can stop all of you.

Napalm aside, those signs all over the desert warning of the use of lethal force are not jokes. People have been shot, to death, trying to access Area 51. Even if 10% of the keyboard warriors decide not to sleep late and actually storm Area 51, and if 10% of them are surprisingly fit enough to make it the nearly 100 miles through the desert to the base, that means 20,000 people will be on the receiving end of, at the very least, rubber bullets, active denial weapons (which will stop you in your tracks unless you are very stoned on PCP or something), tear gas, and other rather cool non-lethal weapons.

This is Active Denial. It will stop you.

There are also legal ramifications in attempting to storm Area 51, as this Internet lawyer can explain. Even if you are not killed, pelted with rubber bullets, or sent to the hospital for dehydration, you will be sent to jail and fined perhaps half your monthly welfare check.



One can only pray to our Lord Thanos (the best alien, by the way) that at the very least 10% of these idiots do decide to go through with this jackassery so that the universe can become more balanced, as all things should be, through their removal from the gene pool. Best case scenario ALL of them decide to go and balance the universe.

A man can dream, can't he?

Milton Friedman's Basic Income

It's as Moses says in The Ten Commandments: "A city is made from brick. The strong make many, the weak make few, the dead make none."



We've known about this for how long? People on the left like to have a permanent underclass from whom to extract votes and people on the right believe the asinine notion that starvation is a good motivation to make people work. No, it's not, it's a shitty motivation. People who have all their basic needs met work harder, have more enthusiasm to work, and reinvest more into the economy. That's not me saying it, that's Adam Smith saying it. That's Milton Friedman saying it. I don't care what Rust Lumbar or Sean Hannity, who owns Section 8 housing yet pretends to be a regular blue collar guy, think. They're snakes and vermin.



Friedman suggested something he called a "negative income tax". Anyone making below what was at the time a living wage ($3,000 a year, or $21,000 a year today) would be given the difference up to half ($1,500 or $10,600). The minimum amount never changes. With welfare today if you're collecting and you have a job you're penalised, which disincentivises people on welfare to work. On Friedman's plan the minimum amount is guaranteed, so you can work and earn more and never have to worry about having money taken away from you.

Milton Friedman on Drug Legalisation

"The role of the government is to protect the drug cartels. That's literally true."
- Milton Friedman

The Failure of Economics

The problem with all economic systems is money. There's not enough of it. Alternately you could say there are too many people, but I'm not going to go down the path of suggesting genocide, so let's say the problem is not enough money. I read somewhere that even if all the money in the world was divided equally among everyone that would mean everyone only gets about $5,000. And no new money would be made because everyone would be too poor to do anything. There's just not enough money in the world for 8 billion people.



You look at all the times when there was a spectacular economic situation for some people and you see the reason is always because the world has become hell on earth for others. The US prospered like no country before or since during the 50s-70s because WW2 destroyed all possible competition and lead to the deaths of 50-100 million people. Even the paupers in America lived as kings because there were jobs galore and they paid unbelievable wages. Once the rest of the world rebuilt then the wealth of America vanished, it spread around elsewhere.



What else do you see? Places like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia where the native population does not work, at all. They can pull unlimited money out of the ground and they import basically slaves ("sponsored workers") to do all the labour for the native population who all live like kings off welfare. But that's ending too. They realise that oil is not infinite so they are desperately trying to diversify their economies so as to avoid what would inevitably be the devolution of their crapulent societies into Somalia.



I've read the literature, methane, created by bacteria in the deep ocean vents, is transformed into butane and propane under heat, and has been shown to turn into crude oil in laboratory conditions mimicking the upper mantle. Oil is not a fossil fuel, but it's not inexhaustible, just like ground water. We're extracting it faster than it's being replenished. I don't care if the Earth is "9,000 miles deep" as one Youtube commentator has expressed, you can see that technology is not advancing anywhere near fast enough to make up for the decreasing supply of available resources, be they ground water, oil, gold, or anything else. The thickness of the Earth is the problem, not the solution. It's just not possible to drill that deep, and gold or oil or whatever just isn't worth nearly enough to justify developing drilling technologies further. There's not enough money.



The only way to fix the global economic disaster that is looming fast, without starting another world war, is to discover some previously unknown magic resource to take the place of oil. There needs to be something super abundant that is extremely valuable and extremely useful as a resource and it needs to be extremely easy to attain and we need to find it soon or all hell will break loose.



Communism, socialism, capitalism, corporatism, "social democracy", they don't work because of human nature and because of the nature of the world itself.



Communism bullshit.



First of all, Marx was a hypocrite who understood nothing about human nature. "When a people's basic needs are met then people will work for free. Work will be its own reward." Bullshit. Bullshit. People will not work for free, even if all their basic needs are met. People will only work for money or for a cause to which they are totally devoted (like family or religion). People will not work for nothing if they don't have to, and they will not work if there is no correlation between work and reward.



Second, planned economies don't work because it's impossible to predict the future to that degree of specificity. That's why planned economies always have shortages. A grocery store in a communist country might have one salami hanging up and you're not allowed to have it, but the party bosses can have mansions and limousines and caviar.



"But that's not real communism."



Bullshit, but let's indulge your fantasy.



"Communism works perfectly on paper but the problem is that real communism has never been implemented."



No. If by "real communism" you mean a stateless, classless society then you have to admit that "real communism" is a utopian fantasy that can never ever be realised ever in this or any world. The second you get two people together you have a hierarchy, because people have different degrees of competence so someone will always be better than someone else, and a hierarchy on the scale of a society is a class structure. You also develop a state structure, even in hunter-gatherer societies (so called "primitive communism"). This is "our" land, as opposed to "their" land. And tribes went to war with each other constantly because humans are territorial animals, just like chimpanzees. So if you're definition of "real communism" is a utopian fantasy than you might as well admit to being wrong from the start.



"Real communism" also doesn't work well "on paper" because humans won't work for free. Work is not its own reward, if it was people wouldn't need to be paid to work, and of the thousands of experiments that have been done to disprove this basic reality of human nature none has ever succeeded. No hippie commune or Marxist revolutionary vanguard has ever produced a system where people will work for free because "Well isn't that swell, I might as well help my neighbors out. And work is just so gosh darn fun too." If you worked all the time and got nothing out of it then you wouldn't keep working. That's not even a human trait, that's true of all animals. Unless you're getting more than you put in then the activity isn't worth the caloric output.



Socialism is bullshit too. Unless you have a very small, ethnically homogenous population that can pull wealth out of the ground there's no incentive to sacrifice for others in society. That's just human nature too. In-group preference. Four million Norwegians floating on an ocean of oil might pay 70% income tax to give all their fellow Norwegians "free" healthcare, but that will never work in a place like the United States where there are 350 million people of every ethnic group who don't trust each other and are unwilling to sacrifice for members of different tribes.



What happens when you have bureaucrats divvying up handouts supposedly to the people most in need? What happens every single time? They give handouts to the people who will vote them into office. Politicians buy votes by giving away "free" shit to people with low IQs who breed like rabbits because, surprise, selfishness is another part of human nature.



Maybe robots might be able to work out the system of handouts perfectly. Robots, who were deemed the overlords of humanity and had unchallengeable might, and who acted out of pure rationality and followed routines by rote without any outside factors influencing their judgment might be able to make a social welfare state work. Robots would be dispassionate enough not to be bought off by special interest groups, and if they were willing to let humans live (as pets, say), then, and only then, could socialism work. Or you might get a system where the machines decide we all must be plugged into the Matrix because humans are self-destructive by nature.







And capitalism bullshit.



The US economy is worth $18 trillion. There are 350 million people (50 million of whom are illegal). Divide the two up and you get $51,000 per person per year.



So why are there people with $100 billion and other people struggling to survive on less than $20,000?



You'll see corporations with big CEOs who make $100 million bonuses on top of the money they already make sitting on the boards of directors of six other corporations, yet they won't pay their workers a living wage. Pundits always say that the profit margins are razor thin. Well if the profit margins are so thin that the company can't pay a living wage yet the CEO can make $100 million, or with smaller businesses where the bosses can hire and promote their incompetent friends at outrageous salaries, then those businesses have very shitty business models and deserve to go out of business. If carpetbaggers can exploit their workers to make millions and not even give those workers enough to live then those people should be put in jail. It's like Citi Group or the AIG or the Goldman Sachs. Everyone in upper and middle management of those corporations should be in jail for life.



So what's left? Could post-economics work, or is it too doomed by the flaws in human nature?

Why the US Wastes So Much Food

We already know why Europe wastes so much food. We've all heard of the butter mountains and wine lakes. The EU's socialistic Common Agricultural Policy demands that farmers produce hundreds of millions of Euros worth of surpluss goods, that the government buys with confiscated taxpayer money, in order to keep the paper lantern economy afloat. But the United States is different. Except with corn production, which is wasted to make horribly inefficient E85 gasoline, the US does not have anywhere the same level of central planning when it comes to agriculture as the EU (thank God). So why does the US waste enough food to feed an extra billion people? It turns out that capitalism (or crapitalism when it fails like this) can be just as destructive as socialism.

The Civil War Was About Slavery

The Civil War was about state's rights!


What right did the southern states want to defend? The right to own slaves. They admit to it themselves.

The Necessity of a Russo-American Alliance

Americans harbor fantastical racism toward Russians. The easy answer might be to say it is a hold over from the Cold War, but the hatred runs far deeper than that.

It is true that Americans hated Russians during the Cold War, and Russians thought it was because of communism. However, after the Soviet Union collapsed, Americans still hated Russians. Americans hate Russians not because of communism, but because Russians are Russians.

The trouble goes back all the way to the beginning of the Russian state. Russia was always the other, never quite Europe, but not Asia. After four centuries of harassment and repression at the hands of the Turks, the powerful Russian empire stood poised to obliterate the Ottoman empire and deal the Turks reprisal for enslaving half of Europe. The great powers should have cheered Russia on and provided aid and moral support. Instead France and Britain, enemies for a thousand years, joined forces and helped the Turks defeat the Russians in the Crimean War.

Britain and France saw in the Ottoman empire a puppet, where as in Russia they saw a rival. Vast beyond all imagining, with a bottomless supply of resources and manpower, Russia could swallow up the world if given half a chance. It's better to stick to the devil you know than these sub-human sons of Vikings.

America, as heir to the West, inherited hatred of Russia along with British common law and the English language.

Russia is an upstart. They are not an Ancien Régime like Britain or France or even Germany, who, through intermarriage, managed to take control of all the ruling houses of Europe without firing a shot. We can always pretend Germany, or the Holy Roman Empire, is successor to Rome, even though no such entity existed until 1871.

The Russians, on the other hand, they just appeared in the sixteenth century. They are also Orthodox Christians, not good Protestants like the British or Germans. Even the French Catholics with their Vatican voodoo are better than the crazy beards and fur caps of the mad Russian monks.

And Russians were not true full-blooded Europeans, they were Slavic untermensch. They weren't animals like Africans or Asians, they were more sophisticated, more sinister. They were like Neanderthals, animals that masqueraded as men. But the veneer of civilisation was never thick enough to convince the inbred cliques of Western Europe that Slavs were fully human like themselves.

That hatred, along with the insatiable bloodlust of the military-industrial-intelligence-media complex, is fueling a Cold War 2 and threatening to tear apart any detente that President Trump hopes to build with Russia.

The Cold War was fueled by the bottomless desire for money and influence. Where once Uncle Joe Stalin had provided the bulk of the effort to stop the Nazis, with Roosevelt and Churchill happily smoking away with the Supreme Soviet, the end of the war had posed an existential threat to the nascent deep state. Without arms contracts the endless supply of money would dry up. With no enemy to spy on the intelligence apparatchiks would have to take jobs selling carpets or working in a delicatessen. No, they needed to concoct a new war so the party would never stop, and they fell back on the easiest target: Russia.

The military-industrial-intelligence complex, of both super powers, had to get rid of Kennedy and Khrushchev because they faced off eye to eye and found common ground and then turned inward to repair their broken countries. After the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the missiles were removed from Cuba and Turkey and almost 20 years of hostilities between the USA and USSR began to cool, Kennedy tried to restrain the power of the CIA and the private Federal Reserve, and Khrushchev tried to take resources away from the KGB and the arms manufacturers to improve the welfare of the Soviet citizens. Naturally they had to be removed and two war hawks, LBJ and Brezhnev, put in power.

Militarism, not communism, destroyed the USSR, and it very nearly destroyed the USA. USA just had a head start in terms of money it could lose, having avoided a disastrous civil war and destruction of 20% of its industry in WWII. If both countries started off on an even playing field both would have collapsed around the same time.

Of course the USSR couldn't compete. 3 million dead in WWI, another 4-5 million wounded. Loss of most of Russia's agricultural land. 6 years of civil war, another 3 million dead, at least. 7 million dead in famines in 1921-22, another 5-10 million dead in famine in 1932-33. At least 20-26 million dead in WWII, plus the destruction of at least 20% of all Soviet industry and agricultural land.

The Cold War was like a heavyweight champion fighting against some guy with both legs and an arm tied behind his back, and still, despite all that, in a single lifetime, people in the Soviet Union started basically as slaves living off the land making nothing to ending up making half of what people in America were making in 1991.

Imagine what could have happened if Kennedy and Khrushchev were allowed to make peace instead of being eliminated and having pointless war continue.

Imagine now what a glorious future we can live in if Trump and Putin are able to bring our two nations together. One unified force to eliminate Islamic terrorism, one unified force to chart a path to Mars and the outer moons. American technical know-how combined with the ironclad faith of the Russian Orthodox Church can restore Western civilisation to the glory it once was before materialism, atheism, cultural relativism, and moral nihilism began to eat away at the very heart of the greatest civilisation in human history.

I've spoken on this topic at length. The emptiness that has taken root in the West is the driving force behind Islamic terrorism. Lack of religion in the West, lack of value and meaning to life, is creating a vacuum, both spiritual and physical. Westerners are refusing to breed, so to solve the problem of a rapidly declining population, Angela Merkin, like a reverse Hitler, is flooding Europe with Islamic third-worlders. With no strong Christianity within Europe, there is nothing to stop those migrants from forming rape gangs and burning Sweden to the ground. Merkin is committing genocide against the German people.

The only thing that can keep the West from falling to pieces is strong Christian faith and a desire to breed, providing both the spiritual and physical bulwark against the endless hordes of Islamic migrants who believe women are property, rape is acceptable, homosexuals should be murdered, and all knowledge should be burned except for a single, all-encompassing book that can be interpreted six ways till Sunday by every back alley cleric and self-proclaimed Caliph.

And the only place where Christianity still reigns in Europe is Mother Russia.

We've watched as secular states in the Middle East and north Africa have been decapitated: Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan (the pro-Soviet government the United States destroyed by creating Al Qaeda). Egypt was nearly destroyed, and by every indication it appears that Erdogan of Turkey is an Islamist. The United States has its sights on Syria and Iran, two of Russia's allies. They should be our allies too, in the war against radical Islam. You see, even though the people there are overwhelmingly Muslim, they are ruled by rational actors who fully embrace technology and the twentieth century. Iran provided the US with support in eliminating the Taliban after 9/11. That's not because they are pro-America, Tehran just didn't want radical Islamists at their doorstep. There is also a horrendous heroin problem in Iran, fueled by the vast fields of opium poppies that grow from one horizon to the other in Afghanistan. Just as Britain and America sided with Stalin in World War Two, Iran sided with America against the Taliban because they shared a common enemy.

The United States went to war in Afghanistan out of revenge. Iran did so because they don't want mad, seventh century barbarians right next door poisoning and murdering their people.

Secular dictatorships in the Middle East are necessary to keep radical Islam from spreading, just as strong adherence to Christianity is necessary in Europe for the same reason. There were no refugees when Gaddafi was in power. He provided his people with free housing, food, water, and jobs, all paid for by the ocean of oil Libya sits atop, and he provided security by eliminating any Islamist barbarian who tried to stir up discord. The same is true with Assad in Syria.

If you sow the wind you will reap the whirlwind. If the United States works with Russia, Syria, and Iran to defeat radical Islam, everyone's lives will improve. There will be no need for anyone to migrate to Europe because Syria and Iraq themselves will be safe once again. Everyone wins except the arms manufacturers and the intelligence agencies.

That is why it is imperative that Trump is able to defeat the chickenhawks in Washington. That is why US troops need to be pulled out of Poland and the Baltic states, why the people of Crimea be permitted to stay in Russia where they voted to be. If the West is to survive, if world peace is truly to be realised, there must be an alliance between the US and Russia. If not then the West is destined to be reduced to dust in the wind.

What is at Stake in the Next Election

There are three primary issues that I care about that influence my decision on the next election. All the little things, the degeneracy, the lies, the demographic decline and fall of the West, that's all secondary. All that can be dealt with much later. That's been my position for many years. For other people, they want to deal with minutia right now and ignore major problems. They want to deal with the hangnail RIGHT NOW and focus on the massive hemorrhaging wound at their own convenience, if ever. Look at all the issues that have captured the attention of the masses over the past five years. They're all trivial. Look at the three biggest catastrophes facing the country: the economy, national security, and the worst education system in the developed world; the masses ignore them completely.



As long as Caesar gave the plebs bread and circuses the masses were happy. The same is true today but with welfare and celebrities exposing themselves on television.



Haven't I been saying it? We have the worst unemployment in US history, terror attacks - whether organised or "lone wolf" - are at a terrifying level, we're hemorrhaging $4 billion per day - over $1 trillion per year - more than we have, there's more debt than money in the entire US economy, the criminal government is decapitating duly elected governments in the Muslim world and replacing them with radical barbarians from the 7th century who burn women alive in cages, throw gays off buildings, and post the videos of their rape and murder online, Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, diseases that had once been eradicated like TB and measles have been reintroduced due to the gigantic flood of illegal migration, and the masses are concerned over trivial issues that concern maybe 2 million people, tops. Let's focus on the 93 million people without jobs first, then get to the 2 million people who want to use the wrong bathroom. I'm not saying let's ignore the trivially small issue, I'm saying let's focus on fixing the catastrophe first, then when we're not on the verge of total collapse, then we can deal with the trivial issue.



Issue one is the economy, stupid. Always has been, always will be, until we evolve into a post-economic system where people no longer have to pay to exist.



In 1930 there were 93 million people alive in the US, and 13 million people without jobs. In 2016 there are 350 million people alive in the US (324 million "officially" and at least 40 million here illegally, most uncounted), and 93 million people without jobs. There are more people who are not working in the US today than were alive during the Great Depression. It's that bad.



Don't let the fake "unemployment" numbers fool you, or the "120,000 jobs created last month." That's sophistry. More flashy nonsense designed to distract you from the truth. Those "jobs" that are created are temporary minimum wage jobs that only let you work 20 hours a week. Even if you had three jobs you wouldn't be able to live. And the unemployment numbers are even more deceptive. Once a person's benefits expire they are no longer counted as "unemployed" even if they haven't found a job yet. Those people exist in a state of limbo, where they're not employed but they're not "unemployed", so they are completely forgotten by everyone but the people whose lives are ruined by this disastrous system of lies. Sure, "unemployment" might be 4%, or however low they pretend it to be (4% has always been the margin of error and is, effectively, 0 unemployment), but in terms of real numbers it's over 25%. One in four working age Americans is not making enough money to survive.



I'm no "expert" but it doesn't take a genius to see the economic policies the criminal US government has been pursuing since at least 2007 are not working. In fact, they are making the situation worse year after year. Every year fewer people are working, those who are are having their hours cut, jobs are being shipped overseas, and more immigrants are flooding into the country, diluting an already ruinously low job market.



Printing money, inflating the stock market, and erasing jobs is not the way to fix the economy, it's a way to permanently destroy it.



What's the solution? We need to stop printing money and we need to bring jobs back. Take a good look at the candidates. Only one of them is not a career politician. Only one of them has even held a job, let alone created jobs. Scoffers will say that a handful of Donald Trump's businesses filed for bankruptcy, and they say this is a sign he knows nothing about business. They say this because they know absolutely nothing about business. Most businesses fail within the first ten years, and most very successful people have failed a great deal before finally succeeding. Yes, a handful of Donald Trump's businesses have failed, that's because he is a very successful business mogul who has taken a lot of risks starting a lot of businesses and failing at several of them to discover what works and what doesn't. Even great athletes fail most of the time. With great success no one remembers the failures. No one remembers the 67% of balls you missed, they only focus on the 33% you hit out of the park. But with Donald Trump the scoffers like to point out his handful of failures and say those totally negate his successes! You can make a compilation of all the shots Michael Jordan missed and think you're making him look like an idiot, but most people will recognise that you're the idiot and that Jordan was one of the greatest basketball players of all time.



Donald Trump has an estimated 500 businesses. 4 of them have gone bankrupt. That's a success rate of  99.2%! And never-Trumpers still parade those four bankruptcies around as if Trump is the worst businessman on the planet!



Scoffers also like to say he started out with tons of money he inherited and that proves he knows nothing about business. They say this because they know absolutely nothing about money. Nearly all lottery winners end up flat broke within a few years of winning. They end up worse off financially than before they won. Inheriting money does not make someone a tremendous success, it usually makes you a loser and a failure. If someone gave you $1,000 and you went and turned it into $1,000,000, then you would be very good at making money. Donald Trump turned a few million into $10 billion. He created a global business that employs tens of thousands of people, and has become one of the most famous billionaires in the world. Sure, people like Carlos Slim and Warren Buffett might be richer, but they're not celebrity billionaires. Very few billionaires are as famous as Donald Trump. He knows more about branding than most of the other billionaires combined.



Who knows more about jobs, Hitlery Roddamn Clinton – career politician, or Donald Trump – business mogul? If you had to take a gamble, would you gamble on someone who can string a bunch of pretty theoretical words together or someone who has actually created jobs? Trump has negotiated with governments all over the world, he knows what he's doing. On the other hand, Clinton's brand of negotiations led to the destabilisation of North Africa and the Near East with the Arab Spring, war in Libya, war in Syria, war in Iraq, the spread of ISIS, war in Ukraine. Donald Trump might have failed selling steaks, but Hitlery Clinton has failed completely at geopolitics, and a million lives have already been lost as a result.



No one can say whether Trump's economic plan will work. Economists said the subprime market was solvent months before it collapsed, so it's safe to say most of economics is guess work. The one thing we do know is that the Bush-Obama-Clinton economic policies have failed, and will continue to fail. A vote for Clinton is a vote for a proven track record of failure. A vote for Trump gives us at least the chance of success.



Safe Bet: Trump



Issue number two is national security. This one should be a no brainer. Ignoring the existence of Islamic terrorism has only made it worse. Every month, just about, we hear of another mass shooting somewhere. Just as one crisis ends another one flairs up with no time in between to recover.



Millions of radical Muslim "refugees" have flooded Europe, and the EU has allowed it because the white Europeans have given up on breeding and they need to import a working class to prop up the bloated welfare system. Sure, rape and murder might have skyrocketed, and thousands of years of European culture might have to be abandoned because it's haram, but that's a small price to pay to replace the European babies who were never born.



The same thing is happening in the US on a smaller scale. ISIS brags online that they are infiltrating the West with operatives who are posing as refugees. Last year FBI Director James Comey said that ISIS has cells in all 50 US states. What is anyone doing to stop them? Attempting to confiscate the guns of legal gun owners? How well did that work out in France? In France guns are close to illegal. Semi-automatic guns, the kind where you have to pull the trigger every time to make it fire, are limited to 3 round capacity. And yet all the gun restrictions in the world didn't stop ISIS terrorists from acquiring bombs and military grade guns and murdering 130 people in Paris last year. It's almost as if criminals don't obey the law!



And as all of this is happening the criminal US government won't even use the words "Islamic" and "terrorist" in the same sentence! Or else they'll try to deflect the issue and say that 99% of Muslims are good, and it's just a handful who are terrorists. Well, 1% of a million people is still ten thousand people! These people have no problem letting in thousands of would-be terrorists, all so that they don't look racialist, even though Islam is not a race, it is a set of beliefs held by people of all races on every continent.



And it's not just the radicals. What counts as "moderate" is abhorrent as well. The governments of eleven Muslim countries make homosexuality a crime punishable by death. You can't say all those countries are full of radicals. The Saudis, the Emirates, Kuwait, Yemen, Pakistan, Iran, are they all radicals? The Saudi princes are the biggest supporters of Hitlery Clinton on the planet. They live in all the comfort the Western world has to offer and drink Johnny Walker Black when no one is looking. They seem pretty moderate to me. I mean, they're not running around blowing themselves up or cutting off heads.... Actually the Saudi government beheads more people per year than ISIS does. And they're the moderates.



Clinton has taken $25 million from Saudi Arabia, a country where women are not allowed to vote, or drive, or leave the home without male supervision. A country where marital rape is legal, where child marriage is legal, where child rape is legal. A country that is funding ISIS. That's right, the same country that is funding the enemies of the US are funding Clinton as well! If any other person on the planet was connected to these people that person would not be allowed to run for president. But Clinton is above the law. She's too big to jail.



If you're a woman, or gay, or a Jew, or an atheist and you vote for Hitlery Clinton you are literally a traitor to yourself and your own best interests. Clinton is backed by the Saudi government, which murders gays, treats women as property, and imprisons anyone who is not a Sunni Muslim.



And Trump doesn't want to exclude Muslims from America. In one of the
debates he said that the Muslim community in America needs to work with
the police to find the few radicals who want to launch terror attacks.
The only way to eliminate the radicals is if people within the Muslim
community help the police identify who the radicals are. Working
together is not exclusion.



Trump's "extreme vetting" of persons
from regions that are known to harbor terrorists (Syria, Iran, Lybia),
isn't excluding Muslims either. Most Muslims will get through because
they're not terrorists. Even Clinton herself said we need "vetting that
is as tough as it needs to be." Checking someone's papers who want to
enter the United States is not an exclusion of Muslims from America any
more than Carter's suspension of visas from Iran in 1979 following the
Islamic Revolution, and his deportation of 15,000 Iranians who were
found in violation of their visas (which was upheld on First Amendment
ground in federal court).



Don't think I'm trying to lay all the blame at the feet of Islamic terrorism. There are other terrorist groups a lot closer to home. Elements within the CIA staged a coup in Ukraine a few years ago as a pretext for going to war with Russia. NATO has been expanding in Russia's near abroad for decades, and their actions have ramped up in recent years. Remember, Russia has 7,000 nuclear weapons. Total war necessarily means nuclear war, which means billions of deaths worldwide. Hitlery Clinton and all the Republicans have come out and said they want nuclear world war with Russia. Donald Trump is the only candidate who has said the only logical statement regarding Russia, that they are our natural ally against Islamic terror in the world. Russia and the Assad regime in Syria represent stabilising influences in the region. So did Gadaffi in Libya and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Stable, secular military dictatorships all throughout the Islamic world have been eliminated one by one by the US, leading to the spread of radical Islamic groups like al Qaeda and ISIS, the breakdown of governance and the rule of law, and millions of deaths. Remember, this started with the first Clinton when he invaded Somalia for no apparent reason, and continued under Bush who destroyed Iraq at the cost of $1 trillion and thousands of American lives, and has escalated under Obama and Hitlery with their Arab Spring policy. Both parties are guilty of destroying stable governments and strengthening Islamic terrorism. Both parties have the blood of millions of innocents on their hands. Both parties want to start a war with Russia. Only Donald Trump wants to avoid war. He wants to work with Russia to defeat ISIS – who the US created, either deliberately or out of criminal negligence – and then he wants to pull out and focus on America.



Clinton is so worried about the 250,000 people in Aleppo, because only
the US is allowed to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians, no one
else. It doesn't matter that up to 1 million Iraqis, mostly civilians,
died in the war that she voted for. It doesn't matter that she wants
regime change in Syria because the elite who fund her want to build an
oil pipeline through the country, it doesn't matter that millions more
will die if Assad is eliminated, and that billions will die in nuclear
war. Clinton has to stare down Putin because he's the only one on the
planet who is resisting US aggression.



Clinton gave Russia the
uranium to build nuclear missiles capable of wiping out the United
States. 20% of US uranium was sold to Russia in a pay-to-play scheme in
exchange for Clinton Foundation "donations".



On live TV she
revealed that our response time is 4 minutes, letting them know how far
from the coast they need to park their subs to wipe us out before we
even notice the launch. 4 minutes by ballistic missile is about the
distance from the coast to Bermuda. If Russian subs are closer to the
coast than that, they can launch their missiles and destroy our cities
BEFORE our defense installations can even detect the launch. Clinton
gave the Russians knowledge on how to conduct a decapitation strike
against the US, a first strike that eliminates our ability to launch a
retaliation.



Clinton calls Putin "Hitler" and threatens to start a
war when she gets in the White House. Clinton wants to start a war with
Russia after giving them our uranium and letting them know what our
nuclear response time is. It's almost as if she wants Russia to
annihilate the US.



And securing the border? Trump wants to secure the border so we keep crime and drugs from spilling over into the United States (and by cutting the bottom out of the market, starving the drug cartels and helping Mexico out too).



Some people crossing the border are trafficking drugs. "Most of the drugs that enter the U.S. come from Central and South America."



Some people crossing the border are criminals. In a 2005 report 27% of inmates in Federal prisons were in the country illegally. Yes, that's fewer people than the native population, I don't think anyone denies that, but 49,000 people is still a lot. It would be nice if we could monitor who it is crossing the border, especially with instances of human trafficking and human rights abuse. It would be nice to cut that down, and whether that's with the Great Wall of China, a chain-link fence, or more border patrol agents, stopping human beings, including sex slaves, being smuggled over the border, even if it's only a few thousand, is a good idea.



Drug cartels are using rape as a weapon on the border. From Latina.com:



"From beheading to kidnappings, there seems to be no limit to what the Mexican drug cartels are willing to do to assert their dominance—and they deal not only in drugs, but also in humans. The majority of the coyotes who help undocumented immigrants cross the border are affiliated with the cartels.



Although many politicians would like to believe that the violence will stay to the south of the border, the reality is that it has already begun to affect South Western states. The revelation that Phoenix is now the “kidnapping capital” of the United States only affirms what many residents already believe.



Now, a new method of marking territory has crossed over into the United States. “Rape trees” are popping up in Southern Arizona and their significance is horrific. These “rape trees” are places where cartel members and coyotes rape female border crossers and hang their clothes, specifically undergarments, to mark their conquest."



What is a rape tree:



"Rape trees are trees or bushes that mark where sexual assaults have occurred by arranging the victim's undergarments on or around the trees branches or on the ground. "Rape trees" are commonly and increasingly found along the United States and Mexico borders as illegal immigration grows. Immigrant females are particularly at risk of being assaulted by the typically male "coyotes" that illegally guide them through the border area. Violent crimes including rape are rarely reported as the victims fear they may be deported after coming forward. Women often seek out birth control methods to prevent pregnancy from anticipated sexual assaults. The marked trees serve to intimidate both the illegal immigrants being guided, as well as local citizens, that the human traffickers are willing and able to commit acts of violence to gain compliance from victims and deter potential witnesses or rescuers."



Sure would be nice to put a stop to that. Bill Clinton thought so too 20 years ago, as did most Republicans and Democrats. Trump doesn't want to get rid of Mexicans, he wants to put a stop to human trafficking and cut off the flow of drugs into the US, and to do that we need to secure the border.



What does Clinton think of securing the border? She wants to leave it wide open. She wants to increase the influx of "refugees" (from the war she created!) by 500% over what we are taking in now. She wants amnesty for millions of illegals, because they are her voter base. Granting them all citizenship will guarantee so many Democrat votes that it will be impossible to hold a free and fair election again. She will have imported so many knee-jerk voters that no amount of reason and evidence will ever prevail against 30 million guaranteed Democrats.



If you like your democracy you can keep it.



The evidence is clear, only a fool, or an arms manufacturer, would think that the candidate who
promises to go to war is the safer alternative to the candidate who
promises to negotiate to keep us out of war. What happened to the anti-war movement under Bush? Did it just evaporate like morning dew? The truth is they were anti-Republicans, not anti-war. It doesn't matter if Obama kills twice as many Americans in Afghanistan than Bush did, and not a peep. Obama launches air-strikes in seven countries, not a peep. Obama brags about how he's "Really good at killing people," not a fucking peep. As long as a Democrat is killing people the supposed anti-war movement does not care.



The choice could not be any more obvious.  



Safe Bet: Trump.



And last, but certainly not least, education.



It should be obvious to anyone willing to examine the evidence, that the US has the worst education system in the developed world. The United States ranks behind Russia, Slovenia, Australia, Estonia, Vietnam, Canada, Poland, and China, to name a few. Is that any surprise? If you've been getting your news from a TV comedian it probably is. If you've been to a store and you see the kid behind the counter doesn't know how to make change, or even how to push the button to change an order, you know this is a major problem.



You already know about the clutural Marxism that has infested academia. You know about "safe spaces", "trigger warnings", and Marxists censoring the free speech of tenured professors. You know that academia is run by authoritarians who care more about hurt feelings than facts, and who believe that producing emotionally-stunted adults who act like children is all that matters.



But let's take a step back. What about the wonderful public school system? High school graduation rates are at the highest they've ever been! That's because dumb kids are being pushed through like cattle to the slaughter and programs for smart kids are being cut so the dumb kids don't feel bad for being excluded.



26% of high school graduates are below the basic reading level. This means these kids do not have the
skills necessary to perform simple and everyday literacy activities. One quarter of all high school graduates are functionally illiterate! In 1979 only 1% of graduates were illiterate, and now it's 26% thanks to "outcome-based education." Worse still, 19% of high school graduates can't read AT ALL! One in five graduates cannot read their own name.



Remember Bush's "No Child Left Behind Act"? And it's gotten worse under Common Core, where getting the correct answer is wrong unless you use all your fingers and your toes to count by ones!



The schools have failed a significant percentage of kids. People with no education and no skills, mostly poor urban blacks and Latinos, often can't get a job (see above), and in order to make money just to survive turn to crime. They turn to crime, they turn to drugs, and then they run afoul of the police. They go to prison, they die in gangland shootings, or they die in standoffs with the police. The horrible state of public education in America, combined with economic policies that ship jobs overseas, are creating the crime that is devastating minority communities. Blacks and Latinos who vote for the Bush-Obama-Clinton policies are literally voting for their own poverty and inner city violence. If black lives really mattered, if you really want police shootings to stop, you need to solve the root causes of the problem, which means fixing the economy, fixing the schools, and securing the border. And that means voting for Trump.



Not only has public school failed the children (precisely because children are not allowed to fail or be held back), but college has failed them as well. Student loan debt in the US is at $1.4 trillion! And, unlike other forms of debt, student loan debt cannot be erased through bankruptcy. It is stuck with you until you die. College tuition rates are soaring, and students are graduating with worthless degrees in gender studies or critical theory. College graduates are saddled with, on average $37,000 of debt, which at minimum wage, working 20 hours a week, minus tax, can be paid off in only 6 years, assuming you don't have to eat, or pay rent, or car insurance, or buy gas or food. And God help you if you get sick or injured. With ObamaCare deductibles at $6,000 per year, if you're lucky, you'll be paying all your doctor bills out of pocket, plus your premiums, unless you want to pay the penalty (that's totally not a tax, unless it is, depending on what bullshit the Supreme Court is using to justify the law).



And no, a $15 minimum wage won't help either. College graduates are already competing for minimum wage jobs, for which they are over-qualified, with older people who can't afford to retire, high school kids who can't read, and illegal aliens who can be paid under the table for less. The only thing a $15 minimum wage, a minimum wage well below a living wage, will do is force even more young people out of the labor market and, if they're lucky, onto welfare, and, if they're unlucky, into a life of crime. And it's mostly poor blacks and Latinos who are hurt by these failed Bush-Obama-Clinton policies.



Neither will forgiving student loan debt solve the problem? Who will pay for that $1.4 trillion? Will the Fed just print the money? Even if they do, it's the tax payers who will have to foot the bill. So you think you're debt is forgiven? Fat chance. The government will just take it out of your $15 an hour pay check. You'll be stuck paying no matter what you do. The only way to solve the student loan problem is by reforming the whole loan architecture, and by growing the economy. Only one candidate is talking about that, and it's Donald Trump.



Only Trump is talking about school choice, about vouchers for parents to send their kids to the schools they want, that best suits their child's needs. "Voucher" and "school choice" are dirty words for leftists like Clinton, but it's mostly poor blacks who benefit. A strong majority of blacks favor vouchers, and there's real evidence that even modest assistance provides a huge benefit for kids. So why do people like Clinton oppose vouchers? Is it any surprise? Her financial backers are super racist. They want to keep blacks poor and uneducated so they can promise pie-in-the-sky programs year after year, and once they get and maintain power they deliver nothing.



Clinton represents a continuation of the policies that have failed under Bush and Obama. Trump represents the kind of change that the majority of real people want and need. When it comes to education the answer couldn't be any more obvious.  



Safe Bet: Trump



When it comes to fixing the economy, providing for national security, or fixing the broken education system, the only logical choice, the only choice backed by reason and evidence is Donald Trump.



The Bush-Obama-Clinton policies have bankrupted the nation, have gotten us stuck in endless foreign wars over oil, have failed our kids, especially in the inner cities.



Clinton is the candidate of Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, the Main Stream Media, political elites in Washington from both Republican and Democratic parties, and oil sheiks from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Clinton is the candidate of ISIS and the drug cartels that traffick in sex slaves and rape women trying to cross the border. Clinton is the candidate of banker bailouts, golden parachutes, debt, and dead Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. She is the candidate who would do nothing to stop the massacre in Orlando, do nothing to help disabled veterans or the struggling poor, while showering "refugees" with benefits. Why doesn't she want the veterans who were wounded, physically and mentally, in the war she voted for to get benefits? Why doesn't she want poor blacks and Latinos to get benefits? Why invite tens of thousands of Syrians into America? Are there not enough struggling poor here already who desperately need help? Shouldn't they get help first?



So, what is at stake in the next election? The American dream is at stake. And no, that doesn't mean a return to Jim Crow or slavery, that doesn't mean taking away women's suffrage, that doesn't mean excluding Muslims and Mexicans from America. The American dream means schools that provide children with a proper education. It means school choice. It means a high school graduate can get a job in a factory that can provide for a family of five with a house and two cars. It means college graduates can get good jobs so that they can pay off their loans and won't have to stay at home with their parents forever. It means not getting entangled in pointless foreign wars where untold thousands die for the benefit of a few. It means solving the problems of crime, drugs, and the deterioration of the inner cities. It means keeping people out of prisons just because of a plant.



The American dream was alive and well before NAFTA gutted the middle class, before securing the border went from having bi-partisan support to being an "extreme far-right" position, that tens of millions of Americans support, but the out-of-touch elite in Washington despise. The American dream does not mean eliminating any of the strides we've made in civil rights, it means eliminating the civil wrongs the elite have imposed upon us: crippling debt, corruption, crime, terrorism, and endless foreign wars. That's it. Trump does not want to drag us back to the 1950s, he wants us to strive forward into the future, where we can all get under the big tent called America.



The elite hate us. The super rich globalists who know no allegiance to any nation, they are the enemy. Black, white, Indian, Latino, Chinese, gay, straight, Muslim, Christian, atheist, we're all Americans. The elite want to drive wedges between us, they want to get us at each other's throats to divide and rule. Trump wants to unite us all against the elite, who don't give a damn about you. Clinton doesn't care about you any more than she cares about the Syrian people she pretends to support so she can get her oil pipeline. Clinton doesn't care about you any more than she cares about the Haitians whose country she gutted. Clinton is bought and paid for by the elite who own this country and want to keep us poor and stupid and in perpetual debt. The elite hate you. They pull the strings. Now cut them.



When you vote, vote to give a finger to the elite. Vote to cut their strings. Vote to tear the whole corrupt system down. Vote to drain the swamp.



Vote for the American dream. Your dream. Your future, and your children's future.



Vote for Donald Trump.

NATO Delenda Est

Over the years, since 2002, I've intensely studied the First World War, and what we're seeing right now is a repeat of August 1914.

A century ago millions of men died for absolutely nothing, and millions more would survive with their minds and bodies destroyed. A world that had been stable for 40 years, where conflict between the great powers seemed impossible, was overturned, resulting in the rise of fascism and communism, and, ultimately, the death of an additional 150-200 million people over the 20th century.

There was no reason to fight the war. There was nothing to be gained and everything to be lost. And it all started because of the byzantine system of alliances the great powers had entangled themselves in. These alliances seemed to them to mark the end of all war, as war with any one member state would mean war with the whole world, and no rational person would want that. But, in truth, that system of alliances is what dragged the whole world into the war, turning a small regional conflict, no, a small regional incident, into a four year long meat grinder.

We find ourselves today in the same situation. NATO has 28 member states, including the world's only superpower, the United States, along with Britain, France, and some unstable places like Turkey and Albania. Just like those 1914 alliances, an attack on one member state necessitates war for all 28 members, guaranteeing that any regional disturbance will blow up into global war.

Pundits will assure the plebs that such an alliance is a safeguard against all future wars, but they're lying, just like the pundits of a century ago.

If Estonia is invaded, and at this point there is absolutely no evidence that Russia has any designs on the Baltic, that would drag the US into nuclear war with Russia. Nuclear war means death for the majority of people on the planet. Tell me, are you willing to die for Estonia? Are you willing to murder 5 billion people for Estonia? Because I'm not. And even though Russia has no intention of invading, it is the easiest thing in the world for some NATO guys in fake Russian uniforms to kill a few border guards in a false flag attack and spark a war if the neocons wanted one.

NATO was established to counter the Warsaw Pact, a similar alliance involving the Soviet Union and other eastern European communist states. The Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union are long gone. The Cold War is over, and all the cold warriors are approaching their 70s and 80s. Are you, young men, willing to die in some old man's war? Are you, young women, willing to die because some octogenarians want to stroke their egos one last time?

The recent coup attempt in Turkey and their brazen acts of shooting Russian jets should make clear to all rational people that NATO represents an existential threat to the continued existence of humanity on this planet. NATO is a ticking time bomb that, when it goes off, will start nuclear war.

Donald Trump was absolutely correct. NATO is not only obsolete, it is a suicide pact and it should be dissolved.

The Mystery Of The Shemitah

Jonathan Cahn explains what he calls "The Mystery Of The Shemitah" for 77 minutes. Basically, there's this Biblical injunction that every 7th year the Jews were supposed to stop working and erase all debts (I'm still wondering what they were supposed to eat), but the Jews always defy God's comands, so they ignored this injunction for 490 years. As a result the Babylonians came in and destroyed Jerusalem and sent the Jews into exile for 70 years - one year for every sabbath year ("shemitah") they had ignored. At the end of 70 years the Persians come in and wipe out the Babylonians and the Persian king Cyrus rebuilds Jerusalem and puts the Jews back in their homeland.



Rabbi Cahn says the same rule applies to the United States, because the US was unique in that it was the only modern state that was founded on the principles of God's word, in effect setting up a new covenant like the one the Jews had thousands of years ago.



1870 - shemitah year - the US surpasses Britain as the largest economy on the planet

1917 - shemitah year - the US becomes a superpower

1945 - shemitah year - a new financial world order is established based on the US dollar



As long as the US (this rule only applies to the US and Israel) stays right with God then every seventh year will be a blessing, but if the US defies God then every seventh year will be a curse.



1973 - shemitah year - the US legalises abortion, defying God

2001 - shemitah year - 9/11, the symbol of America's economic might - the World Trade Center, which was built in 1973 - is destroyed, followed by a huge financial collapse of the stock market

2008 - shemitah year - the Great Recession starts, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression (which also started on a shemitah year)



What happens next? I don't know. The last shemitah year was September 2014 to September 2015, which passed, and while there weren't any further economic disasters or terror attacks, the Supreme Court did deem itself infinite power over all aspects of everyone's lives allegedly to protect the "rights" of maybe one tenth of seven tenths of one percent of the population, but really it was a naked power grab that followed 30 years of public indoctrination to move the overton window.



Is there anything to this? I don't know. This might all just be coincidence. It is an interesting hypothesis, and it is an interesting lecture.

Spirituality in 2016

Ken Wilber talks about the "spiritual but not religious" people in one of the footnote videos and there's points of agreement and disagreement I have with his assessment. I've written about this topic at least twice before. Just taking his numbers as given, 20% of Americans are "spiritual but not religious." Ken says they don't want the mythic elements of organised religion, they want direct access to genuine transpersonal realities. And I think there's definitely some of that. In the back of everyone's mind there's the drive to return to the Source, but I don't think that's the main reason people are checking out of religion, and I say that because people don't seem any more "spiritual" today than 50 years ago. People today seem much less likely to accept non-physical realities, and they also seem far less moral and far more materialistic. I think the main push is that people don't want guilt. People reject absolute morality so they can have, mostly, guilt-free sex, along with guilt-free gluttony (1/3 of Americans are obese), guilt-free envy, celebrity worship, and just all around hedonism. That's why drug addiction is so high, because people know they are living crappy lives and even though they have rejected religion they still know that buying $400 of shit and wondering why you bought it is wrong, people know this Weimar cabaret lifestyle of nights of heroin use and anonymous sex with 50 people followed by mornings of detoxing with green coffee enemas is wrong, and it's causing massive anxiety and massive depression. I do not see this as an ascent to Integral spirituality, I see this as a descent into egocentric hedonism.

He also mentions the mindset of terrorists, that I've written about here. He does a good deal of equivocating, "Southern Baptists bombing abortion clinics"? When was the last time that happened? "Buddhists releasing sarin gas in the Tokyo subway"? Aum Shinrikyo are not Buddhist, they are an apocalyptic cult led by a blind man who believes he is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ as prophesied by Edgar Cayce. That's not Buddhism, nor is it Christianity, it's worship of a charismatic figure by nihilists. And he lumps these people in with Al Qaeda (and radical Islam by extension). He says the reason these terrorists exist is because modernity has no place for their ancient religions, so they will destroy modernity completely. Well, if that were the case why are so many terrorists highly successful, highly educated Westerners? These people very clearly don't reject modernity because they are mostly educated professionals. Saudi Arabia, the largest state sponsor of terrorism, the place where Salafism was invented, exists only because of modern technology! These people do not reject modernity, they reject the meaninglessness of post-modern boomeritis.

I'm not saying very bad Christians don't exist, just that the worst of them tend to be assholes who disrupt solder's funerals. The very small handful who turn to violence can be easily handled (and are easily handled) by the police. They are such a tiny minority that they can be dismissed as mentally deranged. The only two groups of people who have a very large number of very violent terrorists are radical leftists and radical Islam. All, or very nearly all the mass shootings of the past decade have been perpetrated by radical leftists who were on psychiatric medication, the other groups causing trouble, the Black Lives Matter people who burnt Ferguson and Baltimore to the ground, they are opportunistic nihilistic leftists. I have yet to see a prototypical far right group like the KKK or Neo-Nazis kill a lot of people in the US in the past two decades. And there is no small minority of Muslims who support terror. In every majority Muslim country surveyed the majority of the populations, while not terrorists themselves, support terrorism, or at the very least a strict interpretation of Shariah that says infidels have no rights, women are property, gays should be murdered, and Christians and Jews should be second-class citizen dhimis. Religions do not need to get with the program and integrate modernity, not to eliminate terrorism, cultural Marxism and radical Islam need to stop seeing terrorism as a means to achieve political ends.

The Minimum Income

This is part two of the Kallipolis series, which began with "Only Veterans Deserve to Vote".



One thing I've never understood was brought up in one of my favourite books Generation Kill. You go all over the world and poor people are skinny, yet in America, for some unknown reason, poor people are obese. That makes no sense. Why are poor people fatter than rich people in America? How can someone living entirely off the welfare possibly purchase or otherwise acquire enough food to actually become obese? That does not make sense.

You look at these Mexicans who come over to mow lawns or put up roofs (rooves?), they are 130, 140 pounds, and it's pure muscle. They get paid one shiny penny per hour and they work themselves to death and they have zero body fat. I like that (I like their work ethic, not that they are underpaid or die early). I greatly admire the amount of work they do. More poor people should be like that. One big problem is that there aren't enough good jobs for poor people. The roads are disintegrating, inner cities look like war zones, all this construction needs to be done but there's no money to pay for it because all the money goes into the pockets of bureaucrats.

I read somewhere that at least 80% of all money spent on welfare in the US goes to pay government salaries, not to actually help poor people. If all that money were redistributed from the bloated government then every adult in the US could be given $10,000 per year. I actually recorded (I have not uploaded or even thought to edit it yet) a 50 minute video defending the idea of replacing welfare with a minimum income. 1 January everyone gets a direct deposit of $10,000 into their bank account (this makes the bankers happy because of all the new customers they get). The people who won't work wouldn't work anyway under the current system, so you're not actually losing any additional money, poor people who do work and are making slave wages are automatically lifted out of poverty, it incentivises more people to invest more because they now have more to invest, and for the people who don't need the extra money you get it back with taxes, so you don't lose anything that way either.

Yes, but how do you pay for it? Welfare spending is (one of the contributing factors in) bankrupting America. It's a sunk cost. The government is spending that money anyway. If the money is already spent it might as well be spent on something useful. But I do have some ideas on how to eliminate government spending while maintaining the minimum income.

Step One: cut the size of government by 50% over the next 10 years. As I mentioned earlier, nearly all the spending on welfare is wasted on the government itself. Get rid of everyone in the federal welfare department and have the jobs reassigned to the Treasury without hiring any additional employees. "But you've just laid off thousands of people!" Yes, but remember, with the minimum income they're still getting paid anyway.

Step Two: Stop inflating the currency. The number one reason people are poorer today is because the money is worth less. In fact, the US Dollar is almost completely worthless, having lost over 90% of its original value (The British Pound, by contrast, has lost only about 10% of its original value). People are talking about raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, but if the value of the Dollar had not been destroyed by inflation than the current $7 minimum wage would be worth about $23 an hour. Here's a real world example of inflation. 100 years ago you could take a $20 gold coin, worth exactly $20 USD, and have a finely tailored suit made. Today you can still use that same gold coin to get a finely tailored suit made, but the gold and the suit now both cost $2,000 USD. The gold coin and the suit are still worth exactly the same, the US Dollar is just worth 100 times less.

Step Three: Stop the war on drugs. Legalise and Tax. I read about 8 years ago that if weed was legalised the government could tax it and make $400 billion per year. That right there is equivalent to federal welfare spending, just with weed. You break the backs of the cartels, empty the prisons, and make a huge windfall in taxes simultaneously. That's win-win-win. That's a Charlie Sheen level of winning.

Step Four: Stop policing the world. There are 50,000 US troops in Germany and another 50,000 in Japan even though we beat them 70 years ago. Der Fuhrer is not coming back. The Reds are not going to pour through the Fulda Gap with "more tanks than God" and make it to the Rhine in a week. What the hell are we doing there?

Step Five: Stop the waste in general. SpaceX has spent about $500 million on its Dragon capsule and has already tested it and it works beautifully. The only thing holding them back is red tape. The official NASA government contract for the Orion system, which was obsolete when it was first proposed, and has not gotten off the paper yet, is $17 billion. What's wrong with this picture? The government has tried to produce a POS rocket, spent a load of time, wasted a tremendous amount of money, and hasn't made anything. The SpaceX guys see there is a huge market for commercial spaceflight design AND BUILD something that works perfectly for a fraction of the cost and they're finished already! And why is government so damn slow and why does it wast so much money? It's just like the welfare problem. People see government as a means to line their pockets because they can't do real work producing something. Government is nothing more than one giant slush fund.

I'm not saying government has no purpose. I'm not a wackjob looser utopian fanatic who brays about "the free market" solving all the world's problems. I don't want Apple to put their logo on the Moon even if they pay a trillion dollars for it. I don't want ExxonMobil to drill for oil in Yellowstone. I don't want Blackwater policing US streets (and I don't want to see the friendly-looking police I remember as a kid dressed like mercenaries with machine guns and black ski masks either). I think a world with three or four nuclear powers is a much safer world, and I see nothing wrong with bombing Iran or Saudi Arabia into submission to kill their nuclear ambitions. If a million Iranians die that's better than five billion people who would die in a nuclear war. Stopping nuclear proliferation is not policing the world, it is the calculus of survival. Nuclear weapons represent such a grave threat that they are awarded a special category. Policing the world necessarily involves nation building. Blowing up reactors and then hauling ass is not nation building, it's limited war. The government should police the streets, put out the fires, and kick ass in limited, defensive wars (keeping Iran from getting nukes is defending the US). The government should maintain protected wilderness areas and make people like BP accountable for releasing millions of tons of oil. And the government can do all this in a much more efficient way than it does now. And being efficient starts with cutting jobs and eliminating corruption. I'm not saying everyone needs to be perfectly moral, although if my only veterans get to vote scenario was adopted that would contribute greatly to the morality problem of government (not because veterans are inherently moral in themselves, but because history and moral philosophy will become a mandatory part of their training).

And I think all that can be done while implementing my minimum income system. I'd love to say more but I can no longer see the top of the page, so I'll save that for a part three.

Differences Between Soviet Socialism and European (and American) Socialism

• Soviet socialism values the
collective over the individual

• European socialism values special
snowflakes with six self-diagnosed mental illnesses over the
collective

• Soviet socialism has no minorities,
all are equal

• European socialism worships
minorities and grants them special privileges

• Soviet socialism reveres strength
and patriotism

• European socialism reveres
weakness, autism, morbid obesity, and multi-culturalism while seeing
patriotism as racialist

• Soviet socialism has no racialism

• European socialism is nothing but
racialism

• Soviet socialism punishes leeches
and promotes negligible unemployment

• European socialism rewards leeches,
punishes workers, and promotes extremely high unemployment

• Soviet socialism has women be equal
to men

• European socialism has women be far
superior to men with feminist bullshit

• Soviet socialism has freedom of
religion, with people being free to profess belief in any peaceful
religion or "atheist propaganda" (their words)

• European socialism has no freedom
of religion, you are either a cultural marxist or a radical seventh
century islamist; Christianity is outlawed in all but name

• Soviet socialism is proud of its
cultural heritage

• European socialism is ashamed of
its cultural heritage and instead worships cultures of barefoot
hunter-gatherers and head hunters who still live in mud huts and die
at age 30 in 2016

• Soviet socialism promoted
childbirth for the good of the motherland while keeping abortion
legal, which allowed for replacement level fertility rates

• European socialism sees childbirth
as the greatest sin of them all and promotes abortion as the unholy
sacrament of cultural marxism, resulting in well below replacement
level fertility rates

Only Veterans Deserve to Vote

I'm working out a war game scenario and I am amazed by just how many ranks there are. It got me thinking about more than just military hierarchy.



How many ranks do you need? I'm thinking there are so many mainly as a prestige thing, since many times it seems acquiring a higher rank seems automatic, just by serving for a set period of time. Well, if you haven't done anything why are you climbing to a higher rank? You haven't earned it. Okay, I can understand, you climb up one rank after your first year just to discourage desertion and reward guys for making their beds fifty thousand times and doing a million pushups and shining Sergeant's boots until he can see his own reflection, but after that, do you really need to climb rank automatically for any reason? It seems like rewarding people for nothing.



It's just like the situation with universal franchise. Anyone who knows me knows (or should know) that I hate the idea of universal franchise. Presto change-o you turn 18 and now you can vote! It doesn't matter if you can spell your own name or count to 10 or if you're an asshole or a drug addict, you get to vote just for having existed for 6,574 days. You haven't done anything to earn the privilege to vote, you haven't demonstrated the slightest competency, because that would be racialist, you have just existed, like a stone, and like a stone you can know absolutely nothing and still get to vote!



Well, why should that be? And don't think I'm waving my finger saying "I don't think those people over there I don't like shouldn't vote," no, I'm saying "I don't think I should vote, because I haven't done anything to earn it."



That's why I support the system Robert Heinlein set up in Starship Troopers where you need to serve in some federal capacity in order to vote (it wasn't just military, there were other things you could do, but it had to be equally as dangerous and important as military service). That way you have taken part in the upkeep of the society the laws of which you are deciding. You've earned it. And since you have worked for the privilege of voting you appreciate it more, and, furthermore, you understand the workings of government better. And since most of the voters are veterans they are far less likely to vote for war since they all know how horrible war is.



This solves a tremendous great big horrible problem with government as is. It solves the problem of politicians who are rich, entitled elitists who start wars for their own aggrandizement and who got into office because their parents bought them the office or so they could appease special interest groups with deep pockets. It also solves the problem of the legions of voters with below room temperature IQ's who are all living off welfare who vote for politicians who promise to give them free stuff stolen off the backs of the workers.



You see now the hyperbole of the title. Anyone who has completed their federal service can vote, not just combat veterans.



Some people might object "Oh, but that government would not be representative of everyone." To which I reply, why does it need to be? Why does the government need to represent everyone? The answer is it doesn't, and almost no one actually thinks that it does. Very few people, a few lawyers maybe, think government should represent murderers and child molesters, and that makes absolute sense. Furthermore, most people don't want the government to represent everyone, just people like them. They certainly don't want the government to represent people they disagree with. The only difference between them and me is that I'm honest and they are lying sacks of crap who hide behind phony holier-than-thou moralisms.



As I have pointed out earlier, everyone is most certainly not equal. Is Ted Bundy equal to Isaac Newton? Is a murderer equal to a steel worker or a truck driver or a Girl Scout? Is a drug addict equal to a nuclear scientist or a brain surgeon? Unequivocally no! Not everyone is equal, some people are horrible monster and some people are heroes who have saved hundreds, maybe even thousands of lives. Some people are much better than others and some people are much worse. Admittedly there is a large grey area between the murderers and the brain surgeons, but there is no need to delineate exactly where everyone fits in the hierarchy to see that a hierarchy does exist.



In a rational society competency is rewarded. This is what Chingis Khan did. It didn't matter whether you were the son of a king or a peasant farmer, if you were really good at the military you were given an army and if you were really good at administration you were made a government official of some kind. This is called meritocracy.



"Oh, but that's racialist/sexualist/discriminating against that group of people over there who I look down on and think they're not good enough to make it on their own!"



Most leftists tend to have a tremendously low view of "minority" groups (even when those "minorities" happen to be the majority). They think blacks or women or whoever are too incompetent to accomplish anything on their own so racial or sexual quotas like Title IX and affirmative action are needed to give the poor ex-slave a big boy hand out so he can feel good about himself in a job he couldn't have earned on his own. It is an extension of the "white man's burden" dressed up in a new suit to assuage the guilt of people who like to feel guilty because the idea of collective guilt is in vogue. It seems the louder someone cries "Racialist!" the bigger the racialist that person actually is.



Getting back to the point of a meritocracy, which is actually fair in that it focuses on equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome (which privileges people you like more, be honest and admit it), there's a reason a few tens of thousands of Mongols conquered one fifth the world's land area and several hundred million people, because the person who got the job was best suited for the job. You can't argue with results like that. The person who serves a government office should be the person who is best suited for fulfilling the duties of that office, not the richest person or the person who makes the most phony promises. You wouldn't want your brain surgeon to be someone just picked up off the street for being the tallest or most charismatic liar, you would do a ton of online research and find the most qualified brain surgeon to remove the tumor from your head and damn the expense (I'm not here to make any arguments about healthcare).



Why shouldn't the same be true with government? You wouldn't be so damned interested in letting someone vote to take your money away, would you, but you would vote to take money away from people you don't like in a heartbeat (be honest), and that's a huge problem with the system we have in place now. People with absolutely no qualifications are voting for their own selfish interests based on the height of candidates or catchy slogans rather than voting for the greater good for society even if that means they get left out personally. The system we have now is grossly inefficient and powered almost exclusively by greed. The obvious solution is to restrict voting only to those people who have demonstrated that they know how the system of governance works, the ins and outs of bureaucracy, of organizational structures, of logistics, of getting things done. Voting and public office should be restricted to only those people who have served in some capacity at the bottom of the ladder in that very government hierarchy as the grunts and laborers. They more than anyone know how the chain of command works, how communications between departments work, and they more than anyone appreciate just how hard people at the bottom have it, so they better than anyone would look out for the welfare of those who have the least. Restricting voting does not make a less compassionate government, it makes a more compassionate government, because everyone in office got there only through struggling. No one was born into wealth or privilege, everyone has to work for it from the bottom up. It ensures the most efficient, compassionate, rational system possible, and stands the greatest chance at being free from corruption and gridlock.