Thursday, March 14, 2024

'Madness & Doom': Trump 2024, American White Nationalists, and the War on the Living




I.

 

In an election year in America, even the most eccentric and isolated member of the dissident Right must acknowledge the existence of mainstream American politics, if only for a moment, and who knows, under pressure to remove himself from his self-imposed isolation, even if only temporarily, he may even concede that the outcome of the election will have a great bearing on the fate and well-being of white people in America. Drawing upon my knowledge of mainstream economics and politics, I will be writing here in order to help the dissident Rightist navigate American politics and arrive at a fixed position, but I do not intend to inveigle him into taking a ride on the Trump train, for the Trump campaign should not want the support of the American white nationalist - look at the harm that David Duke's endorsement, which was most suspiciously timed, did in 2015.

 

We know that in an election year, the left-wing media will do its best to associate in the public's mind Trump and 'white nationalism' to the detriment of the former; and that the same media will be making a false comparison. Race and immigration play an outsized role in the election of 2024, perhaps more than in any other election in recent history, but if we were to view the matter objectively, we shall see that white nationalism and MAGA travel along tracks that run parallel to one another but never intersect. 'White nationalism', 'National Socialism', 'Third Positionism', 'Tradition', and any other factional grouping of the dissident Right stand not to benefit politically from a Trump victory, and I think that the American dissident Right has finally comprehended this fact; the American dissident Right did not comprehend it during Trump's first term, a time when it had invested a great deal in Trump and when the investment did not pay off; and that disappointment is why for years afterwards bitter and disaffected members of the American dissident Right complained, and most angrily, that Trump 'didn't keep his promises' and that he 'did nothing'.

 

So, would a Trump victory in 2024 change anything in America - would it lead to a cessation of the depravity that Kevin Alfred Strom chronicles here? Maybe, maybe not; regardless, American mainstream politics now is an interesting subject in itself: it should be discussed, it should be examined in its own right. I here ask the 'extremist' reader for forbearance.

 

II.

 

The astute reader will see in this article the appearance of the 'rational markets hypothesis', which asserts that when all participants are put together in the same market on the same day they always make the right decision. According to the theory, an individual participant in the stock market may be wrong and spectacularly so; but when all the participants are pressed into an aggregate, the 'wisdom of crowds' emerges. Take, for example, the crash on October the 29th 1929: this was the most famous day in Wall Street's history; it was the day of the crash that precipitated the Great Depression. No doubt you could have found a single investor on that day who was quite bullish and at the same time quite ignorant, a man who made the wrong call (to avail ourselves of financier's jargon), a man who saw no reason to dump his stocks all at once. But that is one man plucked out of a crowd; the great majority made the right call. It was entirely justified in selling its stocks; in abandoning the market; and in holding a pessimistic view of America's future.

 

So why was it justified? The answer is to be found in the research of the publicist of supply-side economics Jude Wanniski, who contended that the market crashed on that day after a piece of dramatic breaking news, which was that the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill had passed the US Senate. I will not rehearse the story of the notorious bill; suffice to say that its passage plunged America into recession, and then, after President Herbert Hoover signed into law a series of brutal tax hikes, depression. Wanniski's point is that the market responded and responded rationally to bad news. The countervailing thesis is that the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) crashed on October 29th, 1929, for no reason at all, the market being irrational, the crowds possessing no wisdom.

 

Controversially, Wanniski extended the rational markets hypothesis to politics: an individual voter may be quite stupid, but when all voters, including the stupidest, are put together in aggregate on election day, they always make the right choice. For example, when choosing between two objectionable and lacklustre candidates A and B, voters will always choose theone who will do the least harm.

 

I remember Bob Bartley, editor of the WSJ editpage and my boss back then, asking me why I thought Jimmy Carter [in 1976] was winning the primaries when he did not seem to stand for anything, with his competitors complaining that he fuzzed and fudged all the issues being debated. I recall telling Bartley that if one candidate says, "Elect me and I will kill every fifth American," and another says, "I will kill every tenth American," and another says "every 15th," and another "every 20th," and then Jimmy Carter steps forward and says "I haven’t made up my mind. Maybe I won’t kill any Americans." The voters will of course pick Carter, as they did, going on to beat President Ford in the general election.

 

The electorate cannot be fooled any more than the market can, and it works with all the information, however incomplete that information may be, made available to it, and in essence Wanniski's theory is that, like the participants in the stock market, the electorate uses all the information it can gather, and it goes on to act rationally.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

But if Wanniski's theory is true, how does it explain the presidential election of 2020? Voters knew in advance that Biden suffered from cognitive difficulties; that he was in poor physical health; that he and his family were corrupt; that he was a nasty, aggressive old man; that he was prone to outbursts of irrational anger, as dementia sufferers often are. And furthermore, they understood what the Biden platform entailed. Now in 2024, one must laugh and laugh maliciously at the Democratic voters in Denver, Colorado, and Chicago, Illinois, and Boston, Massachusetts, all of whom are complaining most vociferously about the consequences of the Biden immigrant invasion: the voters in these sanctuary cities have now got what they voted for - and in spades. And Wanniski's thesis is that they knew what they were voting for. The Biden package - tax hikes, environmentalism, Covidian mandates, open borders, transsexualism, a pro-crime policy that protects the criminal and punishes the victim - was hardly a secret. In addition, the electorate, which according to Wanniski understands economics better than any economist, would have known what the consequences of Bidenomics were. Nevertheless, Americans put Biden into office. He won 81 million votes, more votes than Obama, more votes than Hilary, more votes than any presidential candidate in history. Or did he? Perhaps we can rescue the Wanniski hypothesis by arguing that the electorate did not want Biden and that he did not win 2020; what happened was that the Democratic Party, the Far Left, Big Tech, and the Hollywood entertainment and media complex, carried out a coup against Trump. Biden was installed; he was selected, not elected.

 

To say the least, what happened was extraordinary; all American presidential elections had been free and fair up to that point excepting the election of 1864, which took place when America was chopped into two. Granted, there have been some extremely close elections - think of Nixon versus Kennedy in 1960 and Bush versus Gore in 2000 - but as I will argue, 2020 was not one of those.

 

So, what happened in 2020? Wanniski speaks of the 'rights of the minorities'. Being a family man and a New Yorker, he expounds the doctrine by sketching out the following parable. A family of five pile into a car and drive to the Hamptons or the Catskills on a vacation; on the way there, the youngest child, a little girl, becomes upset and agitated, yells and screams, and demands to be taken home. The rest of the family views the prospect of a trip as being neither nor there, and does not care all that much about it: it could easily out-vote the girl and proceed on, but if the trip is to be cancelled in order to assuage the girl, and keep peace in the family, and put an end to the girl's caterwauling - then so be it. The father turns the car around, the family drives home. The little girl stands in the minority; in a democracy she would be outvoted; but she possesses in this instance a weighted vote, that is, a vote that counts two, three, or more times more than a single.

 

The parallels between this and 2020, and indeed the entirety of Trump's first term, are obvious. Those suffering from TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) behaved like spoiled children. And unfortunately for Americans, the anti-Trumpers wielded most of the political power. Although they did belong to a minority, they did enjoy weighted voting privileges. On election night in 2020 and in the months leading up to Biden's inauguration in January 2021, they got their way; and Americans - except for the small minority who protested at the Capitol on January the 6th - allowed them to have it.

 

Wanniski gives a formal explanation of the theory in The Way the World Works (1979):

 

But while a politician can not satisfy electors who are diametrically opposed, neither can he ignore one class of elector or another, perhaps with the idea that because he can not possibly satisfy both, he will throw in his lot entirely with the one. Even when an issue can be settled by numerical voting, ninety-nine-to-one, the politician must attempt in some way to accommodate the one. At the extreme, if the issue settled ninety-nine-to-one is perceived by the one as in some way threatening his very survival or directly inviting his extinction, the one may resort to extralegal balloting to defend himself, perhaps even attempting assassination. In determining the consensus of the electorate, then, the successful politician does not view the electorate as a collection of numerical units, but as a bundle of individual interests each with a different set of intensities.

 

Now after three years of Biden, voters in the cities of Denver, Chicago, and Boston are experiencing buyer's remorse, and that places the Biden junta's survival in doubt. Carolyn Yeager observes, 'Even the sophisticated electoral cheating technologies semi-mastered by his Democrat party will probably not be sufficient to keep him [Biden] in the White House'; that was written in April 2023, and Biden's chances have hardly improved since then.

 

Rest assured, on election night 2024, history will repeat itself, and 2024 will look a lot like 2020: voting machines will mysteriously malfunction and flip millions of votes from Trump's column to Biden's, and after an order is given after midnight to stop the counting in seven swing states, millions of postal votes all for Biden will magically appear. But the difference between 2020 and 2024 is that the Democrats must defend everywhere. They cannot afford to lose one single traditionally blue state. And then there is the question of morale: the anti-Trump brigade who ousted Trump in 2020 will do their best to make sure that Biden 'wins' another term, but their hearts will not be in it, because after three years of Biden we can safely assume that they are quite demoralised and deflated.

 

III.

 

In 2020, Biden made history, or more accurately, broke with history, and to understand the rupture, let us look to the history, starting with the 30 presidential elections held from 1900 onwards. An outside observer who was ignorant of American political history could easily determine with a reasonable degree of certainty who was the winner of each election by knowing only handful of variables, and he could achieve this feat without knowing the actual outcome, i.e., without know who was declared the winner.

 

The first variable is this: who did the state of Ohio go to? From 1900, when the state went to McKinley, to 2016, when the state went to Trump, Ohio has gone to the winner 28 out of 30 times. And twelve out of 30 times Ohio, in conjunction with one of the two other states Iowa and Florida, has gone to the winner; and in 16 out of 30 times, all three states have gone to the winner. In short, the general rule is: if you win Ohio and either Florida or Iowa or both, you win the election.

 

Another variable we must account for is the increase in the number of voters voting for the incumbent's party. In the presidential election of 1928, Herbert Hoover, the presidential candidate of the incumbent party, which was the Republican Pary, won Ohio, Florida, and Iowa, and at the same time won more votes than the Republican candidate Calvin Coolidge in the election of 1924, and Coolidge had won that election in a landslide. By improving upon Coolidge's vote, and winning the three key states of Ohio, Florida, and Iowa, Hoover was bound to win. And so, for the next hundred years afterwards, the pattern was set. The principle became that a presidential candidate who is an office holder running for re-election has won the election every time upon winning Ohio, Florida, and Iowa and at the same time improving upon the incumbent party's popular vote. This is true of Roosevelt in 1936; Eisenhower in 1956; Johnson in 1964; Nixon in 1972; Reagan in 1984; Clinton in 1996; and Bush 45 in 2004. As we can see, the electorate behaves in a consistent and predictable manner. 

 

This is why 2020 broke the mold. Trump improved upon the popular vote of the 2016 election, and he improved upon it by 12 million; the charge that in 2020 Trump had lost his base in 2020 does not stick; in 2020 Trump won all the votes that he had won in 2016, and he went on to win an additional 12 million. As well as that, Trump won Florida, Ohio, and Iowa handily (and in the polls for 2024, in Ohio he enjoys a double-digit lead). But in 2020, none of that sufficed to stop the electoral dynamo that was Joseph Robinette Biden. He won Hilary's 65 million votes and an additional 16 million. One of the great puzzles is where that 16 million came from: between them, Trump and Biden won more votes than there were registered voters.




 

The most important question of 2024 is whether the 16 million voters, if they ever existed, will be returning. I tentatively answer no: that in 2024 we will be seeing a dramatic shortfall in the number of votes for Biden. To repeat, we can hazard a guess that the Democratic Party and its anti-Trump base have by now become deeply demoralised. The evidence for that is all around us. According to the polls, Biden's approval rating has reached a record low, and in those polls, a majority of those asked if Biden deserves re-election answer in the negative. In most national polls, Trump is equal or ahead of Biden by a few percentage points. We can predict that if the momentum away from Biden and towards Trump keeps up, the Democratic Party base vote will collapse, which is to say that the 65 million who voted for Hilary in 2016 and Biden in 2020 will not be returning.

 

Students of American political history know that what counts more than the popular vote is the electoral college. In polls of the more decisive battleground states, Trump is pulling ahead. Supposing that Trump wins Arizona and Georgia and picks up Nevada (which has not gone to a Republican presidential candidate in 20 years), then the electoral college count approaches a near draw: the Republicans win 268 and Democrat 270, and that is even if Biden 'wins' Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In such a scenario Biden only needs to lose one traditionally Democratic state, one that could be either be on the eastern seaboard, or in the south towards the border with Mexico, or in the Mid-West, and then - the election will be handed to Trump. It is within the bounds of possibility that angry residents of Chicago, Illinois, or Denver, Colorado, or Baltimore, Maryland, could turn on the Democrats. And so, the election stands on a knife-edge.

 

IV.

 

As well as the polls, two markets are predicting a Trump victory - the betting market and the stock market.

 

Interestingly, the odds of Trump being the next president reached a high in May 2022 and then crashed around the time of the November 2022 House of Representatives election; Trump's odds stood at their lowest in this period and DeSantis' at their highest.




 

The rise and fall of Biden's odds follow a different trajectory; they did increase in 2023 but never exceeded 39%. In contrast, as of the time writing, Trump's odds have never reached a higher level.

 

Some financial commentators assert that the recent rally in the stock market should be attributed to the likely prospect of Trump's return to office; it is pricing in that possibility, or to use financier's jargon, it is 'discounting', that is, it is carrying over the future into the present. And what lies in that future? The market sees all the familiar supply-side-isms, mainly tax cuts and deregulation. And it anticipates an increase in the production and export of oil, natural gas, and coal, and a decrease in the use of wind farms, solar panels, and electric cars; in short, it expects President Trump to repudiate environmentalism wholesale.

 

To understand the extent of the stock market's rallying, we need to use gold. In the supply-side doctrine, the value of anything can be expressed as a fraction or multiple of an ounce of gold, and to be included in that anything is the American stock market index. We have recourse then to the gold Dow, which is the DJIA index divided by an ounce of gold. If we look at a chart of the gold Dow, we see that the highest it reached in the past five years was 20 ounces, which is high, but nowhere as high as it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

 



 

We cannot explain every twitch and tremor in the stock market, but we can account for some of the big falls and rises. Without a doubt the big fall from 19 to 13 ounces in early 2020 can be laid at the door of the Covidians: the lockdowns, forced shutdowns of business, and forced layoffs, devastated the market. The gold Dow had recovered by early 2022, but then fell after the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian War in February 2022. By October 2022, the market had recovered from this mini recession, so why did it fall again? One can blame successive interest rates increases; these hurt the bond market and the commercial real estate market, and while the rate increases were small by the standards of the 1970s and 1980s, they were large by those of the 2020s.

 



 

And the reason for the fall of October 2023 is obvious: Hamas' raid, Israel's retaliatory offensive, and fears of a spread of a regional conflagration. After that came the Trump re-election rally, and it is no coincidence that at this point - October 2023 - that the betting markets graph shows Trump's odds overtaking Biden's.

 

The supply-sider Stephen Moore expresses scepticism towards the notion that the stock market is rallying because of Trump's improved performance in the polls and the betting markets:

 

Trump has made the case that the rise in the stock market in recent months is a result of the higher likelihood that he will be elected in November. I don't put too much stock in that claim. If the stock market tanks, is he responsible for that, too?

 

However, an analysis by ace investor Scott Bessent and a member of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity economic council finds that fluctuations in the stock market over the past year HAVE correlated positively with the betting market odds that Trump will win. Right now, he stands at just above 50%.

 

This relationship could be spurious, and of course, by far the biggest factor that drives stock valuations is profits.

 

Having said that, he does concede that Biden's economic agenda is poison:

 

One last piece of investment advice: Investors should pay attention to the Democratic agenda if they win in November. The Biden economic plan calls for doubling the capital gains tax, taxing unrealized capital gains and raising both the corporate tax rate and the dividend tax.

 

That is very bad news for sure for stocks. And THAT, you can take to the bank.

 

Now, this lends weight to Wanniski's rational market hypothesis. If the market is always right, and if it believed that Biden was going to 'win' in November, then it would be crashing right now, because there is nothing it dislikes more than what Biden is proposing.

 

IV.

 

One of the main reasons why the electorate seems to have turned on Biden is inflation, that is, Bidenflation.

 



 

This has been exported worldwide, and there is not a country that is not suffering from the highest inflation since the 1980s. Trump has vowed to reduce inflation, but the irony is that he and the Covidians he surrounded himself with in 2020 bear the main responsibility for it.

 

When taking the extraordinary decade of the 2020s into consideration, for the first time in recent history we see a global inflation that has not been brought about by bad money, i.e. by depreciating currencies. It is true that the dollar has depreciated against gold by over 55% in the past five years: in 2019, it took only $US1300 to buy an ounce of gold, and now it takes over $USD2000.

 



 

But the depreciation of the dollar, while harmful, occurred gradually over the course of five years and not all at once, unlike the sudden and shocking depreciation of the 1970s. No, the cause of the inflation of the 2020s can be traced back to what economists euphemistically call breakdowns in the supply-chain, which are what happens when millions across the globe are forced to stop supplying and exchanging their goods and labour because work has become somehow 'unsafe'. One cannot think of another time in history when global economic activity, and a good chunk of it at that, came to a halt because of government efforts to combat a virus.

 

Once a supply-chain has been broken in several places, it cannot be fixed easily. But we can return to normalcy by returning to what we had before 2020. And what was that? An absence of Covidian mandates, that is, regulations that prevent people from trading their production with one another; an increase in supply by cutting taxes on production; and little to no restrictions on the production and consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas.

 

We must fear a further depreciation of the dollar, which along with other currencies has a lost a great deal of value over the past few decades - it is hard to believe that 25 years ago gold only cost $USD250 an ounce and oil only $USD10 a barrel - but I think that in the current year central banks have realised the error of their ways and are not willing to devalue their currencies further.

 

Having said that, at the time of writing, gold has climbed past $USD2100 an ounce, which goes to show that one can never tell with the Federal Reserve, which, when every time in the past twenty years it has met with an economic quandary, has devalued.

 

V.

 

Instinctively, Trump wants to move America to the opposite place of where it is under Biden. The market recognises that and is responding accordingly. It does dislike Trump's tariff-hike threats, but it puts these to one side; any imposing by Trump of trade barriers, particularly barriers against China, will hurt no more in the 2020s than it did in the 2010s.

 

In one of the strange echoes of history, 2024 is revisiting 1980. Despite being aged 69, the always-smiling Reagan of the 1980 campaign conveyed youth, vigour, optimism, belief in America's future, and an irrepressible forward rhythm. And as the market discounted a Reagan victory, some economic indicators improved even before Reagan was sworn in: in the middle of 1980, before the election was held, the dollar firmed, and the price of gold collapsed: it fell from $USD850 an ounce, which is the highest it had ever been in history up to that point, to $USD300. The market anticipated that Reagan would win, and the prospect of a Reagan boom led to an increase in demand for dollars. The demand outstripped the supply, and so the value of the dollar increased. That is, the increase in the value of the dollar meant that one needed to spend fewer dollars to buy the same amount of gold. This foretold that inflation, which had plagued America and the world throughout the seventies, would soon wane. Relief was at hand, even though Carter still was in office. The phenomenon reminds us of the rally we have seen in the DJIA since October 2023.

 

The market looks to the future, but its knowledge of what will happen in that future is limited to the information it possesses at the time. In the sweet summer of 1980, it foresaw the Reagan victory, but it did not foresee the Reagan recession that would follow, a recession that was the worst since the end of WWII. Nowadays we look at the eighties through rose-coloured glasses, and we fail to understand how difficult it was for so many - particularly in the first two years under Reagan - and how we are better off now than then.

 

VI.

 

This brings up to the subject of national morale. In Biden's America, there are three nefarious forces working to lower it, and the first of these is Biden himself, a man of a gloomy mien, a man whose body and mind are deteriorating, a man who naturally enough has no reason to look forward to the future. During one of his typically rambling speeches at the campaign stops in the 2020 Democratic primaries, one of those in attendance was struck by the incoherence of Biden's talk but also by its extreme pessimism; Biden was preoccupied by the themes of decline, cancer, death. The second force, and one that a man of Biden's temperament was instantly attracted to, was Covidianism. During its zenith, Covidianism locked down millions with the intent of driving as many mad as possible, and if any one of the lockdown's victims were to take his own life - and a large number did - then the Covidians counted that as a win. Such nihilism and misanthropy met its match in that of the third force, the environmentalists. They want to drastically limit the number of air-breathers, preferably white-skinned ones; the environmentalists are uninterested in the carbon emissions of the denizens of Africa, China, India, and the Middle East. An ideology that is as destructive as the ideology of Covidianism, environmentalism in the 21st century is proving to be as dangerous as Freemasonry in the 20th.

 

The three forces have combined to make America a sad place to be. I know nothing more demoralising than the sight of three obese - and probably diabetic - African Americans Alvyn Bragg, Fani Willis, and Letitia James persecuting Trump and members of his administration. And all this while Democratic mayors, governors, district attorneys, and judges have turned not soft on crime but pro-crime. This is perverse. The present regime goes against nature, and such deviating cannot be sustained at least not for long, which is why Covidianism, the ultimate anti-natural ideology, burned itself out after a run of two and a half years.

 

 

VII.

 

Can we frame the conflict between Trump and Biden, Republicans and Democrats, as a conflict between capitalism and socialism? At first sight, that would make sense. Trump has worked most of his life in business, and big business at that, whereas Biden, Schumer, Pelosi, Harris, Feinstein, et al., have never worked a day in their lives in a real job. And since at least the 2010s, the Democratic Party has been in the grip of the radical Left, the six factions of which from 2020 onwards were: 1) Black Lives Matter; 2) 'woke' capital; 3) proponents of Critical Race Theory and other forms of academic neo-Marxism; 4) anarchists and antifa; 5) old-school communists; and 6) Social Justice Warriors (SJWs).

 

Covidians, who infiltrated both the Trump and Biden administrations, are the odd man out. Covidian practices were inspired by those of the Chinese, particularly in Shanghai, and these in turn were rooted in Chinese techniques that sought to engender what Mao called 'thought reform' and 'the washing of the brain'; if you want to read more on this unsavoury subject, click here. But despite the Maoist antecedents, the Covidians did not follow a particular ideology of either the Left or Right; they portrayed themselves as being pure technocrats who had abstracted themselves away from any ideological commitment, scientists who had moved beyond politics.

 

Nonetheless, if we are to delve further, we can find certain themes underlying the thought of the Democrats, the Covidians, and the Left, for when writing about Marx, Wanniski observes penetratingly that Marxism can only be valid when an economy is contracting, not expanding; it only holds true for states of economic crisis, of recession, depression. The classic problem faced by all communists after they had seized power was how to get the wheels of production turning again. They were unable to find an answer in the economics of Marx, because Marx wrote only on things going wrong, not right. It was not that the communist regimes were opposed to growth and expansion, only that they did not know how to bring these about. By the end of the seventies - when Wanniski published his book - Wanniski declared that Marxism, along with the two other prominent schools of economic thought Keynesianism and monetarism, had failed, but he warned that if the capitalists of the West proceeded on their present course, they would meet the same fate as the capitalists of the East, in particular the capitalists of the former Republic of South Vietnam.

 

In the conflict between capitalism and socialism, Wanniski found a division between the desire for risk, adventure, and entrepreneurialism on one hand, and the desire for safety, comfort, and caution on the other; we know on which side of the ledger the Covidians, for whom 'safety' was absolute and paramount, stood. Cults, too, prize security and safety before all else and forbid their followers from venturing into the outside world, and the man who escapes a cult often has difficulties adjusting to real life.

 

The exploring of these themes - 'Life', 'Death' capitalised - brings us close to the doctrine of vitalism. Half in jest, Nietzsche wrote that the sight of the ugly, the aged, and the infirm, lowers our vital energies; it saps our will to live. Nearly 140 years after Nietzsche made his famous remarks, we can see in them a grain of truth. In 2024, the sight of the Soviet-style gerontocracy in America depresses and enervates. And in addition, it encourages intergenerational resentment; the boomers will not stand down, they are hogging the trough. Biden epitomises this aspect of boomerdom. Part of the hostility expressed towards Biden by Democrats in a state such as Michigan can be traced back to Biden's favouring Israel in the current Israeli-Palestinian war, true, but also to the age gap between Biden and the anti-Israel protestors.

 

It is easy enough to find an instance of the prominence of the aged and infirm in American life; what of the ugly? The answer is it is all around us. Wind farms, transsexualism, fat acceptance, LGBTism in its more grotesque forms, AI art (especially the AI art of Google Gemini) - all of it is ugly. One of the worst things one can say about the Great Replacement is that it has made life in the West increasingly ugly; one must agree with this under the pressure of the facts, unless one in the spirit of an unyielding contrarianism argues that Palestinian diaspora protestors, the dysgenic trash that is Jose Antonio Ibarra, and the encampments of illegals in New York, Boston, and Chicago, are aesthetically pleasing, beautiful even. And perhaps our leftist does really treasure them, for one thing that we have learned after 2020 is that the American ruling class really does despise white Americans, that is, Americans, and really wants them gone, dead, replaced. And as goes America, so goes the rest of the Anglosphere; one can find the same sort of ugliness in Australia as well as America. And it spreads across an entire nation: the wind farm disfigures the country; the Great Replacement disfigures the city.

 

VIII.

 

American boomers are an enfeebling but also a conserving force. Trump for the life of him cannot understand how things have gotten to where they are now, and he wants to turn the clock back, to the good old days, to the way things used to be. Trump is old enough to remember the past, the America of Operation Wetback, the America before Hart Celler. Most importantly, he does not hate Americans, and he does not want to destroy. Critics of Trump will object to this assertion of mine and they will point to Trump's conduct in 2020; but, if we view the world events of 2020 and with objectivity, we shall that not a single major head of state in the entire world (and these states included Russia and Ukraine) refused the blandishments of the Covidians; all of them locked down their people, made them wear masks, and mandated the clot shots. Politicians who bucked the Covidian consensus, like certain heads of state in Africa, wound up mysteriously dead.

 

It is possible that these forces of darkness will 'win' once again. The subject of the 2024 election rarely comes up for discussion in the writings of the Americans of the dissident Right. The sole exception is VDare, which, four years after the fact, is countenancing the possibility that Biden may have not won 2020. In 2024, VDare is cultivating an atmosphere of pessimism and gloom: polls, betting markets, and stock markets be damned, 2024 is just like 2020, and the Democrats will use cheating to flip the states of Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan to Biden once again. America is due for another four years of Biden, and Biden's second term will be worse than his first, if that is possible.

 

If VDare is correct, Americans are faced with an insoluble paradox. To secure free and fair elections, America must ban postal voting, same-day registration, voting machines; it must enforce voter ID; and it must make a practice of the speedy counting of ballots and not allow counting to drag on for weeks and months on end. Such legislation would bring America's electoral system into line with that of other countries in the Anglosphere. But here is the rub: to enact these reforms, the Republican Party needs to win elections, and the Democratic Party will not allow it to.

 

Prudence advises caution, and perhaps we should be pessimistic about 2024. Perhaps Trump will win in a landslide, but the Biden junta will falsify election results once again; perhaps, even if Trump does get into office, he will not be able to make a difference. Either way, America's long national nightmare will continue. That is the default American dissident Right and white nationalist view. Who is to say that they are not correct? But we need hope, and living without hope is no way to live.

 


Sunday, December 24, 2023

Fire Tricks part II: on the Bible, Vaporwave, and American TV


 



VI. The Talmud Unveiled


Both Jews and Muslims, 'People of the Book', wrote extensively, and for the purposes of an investigation of Judaism, which Jewish books should we use? For centuries, those opposed to Judaism have relied upon the Talmud. Perhaps they are drawn to it because of the enormous secrecy that surrounds it. Eckart's Moses- is the record of a conversation between Dietrich Eckart and his good friend Hitler, and in it Hitler exclaims:


 "They [the Jews] are incessantly boasting, too, that their religion is such a masterful creation that it stands alone in the world. Then bring the Talmud forward! It contains the Jewish religion in its purest form — theology, dogmatics, morality, everything together in the same place. Why do they hold back the magnificent book so nervously, if indeed 'the millennia have given the breath of its existence' to it? As born benefactors of mankind they should have long since made it accessible to the general populace. Instead, it still hasn't been completely translated, even today. And who in the devil has read what there is of it? One would think they are afraid some medieval church is still waiting to burn it for heresy.


Written in the centuries after Christ's death, the Talmud forms a massive commentary on the Old Testament that is longer than the Old Testament itself and it comes with strict instructions warning its readers not to reveal its secrets to non-Jews; insensitive as they were, the authors must have understood that non-Jews would object to the Talmud's inanities, obscenities, and blasphemies, the last of these being directed at Christianity, the religion against which according to Guyénot the Talmud was conceived as a riposte: 


For the Jews, the door became more and more narrow as the doctors of the Church, seized with dogmatic hubris, turned Jesus into God. Jews were asked to relinquish whatever common sense they had to convert to the Christian creed. To this must be added the Judeophobia of the Great Church under imperial protection. The Talmud was the Jews’ response to the appropriation by Christians of their heritage. It transformed rabbinic Judaism into a fundamentally anti-Christian religion. Christianity and Talmudism were both born from the ashes of the old biblical religion after the crises of the first two centuries CE, which saw the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 and the expulsion of its Jewish population in 135. Both reached their discernible outlines only in the fourth century, and both pretended to reform ancient Judaism, but in opposite directions and in vicious competition: Talmudism, emerging from the Pharisaical current, exacerbated the purificationist, ritualistic, legalistic, and separatist tendencies; while Christianity opposed it and, under the inspiration of Paul, rejected circumcision and the Mosaic law as a whole... The great Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner goes so far as to write that “Judaism as we know it was born in the encounter with triumphant Christianity.”137 Rabbinic orthodoxy, which became the new cement holding the Jewish community together, hardened in the rejection of Christianity and its growing influence. At the beginning of the second century, a ritual prayer was introduced into synagogues to curse the mînim or “sectaries,” a term referring particularly to Christians. [Guyénot, ibid]


For centuries, Jewish publicists have defended the Talmud and argued that anti-Semites have misrepresented it. And indeed, one can easily get the Talmud wrong seeing that it uses a coded language that only the experienced can decipher, and what European wants to spend years, decades, needed to attain that mastery? Fortunately now and then a defector from the ranks of Judaism will step forth and spill the beans. 


The “Jewish question” became complicated in Europe when the Talmud became known to Christians. Written in Hebrew, it had been carefully concealed from public view, actually containing the statement: “The goyim who seek to discover the secrets of the Law of Israel commit a crime that calls for the death penalty” (Sanhedrin 59a). It was in 1236 that Nicolas Donin, a converted Jew who became a Dominican monk, gained an audience with Pope Gregory IX to convince him of the blasphemous character of the Talmud, which presents Christ as the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier and a prostitute (Sanhedrin 106a), capable of miracles only by sorcery, and not risen but “sent to hell, where he was punished by being boiled in excrement” (Gittin 56b).162 A disputatio (debate on the public square lasting sometimes several months) was organized in Paris in the presence of Blanche of Castile, between Donin and Rabbi Yehiel, during which the latter failed to convince his audience that the Talmud was talking about another Jesus and another Mary. Following these exchanges, Gregory IX publicly condemned the Talmud as “the first cause that keeps the Jews stubborn in their perfidy.” In 1242, more than 10,000 volumes were burned. Judaism stopped being perceived as the religion of the Old Testament, and began to be viewed as a threat to public order, since the Talmud preaches violence and deception against Christians. [ibid]


We understand the appeal to the Western intellectual of an investigation of the Talmud, especially to the intellectual of a Romantic bent; a secret book with a sinister reputation, written by Near Eastern authors and filled with foul doctrines and perhaps magic spells, it reminds one of H.P. Lovecraft's Necronomicon, the volume of black magic written by the "Mad Arab" Abdul Alhazred. But obstacles are strewn in the path of the intellectual who wishes to sally forth and joust against Jews on this plain, and these are threefold: 1) the obscure language of the Talmud, 2) the unavailability of the Talmud in English, and 3) the Talmud's sheer length. In contrast, the knowledge of the Jews that we draw from the Old Testament is much easier to assimilate, and authorities such as Guyénot rule that the Old Testament takes precedence over the Talmud: 


Whether Jewishness is defined as religious or ethnic, its roots are in the Bible. Therefore, its essence must be sought there. Whether he has read it or not, whether he judges it historical or mythical, every Jew ultimately bases his Jewishness on the Bible—or whatever he knows about the Bible. This venerable corpus—which includes the five “Books of Moses” (the Pentateuch, or Torah), the Historical Books, and the Prophets—constitutes the unshakable foundation of both Jewish religion and Jewish identity. (The Talmud is only a commentary on the Bible, and does not fundamentally alter its core ideology). From a religious viewpoint, the Bible preserves the memory and the essence of the Covenant with God that the believer internalizes. From an ethnic viewpoint, the Bible is the foundational collective memory of the Jewish people, and the pattern by which Jews interpret their whole subsequent history (the Dispersion, the Holocaust, the rebirth of Israel, and so on). Any nation is a narration, and what makes the Jewish nation special is ultimately what makes the biblical narration special. The Bible has always been the “portable fatherland” of the Diaspora Jews, as Heinrich Heine once put it. But it also became and has remained the heart of Israel, whose founders did not give it any other Constitution. [ibid]


The reverse of the Talmud, the Old Testament is transparent and brazenly so; it is shorter; and it is available to anyone. These advantages recommend the Old Testament, which is open-source material. In the introduction to his translation of Eckart's Moses-, William Pierce writes admiringly:


Although the last forty years have unfortunately provided us with considerably more experience of Jewish- Bolshevist activities, Eckart did quite well with the materials available to him in 1923. Of particular interest is his use of the Old Testament, as a history of the Jews, to throw light onto more recent Jewish activities.


VII. Muslim Apologetics


Like the Koran, the Old Testament tells a story, and like the Koran, the Old Testament comes to a sudden halt. The reader badly wants to know what happens after Ezra and Nehemiah, but he is left hanging because the authors did not finish. After the Old Testament, Bible history is succeeded by Jewish history, which is long, complex, and for wont of a better word, secular: it is devoid of Yahweh and devoid of the supernatural. After studying it, if the bored reader does want excitement and mystery once again, he is forced to return to the Old Testament and re-read it perhaps from the start. In this he treads the same path as the pop culture fan who continually re-reads Tolkein's Lord of the Rings or re-watches George Lucas' Star Wars trilogy in order to regain the sense of excitement, discovery, and mystery that he experienced when he first encountered these works. 


The Koran and the Old Testament, being collections of stories that are set in a distant past and possessing more than a touch of the otherworldly, could be written up as fantasy novels, but any such novels would differ from others in the genre insofar as that in the Koran and the Old Testament there are no heroes; there is no Frodo Baggins, no Luke Skywalker; the protagonists of the Old Testament and the Koran are villains, and contemporary audiences would see that in an instant if honest and accurate Hollywood adaptations were filmed. 


Amusingly enough, Christians write apologetics even to this day attempting to square the circle and justify the lying, betraying, thieving, raping, and slaughtering in the Old Testament. This signifies that their moral sense has deserted them; the acts of immorality, great and small, in the Old Testament stand in opposition to the Christian virtues and flagrantly so. Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason (1794) shows himself to be more of a Christian than today's American Evangelicals: 


Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served  to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.


The task of explaining away and covering up this malice, cruelty, and wickedness falls to the philo-Semite and anyone else who wants to persuade us that the 'Word of a demon' is the 'Word of God'. We can expect Jewish publicists to attempt this difficult feat, and early on a Jewish publicist did so: the Jewish writer Flavius Josephus wrote perhaps the first book - Antiquities of the Jews (c. 93 AD) - that extols the wisdom and splendour of the Jews to a non-Jewish readership, and in it he relates stories from the Old Testament and of course distorts and lies about them. This sort of obfuscating does not surprise when it is attempted by a Jewish publicist - we have had plenty of experience of it in the past two thousand years - but it does surprise when it is attempted by a Muslim; to our amazement, we learn that the 'Jew-hating' founder of Islam himself once strove for political reasons to put the antics of the Jews in the Old Testament in a good light.


In Exodus, Moses commits his first murder. He kills an Egyptian who struck a Jew; he then conceals the body much like a serial killer who is experienced in doing so: 


Exodus 2:12, “And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.”


After that, Moses is forced to leave town, because his act of murder has angered not only of the Egyptians but the Jews living in Egypt who are worried that Moses' crime will bring the wrath of the Egyptians down upon the heads of the Jews. Writing of the incident many centuries later, Muhammad defends Moses' conduct, and Muhammad's apologetics cast a light on the internal politics of the newly formed cult of Islam and its relations with Jewry. 


Muhammad changed Moses first degree murder to manslaughter by making it unintentional. Furthermore, he told us that Moses was very repentant and asked God for forgiveness. And, of course, God forgave him. Which story about Moses is better? Shouldn’t the Hebrews be very grateful to Muhammad? For a while, he was their best ally. Muslims consider Moses, Jacob, David, Solomon, Ezra, etc. as heroic agents from God. Hence, the ancestors of the Jews are heroes to the Muslims. Why would they hate each other? 


Let me explain. When Muhammad migrated to Medina, he had close contact with its sizeable Jewish community. Muhammad respected the Jews, and his early teachings appeared to borrow from Jewish tradition. When they refused to recognize him as a prophet, he began to distance himself from them and began to minimize or eliminate the Jewish influence on Islam. Muhammad was frustrated with the Jews. As soon as he was strong enough, he expelled two Jewish tribes from Medina and murdered all the members of a third Jewish tribe. He also began to utter inflammatory statements about Jews in the Quran. This was the start of animosity between Muslims and Jews. We have to thank Muhammad for the nonstop hate between the Muslims and the Jews. [Khamis, ibid]


VIII. Christian apologetics


Since October 7, many Americans in the movement have professed themselves to be baffled by the intensity of anti-Arab and pro-Israel feeling on the American Right, especially the Christian Right. And indeed, one has to ask if Americans, especially American Christians, have taken leave of their senses. Have the more intelligent of them ever in their lives actually read the Old Testament? If they had done so, perhaps they would have understood that Netanyahu's pronouncement of Hamas and by extension the Palestinians as 'Amalek' is to be considered to be a Jewish and rabbinical fatwah, that is, a religious death sentence; for the Amalekites were a race who were thoroughly exterminated by Jews who followed Yahweh's orders. 


As is typical, the story of the Amalek wipeout has an unusual sequel. The perpetrator of the crime, Saul, displeased Yahweh for three reasons: Saul kept the Amalekite livestock for himself and his men; he performed holocausts in the incorrect manner; and he spared Agag the king of the Amalekites. It should be noted that Agag bought himself only a temporary reprieve. Because Saul displeased Yahweh, Samuel stripped Saul of office and then hacked Agag to death with a sword: 'And Samuel cut Agag to pieces before the LORD at Gilgal” (1 Samuel 15:33)'. Ever since the murder of the Amalekites and Agag, Jews have applied the names 'Agag' and 'Amalekite' to anyone who they considered to be an enemy of the Jews and wanted to be destroyed and destroyed utterly. 


Many non-Jewish scholars when confronted by this awfulness take one of two courses of action: they either practice apologetics like Muhammad, sometimes with comical results, or they bowlderise. 


As an example of the latter, let us examine this Biblical tale of butchery by sharp implements:


In Moses’s time, when the kings of Heshbon and Bashan wanted to prevent the Hebrews from entering their territory, the Hebrews “captured all his towns and laid all these towns under the curse of destruction: men, women and children, we left no survivors except the livestock which we took as our booty, and the spoils of the captured towns” (Deuteronomy 2:34–35).

 

That is nothing compared to what King David did to the people of Rabba, after having sacked their town and “carried off great quantities of booty”: “And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem” (2 Samuel 12:31). The episode is repeated in 1 Chronicles 20:3: “And he brought forth the people that were therein, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. Even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon.” [Guyénot, ibid]


This seems straightforward enough. But in modern times, the story is retconned ('retrospectively configured'); the inhabitants of Rabba and Ammon are not hacked to death and their corpses cut into pieces, but they ae turned into brickmakers and construction workers: 


I have quoted here from the King James Revised Version. Significantly, this episode has been fraudulently retranslated after 1946. We now read in the Revised Standard Version: “And he brought forth the people who were in it, and set them to labor with saws and iron picks and iron axes, and made them toil at the brickkilns.” And in the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible: “And he expelled its inhabitants, setting them to work with saws, iron picks and iron axes, employing them at brickmaking.” This new rendering makes the story politically correct, but highly improbable, since iron tools were never needed to make bricks—certainly not axes, picks and saws—but made deadly weapons that no victor in his right mind would distribute to the men he had just vanquished. [ibid]


This suggests that the Old Testament, the open-source material that Eckart and Hitler made use of, may be altered beyond recognition by the bowlderisers of the future; fortunately, they cannot destroy or re-translate all the old copies in circulation. But one has to wonder at the mentality the people who seek to soften the image we have of the Bible Jews. Yes, the Christians among them mistakenly identify the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New; but that alone does not explain their conduct, and besides which, a large number of American conservatives who favour Israel in the current war, who applaud the destruction of Gaza and the deaths of Palestinians, who condone Netanyahu's 'Amalek' ritual curse, do not claim to be Christian.  


IX. The Future of Jews in America


From the Talmud we can draw the surprising conclusion that in the Jewish and Talmudic scheme of things, Hitler, the National Socialists, and the Germans do no matter. The Talmud did not prophesy, of course, that the Germans would be the ones to throw the six million Jews into the giant ovens as part of a holocaust, for Germany as a nation did not exist at the time of the writing, and the Jewish authors hardly knew the precursors of the Germans, namely the Visigoths and other Germanic tribes. All the Talmud stipulates is that the Gentiles, any Gentiles, will be the ones to immolate the six million; these Gentiles could be Arabs, Chinese, Indians, Byzantines, Persians... For the fulfillment of the prophecy, anyone would do; what mattered is that it would be done and that the Jewish death toll would amount to exactly six million. Guyénot writes that at the 1911 Zionist Congress Max Nordau, 'A speaker with incomparable prophetic talent' declared that 'the European governments were preparing the “complete annihilation for six million [Jewish] people”'. 


Many articles have been published since October 7 by those in the movement who have sought to orient themselves in the present chaos, and the authors of these aim to grasp precisely what it is that their ideological opponents, the Jews, are about. I think that Guyénot has performed the task by explaining that the Jews are the Old Testament, and that in turn the Old Testament can be summed up as: fire-paganism, the mass slaughter of non-Jews by Jews, and circumcision. 


One has to ask what it is that the American conservative receives in exchange for his associating with such barbarity and backwardness. Even before October 7, I scratched my head wondering what it is that an American gains from favouring Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict; the rhetoric of the Anti-Defamation League, for example, is unpleasant, harsh, and hectoring, and the Jews who head the ADL - Jews such as Jonathan Greenblatt, who looks like a bit player from a Lon Chaney or Basil Karloff horror movie - promise no rewards. In contrast, liberalism, if we are to take one example of an ideology that is a rival to Judaism, is fundamentally benevolent; Yockey acerbically notes that liberalism 'Wants every day to be a birthday, Life to be a long party'. Unfortunately for the American conservative, Zionism does not deliver to him birthday parties, and he gets little to nothing in return for his allegiance to Israel.


Perhaps the American conservative in his disordered mind links Israel and Zionism with 'conservative values', this being the code word for the old America, the white America, the America that existed and flourished before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Hart Celler Act of 1965. Today even some Jews feel nostalgia for that era, even though prominent Jews at the time did everything in their power to bring the Civil Rights Act and Hart Celler about. For that reason, I find the linking of 'conservative values' and Zionism to be incongruous; the pairing of the two is contradictory, in the same way that the concept of 'Judeo-Christian values' is an oxymoron. 


But we must distinguish here because we are dealing with real life. White nationalists allege that everything that American Jews produced in the 20th century, especially in the field of entertainment and popular culture, is corrupt and corrupting. But this is not the case when we look at the popular culture even of the late 20th century. The Jewish writer Stan Lee, often in collaboration with Jewish artist Jack Kirby - both WWII veterans - gave us the Marvel superheroes the Fantastic Four, Spiderman, the Hulk, Iron Man, Thor, the X-Men, and the Avengers. In what offends modern sensibilities, the Marvel stories published in the 1960s are set in a Manhattan that is whiter and more segregationist than South Africa at the time of Apartheid, and the race of the heroes and heroines is unquestionably Nordic. Furthermore, the men are masculine and assertive, the women are feminine and wilting. The Jews who produced the Marvel epics affirmed the 'conservative values' of the time; they did not subvert them. Some white nationalist polemicists have attempted to draw comparisons between Superman, who was created by the Jews Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, and Moses; but these white nationalists have never read a Superman story in their lives; if they were to do so, they would see from the stories - most of them drawn by Curt Swan, a Minnesotan of Swedish descent - that the public-spirited, fair-minded, and gentle Superman is the antithesis of Moses. But American white nationalists tend to be misanthropes who dismiss American popular culture, and they care little that Superman's companions Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen, and Perry White are Nordic American types as are Superman's parents Jor-El and Lar-El (is the 'El' surname taken from the Semitic pre-Jewish and pre-Yahweh god El?); all that matters is sniffing out the Jew. 


This should not be taken as a defence of everything done by American Jews in the entertainment medium. Siegel and Shuster, Kirby and Lee, produced their greatest work at a time when America was predominantly white and 'conservative'; Jews, being chameleons, change their colour in order to blend in with their environment; any Jewish writer in the 1950s and 1960s who proposed for a TV series, comic book, or movie a heroic protagonist who was a lesbian butch overweight negress with shaven sides of the head and tattoos and piercings would have been fired on the spot, and this suggests that in the main that is Americans themselves and not only the Jews who brought about the degradation of popular culture that the American conservatives so despise. 


But then, the non-whites living in America are as much to blame for producing the 'wokeness' that took root in the 2010s as much as the Americans, and the 'woke', 'social justice' phenomenon has put American Jewry in a bind. By all rights, American Jews ought to support 'wokeness'; they are the Sons of the Covenant ('the Sons of the Cut', i.e., the circumcised) who are bound to Yahweh and as such they are a people who 'Dwell alone' and are 'Not to be reckoned among the nations' (Numbers 23:9); and from this it follows that they ought to separate themselves from their host population in America; and seeing that the majority of that population has been historically white, they ought to oppose themselves to that white majority, especially to the majority that is made up of the racial type that has been for most of America's history predominately Nordic; and the corollary is that they ought to see American non-whites as (in social justice speak) allies. But the divide between American Jewry and the non-white and immigrant population in America, most of which dislikes Israel, has been broadened after the advent of the Arab Israeli conflict and further still after October 7, and a schism now exists between non-Jews (whether they be white or non-white) and Jews, who see themselves as being a poor, persecuted, frightened, and powerless minority who happen to be aliens living in America, which is as Jewish ideologists never cease telling us a 'nation of immigrants'. 


The accentuating of divisions does not bode well for American 'soft power', because the world likes America more if the divisions between Americans and anti-Americans living in America are kept in the background. The non-American world - and this includes Russia and China - thinks the better of America if America stays true to the American ideal, that is, the mythical and absurd America, the America of dreams, the America portrayed in Hergé's Tintin in America (1932), a European fairy-tale in which the intrepid Belgian reporter Tintin travels to America and experiences hair-raising adventures that see him encountering Chicago gangsters and Blackfeet Indians in quick succession. In case one thinks I am exaggerating the appeal of American myth to non-Americans, I note that even the Russians, who these days profess to despise America and the 'Anglo-Saxons', adore the American daytime soap Santa Barbara (1984-1993) and continue to remember it fondly thirty years after its cancellation. No doubt white nationalists who investigate this frivolous concoction will find Jews here there and everywhere in its making, but the important point is that in it Jews and Jewishness feature little, because the Russians regard it as being quintessentially American.


X.  Vaporwave, superficiality, and American conservatism


To repeat, white nationalists seem to take a puritan view of American pop culture; they view it as warped and perverted, corrupting and dangerous; but most in the West find it fascinating, and I am one of them. I could easily imagine myself playing all day the 24/7 Vaporwave music channel that features old American commercials from thirty to forty years ago on an endless loop and allowing it to bathe me in its healing rays for the reason being that it connects me to a glorious past. 'The surrounding subculture [of Vaporwave] is sometimes associated with an ambiguous or satirical take on consumer capitalism and pop culture, and tends to be characterized by a nostalgic or surrealist engagement with the popular entertainment, technology and advertising of previous decades'. The white nationalist may deride this 'surrounding subculture' as decadent, depraved, and 'Jewish', but a closer inspection reveals that this brand of American pop culture lacks all the qualities that characterise the Jewishness of the Old Testament: where is the anger, the malice, the jealousy, the alienation from all of humanity, and above all, the terrible seriousness? Vaporwave values have been excised after October 7 and in the aftermath Bible values have come to the forefront. 


When confronting the endless 'anti-Nazi' 'anti-Hamas Nazi' propaganda we see in the conservative media these days, we may ask the American conservatives who are presently raving like maniacs: what is 'Semitism' exactly, who are the 'Semites', and why is being 'anti-Semitic' the worst thing in the world? The response of the conservative is: do not ask questions; kill and kill in the name of the 'Lord your God'. Needless to say, levity and a lack of seriousness have become unfashionable. The frivolous man, the ironic man, the shallow man, the postmodern man, the man of the End of History, has been dragged kicking and screaming out of his pop culture bubble. Vaporwave reruns of 1980s and 1990s American TV shows have been interrupted by regular breaking news reports on the worsening situation in Israel and Palestine. All in all, the sharp change in tone resembles that in the rupture that occurred in America and the West after the terrorist attacks of September 11; 9/11 marked the end of the nineties, which was a decade of great prosperity and vacuity, and it signaled that America had entered a new era, one which according to cultural commentators saw the death of postmodern irony and the birth of a new sincerity. It is pertinent that Vaporwave is only interested in pop culture before 9/11: 'Generally, artists limit the chronology of their source material between Japan's economic flourishing in the 1980s and the September 11 attacks or dot-com bubble burst of 2001 (some albums, including Floral Shoppe, depict the intact Twin Towers on their covers)'. 


The difference between then and now is that in the 2000s, there were white people in politics. Now in 2023 the cities have the Anglosphere have become battle zones or rather stages for political street theatre, and the play is a two-man show, one character being the Jew, the other, the Muslim.  We are told daily by the American conservative press that the interests of Jews and Israel are to be held as paramount, and the countervailing voices on the Left tell us that the interests of the Gazans, Palestinians, and Muslims must be considered. But nowhere appear the white man's interests; the white man is conspicuous by his absence; at the most, he serves as a mediator between Jews and Muslims. 


Appropriately enough, hundreds of thousands of Muslims and their followers marched through London on Remembrance (or Armistice, or Veteran's) Day, a sacred day in the West that celebrates the defeat, destruction, and unconditional surrender of Germany in WWI. From the London march, we can see the truth of Yockey's contention that by working to destroy the Germans in WWI and WWII, the British were working to destroy themselves. 


As to which nation forced the surrender of the Germans on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, it is America; the British and to a lesser extent the French like to take all the credit, but a close analysis of the military history reveals that it was the Americans on the Western Front in WWI who defeated the Germans; they bear the responsibility for the defeat of 'Germandom', 'Prussianism', 'Prussian militarism' as they called it at the time (two decades afterwards they would call it 'Nazism').


Their antipathy towards all things German, all things 'Nazi', is well-known; but it is only now after October 7 that their devotion to all things Jewish, Zionist, and Old Testament, has become equally as well-known or at the least unavoidable. 


But can one understand it? The answer is no, because in order to understand Americans, we must empathise with them and the word empathy means feel into, vibrate in sympathy with; and knowing what we know of the Bible and the Talmud, it, we find it near impossible to feel as Americans do about the Jewish people, Zionism, and Israel. The American devotion to Israel casts a light on deficiencies in the American character, deficiencies that had already become apparent in the one year and six months before October 7, which is when we saw how Americans on the Right reacted to the second Russian invasion of Ukraine in the 21st century. 


After the outbreak of the 2022 War, we in the West if we are honest are compelled to acknowledge oft with great regret the sad truth that the Russian is, to paraphrase General Patton, a son of a bitch: he is a mendicant, a drunkard, a liar, and he loves to steal, torture, rape, and kill. And geopolitically speaking he is a malicious, highly aggressive, rapacious, and expansionist animal. A study of Russian history and indeed the rhetoric of the present-day Russian state itself reveals that in all probability that were Ukraine were to fall then Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Moldova, would be next; Ukraine serves as a buffer between Russia and Europe, which is one of the reasons why the Germans in WWII fought as long as possible there before being ejected; the Germans reasoned quite rightly that it was far better to defend on Ukrainian soil than European; the more you fight Russia in Ukraine, the less you fight Russia in Europe. The European understands this but the American does not. We must ask what sort of person would wish the Russians on the Germans, Austrians, and Hungarians and the answer is: the American, who welcomed the Russian incursions of 1914 and 1945, two years in which Russia invaded Germany, Austria and Hungary. Being 'Nazi', the Germans in both wars fought to the last bullet and the last man; the German attitude, the attitude of 'Kapitulierin, nein!', is the antithesis of the American; in February 2022, the American paleocons and dissident Rightists to their eternal shame wanted Ukraine to surrender and surrender unconditionally. But the distinctions 'Left', 'Right', 'Paleocon', 'Dissident Right' matter little and are fast vanishing, and even racial distinctions are breaking down. The 'conservative' negress Candace Owens is pouring scorn on Ukraine and its resistance to Russian imperialism, which is the imperialism of Russkiy Mir that stays constant whether Russia be Tsarist or Leninist or Putinist. 


I perceive in the American character a tendency towards unity and sameness when it comes to the Russian question.  Against this interlocuters may object; they will point to the Biden regime's donating billions in aid to Kiev in its fight against Moscow. But in WWII, America gave 13 million tonnes of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union in its war against Europe, and it was this - and the building of the far-reaching logistical network composed of American and Commonwealth jeeps, trucks, and rolling stock - that turned the war on the Eastern Front in favour of the Russians; and yet only a few years after the end of the war, America began to bestow its bountiful aid not on Russia but on Russia's opponents. Why? 


Supplying the answer, Yockey writes of Hobbes' Law of Protection and Obedience. To explain the Law I will resort to a crude analogy, which is as follows. A mafioso takes control of a neighbourhood and promises the small businesses in that neighbourhood something called 'protection'; what that means is that he will extort and simultaneously 'protect' from rival mafiosos; all these shop-owners need do is obey. Yockey illustrates the principle at work by painting a vivid portrait of occupied Germany and Berlin that were partitioned between the Russians and the Americans in the late 1940s, a dangerous time in which it was feared that a new World War would break out on German soil. The American now find himself in the same position as the American then. In order to hang on to its ill-gotten gains, the America of either 1953 or 2023 must be prepared to fight Russia even though deep down it does not want to - a reluctance discussed in Yockey's last published essay 'The World in Flames' (1960). 


The two most important wars so far of the 2020s, the Russo-Ukrainian War of 2022 and the Israel-Palestinian War of 2023, have taught us two lessons. From the Russo-Ukrainian War, the European has learned that the American is not his friend, and from the Israeli-Palestinian, he has learned that he is not wanted, not wanted at all, and that - to add insult to injury - he is not to be accounted for politically. This is something that is largely his own fault: he has chosen to absent himself, vacate the premises, exit the stage. 


XI.  Escaping into Americanism


For those of us in the West who find Zionism, Judaism, American conservatism, and Old Testament values unacceptable, an avenue of escape does present itself. It lies in America's mythic past; in order to remove yourself from the present America, you only need to move to the America of the past, which is the America of pop culture myth. Immerse yourself - for example - in episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, a splendid series that was broadcast over thirty years ago. I have recently been watching nineties-era episodes on YouTube of an American ABC daytime soap and I have been enjoying the show's warmth and humanity. At the end of every episode, we hear the show's theme, which has a saxophone line that is soaring and sensual, and then we hear the announcer's voice - and it is always a pleasant, warm, and welcoming voice - cutting in and informing us of the contents of the upcoming broadcast of Good Morning America; all at once, we are thrown back in time to an America in which media and entertainment sought to give you a sensation of comfort, familiarity, and enjoyment, in which media and entertainment treated you as a friend and not an enemy. The impression is enhanced when we delve back further to forty years ago. Recently I had the good fortune to see the Christmas episode of an NBC daytime soap from 1985. In it, a handsome blue-eyed smiling young priest delivers a church service to a congregation that is all white; perhaps the grooming of the participants leaves something to be desired - the men wear mullets, the women impossibly big hair - but that being by the by the setting makes you feel at home. Do not listen to the white nationalists who disparage like the authors of the Talmud Christ and Christianity; do not listen to the white nationalists who belittle Christmas; do not listen to the white nationalists who attempt to tear down the American pop culture of the past. They take a jaundiced view of America, and something that I have discovered in recent years is that American white nationalists do not like Americans all that much. 


When it is good, American pop culture - and usually the pop culture of the past is good - may serve to convince you to be an advocate of a 100% Americanism, and perhaps this is what the American white nationalist is afraid of. 


In addition, the American pop culture of the past performs the useful function, useful in the time of Covidianism, of instructing us how to live. When the first lockdowns were enforced in early 2020, an emotional pall like a thundercloud about to burst seemed to settle over the city I lived in and the rest of the country. It was then that I started to think negatively of modern life in cities, the suburbs, and even the regional and rural areas; after getting my thoughts in order, I came to the conclusion that I found modern life a deeply alienating experience; and further, I began to suspect that such feelings of emotional distance in me and others predated the reign of the Covidians; it could be that these feelings were intrinsic to life in the West. Throughout the 2010s, politics took up all my attention, and I did not notice the strangeness - the philosopher Heidegger calls it unheimlichkeit, which means un-homeliness, unfamiliarity - of modern city living; I thrust it from my mind; but Covidianism, lockdowns, shutdowns, forced me to remove myself mentally from my fellows, who overnight seemed to have been driven mad by Covidian indoctrination. Cities had become deserted because the vast majority had been locked down and ordered to stay at home by the government and the 'health professionals', and this naturally enough made me feel as though I dwelt in a strange and alien world.  My feeling of a vast distance was increased whenever I walked to a grocery store wearing my mask (if I did not wear a mask, I would have been arrested); in the street, I would encounter most of the time only non-whites, and we would not greet one another or even make eye contact; it felt as though I were living in a giant open-air POW camp, the population of which was composed of the alien races we see locked up in an intergalactic prison depicted in a Star Trek episode; in short, I had become Captain Kirk. This was the darkest and most disorienting period in Australian history, and when confronted with bizarre behaviour that persists even today - I can still see people in the supermarket wearing masks - one must ask oneself, what is normal and what is human? How do I regain this normality and humanity, how do I feel like myself again - and indeed, what is myself? By watching TV dramas that depict rituals and events of the past - in America, these are TV dramas that put forward to us Thanksgiving, school dances, weddings, Christmas, everything denied to us by the Covidians - we reconnect with the essence of what it is to be human. 


In the first years of the decade, the political establishment - and that includes not only the politicians but the journalists, the police, the 'health professionals' - behaved in a manner that was quite inhuman, reptilian even. The masses, the 'normies', followed them unquestioningly. Had the 'normies', in the first months of 2020, withdrawn their consent and refused to wear masks, refused shut down their businesses, refused to confine themselves to their homes, refused to stand one and a half meters from one another in the supermarket, refused to 'check in' with a QR code when entering every building, then the Covidian regime would have collapsed. But the 'normies', as we know, went along with it each and every step of the way. They even agreed to being injected with a potentially lethal substance in order to enjoy the privileges of attending their place of employment in person, shopping at a shoe store, and drinking at a bar.


What does this have to do with the Bible and the Middle East? The word 'reptilian' denotes someone who is cold-blooded, strange, devoid of any human instincts, cruel, predatory, merciless; it applies to the Covidians and also to the Jews of the Old Testament; the fabulist David Icke, with his talk of 'reptilian elites', has been accused of anti-Semitism - 'reptilian' is a code-word for 'Jew', his detractors allege. Icke seemed to have been inspired by Robert E. Howard's Serpent Men, 'An ancient pre-human race who had founded Valusia but were almost extinct, rule from the shadows, using their Snake Cult religion and ability to disguise themselves with magic'. This shape-shifting race worships a serpent-god called Set who of course takes his name from the ancient Egyptian god of chaos, darkness, famine, and war. Guyénot writes that the ancient Egyptians, confused by the hostility of the Jews towards them, identified Yahweh with Set.


By associating Jews with such strange, non-human, magical, sinister beings, the conspiracy theorist forms a certain mental image of the Jew, one that is half-real, half-fantasy, and one that is the opposite of the mental image of the American that is impressed on us by popular culture; in contrast to the Old Testament Jew, the American is warm, friendly, avuncular, open, familiar, talkative, polite, hospitable,  honest, fair-dealing, and plain-spoken. One of the greatest mysteries of the past one hundred years is how the American, who diverges so much from the Bible Jew, felt such an extraordinary attraction to his antithesis. Lizard-Men, Israel, burnt offerings, race-hatred, volcano gods: all of these are distinctly un-American. 


To repeat, Israel is not 'The West', 'civilisation', and the West and civilisation are endangered neither by Hamas and nor by Palestinian immigrants - immigrants who for the reasons we all know by now are regarded as objectionable whereas Indian, Chinese, and African immigrants are not. 


We are free to shut our ears to the lizard men, who speak with a forked tongue, and we can enjoy life, and white privilege, and Christmas; we can, like this Ukrainian fellow, put our feet up: