Update: Yom Kippur

I started writing a philosophical dialogue between a nationalist and a cosmopilitan, but I lost patience and just couldn't stomach the bullshit I'd have to put into the cosmopolitan's mouth. Cosmopiltans are as shallow and stupid as they believe they're deep and smart. Anyway, here's what I have to say for my side:

Every man is born into a particular country, and he owes his loyalty to it, just because he was born there. It made him what he is. And our country, America, is the best and greatest on Earth.

Look at Africa, where men of the same race chop each other to bits with machetes. Look at Latin America, where corruption and violence are a way of life. Look at Dar al-Islam, where bloodthirsty maniacs kill innocents in the hope of raping virgins in Heaven. Need I go on? This is not a world in which all mankind can live in brotherly peace. This is a world in which we, the few, the relatively civilized people have to fend for ourselves; to kill, if we must, as many as we must.

I have spoken.

As for the Jews: for them, I feel deeply ambivalent. I admire them (I have some of their blood in me, after all), and Eretz Israel used to kick ass -- that I can admire, that I can bow down to, unambivalently. For as long as I can remember, I've worshiped the IDF -- the best fighting-force since the Wehrmacht; and I swear, by the Sun, Moon, and stars, and the golden apples of the West, I would love to see a match-up between those two!

But now the Israelis have turned into pussies. And I can also appreciate the Nazis' hatred for Jews, to some extent. The "Final Solution" was grotesque and macabre -- but, when you think about it, it makes sense. No, of course, it was crazy: but given the premise -- the Jews are the root of all evil -- well, what else could one do? I mean, look at what the Jews are doing to our country today. Not all of them -- some of them are the best of the best among us -- but the generality among them hate our country and want to destroy it, are working as hard as they can to destroy it.

I hate them as much as they hate us goyim. Fuck them, I say; and kill them. I have spoken.

So: am I an anti-Semite? Well, I hate the Arabs, unambivalently, and they're Semites; so yeah, I reckon I am an anti-Semite. But that puts me back on the side of Israel, and the Jews. Life is complicated, ain't it?

ante diem VI Kalends of October

So, I was sitting in my armchair, sipping (for a change) a Martini (instead of my usual bourbon and branch water), and obscure questions of Constitutional law bubbled up out of my subsconscious. (FWIW, in this connection, I highly recommend the tales of Galloway Gallegher, as told by Lewis Padgett, collected as Robots Have No Tails. [Fuck, if I really meant to be taken seriously, would I be writing on the lousy fucking WWW? NO POPERY!])

Anyhow, my thoughts turned to Prohibition, and what a miserable failure it was -- both times it was tried. Read your history, boys & girls ... no, wait a minute, most of the idiots who write that stuff nowadays aren't worth reading. Sorry, but trust me, it's true; only thing is, the first time they tried it state-by-state: not with a Constitutional amendment. Which, of course, was the only proper way to do it, if at all.

Think about it. The Constitution grants certain enumerated powers to the central government. That was the only way to get it through: each colony-- each state -- had its own customs and laws, and wasn't about to let some central power meddle in its own affairs. One thing they could agree on was that the central government controlled relations -- trade, military, and diplomatic -- with foreign powers. Ergo, the federal government only has the delegated power to control the import and export of -- say -- narcotics.

Not that the authors of the Constitution had the remotest imagination of such a bizarre, science-fictional thing as narcotics. But the law they laid down is still, at least nominally, the law of the land. And the principle is timeless: the federal government holds jurisdiction over imports and exports. It can control, it can tax, it can even ban, the import and export of narcotics between our country and others. But within our country? Like it or not, it has no power -- none, zip, nix, zilch. Not unless we've finally given up our Constitution and become a dictatorship.

Let me strike at this issue from another direction. Suppose some hippie faggot out in California grows a few acres of marijuana and sells it to some other hippie faggots out in California. Me, I live in Virginia. So, why the fuck should I care? It's three thousand miles away, and I wouldn't smoke dope if you paid me. I say, let the people of California deal with it however they want to. It's their business, not mine.

So I say this: let each state deal with the drug problem (and yes, it is a problem, don't get me wrong) in its own way, on its own terms. That's the brilliant thing about federalism: every one of the fifty states can try its own solution, and out of those fifty experiments, maybe we can find the right solution. Maybe it's legalization, maybe it's harder enforcement -- I'm not saying which. I will say, from what I've heard, is that that narcotics are qualitatively different from alcohol, which I'm saying as an alcoholic. And I'm saying that what we have now is bullshit.

And as an afterthought -- to offend anyone I haven't offended already -- that same argument applies to abortion. The federal government has no jurisdiction on this issue, one way or the other. Let each state decide, according to its own customs and laws. If one state decides that a baby may have its brain sucked out as it emerges from the womb, and another state decides that every fetus is sacred from conception -- let them decide it through the democratic process. My own moral judgments are irrelevant here, if only because no one will listen to them anyway.

VI Kalends of September

So, Atropos has finally snipped the thread of Senator-for-Life "Ted" Kennedy, a/k/a the Great Pink Whale, a/k/a the Kopechne-bane. Pardon my Schadenfreude, but it doth warm the cockles of my bitter, crotchety old heart. I hate him not for his liberalism -- as mawkish and hypocritical as it was -- but for being such a fat, pompous, sanctimonious old fraud. I despise both his own party of genuflecting, ass-kissing fools, and the other; for Jorge Bush was just as mawkish and hypocritical, and his idolaters just as sycophantic and degraded ... as are those of Barak Obama -- a name far more redolent of an African dictator than an American President, I might add.

The best result I hoped for, from a Democratic victory last November, was pulling our national hand out of those futile meat-grinders in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eheu! Our African-in-Chief has not even delivered on that. Son of a bitch! Good American men are still fighting and dying for delusions of universal democracy! Am I the only one disgusted and outraged by that?

Ides of May

I've said it many times, in many ways, but the theme bears variations: pinko-pansy thug-hugging peaceniks fill me with the utmost contempt and disgust. The epitome of their smug, sanctimonious bullshit is when they invitably say that "torturing" bloodthirsty maniacs who delight in murdering innocents -- by, say, hijacking airliners and crashing them into buildings -- "reduces us to their level." Mithras Tauroctonus! I don't want to be merely "reduced to their level": I want to pay them back tenfold.

I guess the blame ultimately lies with whatever smarmy bastard put this asinine phrase into the mouth of Jesus Christ: if someone smites you on one cheek, turn the other cheek. I say, if someone smites you on one cheek, kick him in the nuts.Or as it says somewhere in the Old Testament, those who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind.

This used to be the American way of war. When the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor, we ended up fire-bombing Tokyo and dropping the Big One on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When Johnny Reb bombarded Fort Sumter, we ended up sending General Sherman marching through Georgia, putting that sorry state to the torch and the sword.

Bring the good old bugle, boys, we'll sing another song
Sing it with a spirit that will start the world along
Sing it as we used to sing it, fifty thousand strong
While we were marching through Georgia!

Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee!
Hurrah! Hurrah! The flag that makes men free!
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea
While we were marching through Georgia!

And what were the results? The Japs, once bloodthirsty fanatical imperialists, have been meek as mice ever since. The South, despite its bluster, collapsed in the face of the civil-rights movement in a manner that surely sent John Calhoun and Jefferson Davis spinning in their graves so fast you could hook them up to a dynamo and produce a power-source to rival the TVA. Kicking ass pays off, big-time: that's the practical lesson. The moral lesson is: don't fuck with us and we won't fuck with you.

Ides of April

Why I hate conservatives, #101: The abortion issue.

They are such fucking hypocrites. They call themselves "pro-life," but that's just bullshit. To them, just as much as the libertine Left, abortion ain't about life, it's about sex. I hate the pro-abortion Left, too, but I must give them credit for the fact that at least they're honest about the fact that it's about sex, not life.

The papists are the worst, because all those theoretically-celibate, altar-boy-buggering priests preach about the evils of contraception. Now, I'm not even a Christrian; but from my studies of history, I gather that the Protestants have no problem with contraception as such, and their clergy isn't expected to be celibate. So, that makes me curious about why Right-wing Prods take up the abortion issue, and push it so fervently.

As I see it, FWIW, both sides are perverts. They're both sex-obsessed, each in their own way. The Left thinks that everybody should fuck anybody, and that's all there is too it. The Right thinks that everybody should fuck anybody, as long as the Holy Mother Church solemnizes their union.

ante diem IV Ides of March

As far back as I can remember, I've had a peculiar, inexplicable fascination with World War I -- or as they called it back then, the Great War. And for all military history in general, of course; every boy knows in his bones that war is cool -- or as the Fascist slogan had it: "war is to man as childbirth is to woman." (Not that any Fascist slogan could change a nation of spaghetti-slurpers back into Romans.) But I digress.

If I were to list my four favorite writers of all time, every one of them would be of the Great War generation. These were the men who molded my mind. Olaf Stapledon was a conscientious objector, but he served as an ambulance driver. J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis both served in the trenches as infantry officers. H.P. Lovecraft tried hard to enlist, but was disqualified for medical reasons. And then there's Arnold J. Toynbee, the great, underrated historian; he was in the British Foreign Office, IIRC.

And then there's two of my favorite characters in all literature: Launcelot Wake and John Heritage. They're both set in the period of the Great War, or just after. They're both crotchety, cantankerous, Lefty, arty, intellectual types -- but when push comes to shove, they prove themselves patriots and heroes. I can see myself in them, maybe all too well.

What does all this mean? Laugh if you will, but sometimes I fancy that I've been reincarnated, and in a previous life I did fight as a soldier in the Great War.

ante diem VIII Ides of March

In between my efforts not to vomit, I've been watching, for the umpteenth time, the movie Stripes, and I feel I must quote John Winger's speech, which rivals Patton's:

Cut it out! Cut it out! Cut it out! The hell's the matter with you?! Stupid! We're all very different people. We're not Watusi. We're not Spartans. We're Americans, with a capital 'A', huh? You know what that means? Do ya? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts! Here's proof: his nose is cold! But there's no animal that's more faithful, that's more loyal, more loveable than the mutt. Who saw Old Yeller? Who cried when Old Yeller got shot at the end? Nobody cried when Old Yeller got shot? I'm sure. I cried my eyes out. So we're all dogfaces, we're all very, very different, but there is one thing that we all have in common: we were all stupid enough to enlist in the Army. We're mutants. There's something wrong with us, something very, very wrong with us. Something seriously wrong with us -- we're soldiers. But we're American soldiers! We've been kicking ass for 200 years! We're 10 and 1! Now we don't have to worry about whether or not we practiced. We don't have to worry about whether Captain Stillman wants to have us hung. All we have to do is to be the great American fighting soldier that is inside each one of us. Now do what I do, and say what I say. And make me proud.

pridie Kalends of March

I swear, by Odin's eye, I love this man!

View from the Right

I don't share his religious views at all; his criticisms of Darwinism are bizarre, and flagrantly defiant of all modern science; his views on race, though usually sensible, are sometimes a little over the top. But when he polemically pounds on the palaecons and the pinkoes -- what can I say but eia, eia, alala!

ante diem VI Kalends of March

In ancient Persia, Zoroastrian Persia, a nobleman had to do three things: ride a horse, shoot with a bow, and speak the truth. I like that. If I were a religious man, I'd go for Zoroastrianism (or preferably its Hellenized offshoot, Mithraism, if it were extant), even though the Persians were always our enemies (it amuses me that this would put me in the company of the great musician and faggot Freddie Mercury). As it is, I've never ridden a horse, but I have two great virtues that I can take pride in, despite all my flaws and weaknesses: I always speak the truth, and I can shoot with a gun.

Presumably because of some ironic and twisted part of my composition, I prefer to have enemies that I can admire. These days, I can admire the Chinks, for reasons too obvious to mention. And, after all, we have no real cause for quarrel with the Chinks anyway -- except that the Chinks have thrown their lot in with the sand-monkeys, for reasons best known only to themselves.

Now, as for them sand-monkeys, I have nothing but the utmost contempt. As the great and good General George S. "Old Blood and Guts" Patton (the more I read about him, the more I love him) put it:

It seems to me a certainty that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of women are the outstanding causes for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing.

Oh, BTW, as he also said:

I don't give a damn who the man is. He can be a nigger or a Jew, but if he has the stuff and does his duty, he can have anything I've got. By God! I love him.

Eia, eia, alala!

ante diem VII Kalends of March

I've liked detective stories for as long as I can remember. For one thing, I'm a smart guy (though I must admit, I've done many stupid things), and I like to see a puzzle being solved. For another thing, I'm a moral guy (though I must admit, I've done many immoral things), and I like to see good guys defeating bad guys, and sending them to the gallows, or the Third Rail Express, or where-ever.

(Need I mention that I'm an enthusiastic proponent of the death penalty? Incidentally, I'm also a general -- albeit cautious -- proponent of both eugenics and euthanasia. These facts should engender the self-righteous outrage of both Left and Right against me. Well, fuck them both -- up, down, and sideways.)

Anyway -- for the last year or two, I've mostly been reading detective novels. Now, when I was growing up, I mostly read science fiction and history. I reckon I've read all the good old SF (please, please, not "sci-fi"!) worth reading (and more than once), and there ain't much more being written, except by John C. Wright (whom I admire exorbitantly, even though he's recently become a papist). I guess I'm just now catching up with all the good old dick-fic, to coin a phrase. Now, I swear by the bow of Mithras, weren't there already enough slang terms for the penis that "dick" should never be so ambiguated?

One thing I've noticed lately is the multiplication of cop-shows on TV: all the spinoffs and copycats of CSI and Law and Order and so on and so forth. Now, when I was growing up, it was private detectives who were most fashionable: Rockford, Magnum -- only Columbo sticks out as a police detective in my memory. What this signifies, I leave to others to ponder. The only point I'll make here, even as a mere amateur spectator, is the idiocy of sending CSIs to a crime scene before uniforms have secured it. Boffins with guns? Gimme a break!

One of my favorites is Cold Case: partly because it's set in my home town; partly because it stars a crotchety, cantankerous fat man, and I'm a crotchety, cantankerous thin man, and the comparison and contrast amuses me no end.

ante diem VIII Kalends of March

This afternoon I limped over into a nearby Mexican restaurant. As much as I resent the presence of so many spics in our midst, as much as their accents grate upon my sensibilities, I reckon it makes no sense to cut off my nose to spite my face: I actually quite like Mexican food. But I can't stand Mexican music -- it always fills me with the urge to mow down mariachi bands with a .50-cal. Browning like wheat with a scythe -- and they were playing this shit, and loudly, as I pondered the bill of fare, until I lost my appetite and limped out again.

Once again, I've renewed my conviction that the Mexicans need to be taught another stern lesson in the fact that the Anglo-Saxons have been appointed by Fate, Chance, Nature, Providence, what have you, to be the dominant people of the modern world, just as the Romans were appointed to be the dominant people of the ancient world. Eia, eia, alala! But, eheu -- once again, I've looked around with wonder and dismay at how we, this great and once-proud Nordic folk, have lost faith in our own destiny.

Back in the day, our only serious challengers were the Krauts -- the folk who twice took on pretty much the whole world, and nearly beat it. As much as it pains me to admit it, the Wehrmacht was probably the greatest army in the history of the world: man for man, they totally outclassed us (except for General Patton, of course). It was only by the sheer quantity of men and materiel that we were able to turn the balance against them, and finally (metaphorically) cut their balls off.

And it was only the craziness of the German leaders, in both world wars, that let those assholes Wilson and Roosevelt drag us into those wars -- after promising to keep us out of them; wars that, when you think about it, were never in our interest to get into. This craziness somehow managed to outmatch, so to speak, the sheer stupidity of most of the Allied command -- the stupidity that led to such disasters as Gallipoli, the Somme, Passchendaele ... ach, don't get me started, especially not on that idiot Montgomery, one of the worst and stupidest generals since McClellan, who got totally unearned credit for beating one of the best and greatest generals of all time, only because Hitler was crazy enough to send Rommel and the Africa Corps to Libya in the first place and the Royal Navy cut off their supply-line.

Oh, and the Holocaust: what's always impressed me about that is how, except for the occasional sadist, the Germans were so civilized about it. I mean, the atrocities had to be delegated to the SS, and all the other Germans -- especially the Wehrmacht -- either didn't know or tried hard not to (and what could they do about them, anyway?); and even the SS, or most of them, deliberately dehumanized themselves, roboticized themselves, trying to blank out the reality of what they were doing, following Hitler's crazy orders (well, except for the Commissar Order. Anybody who orders the wholesale killing of Communists can't be all bad, in my book) mechanically. Whereas the Japs and Russians, when they committed atrocities, it was the ordinary soldiers, on their own initiative, with savage glee, who did things far more stomach-churning than anything the SS ever did.

And, as I wrote back in '05:

Unser Führer, Georg Busch

If I were given a six-month dictatorship, according to the old Roman custom, one decree I'd make would be this: No one may compare anyone or anything to Adolf Hitler, National Socialism, or Nazi Germany, unless you've read this book and can cite the page and paragraph that substantiates your simile.

The first thing that comes to my own mind, when such comparisons are made, is the difference between Jorge's policy towards Mexico and Hitler's policy towards Poland. On the one hand, you have someone actively collaborating with a foreign government to subvert his own country's sovereignty and security. On the other hand, you have someone conquering a foreign country, exterminating the upper classes and reducing the lower classes to serfdom. Not exactly in the same league. Hell -- if I had to choose between these two options, I'd pick the latter in a heartbeat: better an American Empire than an Estados Unidos Mexamericanos under some future Presidente Bush who probably really would be named Jorge.

Anyway -- the point I want to make here is the sheer, utter, mind-boggling, flabbergasting stupidity of comparing Jorge W. Bush to Adolf Hitler. So why do people do it? Allan Bloom put it best, way back in 1987:

Who do you think is evil? To this [question] there is an immediate response: Hitler. (Stalin is hardly mentioned.) After him, who else? Up until a couple of years ago, a few students said Nixon, but he has been forgotten and at the same time is being rehabilitated. And there it stops. (The Closing of the American Mind, p. 67)

This is the unspoken syllogism, the invisible motor that drives the moonbat mind: Bush is evil; evil is Hitler; therefore, Bush is Hitler.

Is Bush evil? I don't know. I'm inclined to think that he's just a well-meaning idiot, but I'm also willing to entertain the possibility that he is consciously and deliberately betraying his country. The real question is whether what he does is evil. The problem with the Bush = Hitler freaks is that they hate him precisely for the good things he does. They hate him because, in his own dimwitted way, he's trying to fight the bad guys -- the non-Mexican ones, that is.

Is evil Hitler? Phrased this way, the fallacy should be obvious. Hitler was evil; but evil is a far, far bigger category than Hitler. Consider Stalin, for instance.

It's interesting to consider the reasons why the loony Lefties won't consider Stalin. One, of course, is that Stalin was a man of the Left, and therefore either a good guy or someone to forget about. But I'm sure that this point is familiar to everyone who has not forgotten Stalin and doesn't think he's a good guy. Another reason is that Stalin just isn't cool.

The Nazis were evil, but cool. Like Darth Vader, you know? Uniformed pageantry ... swastikas ... torchlit parades ... Roman salutes ... Panzers and Stukas ... and (too little, too late) the first assault rifle, the first cruise missile, the first ballistic missile, the first jet fighter .... Esthetically, they just make a better spectacle than commies could ever dream of; so the commies still pretend to be anti-Nazi, even though actual Nazi wannabes today are both scarce on the ground and totally un-cool, because using Nazi imagery lets them steal some of that glamor to dress up their own propaganda.

And this is another huge difference between Jorge and Hitler. I seriously doubt that even Republobots, who think that the sun shines out of Jorge's ass, would try to say that he's cool. No: they'd praise his un-coolness as a sign of what a good ol' "red-state" hick he is. Well, fuck them.

Nones of February

Just because it amuses me to be offensive to those who like to take offense:

Poof, the magic faggot
Lived by the sea
And frolicked in bath-houses there
'Til he caught that HIV

And I don't remember who told me this one, but it's hilarious:

AIDS = Anally Inserted Death Sentence

Then there's the more subtle and ironical humor of Good Omens:

The guard on the hole in the fence looked puzzled. He was aware of excitement back in the base, and his radio seemed to be picking up nothing but static, and his eyes were being drawn again and again to the card in front of him.

He'd seen many identity cards in his time--military, CIA, FBI, KGB even--and, being a young soldier, had yet to grasp that the more insignificant an organization is, the more impressive are its identity cards.

This one was hellishly impressive. His lips moved as he read it again, all the way from "The Lord Protector of the Common Wealth of Britain charges and demands," through the bit about commandeering all kindling, rope, and igniferous oils, right down to the signature of the W[itchfinder]A[rmy]'s first Lord Adjutant, Praise-him-all-Ye-works-of-the-Lord-and-Flye-Fornication Smith. Newt kept his thumb over the bit about Nine Pence Per Witch and tried to look like James Bond.

Finally the guard's probing intellect found a word he thought he recognized.

"What's this here," he said suspiciously, "about us got to give you faggots?"

"Oh, we have to have them," said Newt. "We burn them."

"Say what?"

"We burn them."

The guard's face broadened into a grin. And they'd told him England was soft."Right on!" he said.

ante diem X Kalends of February

Once I read somewhere that there are two kinds of atheists: Catholic and Protestant. I puzzled over that for a while, but I've figured it out, I think. Catholic atheists turn militantly anticlerical: cf. Voltaire's "écrasez l'infâme!" Protestant atheists sublimate their inherited religiosity into secular causes: cf. Carlyle's "Heroism and Hero-Worship." (Jewish atheists, obviously, do both: that's why they're practically all Marxists or some-such.)

As for me ... I suppose I fall into the Protestant atheist camp. My father was a lapsed Quaker; my mother, a lapsed Unitarian; I grew up with no explicit religious education whatsoever -- but of course within a broader Protestant culture, this being a Protestant nation. The Nation, to me, is, in effect, what the God of Abraham is to the Bible-thumpers. The thought of this is somewhat humbling; but it changes nothing else for me.

I am what my history and background have made me. I am a man of the West, and an American (which is to say, an Anglo-Saxon, and a republican). I was born in Philadelphia, which makes me a Yankee in two out of three senses: to Northerners, a Yankee is a New Englander; to Southerners, a Yankee is a Northerner; to foreigners, a Yankee is an American.

I am proud of these things, and I would lay down my life for them, with pride, in a heartbeat. I believe not in the God of Abraham, but I do not (entirely) despise those who do; certainly not those who have raised their swords, and laid down their lives, in defense of their Nation, and their Civilization. Eia, eia, alala!

Ides of January, 2009

We've lost Sam.

Ah, son of a bitch! Samuel Huntington was maybe the best and greatest American nationalist of our time, and he's kicked the bucket. I feel like an asshole, because I never tried to give him the credit he deserved -- but then, what more could I have done than say "read these books"?

The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
Who Are We: The Challenges to America's National Identity

And what good can I do him now, except to pour libations (down my own throat) in his honor? Ah well. Not that it matters: nothing I do could ever make any difference anyway ... as evinced by the fact that it's taken me this long to find out that he's history.

At least I can say this: he's historic. And on an ironic note, "Sam" was a commonly-used nickname for the American, a/k/a "Know-Nothing" Party, the antebellum nativist party. My guess is that it derives from "Uncle Sam" -- but that's just a guess; nobody really knows.

ante diem IV Kalends of January, 2009

Back in the heady days after 9/11, the sand-monkeys were dancing in the streets, we were waxing wroth (well, except for the usual pansies), and Jorge the Chimp (of all people! Eheu!) was stirring within me historic memories of Charles the Hammer, St. James the Moor-slayer, Don John of Austria, King John Sobieski, Prince Eugene of Savoy.... Well, after all these years of lame -- downright gay -- phony war, at last, at least, I've had the joy of seeing the Israelis bomb the shit out of Gaza. Eia, eia, alala!

Compatriots, we are in the midst of the Fourth World War (counting, if you aren't already familiar with the concept, the Cold War as the Third). Many of those who do not grasp this are simply ignorant -- which is to say, they just don't know what's going on. The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that ignorance is curable. But there is something even worse than stupidity, and that is what afflicts the pansy-peacenik thug-hugging internal enemies of the West -- those who will bend over backwards to avoid giving offense to the sand-monkeys who cruelly murder innocents.

Jorge the Chimp, for all his initial bluster and bravado, has proved to be useless, if not worse. But of course, Barak Osama will be even worse than that.

Be that as it may. Those of us with historic memories know that it took 781 years to throw the Moors out of Europe; there were 191 years between the vile Turk's conquest of Hungary and his expulsion at the battle of Belgrade. The Mohammedans are now launching their third historic assault on the West. Even if we now collapse before them as ignominiously as the Visigoths and the decadent Rwmaioi, and the poor bloody Magyars at Mohacs (shed your tears and rend your garments, compatriots, for the memory of King Louis of Hungary!), the lesson that history teaches to me is that somehow, sooner or later, we shall rise up, and fight, and throw them back.

Winter Solstice, MMDCCLXI A.V.C.

AVE.SOL.INVICTE.NOS.VIVENTES.TE.SALVTAMVS.

Nones of November, 2008

When called upon to summarize my political views, I usually say something like this: "I'm moderate on social and economic issues, but hard-line on such issues as immigration, foreign policy, and national defense." Or, "The only gun control I believe in is hitting what you aim at." Or, in the words of Trey Parker or Matt Stone (I forget which): "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals." I mean, connies are right most of the time; actually; though, they're such pussies that they just don't have the courage of their supposed convictions.

As for me, I was all in favor of kicking Iraq's ass, and I stand by that now. The thing is, when Jorge Wanker Bush made that famous flight to the aircraft carrier, and said "Mission accomplished," I was all thumbs-up and "America, fuck yeah!"; but thereafter, I was like: "The mission's accomplished, so why the fuck are we still there?" And why the fuck didn't we wipe out the Baathists in Syria and, more than twenty years too late, the Islamic Revolution in Iran? Among my earliest memories are of our people being held hostage by those vicious bastards. If it were up to me, we'd drop the Big One on Tehran -- in a heartbeat.

As for Afghanistan, our mission was to knock out the Taliban and capture or (preferably) kill that evil son of a bitch Osama bin Laden. Well, we did the first, but not the second; after all these years, I reckon it's time to give up and bring our men home. As it is, it's eerily like Vietnam -- as I think every time I see our military men on TV, commenting on the situation ... except that we're dealing with two quagmires instead of one.

Election Day, 2008

Uploaded a new essay, which puts this miserable election in historical context. Perhaps needless to say, I'm not voting for either of those assholes.

Compatriots, we are faced here with two candidates for the highest office in the land, and both of them are virulently anti-American: a black racist and the spics' butt-boy. Sure, they've hidden their true nature for the duration, but whichever one gets into office is going to give the suckers who voted for him, in the primaries or the general, a nasty surprise.

(BTW -- seeing a pic on TV of Obama with his viciously anti-white, anti-American pastor made me laugh out loud. Now, the Obamanation is what used to be called a mulatto: i.e. half-white, half-black. Well, this Jeremiah Wright character is evidently what used to be called a quadroon, i..e. ¼ black, ¾ white. What a fucking idiot.)

The same cultural trends I noted in the 2004 election are still going strong, but this time I suspect that the Republicans' pathetic misconduct of the War, and the downturn of the economy, will tilt the balance; they're fucked, and hard. But it doesn't really matter, because whichever one wins, we're all fucked.

We're about to hit another historic crisis, compatriots. My advice: Love your country, hope for the best, and, as the old saying goes, keep your powder dry.

Ides of October, 2008

So, The American Nationalist™ is back in action after a 2½-year hiatus. This Update page replaces the rather lame blog I kept up til May '06. Occasionally I'll be reposting items that might be worth a second look, in addition to any new observations on the present scene, history, philosophy, or whatever.

The political situation is pretty dismal and daunting. I have only two thoughts about the upcoming elections: (1) Whichever party wins, the nation is screwed; but (2) Sarah Palin is sizzlin' hot, so I might actually turn out to vote GOP anyway. I won't venture any predictions, since my predictions for '04 were pretty offbase: Jorge el Chimp was reelected, to be sure, but not (fortunately) by the landslide I expected.

Looking back at some other predictions, it's amusing to note that they tend to be more accurate the more cautious and tentative they are:

Jorge has already noticed that Lebanon is a good place to "advance the cause of freedom" at America's expense. Purely by chance, then, he is inadvertently advancing our national interest by leaning on Syria -- but, being completely unable to learn from experience, he is doing so in conjunction with the Euro-weenies and the UN. The Syrian dictator (whom it amuses me to call "Boy Assad") will continue to squirm and stall as Jorge, the Euro-weenies, and the UN do their diplo-dance. After a year or two of this, Jorge will be stupidly stubborn enough to make Boy Assad decide not to share Saddam Hussein's fate. Boy Assad will withdraw from Lebanon as the price of retaining his regime in power over Syria. Jorge will rejoice at having "advanced the cause of freedom" -- and continue to ignore Boy Assad's support for the terrorists in Iraq.

This turned out to be more or less how it played out, though I understand that Syria is still basically running things behind the scenes, even after pulling out their army. That last sentence was spot-on.

By this time, Iran will have nukes.

Not yet, fortunately -- no thanks to Jorge Wimp Bush.

As for the Lebanese, I reckon that they have a better-than-even chance of restoring a functioning democracy. Lebanon is, after all, the only Arab country that ever had one.

Don't know, don't care. I mean, fuck 'em, they're just a bunch of sand-monkeys. But I do have some sympathy for the Maronites, because they're basically pro-Western, and the Druzes, because their religion is engagingly peculiar.

By 2008, the endless endemic conflict in Iraq will be a winning issue for the Democrats (or for some pro-American Republican, if there are any left), because more and more Americans will be wondering why we still have our hand in that meat-grinder.

Too true, though it remains to be seen if this issue will be decisive.

Home