Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts

Saturday, April 6, 2024

The veil is thin near Erie, PA

I dreamed that there was an invisible interdimensional wall running along the north side of Interstate 90 in the United States, the purpose of which was to keep our world separate from alternate realities. However, near the city of Erie, Pennsylvania, there was a small gap in this wall, making it easy for a careless person to slip through into another universe, or to encounter something that had slipped through into ours. I was listening to something on the radio about a particular meditation technique or something, and they included a warning: “But do be careful attempting this if you happen to live near Erie, PA.”

My old home in what is now Hell Hollow Wilderness Area in Ohio is about an hour west of Erie. Erie is also in the path of the upcoming solar eclipse.

Vox forgot to knock on wood

April 3, 2024 — Biggest quake in 25 years hits Taiwan. Vox Day posts that this is clearly no more a coincidence than if a tsunami were to hit New York City.

April 5, 2024 — Biggest quake in a century hits New York City.

It’s not a tsunami, and “biggest in a century” is still small potatoes in as seismically inert an area as the Big Apple. Still, I’m calling that one hell of a coincidence.

Thursday, January 11, 2024

Sync: Turning a mattress with a small bloodstain upside down

Today I started reading The Delta, Colin Wilson's fourth Spider World novel. At one point, one of the characters is attacked by a giant creepy-crawly while in bed. He kills it, and then he and a friend try to hide the evidence so as not to alarm the others:

The bloodstained bedclothes already lay on the floor. Fortunately, the blood had made only a small stain on the flock mattress; together, they turned this upside down.

Shortly after reading that, I checked /pol/, which is unsurprisingly still going to town with the "secret Jew tunnel" story that's been all over the media. Lots of crazy webms, including this instant classic:

But this next one was the synchy one. I don't pretend to have the faintest idea what's going on here or why, but they pull out some mattresses that were hidden inside a wall, one of them appears to have a small bloodstain on it, and they turn it upside down:

Tuesday, May 9, 2023

How do US presidents end their speeches? (with a 3-6-9 postscript)

I just read "Weird Things About King Charles' Coronation" by Naomi Wolf, who argues that the coronation was rendered "uncanny" by slight but noticeable departures from established tradition. I'm not British, didn't watch the coronation, and have no opinion on this, but something else she said jumped out at me:

When we as Americans see the Stars and Stripes saluted - and we know that it is the same salute that goes back most of our nation’s history - we are comforted. When the US President ends his every major speech with the phrase "and God Bless the United States of America", that repetition is not only reassuring, it creates an invocation for our national life extending from deep into the past, giving us promise for the future. All of this is a form of positive magic.

[. . .]

I have noticed that icons, symbols and texts that are culturally central to Western countries, and that are central to the Judeo-Christian tradition especially, are being slightly rearranged, slightly soiled, slightly garbled these days everywhere (just as President Biden keeps systematically not concluding his speeches with: "And God bless the United States of America").

"God bless the United States of America"? Did she do that on purpose, to see if anyone would prove her point by noticing it? The traditional way to end a presidential speech is "God bless you, and God bless America," and Wolf's paraphrase is just the sort of "slightly garbled" modification she decries.

That was my immediate reaction, anyway, but I figured I'd better confirm it. I checked the transcripts of every State of the Union address in the last 100 years, and here's what I found.

First, ending the speech with any form of "God bless . . ." is a relatively recent custom, introduced by Ronald Reagan. Of the 60 pre-Reagan addresses I looked at, 95% end with no such formula. The three exceptions are from Truman ("May God bless our country and our cause," 1953), Kennedy ("may God watch over the United States of America," 1962), and Ford ("God bless you," 1977). Since Reagan's first State of the Union in 1982, though, every single address (with the one exception of Clinton in 1999) has ended with some form of "God bless . . . ."

From Reagan to the present, here is what presidents have blessed at the close of their State of the Union addresses:


Here's how they have referred to their country in these statements:


As for specific, word-for-word formulas, these are the only ones that have been used more than once or twice:
  • God bless you, and God bless America. (used 8 times, by Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Trump)
  • God bless America. (used 4 times, by Clinton, Bush II, and Trump)
  • God bless you. (used 4 times, only by Reagan)
  • God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (used 3 times, only by Obama)
  • God bless you all, and may God protect our troops. (used 3 times, only by Biden)
So I feel a bit vindicated. Although the formula is neither as old nor as invariable as I had expected, the form I remembered is in fact the most canonical, used twice as frequently as any other. The difference between my own understanding and Wolf's probably has to do with the fact that I left the United States in 2004 and haven't watched a full State of the Union address since then, whereas Wolf presumably listened to Obama's addresses, with their (anomalous) preference for "the United States of America."

Anyway, Wolf's overall point stands: Biden is the only recent president to consistently end his speeches without invoking God's blessing on the country. It's also strange that Biden, not any of the wartime presidents who preceded him, should be the one to introduce "our troops" into the formula.


Reading Naomi Wolf -- a person whose existence hadn't crossed my mind in years -- made me think of the time she was interviewed by Ali G and managed to come off as cool and likable, something of which feminists seem no longer to be capable. (Then I found out that, after the show, she denounced Ali G as a racist and tried to have the episode pulled! She did manage to be cool and likable while she was actually on camera, which is something anyway.)


This little exchange caught my attention:

Wolf: But let me tell you, honestly, how would you feel if you had to sell sex, your sex?

Ali G: What, if people paid me money for sex?

Wolf: No, honestly! I mean --

Ali G: Wicked! I would be there every day, I would [unintelligible] 24 hours a day, seven days a week, three six nine!

Booyakasha! She walked right into that one. Notice, though, how he uses "three six nine," apparently with a meaning similar to "twenty-four seven." Debbie has brought up 3-6-9 several times in the comments, in connection with Shirley Ellis's "Clapping Song" and a statement by Nikola Tesla, but this is the first time I've ever heard it used in a slang sense. (In the Ellis song, I'd always assumed it had no real meaning but was analogous to "Two four six eight, who do we appreciate.") Has anyone ever heard it used this way before?

Sunday, January 1, 2023

It’s not even controversial anymore

I just saw a tweet saying that the U.S. is a satanic nation at war with the Christian Fire Nation.

There were lots of replies protesting that the Fire Nation isn’t really Christian.

There were zero replies protesting that the U.S. isn’t really satanic.

Friday, December 16, 2022

The bricklayer's son goes dit-da-doo

This is a song we used to sing in my school days, meaning 1985-89, in Derry, New Hampshire and/or Harford County, Maryland (I think it was in New Hampshire). It's sung more or less to the tune of "The Wheels on the Bugs Go Round and Round," and the lyrics are rather straightforward:

The bricklayer's son goes dit-da-doo
The bricklayer's son goes dit-da-doo
The bricklayer's son goes dit-da-doo
The bricklayer's son goes dit-da-doo

Occasionally additional verses were added in which the bricklayer's son "went" various other nonsense syllables such as "raw-de-raw," but usually it was just "dit-da-doo." There was also a variant that replaced the fourth line with "All day tomorrow," but that was considered uncool and was only sung by girls.

The thing is, it seems as if the song must have been around for a while, since referring to anyone as "the bricklayer's son" isn't the sort of thing that would come naturally to American children in the late eighties, but I can find no reference to it anywhere on the Internet. So I'm remedying that by posting it here, in the vague hope that years down the line someone else will google the line, end up here, and leave a comment saying, "You remember that, too? I thought I was the only one!"

Wednesday, November 9, 2022

Once in a red moon?

Election Day in the US coincides this year with a total lunar eclipse, being hyped in the press as a "Blood Moon."

Donald Trump's birth on June 14, 1946, also coincided with a total lunar eclipse.

There were only 19 total lunar eclipses in the years between those two dates, so it's not something that happens all that often.

The moon being "turned into blood" is an apocalyptic sign in the Bible (Joel 2:31, Acts 2:20, Rev. 6:12).

I didn't see the eclipse, but on the night of November 8, approximately ten minutes before midnight here in Taiwan, I happened to step outside and look at the sky at just the right moment to see a brilliant green fireball streak across the sky and burn out. Like the meteor I saw this March, it traced a corkscrew path, but its overall direction was downward. My immediate thought -- probably influenced by the 369 tissues I recently saw, which featured the Chinese characters 綠電, literally "green lightning" -- was "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven" (Luke 10:18). It felt like a portent, but of what?

Thursday, July 7, 2022

If the Cabinet were full of Mormons

Not counting the VP, there are 24 members of the Cabinet of the United States. Mormons account for about 2% of the US population. Now imagine if a president gave a quarter of all Cabinet-level positions -- including three of the four highest-ranking -- to Mormons. Imagine if we had, I don't know, let's say
  • a Mormon Secretary of State
  • a Mormon Secretary of the Treasury
  • a Mormon Attorney General
  • a Mormon Secretary of Homeland Security
  • a Mormon Director of National Intelligence
  • a Mormon Chief of Staff
Wouldn't that be extremely noteworthy? I think everyone would be asking what was going on, why so many Mormons. Many would want assurances that the administration wouldn't be unduly influenced by the agenda of this tiny religious minority. Even Mormons and Mormon sympathizers would be wondering what was up and might even find the situation embarrassing, especially if the president himself was a Satanist. Yes, I think everyone across the board would agree that this was something very much out of the ordinary and would want an explanation.

Of course it could never really happen -- they're only 2% of the population! -- but it's fun to imagine.

Sunday, June 26, 2022

Why the Liararchy allowed Roe v. Wade to be overturned -- and why gay "marriage" is next


Roe v. Wade
was never the Satanic ideal. The ideal was never for abortion to be legalized by judicial fiat, without the people's consent. Much more effective, in terms of damnation, would be a public referendum on the matter, implicating as many people as possible -- not only those who commit abortions, not only a handful of judges, but millions of voters consenting, like Saul, to the deaths.

But that wouldn't have worked in 1973. The people wouldn't have consented.

So the first step was forced legalization -- leading, slowly but surely, to normalization. Now, after 50 years of abortion being an established constitutional right, the issue is returned to the people, on the understanding that by now the 50-year psy-op will have worked its magic and the majority will be willing to take Moloch's side. After 50 years of Roe, many have been personally involved in abortions. Many others know and love people who have. Many others may see the whole issue differently when it is framed as taking away a constitutional right rather than granting a new one.

In the case of gay "marriage," the normalization process has been orders of magnitude faster, due to propaganda power undreamt of in the 1970s, and the time is probably already ripe for Obergefell v. Hodges to be overturned as well. The social pressure for voters to support gay "marriage" will be even stronger than for abortion. Abortion is generally private, and you probably don't even know which of your acquaintances have been involved in one. "Marriage," in contrast is very public and is central to a person's identity. By now many of us have friends or relatives who are gay-"married." How many -- even among those who opposed such practices in the past -- will be willing to vote to annul those unions?

Of course it is possible that this strategy could backfire, and that the people when given the choice will refuse to choose evil, but I think the Liararchy is fairly confident that won't happen. And even in their worst-case scenario, you still get a hell of a fight, an explosion of hatred on both sides, and another step closer to the pure chaos beloved of Sorath.

Friday, May 20, 2022

Joan and the English colonization of America

Rudolf Steiner had this interesting take on how Joan of Arc affected world history, from a 1915 lecture.

At that time it was indeed the Christ impulse acting in Joan of Arc, through its Michaelic servants, that prevented a possible merging of France and England, causing England to be forced back onto its island. And this achieved two things: first, France continued to have a free hand in Europe. This can be seen if we study the history of France over the following centuries — the essential element of the French spirit was able to influence European culture entirely without hindrance. The second thing which was achieved was that England was given its domain outside the continent of Europe. This deed, brought in through Joan of Arc, was a blessing not only for the French but also for the English, compelling them to take up their domain.

The reason the English later built an empire in America and elsewhere, Steiner implies, is that Joan had prevented them from building an empire in Europe.

This is synchronistically interesting. On December 29, 2020, after the sync fairies had brought Joan to my attention and just three days before my direct encounter with her, I noted that Joan's surname was sometimes written as Dare rather than Darc and connected that with the name of the first English child born in America.

Dare as an alternative form of Joan's surname is interesting because it suggests Virginia Dare -- whose given name, Virginia, has the same meaning as La Pucelle.

On March 30, 2022, I noted that John Dee also had a name suggestive of the Maid's.

According to Wikipedia, John Dee's surname comes from the Welsh word for "black." In other words, his name was John Dark.

At the time, I didn't know what to make of this link. Dee, a spy and magician, seemed to have nothing to do with the purity of Joan, and associating the two seemed almost blasphemous. Now it makes a bit more sense, if we accept Steiner's idea that Joan's defeat of the English set in motion the chain of events that resulted in the creation of the British Empire. John Dee was the one who coined the term British Empire, well before any such empire existed, and then pushed Queen Elizabeth to make it a reality by colonizing the New World -- a colonization which symbolically began with the birth of Virginia Dare in 1587.

My recent posts about John Dee have focused on the event of April 27, 1592. I learned of the Steiner lecture quoted above through an email I was sent on April 27, 2022 -- but which I didn't discover until last night because it had been sent to my spam folder.

Monday, December 27, 2021

Monkey, Rat, and Dragon elections

Because U.S. presidential elections are held on a four-year cycle, each takes place in one of only three Chinese zodiac years: the Monkey, the Rat, and the Dragon.

The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, a Year of the Monkey. The Constitution was ratified in 1788, another Year of the Monkey. The War of 1812, often considered a "second war of independence," began in yet another Year of the Monkey. 

Wikipedia's article on "Historical rankings of presidents of the United States" summarizes the results of 23 different surveys in which scholars ranked the presidents from best to worst. Only five presidents were ranked in the top quartile in every single survey and may thus be taken to be, by common consent, America's five greatest presidents: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and the two Roosevelts. With the exception of Theodore Roosevelt, who assumed the presidency after McKinley's assassination rather than being elected, every one of these was elected in a Year of the Monkey.


These 15 presidents came to power in Monkey elections: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, Zachary Taylor, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump. Monkey presidents were reelected 11 times.

These 9 presidents came to power in Rat elections: James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, Benjamin Harrison, Woodrow Wilson, John F. Kennedy, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. Rat presidents were reelected 4 times.

These 11 presidents came to power in Dragon elections: John Adams, James Madison, James K. Polk, James Buchanan, Ulysses S. Grant, Chester A. Arthur, Herbert Hoover, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Dragon presidents were reelected 4 times.

Thursday, August 5, 2021

My 2014 review of The White Book

Note: This is a repost of something I originally published on July 5, 2014. This was when I was still en route from atheism back to Christianity and Mormonism but still rather closer to the former camp. Still, my thoughts on this particular topic haven't changed much since then.


I read The White Book, by the pseudonymous Robert S. Oculus III, about a year ago, when Laura Wood was promoting it on her blog. Since then I’ve been working on and off on these comments and wondering whether or not to publish them. Well, here they are.


Oculus makes a distinction between white and White. The peoples of Europe are of course white in a racial or biological sense — that is, they belong to a shared ancestry group originating on that continent and characterized by orthognathism, relatively pale skin, etc. — but they are not to be considered ethnically White. Rather, they have more specific ethnic identities; they are Englishmen, Russians, Spaniards, Belgians, Latvians, and so on. Most white Americans, on the other hand, are just plain White — descended from one or more of the white European peoples, but no longer really a member of any of those ancestral groups. My ancestors came from England, Germany, and the Ukraine, but I am not an Englishman, a German, or a Ukrainian — just as a modern Englishman is not really an Angle, a Saxon, a Jute, a Celt, a Norman, or a Dane. He may be primarily descended from one of those peoples, of course, and may even be aware of and proud of that heritage — but in practice, he’s just English; and white Americans are just White. (The same is true to varying degrees in the other countries of the European diaspora, but in practice Oculus focuses on America, and so shall I.)

Although Oculus does not develop the point, something very similar is true of American blacks. Their ancestors belonged to specific African ethnic groups, but they themselves are no longer ethnically Hausa or Fula or Igbo or Yoruba or whatever; they’re just Black. These two ethnic groups — Black and White, African-American and European-American — are the main peoples that can be called simply “American.” (Of course various indigenous tribes also qualify, but these groups are much smaller. The White:Black:Navajo ratio is 672:129:1.) The others — Mexican-Americans, Chinese-Americans, etc. — still have clear ethnic ties to non-American groups, and their hyphenated names are appropriate; but Blacks and Whites are Americans in the same simple sense that an ethnic Frenchman (as opposed to, say, a French citizen of Maghrebi origin) is French.


Blacks in America generally self-identify as Black, participate in a Black culture which is openly and explicitly Black, may support the idea of “Black pride,” refer to other Blacks as their brothers and sisters, etc. — but White Americans do none of these things — generally can do none of these things without feeling like horrible people. The following passage from Oculus’s book drives home just how deeply rooted this aversion to White racial identity is:

Say it out loud: “I am a human being, but I am not just any human being. I am a white person. I am a member of the white race.”

Can’t do it, can you?

Do these words scare you? Do you feel like a bad person just for reading them? Do you think I am evil for writing them down, or even thinking them?

It’s okay if you do. You have been trained to feel that way. You have been trained not only to hate what you are, but to deny that you even exist.

This is absolutely true — and absolutely astonishing, when you think about it. Even I, who am generally quite open-minded about such things and pride myself on not being a slave to goodthink, feel somewhat uncomfortable quoting these words or even reading them — but why? What is there in them to be ashamed of? Do they say “white people are better than other people” or “I hate members of other races”? They are a simple assertion that there is such a thing as the white race and that I am a member of it. They ought by all rights to be received as an obvious and completely value-neutral statement of fact. Notice also how completely inoffensive they become if you replace every instance of “white” with “black.”

What is the explanation for this? Is it because we feel that the white race is uniquely evil, and that to acknowledge one’s membership in it is shameful? Or, conversely, perhaps it is because it is so good to be white — because the white peoples are among the most accomplished and “privileged” on the planet, and so to make a point of one’s whiteness is bad form, in the nature of gloating? Or perhaps the problem is simply that whites are a majority in America, so that when I say “I am White” rather than “I am American,” the people I am excluding from my in-group are more salient than those I am including; it sounds less like a statement of camaraderie (“Tom and Bob are my good buddies”) than like a mean-spirited rejection of others (“I’m friends with everyone here except Pete”). Of course, whites in white-minority areas like Los Angeles presumably aren’t supposed to identify as white either, so that can’t be the whole explanation.

At any rate, whatever the reason for the current state of affairs, Oculus wants to change it. The purpose of his book is to encourage capitalized-Whites (that is, all non-Europeans of European ancestry) to self-identify as such and to promote their interests as a people, just as most other peoples in the world do. He even proposes a “flag of the White race” (azure, a snowflake argent; certainly better than the current de facto White flag, which is — well, a white flag). This idea of a pan-White identity, including all the peoples of the European diaspora but excluding Europeans proper, seems forced and unrealistic to me. Non-European Whites as such are not a coherent ethnicity; a White American typically has far more in common with an Englishman or a Black American than with an Argentinian or an Afrikaner. White Americans represent an actual ethnicity (or perhaps a closely related cluster of ethnicities), and Oculus would have done better to focus on this more limited group. (As I’ve said, in practice he does focus on Americans; the pan-White stuff is superfluous and could easily be cut out.)


Perhaps in part because of his overly broad definition of “White,” Oculus struggles when it comes to describing what White culture is all about. He rejects the idea of America as a “proposition nation” defined solely by the abstract ideas laid out in the Constitution, insisting instead that any real nation must be firmly rooted in race and culture. But he then proceeds to define White culture in terms even more abstract than those he is criticizing. Whites care about order. They work hard. They respect rules. They don’t cut in line. They have a moral code. In other words, basically, “White” means “civilized.” I understand that Oculus is trying to instill a sense of White pride by focusing on objectively good things — but still, defining a culture in this way is outrageous. First of all, the idea that a culture can be defined at all, especially in terms of abstract principles, brings us right back to the “proposition nation” idea that Oculus is supposedly against. Culture is not simply an ideology; it has to be organic and particularistic. It can be, so to speak, motherhood and apple pie, (i.e. abstract principles plus historically contingent features), but just motherhood isn’t enough. A more serious problem is that the things Oculus identifies as “White” — order and fair play and so on — are universal goods to which every race and culture ought to aspire (though of course not every group will be equally successful in so doing). When Oculus identifies White culture simply with being civilized, his implied message to non-Whites is that not being civilized is an essential part of their culture — which they should presumably cherish and protect as much as Whites should theirs.

Oculus states repeatedly that he bears no hatred or hostility toward any other race, but he nevertheless does show contempt for blacks, sometimes in very crude and dehumanizing terms (using phrases like “dat ape-like thing dey does”). Now not everyone likes everyone else, and he certainly has a right to dislike black people if he wants, but it does undercut the main thrust of The White Book, which is to promote White identity and White pride as positive things and to distance them from the bigotry and racial hostility with which the popular mind associates them. I suppose Oculus’s failing in this regard is unsurprising. In the current political climate, with its extreme demonization of anything deemed “racist,” you need a very strong motive to write something as radioactive as The White Book — and negative feelings of anger and hostility tend to motivate more strongly than love and loyalty alone. It is nevertheless unfortunate, though, and one wishes that Oculus could have risen above whatever personal antipathies he may feel toward other races. (That such a thing is possible is demonstrated by the example of Steve Sailer, a “racialist” writer who obviously likes black people a great deal, and even more so by the late Lawrence Auster. Martin Luther King — as opposed to, say, Malcolm X — is a good example from the other side.)

Despite occasional slip-ups, Oculus does make an effort to show respect for all races and to distance himself from so-called white supremacism. It is perhaps this effort which motivates him to write, with the best of intentions, that there is no one “master race” because “each race is the master race in its ancestral environment” — which is, unfortunately, baloney. If the phrase “master race” has any meaning at all, we can hardly be expected to accept it as an accurate description of the current status of, say, the Native Americans in North America or the Aborigines in Australia. Remember, too, that Oculus has defined the White race to include only people who do not live in their ancestral environment — but he of course makes no appeal to White Americans to submit to their rightful “masters,” the Indians. All in all, Oculus’s whole treatment of the “master race” idea is awkward and unsatisfactory, and he would have been better off just leaving it alone. Racial loyalty does not require such a concept, not even a “nuanced” one, any more than family loyalty requires the idea of one “master family.” (As Oculus himself points out several times, a race just is a family, and love of race is love of family.)


Oculus’s treatment of the issue of racial segregation versus integration is also, I think, naïve. His basic position is that if freedom of association is restored — that is, if people are given the freedom to hire, do business with, and associate with whomever they choose — then the resegregation of America will happen naturally because that’s what most people of all races really want. Whites like to associate with other Whites, Blacks with other Blacks, Chinese with other Chinese, and so on; simply allow them to do so, and our problems will be solved.

But that’s obviously not true. Under the current system, no one is forcing Blacks to move into White neighborhoods (or Mexicans to move into America, Chinese to go to WASP schools, etc.), but they do it anyway — probably because White neighborhoods and countries and schools are so often the “good” neighborhoods and countries and schools.

The “freedom” Oculus is advocating is essentially the freedom of Whites to keep out Blacks (and others) who want to move in — so by definition it does not result in “what everyone wants.” In fact, freedom of association is not such a clear-cut concept. If A want to join B’s club (company, school, neighborhood, country, etc.) but B doesn’t want him to join, whose “freedom of association” should the law protect? I’d say B’s, because it’s his club, and I’m sure Oculus would agree — but we shouldn’t pretend that such a policy is giving A what he wants.

It’s a hard fact to face, but the truth is that segregation is good for Whites and integration is good for Blacks — and the law must support the one or the other. Either it supports segregation by saying I have a right to keep you out of my club even if you want to join, or it supports integration by saying you have a right to join even if I want to keep you out. No neutral policy is possible — and therefore, since Blacks who want to join White-run “clubs” vastly outnumber Whites who want to join Black-run clubs, no racially neutral policy is possible. Any policy adopted will be, de facto, either pro-White or pro-Black. Disparate impact of one kind or another is unavoidable. Now no one on either side wants to hear that. Having been indoctrinated into the idea that “racism” is the worst possible evil, no one wants to admit that their preferred policy amounts to favoring the interests of Race X over those of Race Y — but that is nevertheless the way it is, and honest people have to come to grips with it.


Closely related to the idea of segregation is that of the “ethnostate,” which Oculus supports. His main interest is naturally in pushing for the creation of a White ethnostate in America, but he welcomes other races to do the same.

I should make it clear that Oculus’s idea of an ethnostate is not that of a monoracial state where other races are not welcome. Rather, his model ethnostate is Israel — including several different racial and religious groups, but existing for the purpose of serving the interests of one of them. Non-Whites and non-Christians would be welcome in his imagined White ethnostate, but they would have to accept that the state’s policies would be calculated to favor White Christian interests over those of other races and religions — as opposed to the current policies of the United States, which, under the guise of an impossible “neutrality,” serve the interests of racial minorities and the irreligious at the expense of those of White Christians.

(By the way, the suggestion that other racial groups in America could form their own ethnostates only serves to underscore the fact that segregation is not “what everyone wants.” White Americans may well dream of an ethnostate that recreates Europe — or what Europe used to be — in the New World, but no American Black in his right mind would want to recreate Africa! Oculus even suggests that “a Latino ethnostate might arise” in North America — but we already have one, Mexico, and a full third of its citizens state that they would move to the U.S. if they could.)

Anyway, being sensitive to the needs of other American races to have countries of their own, Oculus does not propose converting the entire United States into a White ethnostate. Rather, he suggests that states or blocs of states might secede from the Union to form ethnostates of various characters; and his suggested White ethnostate is, incredibly — Dixie! — i.e., the most heavily Black part of the entire country. (And where’s the Black ethnostate supposed to be? New Hampshire?) If these ethnostates are meant to be patterned after Israel, this one will come already stocked with a generous population of angry “Palestinians.”


It’s easy to criticize Oculus’s various proposals, but more important than any of the solutions he proposes is the problem he recognizes. To repeat, “Say it out loud: ‘I am a human being, but I am not just any human being. I am a white person. I am a member of the white race.’ Can’t do it, can you?” So long as we can’t do that — so long as we feel vaguely “evil” for even reading those words — we have a serious problem. Your race is your extended family; loving your race is loving your family; disowning it, ditto. Determining what actions and policies should follow from those principles is a difficult business, but the principles themselves are irreproachable.

Sunday, July 4, 2021

The Destruction of Sennacherib

The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold,
And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold;
And the sheen of their spears was like stars on the sea,
When the blue wave rolls nightly on deep Galilee.

Like the leaves of the forest when Summer is green,
That host with their banners at sunset were seen:
Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn hath blown,
That host on the morrow lay withered and strown.

For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,
And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed;
And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill,
And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!

And there lay the steed with his nostril all wide,
But through it there rolled not the breath of his pride;
And the foam of his gasping lay white on the turf,
And cold as the spray of the rock-beating surf.

And there lay the rider distorted and pale,
With the dew on his brow, and the rust on his mail:
And the tents were all silent, the banners alone,
The lances unlifted, the trumpet unblown.

And the widows of Ashur are loud in their wail,
And the idols are broke in the temple of Baal;
And the might of the Gentile, unsmote by the sword,
Hath melted like snow in the glance of the Lord!

-- Lord Byron

God bless what’s left of America, and confusion to whatever is not yet maximally confused among her enemies. Happy Fourth.

Sunday, June 20, 2021

Juneteenth National Independence Day

I know, I know, I should just pass over this one in silence -- but I'm an English teacher, dammit, and I just can't not say something about that name!

No, I don't mean the Juneteenth bit, though lots of people are complaining that it's lazy or illiterate or mushmouthed or whatever. Do I care about this? No, I do not. I'm down with Halloween and workaholic and Frappuccino and all manner of other morphological rannygazoo. If anyone wants to start calling Cinco de Mayo Mayfth, they have my blessing. No, my beef is with the rest of it.

Some variant on Independence Day could have worked. A slave is a dependent, and on June 19, 1865, the last members of this particular class of dependents were emancipated and became personally independent. Personal Independence Day might have been a good name, to distinguish it from the Fourth of July and to connect it to the lives of modern people who have never been slaves. It could be a day to remember and celebrate personal independence, agency, and the responsibility to make one's own decisions and pull one's own weight.

But of course that's just about the last thing They want the holiday to be about, and calling it Racism Is Bad Day would be a bit too obvious.

I'm told that Black Independence Day is one of the holiday's informal names. Since the people who became (personally) independent on that day were black, I suppose that works. But that makes it sound like a holiday for black people, and They want it to be celebrated by everyone, even if they're not black. Especially if they're not black. So I guess that was the "thinking," such as it was, behind the decision to go with National Independence Day instead.

The problem, of course, is that "national independence" doesn't actually mean that.

An independent country isn't a country in which each adult citizen is personally independent; that's called a free country. (National Freedom Day could have worked.) An independent country is a country which is itself independent of other countries, regardless of how free its citizens and subjects peoples may or may not be. North Korea is an independent country. Nazi Germany was an independent country. National independence has absolutely nothing to do with not owning slaves. In fact, national independence -- so that they could continue to own slaves -- is precisely what the Confederacy was fighting for in the American Civil War!

No nation became independent on June 19, 1865. The United States had already been an independent nation for -- well, I guess by then it was fourscore and nine years -- and did not become any more nationally independent when the slaves were freed. I mean, it's not as if the American slaves had belonged to King George or something. Nor did the emancipated slaves gain national independence on that day; they continued to be under the government and sovereignty of the United States of America, as before.

I mentioned North Korea before, and I guess it's a perfect example of the same kind of thing. There are two countries on the Korean Peninsula: the Republic of Korea, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Which one is a democratic (as opposed to dictatorial) republic? The one that doesn't have the word democratic in its name.

There are now two Independence Days on the United States calendar: Independence Day, and Juneteenth National Independence Day. Which one is about national (as opposed to personal) independence? The one that doesn't say that on the tin.

The DPRK of holidays.

Friday, May 28, 2021

Memorable conspiracy theories

If you asked me the most memorable conspiracy theory I've ever heard, I might mention, say, Francis E. Dec's claim that each of us is being controlled remotely by "a Computer God Containment Policy Brain Bank Brain, a real brain, in the Brain Bank Cities on the far side of the moon we never see."

This isn't memorable in the right way, though, to be an effective conspiracy theory. When do I think of it? Only when I'm thinking about the topic of kooky conspiracy theories. Nothing I see in my daily life, on the news, etc., ever makes me think of the Brain Bank Cities on the far side of the moon. The illusion of constant confirmation is missing.

An example of an effectively memorable conspiracy theory is the idea that Donald Trump is secretly a white supremacist and communicates this fact through "dog whistles." Once you've heard that, anything Trump does or says that has any connection to race or immigration makes you think of it and creates the illusion that the conspiracy theory is relevant and therefore probably true.

Here are two more examples of conspiracy theories that I find to be effectively memorable despite the fact that somebody just made them up.

Utah no-fly zone: If you plot all reported UFO activity (sightings, crashes, abductions) on a map of the US, you will find that they occur all over the country -- except within a radius of 200 or 300 miles of Salt Lake City. Extend the radius by another 200 or 300 miles, though, and you have the majority of all UFO activity in America!

Antarctica: The Nazis spent a lot of money in Antarctica for unknown reasons. Today, many world leaders travel there once a year.

I think part of what makes these effective is that they aren't properly conspiracy theories -- no explanation is given of why UFOs won't fly over Salt Lake or why powerful people make regular pilgrimages to Antarctica -- but just assertions of (made-up) facts that fit a pattern. Once you've heard about the pattern, anything that "fits" seems to confirm it. Any UFO stories out of the American west, for example, will make you think, "Hmm... kind of close to Salt Lake but not that close" (the vagueness of the two radii is helpful here). Any celebrity saying anything about Antarctica reminds you that they're probably secretly flying there once a year.

Maybe Francis E. Dec was wrong, and the Brain Bank Cities are actually at the South Pole!

Friday, February 19, 2021

The "No Glory for [That Guy We] Hate Act"

This goes so far beyond self-parody that any witty remarks on my part would just be overkill, but apparently it's real, straight from congress.gov (PDF). The boldface is my own, but other than that I swear I am quoting verbatim from an official government document. Really! I'm not even crossing my fingers behind my back.

A BILL

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the commemoration of certain former Presidents [sic, plural in original], and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "No Glory for Hate Act".

SEC. 2. FEDERAL FUNDS RESTRICTION ON COMMEMORATING CERTAIN FORMER PRESIDENTS [sic].

Notwithstanding section 3102 of title 40, United States Code, no Federal funds may be used to—
 
(1) create or display any symbol, monument, or statue commemorating any former President that has been twice impeached by the House of Representatives on or before the date of enactment of this Act or has been convicted of a State or Federal crime relating to actions taken in an official capacity as President of the United States on Federal public land, including any highway, park, subway, Federal building, military installation, street, or other Federal property; . . .

The bill goes on to list several other measures regarding these "certain former Presidents," namely:
  • No federal building or land may be named after him -- uh, I mean "them."
  • No federal funds can be spent on state buildings or lands named after CFPs.
  • No Former Presidents Act benefits for CFPs, except Secret Service protection.
  • No CFPs -- not a single one of them! -- may be buried in Arlington National Cemetery. If a CFP absolutely must be buried, it is recommended that this be done at a crossroads at midnight, and a stake driven through his -- or her! -- heart. (Okay, sorry, a bit of satire did creep in there.)
As everyone knows, Donald J. Trump is the only U.S. president to have been impeached (and acquitted) twice, and it won't matter if anyone else ever matches or beats his record, because the bill specifies only those who were "twice impeached . . . before the date of enactment of this Act."

In other words, they might as well have called it the "No Glory For Former Presidents Born on June 14, 1946 Act." Is it illegal for an Act of Congress to single out an individual by name? If so, this is a pretty freaking transparent workaround!

So if Trump somehow manages to get the Fake Election overturned after all, he'd better hurry up and get all those things built and named after him before he becomes a former President that has been twice impeached.

Friday, January 8, 2021

Biden tells the truth

Yes, we all know that's true.

If it had been BLM, they would have been called "protestors" rather than "the mob."

Every headline covering the event would have included the words "mostly peaceful."

If it had been BLM, expressions of solidarity, not condemnation, would be universal and de facto mandatory, and every corporation, media outlet, and church would be falling over themselves to provide the same.

If she had been a drugged-up petty criminal of the sacred race, Ashli Babbitt would have been elevated to sainthood, her name printed on football helmets, and the cop who murdered her doxxed and harrassed.

But of course if it had been BLM, they never would have wasted their time storming the Capitol in the first place. They would have targeted a real symbol of oppression: the local Louis Vuitton store.

(By the way, what do you think of this post? I think it's Nebula material.)

Thursday, January 7, 2021

The Hill is alive

Vox Day: Do you hear the people sing?

S. K. Orr: The first three notes just happen to be -- Dom-ré-my

There are no coincidences. Maid of Heaven, pray for us!


By the way, I haven't changed my prediction about how this all ends: It is written in the Book of Thoth.

However, the line just popped into my head, "But February made me shiver . . . ." In the context of this post, I certainly hope that means something other than what it very obviously seems to mean!

Sunday, November 8, 2020

It is written in the Book of Thoth: Trump still wins.

When, in late October of this year, I posted on how the Rider-Waite Tarot accurately predicts the results of every U.S. presidential election from 2000 to 2020, it didn't take much chutzpah to declare Trump the prophesied winner of this year's race. Trump winning in a landslide seemed the only possible result, and I dismissed Biden as a soon-to-be-forgotten Walter Mondale figure. Even when the synchronicity fairies kept stubbornly bringing Biden to my attention (via Jay-Z, Dr. Seuss, Steve Martin, and Clickhole), I just couldn't take him seriously as a potential winner. ("I don't know why the synchronicity fairies are feeding me all this material on a man doomed to become irrelevant in two weeks' time," I wrote on October 25, "but who am I to kick against the pics?")

Now that the Media -- supported by their political arm, the Democratic Party -- have "officially" called the race for Biden, I'm going to stick my neck out and double down on my prediction. The Tarot has been 100% accurate in stating the winners of every other presidential election this century -- with the 0th trump predicting the winner in '00, the 4th trump the winner in '04, and so on -- and the 20th trump unambiguously says Trump. I stake my reputation as an interpreter of the Tarot on this prediction. If Trump doesn't win in the end, the Tarot is not what I think it is.

Let's go over what I mean when I say that. For those who don't know it, this is the 20th trump in the Major Arcana, called The Judgement.

1. Did you know that the word trump only occurs twice in the entire King James Bible? Both instances refer to the scene portrayed on this card.

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed (1 Corinthians 15:52).

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: (1 Thessalonians 4:16).

An aside: Obviously, the name Biden as such does not occur in the Bible -- but if we ignore spaces, it does: "Thou sayest, Lo, thou hast smitten the Edomites; and thine heart lifteth thee up to boast: abide now at home; why shouldest thou meddle to thine hurt, that thou shouldest fall, even thou, and Judah with thee?" (2 Chronicles 25:19). This seems to allude to Basement Biden's "sheltering in place" and to prophesy his fall after boasting that he has smitten the Edomites. (Edom means "red" in Hebrew, so the Edomites are the Republicans -- and I suppose everyone knows to which modern people the name Judah refers. Judah is of course also the same name as Judas.)

(An even-more-tangential aside: Looking for other 2020 names in the Bible led me to Deuteronomy 14:7, which reads, "Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you." The camel, the hare, and the coney. This seems to connect Kamala Harris with another woman who came to prominence in 2020, Amy Coney Barrett, and to pronounce them both unclean. Does this presage some future treachery from ACB?)

2. The trump has a flag attached to it. Trump was born on June 14 -- Flag Day.

3. The flag has a big red cross on it. Red is the Republican color, and the cross resembles T for Trump. This is in fact St. George's flag, signifying victory over the dragon.

4. The angel has a full head of blond hair, with a touch of orange.

What are we to make of the scene on the lower half of the card, which shows the dead rising from coffins which appear to be floating in the water? A few thoughts:

They could represent Trump voters -- defeated, "dead," and then with their fortunes unexpectedly reversed. The water could represent the Trump's claim that lots of Trump ballots were dumped in rivers.

Alternatively, they could represent actual dead people -- who, as we know, voted in record numbers in 2020! The problem with this is that they appear to be cheering for Trump, when in fact corpses appear to have voted overwhelmingly for Biden.

But perhaps they're cheering because they think they've won -- gotten rid of Trump. He's up in heaven, an angel, dead. Little do they realize that the day of reckoning is coming.

And what's that in the background? Mountains -- or an approaching tsunami?

What about the prophecy -- which, believe it or not, I also take seriously -- that Trump will invite "Joe Camel" (Joe and Kamala) to the White House? I don't know what to make of that yet, but here's my best guess: The recounts and lawsuits ("Sue sews Slow Joe Crow's clothes," i.e. suits) and everything will not be completed by January 20, Biden will be sworn in, and Trump will peacefully "invite him to the White House." Shortly thereafter, the election results will be overturned by the Supreme Court, and Trump will be restored.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. The highway is for gamblers. If I end up being wrong, I will, as they say, eat crow.

(Cross-posted at The Magician's Table.)

Ace of Hearts

On the A page of Animalia , an Ace of Hearts is near a picture of a running man whom I interpreted as a reference to Arnold Schwarzenegger....