All our political forms are exhausted and practically nonexistent. Our parliamentary system and electoral system and our political parties are just as futile as dictatorships are intolerable. Nothing is left. And this nothing is increasingly aggressive, totalitarian and omnipresent.
Jacques Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity (1991)

Look at them! Look at them, will you? Behold our politicians’ horrible languid maws!; the courtier-like faces of department managers. They are indeed salesmen, for the very power of nations is measure in relation to their own mercantile activity.
Jean Cau, Le meutre d’un enfant (1965)

“What’s going to happen now?” I was asked earlier today. “Nothing and everything,” I replied. Immigration, largely unchallenged and unscathed (excepting the incidental impact of COVID-19 on population movement) from four years of Trumpism, will now continue to accelerate unabated. Zionism will continue to enjoy the expansion of American institutional and military support, this time with the blood interest of Jared Kushner replaced with the Jewish spouses of all three of Biden’s children. And the momentary Obama-era delusion of a post-racial America will continue to dissolve in the reality of the increasing awareness and importance of race throughout the West, not solely as a result of mass migration but also of the increasing ubiquity of the ideologies of racial grievance and revenge. There will, of course, be a dramatic change for the worse in tone and spirit, and some smaller legislative victories like the banning of federal anti-racism training will likely soon be reversed. The defeat of Donald Trump is also hugely demoralizing to many decent American people, and emboldening to their bitterest enemies. This is to be sorely regretted. But it is in the shared qualities of Trump and Biden, rather than the election and sham ballots, that the real nature of our political systems and their future can be perceived. And it is in these shared qualities that our true problems lie.

Parliamentary electoral democracy is merely a representation of the general system in which it operates. Slavoj Zizek comments:

At the empirical level, of course, multi-party liberal democracy “represents” — mirrors, registers, measures — the quantitative dispersal of different opinions of the people, what they think about the proposed programs of the parties and about their candidates, etc. However, prior to this empirical level and in a much more radical sense, the very form of multi-party liberal democracy “represents” — instantiates — a certain vision of society, politics, and the role of the individuals in it: politics is organized in parties that compete through elections to exert control over the state legislative and executive apparatus, etc. One should always be aware that this frame is never neutral, insofar as it privileges certain values and practices.

The truth of the system, in terms of its non-negotiable aspects, is thus revealed in the “values and practices” privileged and ring-fenced under both Trump and Biden. What are these non-negotiables? Zionism, GloboHomo ideological capitalism and its “woke” leftist correlates, and the neoliberal promotion of GDP as the benchmark of human success and happiness.

Zionism

Jews have little to fear from a Biden presidency, which is presumably why Haaretz is claiming that the “American Jewish vote clinched Biden’s victory and Trump’s ouster. … American Jews decided the outcome of the U.S. elections.” Donald Trump might have been hailed as the “most pro-Israel President in U.S. history,” but Jews are notoriously unreliable in their partnerships with non-Jewish elites. Fate, it must be said, has not been kind to those gentile elites that have exhausted their usefulness to Jews. And Trump is surely exhausted, having spent a busy four years fighting for Jews in Israel and in the United States. He reversed long-standing US policies on several critical security, diplomatic and political issues to Israel’s favour, including the Iran nuclear accord, the treatment of Israel at the UN, and the status of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. In December 2019, he announced his Executive Order on Combatting Anti-Semitism, promising to fight “the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incidents in the United States and around the world.” One wonders what else he could possibly have done for these people—apart from a war with Iran—a question that appears to have been answered by Jews with a resounding “Nothing.” One can only imagine Trump’s facial expression on seeing Benjamin Netanyahu’s emphatic congratulations to Joe Biden, punctuated with the loving refrain: “I have a personal, long and warm connection with Joe Biden for nearly 40 years, and I know him to be a great friend of the State of Israel.”

Biden and Harris, replete with their immediate familial ties to Jews, are viewed in Zionist circles as being at least as reliable as Trump, although not as exuberant and bullish. Biden has been known as a staunch supporter of Israel throughout his 36 years in the Senate, often cites his 1973 encounter with then-Prime Minister Golda Meir as “one of the most consequential meetings” of his life, and has on more than one occasion regaled audiences with a tale about his father telling him that “You don’t need to be a Jew to be a Zionist.” While some modifications are likely in the American approach to Iran, few reversals are expected on Trump’s four years of pro-Israel activism. Biden, for example, has weakly criticized moving the embassy to Jerusalem but said he would not pull it back to Tel Aviv. Michael Herzog at Haaretz describes both Biden and Harris as “traditional Democrats, with a fundamental commitment to Israel whose roots are in part emotional in nature (in contrast to Obama).”

The change in relationship between America and Israel will be, in meaningful terms, restricted to the personal. Netanyahu, for all his fawning, is likely to undergo a personal demotion of sorts, with David Halbfinger of the New York Times pointing out that we can expect a Biden presidency to diminish Netanyahu’s “stature on the global stage and undercut his argument to restive Israeli voters that he remains their indispensable leader.” Palestinian leaders, probably the best-positioned to offer a perspective on the potential for an improvement in their condition under the new presidency, have been sombre to say the least. Hanan Ashrawi, a senior PLO official, responded to the question if she expected United States policy to continue tilting heavily in Israel’s favor: “I don’t think we’re so naïve as to see Biden as our savior.” Contrast this with the cheerfulness and confidence of Israel settlers who have grown accustomed to the perennial nature of American support for Zionism. David Elhayani, head of the Yesha Council, an umbrella for Jewish settlements in the West Bank, said the party of the U.S. president ultimately doesn’t matter so long as the baseline commitment to support Israel persists: “Under Obama, we built more [settlement] houses than we have under Trump … I think Biden is a friend of Israel.”

The fact that the grassroots of the Democratic Party are drifting away from Zionism is no more consequential than the fact the grassroots of the Republican Party wanted major action on immigration reform. The former, like the latter, have been equally ignored by the real power brokers and influencers. Regardless of the radical appearance of Democrat-affiliated movements like Black Lives Matter, the fact remains that all of the leftist aggression and rhetoric of the summer of 2020 has resulted in the putative election of an establishment Zionist and political pragmatist who is sure to execute a more or less formulaic neoliberal scheme for government. In one sense, the bland, forgetful, and familiar Biden, who lacks any hint of genuine or novel ideology and was elected purely as a symbol of “not Trump,” is the fitting response to Trump, who was equally devoid of ideological sincerity or complexity beyond the symbolism of “not Establishment.” And so, while the media proclaims, as Heraclitus, that “all is in flux,” from a different perspective we could argue, like Parmenides, the opposite — “there is no motion at all.”

GloboHomo

If I retain one abiding, surreal, memory of the Trump presidency in the years ahead it will be the Don dancing to the Village People in the wake of his numerous drives to legalize homosexuality in various African backwaters. That the Red State Christians comprising so much of his base could maintain their self-adopted blind spot on this issue is a remarkable testament to the power of personality, because no world leader in history has done more in recent history than Donald Trump to export what E. Michael Jones has so aptly termed “the Gay Disco” — the double-barrelled shotgun of unbridled finance capitalism and the superficial freedom of sexual “liberty.” As the pastors and preachers of South Carolina and Texas urged their huddled congregations to pray for the President, Trump was busy dispatching new missionaries, like U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, to the corners of the earth in search of converts to the Church of GloboHomo.

In February 2019, the U.S. embassy indulged in some nostalgia for Weimar when it flew LGBT activists from across Europe to Berlin for a strategy dinner to plan to push for decriminalization in places that still outlaw homosexuality — mostly concentrated in the Middle East, Africa and the Caribbean. For my part, I can think of many social problems in these parts of the world, but it really takes a special kind of mind to arrive at the opinion that one of the most pressing is that they need to become more gay. Grenell, however, horrified that Iran has the audacity to execute its own convicted homosexual pederasts, was not to be deterred, and was instrumental in the blackmail of lesser nations, promising they would be denied access to terrorism intelligence if they don’t legalise homosexuality. All of which has left the far corners of the American cultural-military empire questioning whether they could better live with suicide bombers or sodomy.

Against such manoeuvres, Biden’s apparent claim to be one half of the “most pro-equality ticket in history” seems a little overstated. That being said, there’s no question that Biden is going to step up the domestic nature of GloboHomo significantly as soon as he assumes office. Biden has pledged to sign the Equality Act, thus far opposed by the Trump administration, within his first 100 days in office, a piece of legislation that will amend “the Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and the jury system.” Biden has pledged to appoint significant numbers of homosexuals and transsexuals to positions of influence, and has promised to allow transsexuals to join the military. Experienced in advancing global LGBT+ dogma as part of the Obama-Biden administration, Biden will also once again take up the global mantle, expressing his “hopes to reverse Trump’s efforts and expand queer rights internationally by making equality a centrepiece of US diplomacy,” and condemning Poland’s “LGBT-free zones.” Stunning and brave indeed.

There is a certain sense in the cases of both Trump and Biden that, for all the flamboyance of their efforts in this area, there is a performative aspect to this politics. I don’t get the impression that either has been especially personally committed to these ideas or actions, but that, as pragmatic-symbolic politicians, they have been made aware that this is the direction the broader System is moving in and they should comply and support it. The longevity and gradual acceleration of these trends, beginning in earnest with the presidency of Bill Clinton, would suggest a systemic movement underlying, and entirely untethered to, specific political parties or figures. Throughout the West, and much as with Zionism, GloboHomo, or hedonistic credit-based capitalism and its sexual correlates more generally, is to be accepted and promoted as an essential part of the role of neoliberal government. In the context of declining basic freedoms at home, for example the obvious decline in free speech and the creeping criminalisation of meaningful dissent against the status quo, the international promotion of homosexuality and transsexual identities offers a cost-free and PR-friendly method for increasingly authoritarian neoliberal regimes to posture as crusaders for freedom. The trucker in Ohio is, logical flaws notwithstanding, and whether he wants it or not, thus assured of his place in the Land of the Free via his government’s emancipation of the gays and transvestites of Uganda. Engaged politically only at the most superficial level, the masses play along with this ruse, often in blunt denial, possessing only fragmentary realisations of the fact their countries are changing around them while the petty “rewards” of Americanism are meagre and peculiar, if not insulting.

GDP!

Along with frequent reassurances that he was “giving serious consideration” to doing something, Trump’s presidency was marked by regular updates on the performance of American GDP. Unfortunately the GDP, like the Jewish vote, appears to have stabbed him in the back, with around 70% of American GDP represented in counties that (putatively!) voted Democrat. Trump’s tragicomic belief in GDP performance as a form of politics in its own right is perhaps the quintessential example of the mentality of homo economicus and the tendency of neoliberals to view countries as mere zones, or economic areas, where everything is based on rationalism and materialism, and national success is purely a calculation of economic self-interest. Writing pessimistically of Trump’s expected nomination in 2015, I issued a stark warning about the influence of Jared Kushner, but also added:

For all his bluster, Trump is a creation and product of the bourgeois revolution and its materialistic liberal ideologies. We are teased and tantalized by the fantasy that Trump is a potential “man of the people.” But I cannot escape the impression that he is a utilitarian and primarily economic character, who seeks a social contract based on personal convenience and material interest. In his business and political history I see only the “distilled Jewish spirit.”

I don’t think I’ve seen anything over the last four years that has made me question or revise that assessment. Trump’s dedicated tweeting on GDP in fact had the opposite effect.

The disturbing reality, of course, is that GDP is only one side of a national economy. Another crucial aspect is government borrowing, and current projections suggest that the United States is “condemned to eternal debt.” According to The Budget Office of the United States Congress (CBO), “the US economy would enter the first half of this century with a public debt equivalent to 195 percent of its GDP. … In the next 30 years the debt of the most powerful economy on the planet would more than double.” The first significant jump occurred in the wake of the subprime crisis, in which Jewish mortgage lenders were especially prominent. The subprime crisis forced public debt to 37 percent of GDP, which then rose steadily to 79 percent between 2008 and the outbreak of COVID-19. It now stands at 98 percent, and is accelerating. Although the United States has reached comparable levels of debt in the past, there has almost always been an accompanying war, or wars, which acted as a financial pressure valve — a fact that does not bode well for isolationists but may be encouraging news for Zionist hawks.

Joe Biden has claimed recently that “a Biden-Harris Administration will not be measured just by the stock market or GDP growth, but by the extent to which growth is raising the pay, dignity, and economic security of our working families” — while at the same time welcoming millions of new immigrants and legalizing the ~20M+ illegals into the workforce .The American economy is in fact extremely unlikely to change direction, with Biden reassuring his billionaire donors gathered at the Carlyle Hotel in Manhattan in June 2019 that “no one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change.” I believe him. Biden was part of an administration that looked on as 10 million working Americans lost their homes. Matt Stoller at the Washington Post has described Obama-era Democrat economic policies as “in effect, a wholesale attack on the American home (the main store of middle-class wealth) in favor of concentrated financial power.” Biden was part of a team that outright rejected prosecuting major bankers for fraud and money laundering, and that represented one of the most monopoly-friendly administrations in history:

2015 saw a record wave of mergers and acquisitions, and 2016 was another busy year. In nearly every sector of the economy, from pharmaceuticals to telecom to Internet platforms to airlines, power was concentrated. And this administration, like George W. Bush’s before it, did not prosecute a single significant monopoly under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Instead [under Obama] the Federal Trade Commission has gone after such villains as music teachers and ice skating instructors for ostensible anti-competitive behavior. This is very much a parallel of the financial crisis, as elites operate without legal constraints while the rest of us toil under an excess of bureaucracy.

Biden is the product of funding from forty-four billionaires, including six hedge fund speculators, seven real estate barons, and five in the tech sector. Of the top 22 donors, at least 18 are Jews (Jim Simons, Len Blavatnik, Stewart Resnick, Eli Broad, Neil Bluhm, David Bonderman, Herb Simon, Daniel Och, Liz Lefkovsky, Steve Mandel, Bruce Karsh, Howard Marks, S. Daniel Abraham, Marc Lasry, Jonathan Tisch, Daniel Lubetsky, Laurie Tisch, and Robert Toll). The Jewish consortium behind Biden is almost identical in its financial composition to that behind Trump which, as I’ve explained previously, was notable for its embodiment of “usury and vulture capitalism, bloated consumerism, and the sordid commercial exploitation of vice.” Biden’s transition team, meanwhile, is comprised of “executives from Lyft, Airbnb, Amazon, Capital One, Booz Allen, Uber, Visa, and JPMorgan.” In short, expectations that Biden is going to break up Big Tech, or any monopoly for that matter, are the fantasies of the deluded, the ignorant, and the duped.

Conclusion

While the drama and recrimination surrounding the election are unquestionably fascinating, I hope you’ll forgive for being less agitated than most. My reasons for lethargy are simple: I knew that regardless of outcome we’d get four more years — four more years of Zionism, GloboHomo, and the standardized, rationalized machinery of economic escalation that now provides the apologetic engine for mass migration. Behind the abortion debates, Supreme Court picks, culture wars, and media theater, these are the non-negotiables of the System. You don’t hear about them, and you can’t talk about them, because you can’t vote on them. And this is the biggest electoral fraud of all.

In analyzing the ballot fraud surrounding the latest US presidential election the name of the Roman poet and politician Juvenal comes to mind. His Satire VI, raises a fundamental political question surrounding political repression in the contemporary liberal System: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? “Who will guard the guards?” In contemporary bidenesque English this rhetorical question, coined by Juvenal, in the first century, can be transliterated into: “Who will observe the ballot observers?” “Who will count the ballot counters?”

A century after the death of the poet Juvenal the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who combined the virtues of philosopher and soldier, faced the same dilemma. How to treat the defeated foe? By preaching tolerance and magnanimity, or by wielding the sword?  Despite his stoic awareness about the transience of all life on Earth, Aurelius knew that when fighting the barbarians, a free man cannot live by books alone — he also needs a solid sword, or in the case of the USA he needs the Second Amendment. Unlike many of his predecessors Marcus Aurelius did not contemplate self-isolation in debauchery; nor did he hang around the hookers in ritzy parlors on the Quirinal Hill in Rome. He preferred the company of his soldiers who protected the northern and eastern borders of the empire in the turbulent second — borders that stretched in the north along the limes of the Drava river which now separate modern Hungary from Croatia. The Pannonian basin during the Aurelian times was under the constant onslaught of military intruders coming from the North and the East. Today this area has become anew a major route for new illegal intruders, i.e., Afro-Asian migrants heading toward the heart of Europe: Germany.

Aurelius’ grandfather, the emperor Hadrian, a couple of decades earlier, waged also devastating wars in the shaky southern part of the empire — against revolutionary Jews in the Roman province of Judea. His legions killed and displaced more than half a million of them, thus leaving an indelible anti-European grudge in the Jewish collective memory. Worse, out of his resentment for rebellious Jews, Marcus Aurelius, in 130, changed the name of the city of Jerusalem into the city name of Aelia Capitolina. The morale of history? Each victor changes the toponomies of conquered lands and along with it he imposes his own political narrative.

Can we draw the parallel between Aurelius and Trump? Both the USA and Europe are facing today similar turbulent scenarios where peoples of European ancestry will soon have to make a choice: how to preserve their racial and cultural identity in the face of the coming migrant storms. The present turmoil in the USA is just a natural follow-up to the great racial replacement that has been going on over the last 70 years, both in the United States and Europe.

The present Covid virus is only a small part of a “narrative history” – or “history of the event”—which the French call l’histoire évènementielle, i.e., a slice of history solely focusing on one single and separate event. Such an isolated historical event, e.g., the Covid shutdown, is relatively unimportant unless it becomes a factor speeding up a larger flow of history. The Covid scare is already going viral, forcing all EU/US politicians to reexamine a larger stretch of their historical memory, going back to 1945.  Undoubtedly, four years of President Trump’s slamming the mainstream media for spreading fake news has significantly undermined the intellectual and diplomatic narrative of the post-WWII Order. Many myths and mendacities imposed upon Europe and Whites in the aftermath of 1945, thanks to Trump’s presidency, have now fallen apart. Trump’s foes in Europe and the US do not like this.

After WWII, and especially after the end of the Cold War, the politics of Europe turned into a carbon copy of US policies. Whatever was going on in high politics in Washington DC had to be either copied or mimicked the next day by the political class in Berlin, Paris and Vienna, and the day after, all over eastern Europe. President Trump was the first US president in the last 75 years who seriously shook the foundations of the transatlantic liberal consensus. This is the reason why the Deep State in the EU and in the US resent him very, very much.  If America goes bust and starts breaking up tomorrow, the breakup of the EU will immediately follow suit.

Changes in America have always had an impact on European politics. This is especially true of the German political class, which, over the last 75 years, has been grotesquely doubling down on US-inspired liberal globalist agenda for fear of being for fear of being accused of harboring revisionist and paleo-fascist sentiments. The insulting label of “fascism,” “racism” or “colonialism” keeps haunting paranoid politicians in Germany and in the rest of Europe, making them embrace the safe strategy of self-denial and forcing them to be more papal than the pope, i.e., more Americanized than Americans themselves. At the moment of this writing, it means that the entire political class in Germany and the EU must endorse president-elect Biden and his running mate Harris, irrespective of their likely own hidden pro-Trump sentiments.

Just as America is being balkanized at its extreme now between the supporters of Trump and supporters of the Deep State, so is Europe being polarized at its extreme between proponents of state sovereignty and proponents of globalism. The wartime years of 1941–1945 haven’t resolved anything. We are back again in the weimaresque and balkanesque  epoch, both in the USA and the EU. The winner-takes-all will soon change the political language and define thereafter his version of historical truth. If the American left gains the hegemony they so ardently desire — hegemony that is entirely within their reach, if not now, then certainly in the near future as demographics become even more decisive — it will be the end not just of the people and culture of traditional America, but of the entire West.

There’s huge uncertainty about how the election will turn out. What looked like a certain Trump victory when I went to bed on Tuesday night suddenly turned in Biden’s favor in Democrat-run swing states where there appears to have been massive fraud—unprecedented stopping of vote counting on Tuesday night, vote-dumps in the middle of the night in Wisconsin and Michigan in which 100% of the votes went to Biden, preventing poll watchers from actually seeing what was going on in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Nevada, and I am sure much more. The folks who firmly believe that Putin rigged the 2016 election and studiously ignore how supposedly neutral platforms like Google, Twitter, and Facebook have tilted their coverage in favor of the Democrats, now would have us believe that Democrats would not do anything to cheat. Given the long history of corruption in Chicago politics, it wouldn’t be at all surprising if Chicago Mayor Richard Daley swung the 1960 election to JFK. So it seems reasonable to suppose such things could happen in 2020 Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Atlanta. And there’s no question that at least some of the people in charge are activists for the Dems. Jocelyn Benson, Michigan Secretary of State in charge of elections, was a board member of the SPLC. Unprincipled pursuit of power is utterly characteristic of the Democrats and their media allies in recent years, and it would not be at all surprising to learn that there was a Plan B already decided on before the election.

The good news is that I was wrong in supposing that a Trump defeat would necessarily be a total disaster. It looks like the GOP will control the Senate, so that the radical program envisioned by the left will not happen any time soon.

If the left wins they will go into end-game mode. They will establish a more-or-less permanent hegemony (via massive surge in legal and illegal immigration, amnesty to illegals and Dreamers, adding Puerto Rico and D.C. as states, and packing the Supreme Court). A Democrat victory would mark the end of the First and Second Amendments and likely lead to eventually locking up dissidents, as is already the case in Europe. (“Why it’s important for Trump to win“)

But most of this won’t happen, at least until after the 2022 elections, so I won’t be forced to shut down TOO any time soon. As noted in the above article, Trump had considerable success in lowering legal and illegal immigration and refugee settlement by simply enforcing the law and changing some policies at the executive level. One can easily imagine that a Biden presidency would mean a return of catch and release at the border, ending border wall construction, and basically issuing an open invitation for the rest of the world to come here. Then states like California would take care of the rest, allowing them de facto citizenship (issuing driver’s licenses and likely looking the other way in voting) and free health care. So that would speed up the permanent hegemony of the left. Winning this election is still important.

But the expected Democrat landslide didn’t happen, and that has cause a great deal of angst. CNN posted an article titled “Millions of White voters are once again showing who they are.” And of course, what they are can only be “White nationalists” who are happy to have Trump negligently allow 230,000 Americans to die of Covid.

Despite four years of President Donald Trump — that is, of a man who has made White nationalism a central part of his administration and whose abject negligence in the face of a pandemic has contributed to more than 230,000 dead — millions of voters are turning out for him. … Indeed, one thing that this week has clarified is the lengths to which many White Americans are willing to go in order to protect their Whiteness, to centralize it, even after a summer that saw unprecedented support for the Black Lives Matter movement.

The article includes a video of a CNN racial activist/commentator, Van Johnson, calling it a moral, if not a political, defeat. “There’s a lot of hurt out there.” Other examples:

“Racism is Trump’s brand,” declared New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

“If Trump wins re-election, it’s on white people,” insisted Atlantic writer Jemele Hill.

“Trump’s racist messaging seems to have held its strong appeal,” FiveThirtyEight’s Clare Malone offered as analysis on election night.

Voters “accepted — embraced — his unveiled racism and ­misogyny,” agreed Mother Jones’ David Corn.

Of course, what this really indicates is that the nonstop media campaign to vilify Trump and Trump voters was largely a failure. We have had four years of intense hatred and charges of traitorous behavior spewed out by most of the media against Trump and his supporters, as well as the suppression of negative information about Biden. And, despite all that, millions of evil White people came out and voted Republican. This is good news to say the least. In fact, in the face of all this propaganda and hate, Trump got 6 million more votes this time than in 2016 (“A Large Portion of the Electorate Chose the Sociopath,” The Atlantic).

As noted many times here, the US has become polarized to an unprecedented extent, and part of that means that in general people on each side read media that confirms their worldview. Essentially, this comes down to the idea that people start forming cult-like attitudes on both sides, and in the case of the liberal-left, that came down to confidence that this election would result in a landslide win in which they would be able to end evil White America forever. When the election did not turn out anywhere near the way the liberal-left media said it would, one must suppose that there are many people on the left who experienced a great deal of cognitive dissonance —a contradiction between their innermost beliefs and what actually happened right before their eyes. Cognitive dissonance often results in simply doubling down on your beliefs, as in the case of the CNN article noted above. They have no problem thinking that around half of the American population are hopeless fascists or self-hating minorities (see below).

But I suspect there are others, likely the more intelligent and a bit less prone to cult-like dogmatism, who are undergoing a bit of self-examination. Maybe these are people who cut themselves off from family and friends because of their support for Trump—almost all of this cutting-off was initiated by Trump haters. They may start thinking that it’s ridiculous to suppose that around half the voting population are morally corrupt. And there may be lingering attachments and some fond memories of the people they cut off. Maybe at least some of these people are reasonably rational and reasonably nice Okay, I’m a dreamer.

It was an election that saw increases in the numbers of non-Whites voting for Trump from 2016, up four points nationally with Black men and Black women and three points among Latino men and Latino women, and much higher in some areas, such as Florida and parts of Texas. Of course the only possible reason for this is that White supremacy struck again. These voters were self-haters, much like the knee-jerk Jewish reaction to Jews who criticize other Jews or don’t go along with mainstream Jewish agendas. Like other activist reasoning, no evidence is ever needed for such beliefs. As in the case of Whites, there are no real data on this, although it’s reasonable to think that the surge in Latino GOP voting in Florida was due to concerns about impending socialism among the areas many refugees from socialist utopias, and polls have often found that Latinos do not favor high levels of immigration because the are aware of its effects on the job market. For Blacks, it could be that there were more high-profile Blacks who rebelled against the Democrat mindset (HipHopWired lists 15.) If it’s one thing about Blacks, they look up to Black role models.

The interesting thing is that the only group to show less support for Trump compared to 2016 is White men. There could be any number of explanations for this, and we await some real data. Perhaps Trump was seen as ignoring these people, constantly highlighting what he has done for Blacks and Latinos, but never saying anything explicitly about Whites, much less White men. I doubt this explanation because White women increased their support for Trump, and the marriage gap was huge.

There could be any number of explanations for this, and we await some real data. Perhaps Trump was seen as ignoring his White base, constantly highlighting what he has done for Blacks and Latinos, but never saying anything explicitly about Whites, much less White men. I doubt this explanation because White women increased their support for Trump, and the marriage gap was huge. His rallies were attended overwhelmingly by massively enthusiastic White people — enough in itself to terrify our hostile elites. And the same goes for beliefs about Trump’s handling of the virus or the GOP health care package (or lack thereof). Why should these issues make supporting Trump go down among White men but up among White women?

Another possible explanation that comes to mind is the incessant propaganda from the media hyping White guilt (e.g., the notorious “1619 Project”), the massive promotion of Critical Race theory and BLM complaints. Although White women are also included in the blame for White evils, it’s nowhere near as bad as with White men.

Speaking of cult-like behavior, we saw a lot of that among Trump supporters during his campaign stops leading up to the election. These rallies were often commented on in the media, particularly with the criticism that they were super-spreader events (although leftist protests were always exempted from this criticism). The devotion of these crowds was something to behold, and, whatever else you want to say about Trump, his rallies were incredibly entertaining—who can forget his many laugh lines and his dancing along with the 1970s anthem, “YMCA.”

But the enthusiastic receptions Trump got terrify the mainstream media, resulting in a what I suspect is a reflexive reaction where they think about another political leader in 1930s Germany who has able to hold crowds spellbound. Trump’s charisma is terrifying to our hostile elite. Anything and everything must be used to stop him.

This brings up the media’s role in creating the hatred for Trump. Given how close the election is turning out to be in the swing states, it is inconceivable that the media’s role was not decisive in preventing a huge Trump victory—suppressing obvious Biden corruption and endlessly hyping covid as the big issue rather than issues like law & order in Democrat-run cities. Sins of omission are often at least as important as sins of commission. If the detailed evidence on Biden corruption would have been headline news in the rest of the mainstream media besides FoxNews, it would have been a different outcome. I suspect that if Biden wins, the media and the rest of the Democrats will start to sour on him come March of next year and suddenly get on board with Biden corruption or his incipient dementia. They would love to have Kamala Harris as president.

Another plus from this election is that it’s obvious that Trump’s populist message still resonates strongly in the GOP. This will make it much more difficult for the neocons and establishment Republicans types to regain control. If Trump had lost in a landslide, Kristol, Kagan, Rubin, and the Lincoln Project folks would be generously offering to pick up the pieces. But in the event, an awful lot of Republican politicians and strategists will continue to pursue Trump’s populist rhetoric. No going back to Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan types. What comes next may be even far better than the mistake-prone and sometimes tone deaf Trump.

Finally, the situation created by evident election corruption by the left, in the context of cult-like fealty on both sides, is producing a very volatile situation. I was just reading some research on the “democracy premium” showing people will contribute more to the group and go along with group rules if they feel they have had a voice. In other words, even if you lost the election fair and square, you are much more likely to continue working within the system if you were able to vote on it and think the election was conducted fairly. But if 68 million Republican voters reasonably think the election was stolen—quite likely the case here, watch out. It will delegitimize the system and exacerbate an already extremely volatile situation.

This could possibly turn out well. Civil wars are messy and disastrous in many ways, but we have reached the point where compromise and discussion are impossible. Better sooner than later. When Romans in the first century BC found themselves in an empire under Augustus rather than a republic, they were grateful. The republic had shown it couldn’t work any longer. Order and stability were needed after repeated civil wars and intense factionalism. Similarly, the divisions in the contemporary U.S. are too great to heal. The only question is which side is going to establish hegemony—unless we can somehow develop a consensus that the country should fractionate into more politically homogeneous areas. It’s going to be interesting. Perhaps too interesting.