Fake History

This is a great video. I don't condone many of the facets of the Nazis, of course (even while I presume that the Holocaust is largely a hoax). However, just because one side in a given conflict is bad, and the Nazis were bad news in many ways, that doesn't mean that their antagonists are the good guys. Even if their antagonists happen to have been us. The reality is that there were no good guys in the second world war, but a strong case can be made that the globalists represented by Britain and America, allied with the Soviets, were by far the worst of the bad guys who participated in that long, sad conflict. 

This is one of the hardest lessons for people to unlearn; the simplistic propaganda that they've been fed for, in this case, literally generations, is just that: propaganda, and there is little factual content in what they believe to be the true narrative of history.

Fake News is bad enough, although most people—even if they believe in the concept of Fake News still believe most of the Fake News in spite of obvious evidence that it's fake—but fake history and fake science are even more malicious in terms of our understanding of the world.

Corruption of the Soul

This is much of the text of today's Z-man post, which he calls corruption of the soul. What he really means is corruption within society. Sadly, he doesn't reach the obvious and inevitable conclusion that the corruption of Christianity is the cause for the decay in society. A highly Christian society, even an apostate Protestant and/or Catholic based one, but one which followed those virtues closely, would be immune—or at least highly resistant—to the rot that we have, described here by the Z-man. It's the lack of Christian virtue that has enabled the lack of civic virtue.

One way to measure the health of a society is to look at how the ruling elite of that society protects the things that are important to the society. Just as the management of a company cannot micromanage every aspect of the firm, the ruling class cannot make sure every rule and custom is strictly enforced. It has to focus its energy on the big items that make the society possible. From there this attitude will flow down to the lower levels who will enforce the smaller rules.

What the ruling elite of a society does by enforcing the big rules, especially those that manage the affairs of the ruling class, is set the tone. A disciplined ruling class reinforces the idea that the rules matter, and they must be respected. This attitude becomes a habit of mind for the people. On the other hand, a ruling class that has no respect for its own rules helps foster a culture of cheating. If it is okay for the bosses to cheat, then only a sucker follows the rules.

The easy example of this is the Roman Republic. When the families at the top of the social order strictly abided by the rules that governed patricians, the plebeians followed their lead in the minor things. The republican virtue that was necessary for their society was a habit of mind. Once the people at the top stopped enforcing their rules, the rest of the culture followed. Caesar was simply the logical end point of a process of decay that began long before he crossed the Rubicon.

In this age, things like the rule of law, the orderly transition of power and the respect for rational inquiry are the big items of society. Liberal democracies are supposed to be rule-based societies that seek to progress by advances in knowledge. That is done by allowing people to investigate the natural world looking for better solutions to the problems of life. These investigations are to follow a set of rules and ethics that reflect the general morality. Progress is orderly and open.

Recent events make plain that the rule of law has broken down across all levels of American society. The rich always have advantages in the law, but now they operate under a different set of rules entirely. America is now ruled by a pirate class that is free to do what they like to the people. Similarly, the orderly transition of power through the mechanism of elections has become a farce. No one involved has any respect for the rules of democracy and no one can trust the results.

Those seem like things that could be fixed once the geezers at the top of the political system are replaced by a new class of people. There is no guarantee, and the odds are not great, but it seems to most people that there is some hope of fixing these problems through a renewal of the liberal democratic spirit. On the other hand, the respect for rational inquiry and debate appears to be hopelessly lost. We are rapidly reaching a point where dissent is explicitly forbidden in America.

That in itself could be lumped in with the other bits of the system that need reform, but the corruption has gone beyond suppression. It is becoming clear that the culture of mendacity that plagues the political class has become the norm within the realms of science and medicine. A culture of rule breaking at the top of society has fostered a culture of dishonestly within the academic community. Even in the hard sciences the willingness to cheat and lie has become quite common.

A good recent example is the Elizabeth Holmes trial. Everything about her career and the company she created was a fraud. This was plainly obvious to many, but they remained quiet as there is no reward for enforcing the rules. Breaking the rules can make you very rich, so lots of people break the rules. The fact that the state is struggling to put this woman in a cage speaks to the legal corruption. The fact that she exists speaks to the corruption in the academy.

She is not alone. The chief executive of biotech firm Athira Pharma was forced out of her position when she admitted to faking her research. When she was a graduate student, she falsified her findings in a number of studies. Those studies set her up for funding to start the company. They were also used to obtain patents. Despite the fact she is a fraud and her company a sham, she only had to resign, and the company will continue on as if nothing important happened.

The elephant in the room on this topic is Covid. The idea of science has been so corrupted that it is now warping the language. Because the vaccines do not actually work as promised, the language is being changed to fit the crime. It used to be that vaccines provided immunity from infection by a specific virus. Now immunity means a sense of happiness that comes from compliance. You may still die from Covid, or you could become immortal. Who can tell anymore?

Science and its practical application have been the gift from the gods that has allowed man to move beyond his primitive existence. In modern societies it is the thing that is supposed to provide the limits on excess and steadily improve daily life. It is fair to say that trust in scientific and technological progress is the bedrock of modernity. It is the thing that we all trust to keep society anchored to reality. It should be the thing the ruling class protects at all costs, but that is no longer true.

In a world where you cannot trust the important things, the little things become nothing but a matter of opinion or convenience. If the people at the top have no respect for the rule of law, then the people at the bottom will have no reason to follow the law other than fear of punishment. The culture will become one where evading the spirit of the rules is the natural habit of mind. This corruption of the soul of society will corrupt the soul of the people, as we are witnessing today.

The last paragraph, although he doesn't draw this specific parallel, is what ended up corrupting the Jews into the Pharisees, who's corrupted religion devolved into what Judaism is today; little more than a tribal supremacy cult meant to justify the Jews doing whatever they want to do. 

Don't vote

Some research by the Z-man.

In reality, the system is entirely unresponsive to public will. The reason people voted for Trump in the Republican primary was they hated everything the GOP had become over the last decades. This lesson was entirely ignored by the party. The reason Trump won the general is the people were revolted by Hilary Clinton. Both parties not only ignored these messages, they mocked them.

The last two presidential elections have been the result of a process that started after the Cold War. The two parties have divided up the electorate into fiefdoms. This allows them to share power, with one party having limited control over one branch for a while, then turning power over to the other party. The House, for example, will no doubt flip to the Republicans in the 2022 midterm elections.

When you look at what will really happen in the midterm election, you see why it is best described as a ceremonial change in control. According to the Cook Political Report, “just 16 of 435 districts crossed over to vote for presidential and House candidates of opposite parties, down from 35 in 2016 and 108 in 1996.” There are maybe 25 House seats that could plausibly change hands in 2022.

If you dig into the partisan divide of House districts, what you will find is that very few seats will ever change parties, which is why incumbents win over 90% of their races. Of the 435 seats in the House, the two parties control close to 400 of them. Even accounting for changes in demographics and public sentiment, there are a maximum of maybe 85 seats that require party attention.

What this means is that the seats controlled by the parties will never have someone in them that is not fully vetted by the party. They get the seat because they will do as the party demands and in exchange have a seat for life. When Nancy Pelosi finally keels over, her replacement will be selected by the party for that seat. The freaks who line up to run will be dispatched so that the path is clear for the party candidate.

Counterintuitively, the seats that are listed as competitive will turn out to be the least competitive from an ideological and partisan perspective. A district that is 50­­­–50 will select a winner that is not offensive to the other side. Both parties know they need someone who has some appeal to the other side, so they seek out those who are good at playing both sides of the partisan divide.

Even if the people are so enraged at the establishment, they find a Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders in all of these competitive races, the result will be a minority caucus within the majority party of the House. If 85 Trump clones win in 2022, they will be a marginalized and ignored minority in the Republican Party. This has been the reality for genuinely conservative members of the GOP since 1994.

This is what the Squad is experiencing in the Democratic Party. They can make noise and get on TV, but they have no power in their own party. The best they get is to be a cat’s paw the leadership uses to harass the other party. Like the elections, this is mostly ceremonial, just a part of the theater of democracy. In the end, the leadership of the parties settles on a bipartisan deal that pleases their donors.

When people say the system is rigged, they usually mean that the parties rig the election results to get their guys in office. That certainly happens, but the real shenanigans are further upstream at the party headquarters. They work in tandem to maintain the two-party system, preventing a legitimate challenger, and they work together to maintain a consensus in Washington. That is where the game is rigged.

Even more devious, the frustration that arises from the unresponsiveness of the system makes the voting public more partisan. This is why the number of competitive seats has steadily dwindled over the last few decades. The unhappier people get, the more willing they are to accept the partisan narrative. Blaming the other side is easy and it seems to explain why the will of the people is always thwarted.

This makes people less open to appeals from alternatives and much more willing to vote for one side, as that gives them a chance to spite their enemies. The result is two camps locked in a fruitless struggle. Instead of the House being the most dynamic branch of government, it is now the least dynamic branch. We live in a tyranny of the minority exercised through the manufactured majority of party politics.

This immunity to the public will is why voting has had no impact on policy. In 2014, researchers looked at 1,800 policy issues over a twenty-year period. They examined the results of those policy disputes and compared them to public attitudes. What they found was that there was no connection between election results, public opinion, and the final policy outcome. Voting has no impact on public policy. It is purely ceremonial.

People vote because they think it is the right thing to do, so they stick with it even when they have concluded that the parties are corrupt. In 2022 disgruntled Republicans will turn out to vote against the party of Biden. That will make them feel good as they stand in line for expensive food or fill their tank with five-dollar gasoline. The Dionysian theater of democracy will allow them to vent their rage safely and impotently.

Meanwhile, the people in charge will continue doing what they want, safe in the knowledge that they are immune from the public will. John Adams said, “There never was a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.” What he could not know is that democracy is tricked into killing itself by a clever minority that skillfully turns their virtues into vices to the benefit of the minority.

And some more commentary from another post of his on the same topic.

Donald Trump finally got the attention of Republican leaders the other day when he said that unless they addressed the 2020 election shenanigans, his supporters will not bother to vote in upcoming elections. This got the usual suspects out to denounce him as a Hitler plotting to do Hitler things. Regime media was flooded with boilerplate articles about how there was no evidence to support his claims. Some Republicans were sent out to denounce him for his dangerous rhetoric.

This little bit of drama is interesting in that it suggests that some portion of the electorate is making the next logical step. If you cannot get what you want at the ballot box, either because the vote is rigged or the choices are false, then why vote? If those conditions are true, then voting becomes self-sabotage. When you vote, you are endorsing the process and its results. Voting in a rigged election is, in effect, validating the rigged process and the people rigging it.

The fact that it has taken close to a year for anyone to reach this next logical step in evaluating the last election shows the power of conditioning. Everyone has been conditioned since childhood to believe that voting is a requirement of citizenship and not voting is therefore an abdication of duty. You cannot complain about the system if you do not participate in the system is the logic of democracy. The only acceptable participation is voting for one of the two parties.

It is a bizarre logic when you consider it. Popular entertainment is full of plots where the star is faced with two bad choices and refuses to accept them. Instead, he creates a third choice to save the day. Every business school trains students on how to think beyond the choices on offer. “Thinking outside the box” is considered to be the hallmark of the modern entrepreneur. People like Elon Musk are celebrated because they allegedly refuse to accept the conventional answer.

Only in politics is it that no one is ever allowed to question the options put forward by the two political parties each election. This exception to the rule of thinking outside the box is necessary because the system requires it. For example, if “none of the above” was an option in most elections, that would often be the winner. This is why it is never an option on the ballot. Otherwise, even the dullest Republican voter would begin to think that maybe he should have another option.

Of course, one of the weapons that the system has always used to prevent people from thinking outside the box regarding politics is hyper-partisanship. “If you don’t vote for more of the same, the other side will win.” This was the standard line from people like Jonah Goldberg in the Bush years. Staying home was a vote for the other side, so you had to hold your nose and vote for the Republicans. It was effective until 2006 when the odor was so bad that no amount of nose holding was possible.

The neocons conveniently forgot about that in 2016, but they went to great effort to avoid saying they would boycott the election. Even they saw the danger of unleashing that option on the system. Conservative Inc. was mortally wounded when they could not explain how their boycott of Trump was not an endorsement of Clinton. They were either voting for what they said was evil or they were boycotting the election, something they said was morally unacceptable.

That last bit has always been a lie. Boycotting elections has been a part of democratic systems since forever. During the Cold War, the United States government would encourage boycotts in places being subverted by communists. Alternatively, the protest vote has always been a part of the American system. Organizing people to throw their vote away on a ridiculous option is just another form of boycott. You are forcing onto the ballot the words “none of the above”.

Getting back to Trump and his boycott claim, he was never more than a wrecker, which is what the times require. He will never organize a boycott or even completely endorse such a campaign. He will talk about it. For good or ill, if he talks about something it becomes news. Just mentioning the idea of boycotting the midterm is more than enough to normalize the idea for unhappy voters. Sitting out, perhaps loudly sitting out the election, becomes the best way to participate.

If you look at the upcoming midterm, there are maybe 25 seats that are genuinely up for grabs with another 25 that might tip that way. The Democrats currently hold 220 seats and the Republicans 212 seats. The seats that will decide the House will be won with just over 50% of the vote in those districts. In other words, even a poorly organized boycott could prevent the Republicans from getting the House. It is a low cost, high reward strategy to send a message.

Now, even a highly organized national boycott of the midterms, where Democrat voters join in will change little in terms of policy. The people who control the two parties will remain in control. What changes is public perception of politics. This system requires the broad public to think voting matters. If they come to see that voting is just ceremonial, a play put on to keep them pacified, then the system cracks. At the minimum, it brings the system to crisis.

There are no easy answers to generational problems, but normalizing the idea of a boycott helps create a morality outside the prevailing orthodoxy. If 20% of people think that boycotting the system is the moral choice, they are in effect rejecting the morality of the established order. It is a peaceful revolt. Once people get used to revolting in their minds, they can revolt against the system. Normalizing the revolt of the mind is a prerequisite for any challenge to the prevailing order. 

I often feel like I'm on the bleeding edge of political and social philosophy. I'm saying stuff before its time. It's obvious to me, but it's not part of the zeitgeist until several years after I've said it. This is an uncomfortable place to be, because I find that I'm marginalized among people I know as some kind of radical... merely for saying something that they themselves will acknowledge as obvious a few years after I say it. For one small example, the Church didn't part ways with the Boy Scouts of America organization until Jan 1 2020, officially. I saw the inevitable writing on the wall in 2013, and had been more and more frustrated with the Church's affiliation with the group throughout the 2010s. (And this while I had a string of callings within the Young Men's organization of my ward and stake, as well as three sons who became Eagle Scouts through church-sponsored troops during this exact same era.) And after I had seen the writing on the wall in 2013, quite frankly, it became easier to see lots more cracks in the BSA's organization than I had previously perceived and realized that the rot in the organization was much deeper and more pervasive—and had been around much longer—than I would have believed before I opened my mind to the possibility. Whereas, meanwhile, I think most members in the Church didn't see it until the Church officially announced its separation, and some people refuse to see it even now. 

I'm confident that the Z-man's position—and mine; I'd independently concluded the same thing after the blatant election stealing in 2020 that there was no way to make any protest against the increasingly hostile and unresponsive system anymore through the ballot box—that refusing to grant the system legitimacy by participating in elections, is in fact the moral position to take. The relationship of the American people to its government has become like that of a battered wife to her abuser. It's time to acknowledge that the moral choice is to walk away for good. The government doesn't hit us because it loves us. It hits us because it hates us. 

And it hates us because our people have stood for freedom since the days of the Norman invasion of the land of the Anglo-Saxons, and have only led the world by example in the centuries since, up to and including the American Revolution. And because our people are Christian, and the gospel was restored to a scion of our people who was a literal descendent of Ephraim and from him and the rest of our people who joined the Kingdom of God on Earth, it started spreading to the whole world. Is it any wonder that those in the thrall of Satan hate us so much, want to see our legacy and even our very existence erased and replaced with more compliant slaves? That is the animus that is driving the increasingly erratic and blatant hatred against white people, especially Americans that is the defining feature of our age.

Diversity + Proximity = War. UN report confirms it

https://archive.vn/N8Hfd

Of course, they fail to come up with a workable solution, because they completely fail to be able to accept that different peoples living in different places where they can exercise their culture without interference is the only real path to peace in this fallen world. They are ideologically committed to the idea that we must have diversity. Especially white people must have diversity, which of course means brown, black, yellow and red people parasitically leeching off of white people while simultaneously justifying themselves with the worst kind of hateful, bigoted rhetoric imaginable. 

Racism is a hoax. The real problem in our societies isn't racism. It's envy and covetousness and the demanding, entitled attitude of minorities that they must have access to white people, white peoples money, and white peoples peaceful, prosperous societies. Rather than build their own functional societies, they simply want to come to ours and burn them down.

There is a simple fix to the problem of diversity. First, it requires recognizing that diversity equals real difference, though. It isn't just superficial, and different peoples are not interchangeable widgets. They're actually very different from each other. Once you can accept this—which in today's ideological environment is a heresy, in spite of its very obvious truth—then the old phrase that "good fences makes for good neighbors" can be applied. Different peoples shouldn't live in a mixed up melange. Without the practice of the gospel of Jesus Christ, that is a guarantee for conflict. Even WITH the gospel, as the Nephites and Lamanites regressing to their "natural man" tendencies after a couple of generations showed in third Nephi, conflict is inevitable with diversity and proximity. 

The "secret" to peace, although it isn't very secret, it's just denounced in today's backwards ideology, is to keep separate peoples separate so that they can practice their culture in peace without interference from anyone else. It's not a guarantee that you'll have peace, but it's a guarantee that you'll have a lot more of it than if you put different peoples with different ideas of how society should be operated in direct competition with each other by jamming them in the same geographical location.

New SARS-CoV-2 Spartacus document

I'm always a little hesitant to post unprovenanced stuff like this, but it's pretty good stuff. Have a look.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/damn-you-hell-you-will-not-destroy-america-here-spartacus-covid-letter-thats-gone-viral

This is why I'm hesitant to take the "vaccine." Well, that and this. And this. If that VAERS data isn't bad enough, it's probably only a small fraction of the real number. Based on the CDC's own data. Oh, and since I made that post, we've had it come to light that the clinical trials for the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were fraudulent. And more and more keep coming all of the time. They just don't stop. 

And frankly, if the "original" SARS and swine flus weren't pandemics, then this one isn't either. Because of social media, the greater grip that the secret combinations have on our society, and the many, many shrieking harridans who have no meaning in their lives until they can go bother people who want to be left alone, SARS-CoV-2 has managed to be ginned up into a mass hysteria. But in terms of actual data, it's no worse than SARS was. It's literally... not actually a pandemic. 

There's more, of course. https://mobile.twitter.com/Covid19Critical/status/1446460263092326437

Congressmen and their staff and families are not getting the vaccines and are instead taking Ivermectin. And Gavin Newsom requires the vaccine for all kids in California. Except for, curiously, his own 12 year old daughter. 

Vaccines

I've avoided talking about this for some time, because I'm not quite sure what to say about it. We all know, by now, that the First Presidency released a statement about Covid vaccines, masks and other Covid-related issues. The statement is pretty remarkable, in particular because almost everything it says is wrong, including the claim that we are actually fighting a war against a deadly pandemic (the number of deaths in the UK, for instance, fell 2.3% through 2020 relative to 2019. When there's a deadly pandemic killing people off in vast numbers, you don't actually have fewer deaths than you do in a year where there isn't a "deadly" "pandemic." That's just one data point among many which I've researched recently. Another interesting correllary is that the total deaths in the UK is up significantly since the "vaccines" have started being administered. 2021 is on track to be 12% higher number of deaths since 2020, thanks to this miraculous "vaccine." Although it might be higher, since the number is actually trending upwards.

Because of this bizarre and strange statement, which I honestly can't make heads or tails of, I've had to practice a good deal of what Elder Uchtdorf told us to do a few years ago: don't doubt what you know, doubt your doubts. What I know is that President Nelson is a prophet of God, and I sustain him and the rest of the Brethren as prophets, seers and revelators. I see a number of people talking openly about what is essentially apostasy. I am certainly not willing to do that. But I don't know how this can be an inspired statement either. In other words, I don't know what to think. Maybe that the Lord is trying to teach us all patience over here on the Right. Maybe that we need to separate the wheat from the tares among us on the Right. After all, wasn't Abraham commanded to sacrifice Isaac before he was commanded not to?

Doubt your doubts. Don't doubt what you know.

Anyway, this was published as long ago as 2020. Data from the UK, Australia, Israel and other highly "vaccinated" countries strongly suggests that the risk warned about here of ADE is actually very real and its effects are showing up very markedly in hospital admissions of "vaccinated" people with very serious cases of Delta variant relative to unvaccinated people. Anyway, read this for yourself. I wonder if President Nelson had read this if he would have been quite so eager to send out the statement that he did.

From the International Journal of Clinical Practice:

Patient comprehension is a critical part of meeting medical ethics standards of informed consent in study designs. The aim of the study was to determine if sufficient literature exists to require clinicians to disclose the specific risk that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus.

Published literature was reviewed to identify preclinical and clinical evidence that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus. Clinical trial protocols for COVID-19 vaccines were reviewed to determine if risks were properly disclosed.

COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV (i.e. other coronavirus variants) have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications: The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.

I may (or may not) have more to say about the Covid-19 hoax—i.e., the disease is, of course, real and potentially very serious for a subset of people who might contract it, but the idea that it's a serious "global pandemic" is clearly a hoax; it's nothing like the Spanish Flu of 1918, and rather bears a remarkable resemblance to the Hong Kong flu of 1968-9 in terms of its numbers and impact. For those old enough to remember the Hong Kong flu... almost certainly you actually don't remember it at all. But I probably won't. While I appreciate this venue as a way to discuss personal "journaling" type things, my struggle with a poorly thought out statement from the First Presidency and what to make of it is hardly likely to be a series of faith-promoting posts.

I'm also not entirely sure what this means, but I note that the uptick in percentage vaccinated in Utah is pretty flat on either end of that statement, and is pretty flat overall after its initial surge. Now, granted, not everyone in Utah is a member of the Church, but even so, it appears that the statement has had little if any impact on the undecided or unvaccinated, and obviously it has little impact on those who already chose to get the vaccine. And I don't mean to present that as if I think its a good or a bad thing either one, merely that it's "a thing."

And ironically, the Presidency's statement comes at a time when the vaccine effectiveness narrative is starting to crumble. Not because of the data, which was always available, but because some media sources—mainstream sources—are breaking ranks and starting to point out just the barest fringe of what the data says.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/even-mainstream-media-now-asking-big-questions-about-covid-vaccines

American dominoes

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/afghanistan-first-domino-fall

No, Afghanistan is not the first domino. Plenty of dominoes have already fallen. More recently, we had Hong Kong and Crimea and Syria failures in terms of foreign policy. In terms of domestic policy, we've had dominoes falling since the Civil War, but the mass invasion in the 90s in the wake of Reagan's amnesty, which was in turn a follow-up to the disastrous Hart-Cellar immigration act, which reversed two centuries of immigration policy to favor hordes of Third World invaders. We know why this happened; it was part of an effort to reduce the impact of the White Anglo-Saxon culture on American domestic policy by importing a voting block of socialists which would enable the Marxist takeover of America. 

It's ironic that while in theory, we "won" the Cold War, in reality, we didn't do so at all; America has become a country that's nearly as bad (worse in some dimensions) as the Soviet Union and the Marxist takeover that started way back in the Progressive Era is now pretty complete. 

UPDATE: Some commentary from the Z-man on this, and related issues.

There is an old expression about the Bolshevik revolution that says it was made by Jewish brains, Latvian bayonets, and Russian stupidity. There is a lot of truth to it, as the ethnic makeup of the revolution was not very Russian. One way to look at the revolution is as a revolt of subject people against their old masters. This was made possible by the cupidity and stupidity of the Russian elites. A very similar thing is happening in the American empire, just at a slower pace.

This formulation can also apply to the Middle East. For a long time now, the history of the region has been shaped by a combination of Israeli strategy, Saudi Arabian oil, and American force. It is reasonable to say that America would have no presence in the region if not for Israel. The creation of the Jewish state in 1948 set the region on fire, drawing in the Americans and Russian. Oil and gas, of course, is what made the region vital in the long battle between the two empires.

Since the Cold War ended, the primary reason for US involvement has been Israeli intrigue and Saudi oil production. The first crusade in Iraq was about protecting the oil and gas interests. The second crusade was about changing the balance of power in the region to meet Israel security needs. The crusade in Afghanistan was mostly about containing Iran, despite the rhetoric. Look at a map and it is easy to see that it would be a useful launching pad for air strikes against the Iranians.

The collapse of Afghanistan is getting a lot attention, but it is part of a larger collapse of the regional order. Israel, for example, has undergone a political revolution of sorts with the end of the Netanyahu regime. The new prime minister is the product of the neo-liberal order, rather than the fight for independence. He got rich selling software in America and his parents were left-wing fanatics from San Francisco. He is a man of the global managerial class rather than the local elite.

On the Saudi side of things, the walls continue to close in as their stranglehold on the oil and gas market collapses. New technology has opened up vast reserves in North America, so the need for Saudi oil has declined. Iran’s Caspian Sea natural gas deposit will put her on even footing with the Saudis. That leg of the triumvirate driving regional politics is no longer the gatekeeper of the world’s energy supply. Soon, they will be just another gas station selling a commodity on the world market.

Taken together, the old combination of Israeli strategy, Saudi Arabian oil and American force is about to unravel. America still has troops staged in Syria and Iraq, but the writing is on the wall there too. It also means Israel as the primary mover and shaker in the region is coming to an end. Without American firepower and the Saudi control of energy politics, Israeli is just another country in the region. Throw in the Russian-Iranian partnership and the Middle East is going to look very different.

This is one reason the neoconservatives have been trying to restart the Cold War with the Russians. Given the their involvement in the Middle East, a new contest with them would draw America back into the region. It was also why Israel talked Trump into dumping the Iran deal. Normalization of relations between Europe and Iran makes war with Iran impossible. If that is not an option, then there is little point in America maintaining a military presence in the region.

What we may be seeing is peak Israel. For generations, Israel has occupied the center of American politics. During the Cold War, the three “I’s” of politics were Israel, Indiana, and Ireland. After the Cold War it was Israel, India, and Investment Banking. It is fair to say that what passes for conservatism in America is just low-tax Zionism. The collapse of American involvement in the region means there is little reason to make Israel the focal point of American politics.

This is no small thing. The Republicans are celebrating the bad fortune of Biden and the Democrats over Afghanistan, but this is very bad for them. During the Cold War, the left-side of the American ruling elite was allowed a free hand in domestic affairs and the right-side ran foreign affairs. The end of the Soviet empire left the right-side without a reason to exist, so we got the crusades against Islam for the last 30 years. Suddenly, the only reason to vote Republican has gone away.

It is not all roses for the left-side either. Without the distraction of endless war, the focus will be on domestic issues. All of those people who were titillated by the prospect of “glassing” various countries can now focus their energy on the people trying to turn their sons into girls. America has been at war with someone for close to a century now and this has allowed the Left to remake the country. It also allowed them to underwrite their schemes with the proceeds of empire.

For seventy years, Israel has played an enormous role in the politics of the American empire, but that seems to be coming to an end. It may be that Trump’s decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem was the top of Israeli influence. The fading of the American empire, particularly in the Middle East, means the influence of Israel on the world must fade with it. It also means the Israelis will have to seek new partners in their endless game of neighborhood politics. America is no longer useful.

One can only hope. Our "alliance" with Israel (both the state, and prior to that, the nation that the state was created to support) has been nothing but a century of disaster for Americans. With friends like the Jews, who needs enemies? Let Americans go back to worrying about America, and maybe there's some small chance that we can mitigate the disaster caused by a century involved in foreign affairs, largely at the behest of the Jews, and a century of disastrous social and domestic policy largely—again—at the behest of cultural Marxist Jews who reflexively saw Christendom as the enemy and one that needed to be hobbled through cultural and economic destruction.

Based on prophecies of the last days, I have little hope for America, but do hope that like a phoenix rising from its ashes, the members of the Church in America can yet retain Zion and make it a place of peace and freedom once again.

Or at least, the small subset of members of the Church who actually value peace and freedom still.