December 26, 2023

Source: Bigstock

I usually take it easy on myself for my Christmas and New Year’s pieces by penning less labor-intensive columns. In part because I love the season too much to get bogged down by weighty matters, and in part because I assume that my readers are too busy with family and friends to want anything heavy.

So this column, and the next, will be capsules!

We all like capsules, right?


Here are a few items that didn’t merit a full column this year but are still worthy of mention.

Wait, Are We “Nazi Realists” or “Nazi Hystericals”?
A few months ago on Twitter I attracted the ire of the Fuentes Nazibois by pointing out what to me seemed like a rather glaring hypocrisy: Far-rightists are always going on about how not all Nazis were bad and it’s immoral to prosecute 98-year-olds who may have had some tangential association with the Holocaust.

“Just because somebody served on the Eastern Front against the Soviets doesn’t mean they were Jew-killers.”

And then in September Trudeau and the Canadian Parliament applauded a 98-year-old Ukrainian who fought alongside Germans against the Soviets on the Eastern Front, and all of a sudden, the prosecution and imprisonment of elderly “tangential Nazis” became the coolest thing ever to rightists.

“Git that decrepit ol’ bastard! Though accused of no war crimes, he might’ve peripherally been a part of ’em!”

“Look, I understand. You hate Ukraine and you love Putin because shirtless riding a bear or something.”

These are the same bozos who DM me, “Dave, isn’t it a travesty that the 97-year-old concentration camp secretary is still being hounded by the courts?”

Look, I understand. You hate Ukraine and you love Putin because shirtless riding a bear or something. But I never cease to be amazed at the lack of coherence. Maybe that’s why a guy like me has a dedicated reader base—continuity of thought. Yes, I think it’s wrong to imprison a 97-year-old Nazi camp stenographer, and yes, I also think the situation with the 98-year-old Ukrainian lauded in Parliament is nuanced and I’m not in favor of tormenting an old man just to dunk on Trudeau—a vile human, but if he’s still in office despite all the domestic evil he’s done, I’m not sure destroying an elderly man’s last years on earth was worth giving Trudeau the minor dunking he easily weathered.

Plus, I see the hypocrisy more up-close than you. I have tards who write to me, “Hey Dave, how cum everybody talks about the Holocaust but nobody talks about the Holodomor?” and then these same idiots, when presented with an opportunity to talk about the Holodomor in order to explain the motivations of the 98-year-old Ukrainian guy, become Simon Wiesenthal: “ARREST HIM! WOIST OUTRAGE EVAH! NEVAH FORGET DAH HOLOCAUST!”


Foot Fetish
And speaking of Hitlers large and small, in August, Foot Locker announced that it wouldn’t be selling the “Yeezy” sneakers (the Kanye line) that Adidas was unloading on the market after severing ties with everyone’s favorite Hitler-suitor (in sociological terms, the love affair between a Nazi and a black man is referred to as “Mann-Boy Love”). Foot Locker’s decision led rightist website ZeroHedge to declare, “Instead of selling Yeezy shoes and sending sales surging, Foot Locker prefered [sic] to remain woke and watch its stock crater 35% in one day. Smart.”

ZeroHedge followers echoed the point:

“Foot locker went woke, and now their [sic] broke.”

Wait, “woke”?

Okay, I’m confused here. Aren’t rightists the ones who claim that Hitler and the Nazis were “left-wing socialists”?

So how is refusing to sell sneakers created by a guy who said “I love Hitler” woke?

I’ll phrase it this way: If Foot Locker refused to sell shoes created by someone who proclaimed devotion to Che Guevara, would you call that a “woke” decision?

I’m pretty sure you’d call it “based.”

So if you really believe that Hitler was a leftist socialist, how is refusing to sell Hitler-sneakers “woke”?

I know, I know. Just like the “stop persecuting Nazi 98-year-olds/commence persecuting Nazi 98-year-olds” story, it’s not supposed to make sense.

But at least a few people in the ZeroHedge Twitter thread noticed the lack of coherence.

“Not selling shoes from a vocal antisemite is now ‘woke’??? Okay, sure!”

To which a ZeroHedge supporter replied:

“Not selling shoes at all for any political reason is what’s important.”

Great; we’ve redefined “woke.” It now means “not selling something for any political reason.”

A roadside mom-and-pop store in Roberts County, Texas, the reddest point in the state.

A man with California plates pulls up and enters.

Man: “Hey, you guys sell any ‘Biden rocks, Trump sucks cocks’ T-shirts?”

Clerk: “You in the wrong county, boy.”

Man: “You woke bastard!”

Clerk: “Oh no, you’re right! I’m refusing to sell something for political reasons. I’m shamed!”

Yep, makes total sense.


Sieg Guile
After The Spectator’s Douglas Murray went viral via a devastating clip in which he contrasted Hamas to the Nazis, I penned a column affirming his stance (since then, Murray outdid himself by turning human pig Cenk Uygur into bacon bits). One of the points I made in my column was that not only are Palestinians in general (and Hamas specifically) more violently anti-Jewish than pre-Kristallnacht Nazis, but the Nazis actually downplayed their anti-Semitism before taking power, during the 1932 election, when they had to win a popular vote.

In response to that, hack “journalist” David Grossman tweeted:

The “before taking power” line plays into one of the oldest pieces of Holocaust denial: that the German people were simply tricked into supporting Hitler’s anti-Semitism. In reality, “Mein Kampf” was a best-seller, and Hitler’s worldview was very clearly understood by ’32.

A gross-man indeed. And a stupid one.

Mein Kampf was not about killing Jews. It’s a self-indulgent, lugubrious tome that was ignored until Hitler became chancellor, at which time it became a best-seller only because the party bought in bulk to give away free copies (a sales-boosting tradition that egotists like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump continue to this day). Hitler himself felt embarrassed by the book. It’s a terrible work, and a “blueprint” for nothing more than his lack of skill as a writer.

Most of the German Jews who fled in 1933 returned the next year (see The Myth of Rescue for the data on that), because there was a general perception that they could ride the Hitler thing out. That feeling of “we can deal with this” only increased in ’36 when Hitler curtailed anti-Semitism for the Olympics. Hitler didn’t run on genocide, and even German Jews, in the immediate postelection years, didn’t think genocide was coming. There was nothing Hitler did to Jews in his early years in power that surpassed in cruelty Jim Crow laws in the U.S. People just lived with that stuff in those days.

Yes, Germans knew going in that Hitler didn’t like Jews, but at the same time, dozens of sitting U.S. senators and congressmen didn’t like blacks. These days, it’s an earthquake if a white politician even insinuates disdain for a nonwhite group. But 100 years ago it was normal. I know, hard to imagine, Zoomer. But it was so standard for white politicians in the U.S. and Europe to hold positions that some groups deserved less rights than “the white man,” it wasn’t shocking to anybody back then.

Even Kristallnacht, which did shock German Jews, was essentially just one night’s worth of the average Southern black’s experience with the Klan for decades. Obviously, European Jews knew their history of pogroms and expulsions, but until Kristallnacht, there was a sense that the Nazi thing could be endured. And by the time German Jews began getting their one-way tickets “East” in fall 1941, it was too late to leave.

The idea that Hitler told the Germans in 1932 that he’d kill the Jews, and the Germans voted for that, is pseudohistory at its worst.

Grab ’Em by the Pussy-Whipped
Thirty years ago Chris Rock was the most exciting young comic on the planet. His seminal “blacks vs. niggaz” routine gave voice to the most underserved and ignored demographic in the nation—civilized, intelligent blacks who are shamed by, and in fear of, their savage underclass. That comedy bit was like Sam Kinison’s 1980s riff about starving Africans. It’s what put Kinison on the map, because after years of being guilted and bullied by “artists and musicians” to give give give to starving UngaBungas, Kinison served as a release for all of us who were just tired of it.

Every year ’round this time Christmas music plays nonstop in my home, and to this day I can’t hear the line in “Do They Know It’s Christmas”—“Where nothing ever grows, no rain nor rivers flow”—without hearing Kinison screaming, “You live in a fucking desert! Nothing grows here! Nothing’s gonna grow here! C’mere…you see this? This is sand. You know what it’s gonna be a hundred years from now? It’s gonna be sand! We have deserts in America, we just don’t live in ’em, asshole!”

Rock’s “niggaz” routine was like that; an emotional release for people sick and tired of being told that they need to tolerate and “uplift” their inferiors.

A lesser-known bit from that same Rock concert dealt with the exact moment a woman knows she has her man by the balls. When she knows he’s fully whipped. If she insults her man’s mama, and he doesn’t strike her, that man is owned.

Last month, when Trump bragged about being endorsed by BLM, that was the same dynamic, even if not consciously played out. Fact is, though, if Trump had consciously wanted to test how mindless his followers are, the extent to which they’ll not only swallow but applaud anything he tells them, he couldn’t have chosen a better test case than to boast of a BLM endorsement.


Then Trump says, “I’m honored by the endorsement of BLM,” and these same MAGAs go, “Whoooo-hoooo! Another victory for the god-king! Welcome, BLM! MAGA and BLM—besties forever!”

And now Trump knows that if he can get away with that, if he can be celebrated by his zombies for that, he owns them.

Because in the end, for all the vaunted bullshit about what a dealmaker Trump is, how his “understanding of business dynamics” would assist him in dealing with Congress, in fact the only power dynamic he understands is that of sycophant and boss. As president, he was buffaloed by Democrats, stymied by his own party, steamrolled by the D.C. bureaucracy, and intimidated by the courts. But he grew the most loyal kamikaze sycophant base since Hirohito.

And to him, that’s victory enough. He’s got you by the balls, bitch.

That satisfies him more than a second term.

Merry Christmas! Part II coming next week to ring in 2024.


Sign Up to Receive Our Latest Updates!