Since the 2024 election season is right around the corner, I'm predicting this one will most likely be a rematch between Biden and Trump. I'm crossing my fingers that Biden can win the re-election on this one, because God help us if Trump returns to office...

I've made it very clear that I can't see very many viable paths to Trump getting into office again. Not saying it's impossible or that it can't happen, but...erm...the guy's got his work cut out for him

Entire states are trying to stifle his efforts and they're gaining some ground. There is only so much bullshit reasonable people will put up with before they get fed up and fight back.

It's very likely Biden will win again. Which isn't ideal, but it's the best we can hope for given our choices. We need younger, better people. The US government has turned into a glorified senior living facility

Watched a mini doc on the wolves and a range rider in eastern Oregon. the director made a decent attempt to get the side of the ranchers. one of the ranchers went from one extreme position to the next, and that's to be expected. the thing that they said that got me was animal rights people are then animal worshipers and then are Satanists. Maybe this is common, but the earnestness for this theory and utter contempt for anyone who believes anything differently than him. So obviously, they HAVE TO be the worst thing possible, ie worship Satan. That's the thing about people like him: the palpable hate you can feel radiate off them. The hatred for any, and all, things they don't believe, do, practice, etc. Quite literally, if you aren't living their exact life and thinking just like them, you're whatever negative extreme they can muster. The other rancher wasn't exactly moderate, but at least they tried to understand the other side and had the common sense notion that not everyone is just like them. It reminds me of the PBS Crossroads town hall with some folks from Iowa who were asked if a democrat could be a Christian, and the answer across the board, with no exceptions, was, "HELL NO!, they can't be." I'd laugh...but it's just saddening how easily hate comes to many, especially the pious.

A question for Americans. Has Trumpism changed the personality and understanding of the world of a large part of the population or more or less Republicans have always been kind of like that? Because from the outside it really seems like a new thing, he reminds me of populist politics from Latin America more than the classic conservative republican like Reagan or Bush. It's weird to see the USA with a leader similar to Bolsonaro or Milei. Not sure if there any MAGA supporters here but I would like to see their opinion too.

The generally accepted wisdom on this topic is that Trump & Trumpism were inevitable, that he was an outcome and not the cause, or the 'prime mover'. This ethos has been lurking undercover for many, many decades. He just tore the bandage off and made it "acceptable" to voice the sentiment and things that his base has thought for years. (And, to be clear, a significant number of Republicans/conservatives do NOT align with Trump or Trumpism.)

It's nothing new, really. It's a classic example of old school demagoguery, wherein an ultra-rich coastal elitist masquerades as "one of you", thus exploiting populist sentiment & anger (both warranted and manufactured) to ride into power. He was a celebrity here long before running for president, so he had 'name value' and that plays really well in modern America in which ignorance and the cult of celebrity is the deadly cocktail of choice for all and sundry.

On the flipside, his presence has mobilized the left as much as it has the right and served to 'activate' those who may not have been politically engaged otherwise. In fundraising circles, he's recognized as a cash cow -- for both sides.

Some additional color: professionally, I work in political fundraising, having worked with the major committees, state parties, and myriad candidates on both sides for more than 15 years. Within the walls of the Republican establishment, Trump is disliked for many reasons, but mostly because of what I implied above: it's hard for Republicans to win elections with him as the 'face' of the party. This has been exacerbated by the far right's radical shift regarding the legality of abortion which has further ignited the youth to vote (including moderate conservative women who dont want to see a regression back to the 19th century). Anyone & everyone in Republican fundraising admits that this, more than anything else, was the ultimate game-changer.

Well stated, Benedict Donald. That's pretty much the impression I have as well (though I don't have any deep connections or special knowledge, etc.): I don't see Trump as someone who excels at converting people or winning them over; I think it makes more sense to view him as having helped create, almost by (terrible!) accident, an unexpectedly large and dangerous outlet for lots of people's uglier qualities and uglier beliefs - qualities and beliefs which were "already there," but formerly pretty easy to brush aside as a sort of fringe-y disease.



That reminds me of a great political cartoon I once saw (possibly on this board), but haven't been able to track down again, sadly. (Can anyone help?) I don't remember any of the wording, but it has two characters, one a farmer-looking (?) guy who complains about all the immigrants, feminists, etc. supposedly keeping him down and wrecking his life, and the other a Mr. Moneybags type who gestures toward the former, gloating that he (Moneybags) has profited from wrecking his life while cleverly duping him into blaming the immigrants, feminists, etc.

The polling numbers sure do not indicate this. I'm not thinking of any particular poll, because they're about as trustworthy as a starving snake, but poll after poll after poll after poll has 70-80% of Republicans in alignment with Trump's rhetoric. There has to be SOMETHING accurate when they're so consistently high like that.

Indeed. It's generally assumed that a majority of moderate Republicans will still choose Trump, warts and all, over anyone the Dems put up. (BUT, there are certainly a not insignificant number of historical Republican voters that indeed voted for Biden in '20 and the assumption is that some, but not all, of them will do so again this November.)

Polls are generally considered 'noise' especially this far out from the election. A major flaw that compromises their accuracy is that much polling is still conducted by old school phone calling. Millions of American households have abandoned landlines -- and landlines are the media that typically generates the most responses. And those households that do still have landline tend to be 65+ year olds --- who generally lean Republican. So, a large swath of the voting landscape is often 'absent' in polling.

To be clear, in my comment above, I mentioned that the Republican establishment is weary of Trump because his presence has made it harder for them to win elections. But with each passing cycle in this modern era, the old paradigms are proving to lose some relevance. He can absolutely win via the electoral college. Democratic fundraising saw a massive boon due to the RvW reversal, and that's been the left's saving grace in recent elections.

I think Barry Goldwater is instructive as an example of how Trump is a manifestation of a phenomenon that has been present in American politics and brewing for decades. Goldwater's presidential campaign in 1964 permanently shifted the internal dynamic of the Republican Party and crippled what remained of the once-powerful liberal Republican wing, and you can see a lot of parallels between Trump's political profile and Goldwater's in 1964: conspiratorial, concerned with ideological purism, willing to attack and brand anything that doesn't align with them as unprincipled, socialist, evil, etc.

I think a lot of that set the stage for a 'Goldwater minus principles'-- someone who like Goldwater was willing to traffic in conspiracies and imbue his supporters with the conviction that they were standing heroically against the tide of an evil, shadowy force, but whose ends, unlike Goldwater, were not ideological or principled but selfish. Demographic/sociopolitical changes and the minoritarian nature of many American electoral institutions added rocket fuel to that trend to the point that by the end of his life Goldwater had become a 'moderate Republican.' Even before Goldwater, entities like the John Birch Society, Huey Long, Father Coughlin, even the Anti-Masonic Party touched on different elements of the particular aspect of the American political psyche that Trump today has animated.

Going back to the initial question-- Trump or Trumpism isn't necessarily 'new' in American politics. Something like it has been present in American politics since at least the midpoint of the 20th century and probably a lot longer. But I don't think it's ever been as prominent or as dangerous as it is now, which is probably why it seems so unprecedented.

Spot on.

Great post. I used to call myself a Goldwater republican that moved over to the Ron Paul republican....who was Goldwater lite. It's all right wing populism and it has no place in a constitutional republic that is governed based on the rule of law. One of the reasons the founders made sure that our most important vote was not for AN executive but the direct representative was due to the possibility of some sort of weird populism that one person could accomplish if he riled up enough of the right people (sound familiar?). That's why, up until 1913, the only branch that was directly elected by the people was our direct representatives in the House.

It'd be nice if Trump is barred from the ballot, but even so I really don't want DeSantis to have a chance. Trump's pathetic, DeSantis is genocide. Very tired of this, I would prefer every politician drop dead.

Are there any real chances that the congress proscribes Trump's postulation to the presidency? How would his voters and the Republican Party take that?

The United States Congress does not have the power to proscribe a candidate from taking office; this would become a matter for the courts to decide. Donald Trump is barred from the Presidency by the Constitution for his role in supporting an insurrection, in the same way that a candidate not yet 35 years of age would be barred by the Constitution. If the courts decided to ignore the Constitution, Congress could respond by impeaching and removing him from office, but he has already been impeached for his actions leading up to and on January 6, and the Republicans in Senate decided that he should face criminal charges rather than political punishment.

As for his voters, I couldn't possibly care less about their feelings. The same zombies who called everything "satanic" in the 80s are zombie-ing around calling everything "woke" now. They've always been the enemies of metal.

Well unfortunately the NSBM folks would disagree with you lol. I'd reckon they're probably among the folks who voted for Trump. It would kinda make sense, would it not? Or am I misunderstanding that subgenre and those who play/write/support it?

It's not as clear cut as you are saying. I wish that he was actually an insurrectionist, legally. Because then everything would be a lot easier and there wouldn't be this massive confusion. But the reality is, from a legal standpoint, that despite being indicted in four separate jurisdictions, Trump has never once been charged with let alone convicted of the crime of insurrection.

Both the DOJ special prosecutor and the Dem Party prosecutor in Atlanta charged him with multiple felonies relating to his conduct in 2020, however, despite being ABLE to do so, opted not to charge Trump with engaging in an insurrection or even inciting an insurrection. If you want to talk about adherence to the Constitution and perhaps to the rule of law, here is the conundrum: without the due process required for judging someone guilty of a crime, can you decree that they are nonetheless guilty of that crime, one with which they have never even been charged and thus never had the opportunity to claim all of the constitutional safeguards guaranteed to someone when charged with a crime?

Whether or not you or me or anyone else does or doesn't like Trump is almost irrelevant, we either have to abide by legalistic principles or not.

What gets me is that the primary election tactic of the Dems and their allies in the media is not to convince voters to vote for them, but instead to imprison their chief political opponent and to prevent American citizens forcibly from voting for him. Whatever else this is, “saving democracy” (as is the tag phrase) doesn't seem to have much to do with it if you're going to be using arguably anti-democratic principles.

Seeing as how Trump is an even bigger sympathizer to Israel than Biden is, I don't think those types of folks are looking to Trump as "their guy." I think if anything, the extreme fringes want something entirely different (not more of essentially the same, but with some added crass).

Neither were Jefferson Davis or Robert Lee, but both of them were barred under the 14th Amendment from holding office (although that disqualification was lifted in the 70s, so they're both now eligible to hold office again... you know, if they ever claw their way out of the hell I suppose is reserved for people who fought unrepentantly for their right to own slaves). Neither was, to my recollection, convicted of any crime connected to their participation in the rebellion. In fact, immediately after the war, there was a general understanding that virtually everyone who had participated in the rebellion, from the trenches of Vicksburg to the halls of the Confederate Congress in Richmond, was barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office; the challenge was enforcement, not the Constitution itself. In the years after the war, Congress repeatedly granted amnesty to a widening circle of former Confederates until, by 1900, hardly any former Confederates were covered by the disqualification clause. But the fact that they had to be exempted from it by a deliberate act of Congress seems to imply that policymakers then, some of whom had a direct hand in creating the 14th Amendment, considered it to apply even without a conviction or a formal charge of insurrection.

Hell, you don't even have to look that far back. Around the time the US entered World War 1, a former congressman was convicted of violating the Espionage Act and barred from retaking his seat under the 14th Amendment. The conviction was later overturned and he was able to win reelection, but Congress found once again in that case that you can be barred from holding office under the 14th Amendment without being convicted or charged with insurrection as a crime.


Trump himself proves that antisemitism and sympathy/support for Israel aren't mutually exclusive. Nobody doubts Trump would back Israel more aggressively than Biden, but that doesn't erase all the times Trump has met with Holocaust deniers or accused Democrats of being 'Soros-backed' or the times he said there were 'fine people' in a crowd of torch-bearing idiots babbling about being replaced by Jews, or etc, etc, etc.

Thanks for the history, I was actually not aware of those facts! It makes things easier to understand for me, and puts Trump's travails into a different light.

As for the later part of the post, again, I said "extreme fringes" because the "right-wing" is a spectrum. Of course there are overlaps, but I honestly feel like Trump appeals mostly to a very provincial, rural-like conservatism that "doesn't like" minorities but the people that are in that camp are too clueless to see that Trump is just as much a part of the establishment that they hate, and he just says what they want to hear. I think people who are seriously politically activated on the far right are very well aware that Trump has no real ideology of his own... that he just says whatever he thinks is the most expedient thing to say to further his own self. He isn't their guy, but then again, nobody would be their guy in mainstream politics, if you catch my drift. Perhaps they might vote for him because there is no other option in the US, and therefore out of convenience, but they would drop him in an instant if there was even a whiff of what they really want on the horizon.

To be fair, you could probably say that same thing about politicians in general, with some countries being worse than others.

But let's not pretend as if all of them are benign, let alone helpful, that's a fool's gamble. They most certainly aren't. Most, if not all, of them would sell their own grandmother if it meant furthering their own means. Trump just happens to be the shining example of the worst of the worst. He isn't even really a true politician, either, he's just a guy with a f̶r̶a̶g̶i̶l̶e̶ massive ego, espousing some abhorrent beliefs who just happened to appeal to a group of people that represent the worst of the worst.

Its democracy baby!!!!

Anytime a Nazi disagrees with me, I celebrate.

Those folk aren't exactly known for being capable of creating their own art, though. They've always leeched off of other creations and twisted them to fit their ideology. It's not like they created any of the cool looking symbols they use - those have been around for thousands of years. If they were capable of creativity and innovation, they wouldn't be fucking Nazis. Hell, they persecuted most of the people who made possible their military advances for being the "wrong race"....

I doubt that nsbm bands support Trump

Maybe country bands

Rotfl

Anyway fingers crossed,next years can be very dangerous for the world

I'm casually watching from afar, here in Australia, but from what I can work out, aren't the Republican Primaries now solely between Haley and Trump? And from what I gather, Trump has crushed everyone thus far?

Our politics here are completely different. We vote for the party, not the person individually. Hence, there's no national tour of candidates drumming up public support.

Trump and Haley are the two "serious" candidates. There's a few other Republicans vying for the nomination, but Trump and Haley are the only two with a serious chance of winning (and even then, it's almost certainly going to be Trump)

The sad reality is that the majority of the Republican voting base won't elect a female, particularly one of mixed ethnicity.

There's a sizeable faction of Republican establishment folks who desperately long for a Haley nomination as they rightfully expect that she'd attract a not insignificant number of female independents AND progressives who'd vote for her specifically for the reasons cited above, her vague stance on reproductive rights notwithstanding.

I was just looking at the results of the New Hampshire primary and the interesting thing here is that Trump won by a margin of 12 points. The only reason it was that close is because the state has an open primary, meaning that all voters, not just Republicans, have the right to vote in the primary. So many left-leaning independents and even Democratic Party voters who said they prefer Joe Biden answered the call of Dem-party leaders and pundits that they go and vote for Nikki Haley, that it made the real gap seem less wide that it really should have been.

If you look at the exit polls, Trump won 3 out of 4 Republican voters, which means that had only Republicans been allowed to vote, like what will happen in many of the coming states, the margin of victory would have been closer 50 points. I think that Trump’s control of the GOP is no longer in question at all, and Haley has absolutely no chance.

The other extraordinary thing here is that it’s almost impossible to overstate how much has been done by virtually every major power centre in the US to sabotage Trump’s candidacy (deserved or not – at this point even irrelevant), to destroy his reputation even more so than he has already tarnished his own anyway in the eyes of moderates, and pretty much pull out all the stops to basically force voters to choose someone else. The media devoted 7 years nonstop depicting him as a literal Hitler figure, and the Democrats basically have used their control over the judiciary and use their prosecutorial power to try and keep him off the ballot, and yet, despite everything, he keeps winning.

This to me means that establishment power and most importantly, credibility, has all but collapsed in the eyes of about half of the country’s public (give or take). This is extremely historically significant, no matter which way you hope that this plays out.

Meanwhile Biden, probably in a panicked mode, has now heavily involved the country in a third major war in three years. Beyond throwing billions to Ukraine to counter Russia, and of course financing and arming Israel’s onslaught in Gaza, it is now involved in a regional war that involves constant bombing of Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

This has been done without the slightest whiff of congressional approval or debate. When a US president starts new wars without involving Congress, it is not just some technical violation of the Constitution— although it is—it is dangerous in its own right, as it can easily lead to the type of endless war we saw with the “War on Terror”, with no strategic plans, no metrics for success, no exit plans, no weighing of benefits versus the risks of regional escalation and full-scale conflict.

There is a video circulating online that appeared just today of the IDF shooting several men with their arms raised and waving a white flag, just moments after one of them gave an interview to a British news outlet, only to then be shot dead seconds later after the interview concluded. ..as well as the truly horrifying and almost certainly illegal abuse of detainees in Israeli custody. As always, the key factor, is that it is the United States that is financing and arming Israel's war, and it is the Biden administration that has assumed the role of Israel's most stalwart and unflinching supporter. Not saying that Trump wouldn’t have done the same or more, but at the moment, Trump isn’t in power.

Actually, one half of the US media has lined up behind him, in perfect lock step, since the dust settled after the failed "red wave" of '22, to prop him up, defend him at all costs, and deify to a degree not previously experienced. With all due respect, your comment above doesn't align with the reality on the ground.

Point me to any New Hampshire party leaders who told their voters to vote for Nikki Haley. Show me a quote from any of them. Maggie Hassan, Jeanne Shaheen, Ray Buckley, Matthew Wilhelm, Donna Soucy, let me see a single quote where they told Democratic voters to vote for Nikki Haley.


Oh, come on. Trump is not some beleaguered colossus triumphing in the face of withering odds. The very foundations of the US electoral system-- the Electoral College, the Senate, the lack of safeguards on gerrymandering-- disproportionately favor him and his party. He is backed by a right-wing media apparatus that, empowered by a loose regulatory framework, has an at best cursory interest in reporting facts, as well as a broader media landscape whose dogged determination to appear 'balanced' often results in strange and unnecessarily bad headlines for Trump's opponent (how many times have we seen headlines in WSJ and NYT about how that elusive recession is right around the corner, or about how declining unemployment isn't actually a good thing?) His party is virtually completely aligned with him, with House and Senate leaders either backing him vigorously or refusing to do anything to stand in his way. Trump himself gets to operate unfettered by any expectation of honesty, civility, or, frankly, mental stability. Just a week ago the man spent an entire speech mixing up Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi, mixing up Biden and Obama, and it just kind of went by. Meanwhile, if Biden, a man with an actual, medical stutter, so much as stumbles on his words, every media outlet reports on it as if it's headline news and every Republican howls about how he's got dementia. Trump lies constantly, astonishingly, blatantly. If Biden gets a fact or a figure wrong, he's either a rotten liar or a dementia-addled senior. Trump insults literally everybody but if Biden gets just a little too harsh on MAGA Republicans for their sensitive feelings, he gets excoriated for his 'incivility'.


If you launch missiles at civilian shipping in one of the most critical commercial seapoints in the world-- risking countless civilian lives, as when a Houthi drone failed over Egypt and nearly destroyed a hospital-- yeah, you're gonna get hit. Please explain to me what Biden should have done. Just let them keep shooting rockets at civilians?


Can you point me to the posts where you said this same thing after Trump assassinated a top Iranian general, or after reports emerged that he wanted to start a war with China as an option for staying in power?


That's crap. Literally no other viable person running for President would have been as willing as Biden has to push back on Israel, including insisting on the acceptance of Palestinian sovereignty after the war, negotiating ceasefires and working with Egypt and other neighbors to assist Palestinian civilians, and securing hundreds of millions of dollars in aid for Palestinians. "Not saying that Trump wouldn't have done the same or more" is a pitiful understatement. Trump would be stepping up weapons to Israel. Trump would be encouraging Israel to annex Gaza. Trump would be deporting, or trying to deport, Palestinians living in the United States. Enough of this 'oh, gee, maybe Trump would be worse, but--' No, Trump would absolutely be worse.

And look at the polls. The number of people who think Biden should be more supportive of Palestinians is, at best, a third of the population. I think that's shameful, but this habit of evaluating Biden's approach to the conflict with no regard for the public opinion is unrealistic.

Oh, and also... we're talking about an election. It doesn't matter that Trump is not in power. He wants to be in power. Why in the world should we not consider whether Trump would be better or worse? If you're arguing in good faith, that is.

You fellas could spend your time more wisely than arguing with this guy.

I'd love to claim I see some practical benefit in doing it but I guess this is just what I do for fun when I've got downtime at work.

Doing my best not to think about what that says about me...

impeach Mayorkas while refusing to pass immigration legislation? and their brains are so rotted out that they think a football game is a conspiracy to give Taylor Swift a platform for the Biden campaign?

voter interviews out of Iowa were to be expected, but some of them out of New Hampshire show you how truly fucked we are. it'll never cease to amaze me...really, no hyperbole...how much anger there is in the world. old retired white guys who have the world by the balls (and have absolutely no clue that they do or how or why) with unhinged hatred with, more importantly, absolutely zero ownership of the world their generation curated and propelled. if they excel at nothing else, they excel at being the victim of everything and anything. it's less wonder why they flock to the ultimate whiny victim and cult of their personality.

should also add if the Dems were any good at this thing, they'd be soundbiting the fuck out of Lankford as he "blasts MAGA for lying about the border deal, and says it’s exactly what Trump asked for when he was president but couldn’t get it done."

Spot on. The right wing media machine is breeding conservative snowflakes and fostering victimhood in volumes not previously experienced.
And, to your last point, it's just more evidence that the Dems are horrible marketers whilst the Republicans have excelled at it for half-a-century now.

Right-wing nutjob decapitates father

Boy, do I love election years.

I do not.

Don't be ridiculous. Sending millions of dollars in aid after the country you support has been slaughtering civilians with genocidal intent + suspension of funding to UNRWA anyway on top of that is not even the bare minimum for it to even look like the US cares about Palestinian civilians. The worse option is already here.

Can you explain to me why is it so hard for Biden to stop sending bombs to Israel?

Extremely tiring to see American left-liberals portray pro-Palestinian progressives as unreasonable and looking for excuses to shit on Democrats when it is the current US administration and Israel that refuses to adapt to reality: that Palestinians aren't gonna take it anymore, and that a return to an old-fashioned two-state solution negotiation like the one for the past 30 years is never going to happen: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2024/ ... r-intw.cnn

Support to Israel has been a cornerstone of American politics for generations. It has been one of the few things virtually every political figure, from left to right, has been in lockstep on, and that is because for generations it has been one of the few things the public has been in lockstep on. Even today, after unprecedented shifts in the American public towards supporting Palestinians, most polls consistently find a majority or plurality of Americans either saying the United States is striking the right balance in support for Palestinians and Israel or saying the US isn't doing enough to support Israel. Biden is staring down the barrel of a competitive election in which even a small shift of voters in just a few states could result in the worst president in American history making a comeback despite failing to win anything near a national majority. All the while, Republicans are waiting for any chance, even the smallest one, to excoriate Biden as insufficiently supportive of Israel in hopes of nudging a few more independents away from him, or at least getting them to stay home.

A while back in this thread you claimed that pro-Palestinian protests in major cities were evidence that there's this massive groundswell of public support for Palestinians and opposition to Israel. That, and this post, lead me to think you drastically underestimate the extent to which Americans still default to supporting Israel, particularly Americans who don't think very much about the issue-- which is most of them. That is changing, but it's changing gradually.


This is the ridiculous claim. I'm not going to contest anyone taking umbrage with Biden's policy on Israel/Palestine. I take umbrage with it. But anybody claiming Biden would be worse than the alternative (and let's not kid ourselves about who the alternative is) is either lying or delusional. They just are. I would never tell anybody, especially Palestinians, that they need to approve of Biden's handling of the situation, but I really have no patience for people on the left, most of whom aren't Palestinian, who insist on this collective delusion that there's no difference in how Donald Trump and Joe Biden would handle this situation. Trump would be much worse for the cause of Palestinian rights and sovereignty. Not a debate, just a fact.

As an Israeli I can assure you the right-wing Israelis and religious Zionists are extremely supportive of Trump, not Biden.

I'm not here to argue, and I'm not a supporter of the American Republican Party or the Israeli Likud, but I have to say the idea that actual Nazis are pro-Trump or pro-Zionist is very silly. Trump is a Zionist and doesn't seem to have an actual problem with the Jewish ethnicity, while Nazis are explicitly antisemitic and anti-Zionist. Some of the most popular nsbm bands also directly promote and reference the anti-Zionist and antisemitic ZOG conspiracy theory:

Nokturnal Mortum: https://www.metal-archives.com/search/a ... nre=#songs

Grand Belial's Key: https://www.metal-archives.com/search/a ... nre=#songs

Der Stürmer: https://www.metal-archives.com/albums/D ... .%21/20667

Aryan Terrorism: https://www.metal-archives.com/search/a ... nre=#songs

Ad Hominem: https://www.metal-archives.com/albums/A ... _End/25099

And many others: https://www.metal-archives.com/search/a ... nre=#songs

Other nsbm bands, such as As Sahar and Terror 88, are more anti-Zionist than racially antisemitic.