Both White Liberals and White Conservatives Want Blacks to Become Black-Skinned Copies of Themselves


– 20 August 2016 –


Patulcius-sqRecently Vox Day wrote a statement that caught my eye: “As I once wrote on Twitter, I don’t hate blacks, I just don’t expect them to be white. What I hate is white virtue-signalers.”

Then I ran across this article at Alternative Right by a white South African named Mike Smith, who describes how middle-class blacks in his country prefer to live in their shantytowns:

One thing that fascinates libtard tourists to South Africa is how blacks live in shacks in townships next to affluent white areas.

If you tell them that blacks prefer it that way, then they look at you as if you are stupid. How can any human being WANT to live in a shack?

I know it sounds strange to libtards, but it is the truth as the Lonmin Spokesperson said:

Miners want to live in shacks not houses: Lonmin Spokesperson

Said Sue Vey: “We have learnt our employees don’t want houses. They want to go back to their home countries and province… They choose to live in informal settlements,”


About 20 years ago in 1996 I once asked a group of educated Xhosas why they don’t go and live in a white area and put their children in white schools away from township violence and drugs. I mean they all had the money to do so and were all driving BMW’s and were educated.

They looked at each other and laughed. So I asked them why they were laughing? They proceeded to tell me that they prefer to stay in the township amongst their own people. They like their culture and way of life.

So I asked them why they cannot do that in a white area? They said to me, “Mike, believe us…you don’t want us to live next door to you.”

I said why not? I mean they seemed to be fairly nice guys and educated.

They said, “Mike…in the township we start drinking on Thursday night, because Friday nobody really works and goes home half day. Friday night we slaughter a goat in our back yard and then braai it. Then the REAL drinking starts. Then the music gets LOUD, really LOUD. The method of braai is also different to how white people braai. A chunk of meat is just briefly scorched in an open fire, not grilled over coals. Once everyone is drunk, you just take a bitch and shag her behind the shack. Her consent is optional. The drinking does not stop until all the alcohol is finished, normally on a Monday morning at about 03:00 AM when everyone goes to sleep to be ready for work at 08:00. During the weekend, fights break out; people get “moered”, stabbed, axed and shot. This is township life. We like it like this. Can you see, Mike, why we say you don’t want us as your neighbour?”


Blacks will be blacks. Attempts to “improve” them have only destroyed their natural societies and made them even worse.

I said: “Well, now that you put it that way, I think it is better if you stay where you are and I stay where I am.”

They all nodded their heads in agreement. That conversation, I will never forget. It was one of the things that cured me of liberalism.

But you tell this story to libtards from overseas, they don’t believe you. They believe blacks are just like whites. They believe blacks in SA are poor and only live in shacks, because they cannot afford anything better.

You tell them that these blacks living in shacks have a house or two in Transkei and a RDP house in the township that they rent out for extra money (some have several houses they got for free) they don’t believe you. To a libtard…It just cannot be that a black would rather rent his free houses out and go live in a shack himself.

All I can say is: This is Africa. Leave them alone.

Libtards then protest and say. “No, you should educate them. Teach them to save their money and not spend it on alcohol and dagga. Give them more money” …etc.etc.

Why? Because libtards always want blacks to be like them. They believe they can change blacks into copies of themselves, but just with black skin. What they don’t get is that blacks don’t want to be like them and actually resent their attempts at changing them.

For decades well-meaning white American Leftists have led black political movements based on the notion that given equal education and opportunity, blacks will realize that Left-wing agendas serve their racial interests. In the United States, the first black political leaders, a disproportionate number of them of mixed ancestry, tried to adhere to liberal New England white norms in the hopes of gaining their acceptance on equal terms. But without the white abolitionists to back them up, these groups dried up after the Civil War. In the early 20th Century, the NAACP formed, once again supported largely by mixed-race blacks and white progressives. In fact, no blacks held the NAACP presidency until 1975. White political interests once again fueled black political movements.

Until the last few years, blacks were content to support white liberal leadership and agendas in exchange for government handouts and affirmative action jobs. Of course, now Obama has stirred them up to such an extent that American blacks are no longer content to mutely accept the white liberals’ lead. They increasingly demand power in their own right, much to the perplexity of white liberals who can’t understand why the blacks don’t like them anymore.

While white liberals are more notorious for this type of manipulation and social engineering of blacks, today’s white conservatives share the same delusions. They enthusiastically celebrate such black “conservatives” as Colin Powell, Allen West, Herman Cain, and Ben Carson, and most recently Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke. These white conservatives earnestly believe that, with enough persuasion and appeals to Martin Luther King, they can make black people understand how individual liberty and the free market and good old-fashioned hard work  will transform black ghettos into suburban utopias. The benefit to such whites is that, in this dream scenario, black votes will come into play and racial strife will end.


Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke has won the kind of overnight enthusiasm of white conservatives that only a black conservative can deliver. He is surely an honorable American, but the only thing black about him, it seems, is his ancestry. He has rejected his blackness in favor of cultural whiteness.

What white conservatives fail to see, however, is that to whatever extent black conservatives have embraced conservatism, they have rejected their own people. Most blacks rightly see these black conservatives as Oreos and Uncle Toms, or as charlatans who make their fortunes on the fantasies of white conservatives. Blacks shun these turncoats. Instinctively they understand that if they embrace white conservatism, they commit self-genocide, both culturally and—ultimately—genetically. At the very least blacks want to be blacks.

That genocide is actually what feel-good white utopians either consciously or unconsciously want. Assimilation of blacks (and all the peoples of the earth) into a new post-racial worldwide society with lofty white ideals.

It’s a complete and total pipe dream. And all of humanity will suffer for it.

At Least One Honorable Man in TV Media: Dennis Michael Lynch Walks Off Newsmax


– 13 August 20 –


Clusivius-sqI don’t watch NewsMax, or any other commercial TV, but I caught this story from via It’s refreshing these days to see a man with honor refuse to turn himself into another media whore:

Newsmax host Dennis Michael Lynch had his show taken off air after he went off script and began exposing the TV network live on-air.

Lynch declared, “This will be, odds are, my last night,” on his program Unfiltered. He revealed the network bosses were restricting his editorial control over the show and attempting to silence his views. reports:

He revealed to viewers that in “fighting for Trump” on the air, he has “been restricted” in that message and was recently informed he “will no longer have editorial discretion on my own.”

What bothered him most of all was that the network was pushing “pre-made packages” on his show. He said last night he saw one that “tried to slam Fox News for the unfortunate things that are taking place over there right now.”

Newsmax, being a conservative channel, is a competitor to Fox, but Lynch was outraged that they would be running news on the Roger Ailes allegations when “they’re the only other guy in the room trying to fight for the same thing I am.”

Lynch told his audience that it’s hard to say goodbye, but declared, “I am proud of what I just did and what I just said.”

And then he was taken off the air. . .

Back in the first few years after 9-11, when mainstream, flag-waving conservatism and rabid neo-conservatism meant the same thing, the most loyal of Bush II’s dogs with the frothiest of mouths followed to read the latest about the “War on Islamo-fascism” and the unending evils of the Democratic Party and the heroics of Republicanism written by such commentators as creepy Dick Morris. NewsMax hasn’t really changed in fifteen years except for a cable TV presence that owes its popularity to the compromise of Fox News.

I could never really stand blind political partisans.

So it doesn’t surprise me one bit that NewsMax would like to torpedo Donald Trump just like the rest of the establishment media, liberal or cuckservative.

The footage of Dennis Michael Lynch’s final words is worth watching. Fortunately he managed to say most of what he wanted before the snakes cut him off. May his 3,000 angels help him to find some other way to successfully continue his career:

Here is his full speech, locally recorded, without the cutoff:

Food For Thought For Those Expecting a Trump Defeat


– 8 August 2016 –



Another prediction, like that of Vox Day, for a “Trumpslide” in November. Personally, I’m not so sure, but the primary turnout numbers do give pause for thought.

Via The Politik:

In 2012, Barack Obama won reelection with 65.9 million votes.  Mitt Romney finished 5 million votes behind, at 60.9 million.  That earned Obama 332 electoral votes to Romney’s 206.

Just four years earlier, Obama had become the first African American ever to be elected president of the United States, winning the highest amount of votes (69.5 million) by any presidential candidate in history.  Despite his historic nature and relative popularity, his margin of victory decreased from 2008. Consequently, Obama became the first incumbent in seven decades to get reelected with fewer electoral votes and a lower popular vote percentage.

Obama lost approximately 3.6 million votes from 2008 to 2012.  Romney gained slightly on 2008 candidate John McCain’s 59.9 million.

[. . .]

In 2008, the last time the Democrats did not have an incumbent on the ticket, they had approximately 38 million Primary voters.  In 2016, that number slipped to approximately 30 million.  A loss of 8 million primary voters.

In 2008, Republicans had 21 million primary voters.  In 2012, the number slipped to 19 million.  In 2016 however, the GOP had over 30 million primary voters – approximately 9-10 million more than 2008.

That is a change of approximately 17-18 million voters in favor of the GOP.

John McCain lost by 10 million votes.

Mitt Romney lost by 5 million votes.

And since 2008, the Democrats have lost 8 million primary voters while the GOP has gained about 10 million.

[. . .]

In 2012, the voting age population was 235 million, but only 129 million voted.

Both parties left a possible 106 million votes on the table.

Because of Donald Trump’s candidacy, all the rules have been thrown out.  We’ve seen that few of the old political playbook tricks work against him.  Money being spent by his opponents have all gone to waste.

We saw every single professional political pundit in the country get the entire primary season wrong – on both sides.

The media and their phony polling consultants don’t have any clue what turnout will look like.  If they did, they wouldn’t have bungled their Trump and Clinton predictions so badly in the primaries.

What we do know is that Trump is attracting voters from all over the map and into the Republican fold, just to vote for him.  It’s how he unexpectedly massacred 16 opponents in the primary.

It’s how he will massacre Hillary Clinton in the general election.

When the media tells you that this race is close or that Hillary is leading, just simply laugh it all off.

This election is already over and Donald Trump will be the 45th President of the United States.

Of course, Vox Day and many others on the Right mistakenly called 2012 for Romney. That was a rough day. . . .

Still, the hard numbers and the failed primary predictions of the blabbering, metropolitan experts are encouraging this time around.

Barring shenanigans from rigged voting machines, hidden millions of immigrants paid to vote, third party spoilers, et cetera, Trump should win.

But “should” doesn’t mean shit.

 C. F. van Niekerk:

150708-van-NiekirkWow! Someone actually took the time to write readable stories under those fake headlines!

I was absolutely certain that the articles would say “Raalkd dr alad maic dl masdalf drls” like that old Daily Growl squeak toy used to.



The Social Problems of 1905 America: Ominous Social Phenomena Associated With Want of Sunday Rest


– 6 August 2016 –

Barzillai “19th Century” Bozarth:

19th-century-barzillaiThe following article attributes many of the social ills of the United States in 1905, such as they were, to a widespread lack of Sunday laws, otherwise called “blue” laws.

That the author of the article, Dr. Alexander Jackson, can demonstrate the degenerative state of America in the year 1905 should illustrate to those who today believe that the decline of the U.S. began in the 1950’s or 1960’s that they possess too narrow a perspective of history. Rather, civilization in the West in general has declined steadily at least since the time of the Enlightenment in the Eighteenth Century, not necessarily following a linear path, nor the same path in each stratum of every Western nation, but certainly following a reliable downward trend in the West overall.

Historically, Sunday laws in the United States have lacked consistency in their application, both geographically and in severity. Naturally the Puritan founders of New England, having rejected the feasts and holidays of the Anglican church, adopted the stern character of the Jewish Sabbath to what they called a Christian Sabbath. Over time, governments loosened the terms of these laws as the public held the Sabbath with less intensity. Then, at various times and places in Nineteenth Century America, moralists called for a return to the strictness of colonial New England’s Blue Laws, often meeting with success. State after state, particularly in the South, adopted some form of Sunday laws. Typically, such laws forbade the sale of liquor and prevented other forms of retail. Often they restricted the public activities of the citizenry. The stringency of such laws tended to ebb and flow in relation to periods of religious zeal and passivity, but the Christian apathy of today’s world has seen the slow erosion of Sunday laws to their lowest levels in our history, though they still do commonly exist.

Dr. Jackson’s notions concerning blue laws likely strike the present-day reader as absurd. Yet do the events of history not validate the societal concerns of Jackson and men like him? A mere fifteen years after this article, the Lost generation, after suffering in the trenches of the First World War, ushered in the decadence of the Roaring Twenties, with its speakeasies and flappers and raucous jazz music. The austerity of the Great Depression and the Second World War reversed some of these excesses, yet the supposed greatest generation of World War II, the most secular generation in the history of America up to that time, failed to instill in their children the moral integrity to preserve the fundamentals of their civilization. The decline of Christian moral standards has only accelerated since those spoiled children have grown to adulthood and now elderhood.

Had the moralists of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries won in their days, then they, at a minimum, could have delayed the spread of decadence that we see today, if not averting it altogether.


Alexander Jackson, A. M., Ph. D.

There are several social phenomena of to-day that are ominous in the extreme. They have been frequently noticed in an incidental way; but they have not been carefully or scientifically examined, and what explanations have been suggested are superficial and unsatisfactory. Let us collate a few of these facts and then seek for an explanation of them:

I. The Facts:

(a) There is the vast increase of insanity. There has been no opportunity to arrange statistics, but the fact that insanity has increased at an appalling rate is not to be questioned. Probate Courts and superintendents of asylums have echoed the statement. It is only too true.

(b) There is the vast increase of crime. We have no statistics more recent than those collected in the census of 1890; but they show that crime had increased up to that time at an immensely greater rate than the population; and it will not be questioned that the increase since 1890 has been even greater than it was previously. In 1890, Arizona had more than four per cent of its population in jail; Montana and Nevada had more than three per cent; Colorado, California, Massachusetts, Texas, and the District of Columbia had more than two per cent; twenty-five other States had more than one per cent; while the remaining fourteen States had less than one per cent.

[. . .]

(c) There is the vast increase of accidents of a more or less disastrous character. According to Public Opinion, 57,500 lives are annually lost in the United States by accidents and injuries. ”The death rolls of the railroads, industry in general, and disastrous fires, show that killing human beings is a common incident of life in this country.” And the evil appears to be rapidly on the increase. Recently the Hungarian consul at Pittsburg took official notice of the frequent and large slaughter of his fellow countrymen in the mills and workshops of Pittsburg and neighborhood. The average losses in the mines of the United States are 1,500 killed and 3,600 injured. There were 64½ per cent more deaths of passengers in train accidents in 1904 than there were in 1903. It is said that the Interstate Commerce Commission has been moved to recommend the compulsory use of the block-signal system; but the nonuse of the block-signal system does not explain this appalling increase in killing passengers in railroad accidents. The real cause lies further back than the signal system.


“In 1897, the government of Belgium proceeded to reduce all freight trains until, at the present time, there are 2,227 less on Sunday than on other days. As a result of this cessation of freight traffic on Sunday there has been a reduction of 54 per cent in the accidents occasioned by the fault of railroad employees.”

(d) There is the vast increase in the amount of liquor consumed, although there never was a time when temperance sentiment was so widespread and so strong. Official reports of the United States Bureau of Statistics show that the use of whisky has steadily increased from 1.01 gallons per capita in 1896, to 1.48 gallons in 1904, a gain in nine years of over 46½ per cent. The consumption of wine for the same period shows an increase of 100 per cent; beer, 18 4/5; all alcoholic drinks combined, 21 4/5. Coffee shows a per capita gain of 44.88 per cent since 1896; tea about the same. This shows that the use of the milder stimulants, — wine, beer, coffee, and tea, — has not been able to check the increasing use of spirituous liquors. The total revenue of the United States Government in 1904 from spirituous and malt liquor licenses, etc., was $184,893474.

(e) There is the deluge of strong drugs and patent medicines, the consumption of which in such vast quantities is one of the most alarming factors in the problem of modern life. Many of these drugs are more dangerous than any liquor sold over the saloon counter; and many of the patent medicines have more alcohol than any alcoholic liquor.

(f) Then, there is the widespread degeneracy, which is more and more pressing itself upon the attention of thoughtful men. We have been told that it was with considerable difficulty enough young men could be had to pass the medical examinations to make up the little army necessary to fight Spain in Cuba. And yet our boys and young men were volunteering by the million. Our country was settled by the best blood of the best races; and the blending of these ought to have given us a race of young men and maidens the perfection of manly and womanly development. Instead, we have widespread degeneracy.

What does it all mean?

II. The Explanation.

(a) The American people are living on high pressure. It is doubtful if any nation ever was so high-strung and so intense in all its life as ours. This being the case, on simple sociological grounds no country has ever had so much need of the old-fashioned, quiet, reverent Sabbath rest.

(b) But with us it has come to be that Sunday has about as much mental and nervous strain as any day of the week. There is no criticism of concerts, games, entertainments, excursions, social parties, etc., etc., as things bad in themselves. It is only that, when practiced on Sunday, the benefits from the quiet, reverent rest-day are lost to the people, and there is consequently a premature exhaustion of vitality and nervous and mental power. Even those who wish to keep the day in quiet are not allowed to do so by the intrusion of Sunday newspapers, Sunday traders, Sunday excursions, and Sunday sports. All this lands in nervous and mental exhaustion. The person is “run down,” and in the strain of business or social life a “bracer” is called for; or, if too conscientious to use liquor, he falls back on some drug or patent medicine which may be more dangerous than any alcoholic liquor. The time comes when the bankrupted brain and nervous system succumbs to some deadly disorder or collapses in insanity or nervous impotency.

(c) As showing the relation between a quiet and reverent Sabbath and law-and-order, I quote the following significant comment from the distinguished French statesman, Comte de Montalembert: “Men are surprised sometimes by the ease with which the immense city of London is kept in order by a garrison of three small battalions and two squadrons, while to control the capital of France, which is half the size, forty thousand troops of the line and sixty thousand national guards are necessary. But the stranger who arrives in London on a Sunday morning, when he sees everything of commerce suspended in that gigantic capital in obedience to God; when in the center of that colossal business he finds silence and repose scarcely interrupted by the bells which call to prayer, and the immense crowd on their way to church, — then his astonishment ceases. He understands that there is another curb for a Christian people besides that of bayonets, and that where the law of God is fulfilled with such solemn submissiveness, God Himself, if I dare use the words, charges Himself with the police arrangements.”

(d) As indicating a similar close relation between a quiet and reverent Sabbath and the morality of the people, the following may be quoted: The Registrar-General for Scotland tells us that there is four per cent of illegitimacy in London with all its badness; but thirty-two per cent in Milan; thirty-three per cent in Brussels; thirty-five per cent in Munich ; forty-eight per cent in Paris, and fifty-one per cent in Vienna, — or nearly one thousand per cent more illegitimacy in cities where the Sunday is spent in sport or work than in the greatest city in the world which honors the Sabbath to that extent that it will not allow the publication of a newspaper or collect or deliver mail on that day.

(e) The investigations of Messrs. Imbert and Mestre, two French scientists, have shown that accidents occur most frequently to workmen late in the afternoon, and are least frequent in the morning. This indicates that accidents are largely the result of the workmen being tired. Science also advises us that as nature demands sleep when the person is tired, a part of the mental faculties, or a section of the brain, may take a nap longer or shorter, as the case may be, while otherwise the man is apparently wide-awake. The part of the brain that has been most strained calls for and takes some of the needed rest. Thus the capacity of hearing sounds or of distinguishing colors may be asleep, while the man is otherwise awake. Many of the mistakes of railroaders, in the last analysis, may be thus explained.

[. . .]

Two reports from Europe strengthen our contention that lack of Sunday rest is a great cause of the calamitous accidents which have been so frequent. After the International Congress on Sunday Rest, which was held in Brussels in 1897, the government of Belgium proceeded to reduce all freight trains until, at the present time, there are 2,227 less on Sunday than on other days. As a result of this cessation of freight traffic on Sunday there has been a reduction of 54 per cent in the accidents occasioned by the fault of railroad employees. While in the United States one passenger in 2,316,648 is killed, there is only one passenger in 8,461,309 killed in Great Britain. English railways carry twice as many passengers annually as those of America, but only one-tenth as many of these passengers are killed or injured. In 1904, 10,000 people were killed on American railroads and 75,000 injured; but on English railroads there were only 1,150 killed and 6,785 injured. Sunday rest for railroad men in Belgium and England gives the railroads, the passengers, and the employees a larger immunity from calamitous accidents. If calamitous accidents would be reduced 54 per cent, the sooner our railroads adopt Sunday rest as a principle in railroading, the better. It would save more lives and property from accidents than all the mechanical devices that ever were invented.

(f) But there is still another principle involved. No fair-minded observer will question the great influence of the Christian Church in building up character and educating moral principle. This education is largely done through the public or private services on Sunday, Sunday-schools, Young People’s Societies, and other Christian agencies. In proportion as a man is conscientious in observing the Sabbath as the Lord’s Day, and attending the services in Church as meeting with God, will he be conscientious and reliable in ordinary life. The presence in church of persons who use it for dishonest purposes, no more impairs the truthfulness of this principle than does the forgery of a bank-note impair the worth of the standard currency. This being the case, it is a fair deduction that those who neither observe Sunday nor attend on the public Christian services of worship or work, must deteriorate in moral character. Universal experience corroborates this deduction. Those who are faithful in taking advantage of the means of grace, improve in character, other things being equal; and those who use Sunday the same as other days, and are never found in attendance on Church, deteriorate in moral character. A man who is not faithful to his Divine Maker can not long remain faithful to his fellow-man.


Bans on Off-Premises Sunday Sales as of January 1, 2015: Some blue laws have managed to survive till the present day.

Back of all the ominous phenomena which is exciting the alarm of thoughtful men, is the wholesale degradation of the Sabbath. That may not be all the explanation, but no explanation will satisfy that leaves it out. The want of Sunday rest exhausts the vitality; stimulants are resorted to; the exhaustion becomes bankruptcy, and the man yields to physical or mental disease. His children, too, inherit impaired constitutions and distorted organisms. The want of Sunday rest also means the loss of regular Church privileges; and there is a corresponding loss of moral character. The man may not become openly vicious, but he is not as highly conscientious as he who has been regularly taught from Sabbath to Sabbath to recognize the constant presence of the All-seeing One. Then, too, the want of Sunday rest means such exhaustion as compels tired nature to steal snatches of needed rest for exhausted faculties or functions, and these impair the reliability of the operator. In fact, no man can be an efficient officer who does not honor the weekly Sabbath. We unhesitatingly insist that, in this matter of Sabbath observance, the man who is most faithful to his spiritual obligations will be found most efficient and faithful to the duties and responsibilities placed upon him by his fellows.

III. What Is to be Done About It?

That is the main question after all. Statesmen and political economists on the Continent have been so impressed by these and other considerations bearing in the same direction, that they have been trying to restore Sunday rest to their respective peoples, and this without respect to its religious relations. Eleven European countries have, within the last dozen years, placed laws on their statute-books with this object in view. Last year, the Government of Spain, acting under authority of a law passed by the Cortes, inaugurated a national plan for restoring Sunday as a rest-day to the people, and, curiously, in their first practical application of the law they forbade bull-fights and the publication and sale of newspapers on Sunday.

In many cases, public-spirited citizens have not waited for the Government to act. In Marseilles, France, the newspaper proprietors and editors came together, and after conference determined to try the experiment of having no Sunday issue of their newspapers. After three months’ trial, all parties were so satisfied with the situation that, on last May, they agreed to permanently discontinue the publication of Sunday newspapers, and to-day Marseilles has no Sunday newspaper.

Surely, surely our American business men are not all so lost to the principles of the higher manhood that they will continue a course which is so threatening to all that is best in the life of the nation! At least one large Insurance Company is planning to recognize these principles. It is arranging to place a question in the interrogatories of candidates for insurance, and if a man is found to be working regularly seven days a week, he will be refused insurance. There is no doubt that the time is coming when, from simple self-preservation, it will be insisted that every worker shall have one day of rest each week, and when the day will be so safe-guarded from mental and physical dissipation that it will afford real rest and refreshment to tired men.

Sunday Rest in the Twentieth Century, ed., Dr. Alexander Jackson, 63-71. Cleveland: The International Federation of Sunday Rest Associations of America, 1905.


Patulcius-sqAlthough it would be useless to create stricter blue laws with the idea to improve the moral character of the rotten public, a secular case for such laws can be made on the basis of public rejuvenation and well-being.

Germany has some of the strictest shopping hour restrictions in the world. And not just on Sunday, but throughout the week. The country remains productive and fruitfully employed, yet the frantic rush of all-day shopping and consumption is avoided. Parents can spend time with their children; workers don’t have to slave away at all hours to earn a living. Certainly socialist Germany has several flaws, but the restrictions on work hours benefit the German people whether they believe in Christ or not.

When employers in a society run rampant with the hours they demand of their employees, families suffer. Individuals suffer. Japan is a fine example of a country where parents often spend very little time with one another or their children. As a result, their birthrate is disastrous and their stress rate can kill. A generation of young men and women don’t even know how to engage the opposite sex.

Even the concept of Work Life Balance, Left-wing though it may be in many respects, has some merit because of these reasons.


Clusivius-sqThere is little point to pushing for stricter blue laws in today’s America. The population has grown so decadent that such laws would only enrage the people without improving their characters.

It makes little sense to impose restrictions on business hours or hours of employment even for secular reasons.

Personally, I prefer to shop, when I have to, during off-peak hours in order to avoid the crowds. (And so do you, Patulcius! Haw! Haw!) Restricted shopping hours would force more people to shop during available hours, increasing crowds.

Likewise, some people in today’s wretched economy depend on irregular hours to make their livings. How many people would lose their jobs if evening or third-shift work disappeared? Sure, some of them could help with increased demand during the allotted hours, but certainly not all.

I doubt the country would benefit enough from blue laws or ‘work life balance’ laws to justify the intrusion of more government in private business.

East and West Have Swapped Roles: Western Cultural Marxism vs. Russian Christiandom


– 4 August 2016 –


Janus-smallA Danish woman, after visiting Russia, sees the salvation of the nihilistic West through the resurgence of Christianity in the East.

Via American Orthodox Institute via Russia Insider:

The subject of this interview is a Danish journalist and theologian who hosted a series of five programmes, entitled “From Russia with Love” on Danish national public service radio, Radio24syv, with the sub-heading “An Unbiased Look at Putin’s Russia.”

Inspired by Emperor Constantine, she believes Christianity in the West can be rejuvenated by looking to the East. Iben is aware of the sheer enormity of this task. “Such, alas, is the depth to which Western hatred for Christianity has sunk,” says the theologian, who does not hesitate to defend President Putin, on whom the Western media delights in heaping derision and scorn.

[. . .]

What was your impression of Russia?

“I experienced a fantastic energy, a moral energy similar to America in the ’50s with the old moral values. I met helpful, poetic and cultured people with a spirit of self-sacrifice I have not seen before. The atmosphere in Moscow is completely different from that of any capital in Europe, and unlike here in the West, I feel much more spiritually free in the East.

While the West is deriding and disowning Christianity and Europe revels in self-loathing, Russians are returning to Christianity in a modern and contemporary context. Bear in mind that Christianity was suppressed under Communism, which was atheistic. Russians are familiar with the bitter fruit of atheism and have no appetite for the bleak and barren wasteland it produced.

The interesting thing is, that in Russia, Christianity is associated with being modern and progressive. It is the spirit of the young, the hip, the wise and the wealthy, who express their Christianity as a completely natural and straightforward way of life. Christianity is simply fashionable, but not in the superficial Western pop manner. Christianity’s roots grow deep in the soil of Russian life, and they look with amazement at how we guard, or rather, disregard, our spiritual heritage.

Not only that: They discern in our obsession with political correctness, and the social liberal opinion policing of the general media and academia, a new manifestation of the terror of totalitarianism they counted themselves blessed to escape after 75 terrible years.

After the Cold War, East and West swapped roles spiritually, culturally and morally. Cultural Marxism now holds unrestrained sway in the West.

It’s interesting that this fortyish Danish woman, Iben Thranholm, has managed to embrace a traditional view of Christianity despite the overwhelming secularism of her culture, where her fellow women have absorbed feminism and rejected their femininity. Here is Thranholm’s story.

And perhaps she is correct about the East eventually saving Christian civilization in the West.

It wouldn’t be the first time.

Rather than a smooth and steady growth over the centuries, the collected nations of Christianity (Christiandom) have shifted back and forth in power and influence at one time or another.

Generally speaking, the Byzantine East preserved Christian civilization and protected the weak and fallen West from the threat of Islam from a period stretching from the rise of Muhammad in the seventh century to the beginning of the Renaissance in the 1300’s.

By the time Constantinople fell in 1453, the West had just absorbed the knowledge preserved by the Eastern empire and had begun to advance Christiandom at the expense of Islam in Spain, and then around the world. At the same time, Christianity in the East suffered under Muslim and Mongol rule.

Christiandom reached a peak in the world by 1914, with the West dominating the globe, while in the East the Turks had retreated from the Balkans and Russia had grown into a powerful Orthodox empire. The World Wars once again suppressed Christianity in the East under atheist Communism while Christianity continued to grow around the world through the efforts of Westerners.

But today we find a gradual turning of the tables, with Christian civilization in the West suppressed by cultural Marxism and infiltrated by Islam while Christianity resurges in Eastern Europe.

It’s not too difficult these days to imagine that the West might collapse much like the Soviet Union did from 1989 to 1991. Or that the United States might suffer a Marxist-type revolution. Maybe Russia can provide spiritual leadership to eventually rebuild Christiandom in the fallen West.

The Trump RNC Speech and the New Republican Party: Goodbye Illegal Aliens, Hello Inner-City Children and the “LGBTQ Community”


– 23 July 2016 –


Patulcius-sqIn clinching the Republican nomination and largely uniting the party behind his agenda, Donald Trump has managed to shift the definition of conservative for a new era. Some of this is for the better, some for the worse. Trump has been aptly described as a sort of 1980’s Democrat, and his RNC speech supports that case indisputably.

It’s not all bad. Assuming Trump wins and he delivers on his promises, he will have created a ‘conservative’ party that abandons free trade in favor of some form of protectionism—a good sign for national sovereignty. Republicans will finally put an end to the scourge that is illegal immigration, though they might possibly embrace plenty of non-white legal immigration through a “big, beautiful door”. Concerning foreign policy, Trump’s remarks in the past suggest that his government will work with Putin and reconsider our role in NATO (although Trump’s RNC speech leaves us wondering if Neocons have jumped into his head).  Gone are any pretenses to a smaller role for the federal government since we will need a huge bureaucracy to fulfill his promises to replace Obamacare, restore law and order around the country, and improve the lives of veterans and inner city children. But nowadays we unfortunately need a large centralized state in order to hold the non-cohesive country together.

Apart from the potentially good, however, Trump’s RNC speech suggests two major shifts to the left for his new version of the Republican party. In trying to appeal to minorities and homosexuals, Trump has adopted the Democratic formula.

Pandering to Underprivileged Minorities


A well-meaning young woman visits the slums to help black girls with their math. The childhood of these blacks must be a parade of white do-gooders, one after another, who show up for a day and then disappear forever. What we need are even greater efforts to uplift this perennially-disadvantaged people. “Make Inner-City Black Kids Great Again!”

Trump’s Republican Party is also trying to usurp the Democrat stronghold of racial identity politics. In his acceptance speech, Trump repeatedly referred to the plights of hard-working Latinos and those perennially abandoned and helpless inner-city children:

This Administration has failed America’s inner cities. Remember, it has failed America’s inner cities. It’s failed them on education. It’s failed them on jobs. It’s failed them on crime. It’s failed them in every way and on every single level.

When I am President, I will work to ensure that all of our kids are treated equally, and protected equally. Every action I take, I will ask myself: does this make life better for young Americans in Baltimore, in Chicago, in Detroit, in Ferguson who have really in every way folks, the same right to live out their dreams as any other child America?

Conservatives love to play a color-blind game where they praise the glorious vision of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as Pence did in his RNC speech. Many of these conservatives earnestly and whole-heartedly think they believe that race doesn’t matter, it’s what’s on the inside that counts. Most of them don’t run into blacks too often. When they do see a black stranger, they smile and say “hello” to prove they’re not racist, but they quickly look away. Some of them have one or two black friends with whom they work and sometimes socialize, but somehow they get nervous if they find blacks rising to more than about twenty percent of a social setting, or if they find themselves near blacks who don’t fit the civilized, suburban archetype.

This is a natural fear, a survival instinct, but the conservatives shamefully suppress and deny its existence within themselves.


While there is no need for the Republican Party to to market itself exclusively to whites, the simple fact that 90% of their support comes from white people should demonstrate the folly in seeking minority votes. Trump will win or lose on white turnout.

Among the huge numbers of RNC attendees, probably about 90 to 95% of them were white, and many of the visible minorities worked for the news media or were hand-picked delegates. Yet the television footage repeatedly featured close-ups of the few non-white Trump supporters, sometimes the same ones again and again, as if to say: “See, we have minorities, too!”

While it would be suicidal for the Republican Party to actively exclude the support of minorities, the fact that despite all efforts to reach them, non-whites still only make up about 10 percent of Republican supporters should demonstrate the folly in actively seeking their votes. The secret to Trump’s appeal has been his galvanization of the white vote, and he will win or lose on white turnout.

I had hoped that the rise of Trump represented the coalescence of a “white party” in America, similar to the way that party politics operates in the South, and this white fusion still might be the case. After all, Trump did not create his movement; he has merely capitalized on the growing frustrations of white Americans in the face of our rapidly approaching minority status. And I suppose it’s also possible that in appealing to minority victimhood, Trump is actually trying to make himself palatable to white liberals in order to foster this union of white conservatives with white liberals.

Let’s just hope that he doesn’t take it too far.  If Trump takes this pandering to the brown people seriously, it’s very possible that his presidency will offer more of the same egalitarian handouts and special programs that we’ve seen since Kennedy and LBJ.

Likewise if Trump genuinely believes in his “big, beautiful door” analogy, and if Republicans hang on to their foolish ideas of American exceptionalism and the proposition nation, saying that anyone can become a good American if he just works hard and loves the flag, then at best we’ve only delayed our day of reckoning for a few short years, leaving us with fewer men alive who appreciate the values of the olden days.

Pandering to Sexual Deviants


A boy scout troop joins a Seattle gay parade. One wonders if they joined voluntarily or did their scout master and whacko parents force them? Since the homos are now the victims of Muslim terror in Orlando, Trump has repeatedly pandered to the “LGBTQ Community”. “Make America Queer Again!”

Worse yet, Trump’s new Republican Party now clearly abandons traditional sexual morality in favor of full “LGBTQ” acceptance. Very soon, if not already, the political opposition to sexual deviancy will be considered as irrelevant and quaint as the opposition to gambling and pornography. From Trump’s RNC speech:

‘Only weeks ago, in Orlando, Florida, 49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist. This time, the terrorist targeted our LGBTQ community. No good. We are going to stop it. As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology, believe me.

And I have to say as a Republican it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said. Thank you.’

In the early days of Trump’s candidacy, he tried to avoid taking a stand on the rise of sexual deviancy in our culture, usually giving vague indications that he preferred traditional marriage or that he would bring people together.  Then, he strangely took the side of the transsexuals in the North Carolina bathroom protection uproar:

‘There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go. They use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate,” Trump said. “There has been so little trouble. And the problem with what happened in North Carolina is the strife and the economic — I mean, the economic punishment that they’re taking.’

After the gay Islamic terrorist shooting of Latino homosexuals in Orlando, Trump moved full-bore in the direction of homosexual acceptance, pandering to pro-homosexual liberal voters.


The homosexual Milo Yiannopoulos, a supposed leader of the Alt-Right movement and tiresome showcase of Breitbart News, encourages homosexuals, catamites, and other deviants like himself to support Trump. And Trump apparently supports them back.

That terrorist attack encouraged a similar protective and sympathetic response in many supposed conservatives, such as talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck—people who have grown rich expressing opinions that carefully fit within the range of acceptability for average Republican voters.

Because our terrorist enemies seem to oppose homosexuals, average Americans who previously opposed them now collectively consider homosexuals to be red-white-and-blue all-Americans. Like baseball and apple pie.

Every night at the Republican convention, Republican speakers made some pandering reference to homosexuals. Clearly no influential Republican is even making a pretense anymore about overturning homosexual marriage.

Until recent times, historians considered the widespread acceptance of homosexuality to be a clear sign that a society had fallen into irreversible decadence, depravity, and decline. Just as crime, disease, sexual slavery and exploitation cannot help but accompany prostitution, the prevalence of homosexuality also brings widespread violence, pedophilia, drug abuse, disease, mental illness, and corruption of law. When enough people are corrupted by it, the society will not recover.

By accepting and embracing defeat on this issue, Republicans have demonstrated to those few of us who still believe in our founding morals and Biblical Faith that we have no representation in the government, that the country is no longer ours. We are just a people who happen to live here.

Put Not Our Faith in a Trump Presidency

So even though I will almost certainly vote for Trump in November (instead of a third party like I usually do), and I do think he will win, the best that we can hope for in a Trump presidency is a slow-down of our demographic decline. Our moral decline will continue unabated.

Let us “put not our trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.”


Probably there was never any hope that the common Christian culture would be restored in America. Bible-believing Christians who actually live out their faith have fallen to insignificant levels. Whether Trump wins or not, we must unite and hold on to our faith and ride the beast of the West wherever it should happen to fall.

Walt Garlington at Confiterati compares the situation with that of King Jeroboam II of Israel in the Old Testament:

Sadly, one sees the further drift of the States from faith in the Most Holy Trinity to faith in themselves, in the idea of America as the perfecter of humanity.

But, these things notwithstanding, let us suppose that Mr Trump did ‘make America great again’ as he defines that phrase.  What would it profit them in the long run?  There are a couple of ensamples from the Holy Scriptures that they ought to pay special heed to.

First is the northern kingdom of Israel under King Jeroboam II.  We read in II Kings 14 (,

23 In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel began to reign in Samaria, and reigned forty and one years.

24 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD: he departed not from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.

25 He restored the coast of Israel from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain, according to the word of the LORD God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai, the prophet, which was of Gathhepher.

26 For the LORD saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter: for there was not any shut up, nor any left, nor any helper for Israel.

27 And the LORD said not that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven: but he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash.

28 Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered Damascus, and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, for Israel, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

29 And Jeroboam slept with his fathers, even with the kings of Israel; and Zachariah his son reigned in his stead.

Jeroboam II ‘made Israel great again’, increasing her territory and worldly glory.  Yet less than 30 years later, the northern tribes of Israel were led into captivity by Assyria because they forsook the worship of the true God.

What will the United States look like in 30 years?

Libertarianism: Just Another Egalitarian Ideology in Conflict With Reality


– 19 July 2016 –


Patulcius-sqArmonde Delacroix at The Right Stuff describes the sudden decline of the libertarian movement in the United States:

In any case, as right-wing nationalism waxes, I expect libertarianism to continue waning. One reason for this (originally noted by Greg Johnson, I think) is that the appeal of libertarianism was not that Whites found its tenets inwardly compelling, but rather that it was a putatively race-neutral proxy ideology that obliquely addressed concerns and anxieties about the Left siphoning resources away from their communities. All of the rhetoric about “school choice” and “free association” and “lower taxes” was not born out of love for radical, individual autonomy über alles or a desire for an ever etherealizing “liberty”, but because Whites didn’t want to be near–and certainly didn’t want to finance–Black and Latino dysfunction. By contrast, nationalism (especially ethno-nationalism) does not apologize, nor does it make those kind of bad faith arguments which astute liberals rightly recognize as bullshit anyways. Psychologically speaking, it is far easier and natural to affirm your people than to affirm abstractions like the free market. I suspect the reason why the alt-right has a number of former never-quite-convinced libertarians in its ranks is the same reason why millions of White Americans jettisoned Conservatism, Inc. (another jejune ideology) to board the Trump train. Nationalism, with its relentless focus on collective meaning and identity, simply offers a more honest and authentic mode of being.

Delacroix is correct: libertarianism can no longer stand when the people who have believed in it—almost all of them whites—are now surrounded by militant foreigners, blacks, and egalitarians.

Libertarians believe that they see everyone as individuals. They consider themselves immune to the very concept of race and can therefore satisfy, if sub-consciously, their deeply-programmed inward desire to appear non-racist to minorities and liberals and even to themselves.

To be fair, libertarianism does have authentic appeal beyond just a simple desire to appease egalitarians. If everyone could simply live and let live, despite radical differences in our ethnicity, philosophies, appearance, and manners, then each of us could pursue our own version of happiness so long as we didn’t intrude on the rights of others to do the same. We’d live in our own little happy bubbles. No need for government regulations or borders.

It’s easy to hold such dreamy, utopian ideals when the country is prosperous, when one doesn’t see faces each day that don’t look like ours, when we aren’t exposed to the realities of crime and violence, when families aren’t disintegrating into total dysfunction, and especially when the government and society aren’t attacking us on a daily basis in order to impose more of this disorder.

In the face of a cruel reality, it becomes apparent that libertarianism in just about any form (especially the dogmatic, ideological variety created by people like Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises) fails to recognize human nature, despite its claims to the contrary. If Communists ignored human nature totally against the concept of the individual, libertarians commit the same folly the other way, totally against collective identity.

The vast majority of humans are not individualists. We are inherently tribalists. We are hierarchical.

People, nearly all people, enjoy living and working with others who look and believe as they do. And this ingrained preference extends beyond simple race and ethnicity. Conservatives don’t like liberals, and liberals don’t like conservatives. Rich people don’t want to associate with the poor, and the poor don’t feel comfortable around the rich. Strictly religious people don’t like the company of completely non-religious people and vice versa. People even tend to form their closest friendships, unconsciously, with those who share a similar genetic makeup.

Likewise, we are not islands. What people do, especially what groups of people do, influences the behaviors and thoughts of others. Corruption is a real force of harm. Humans inherently recognize the superiority of certain morals and the existence of certain evils. As much as we might pretend otherwise, the actions and words of others towards us can deeply affect us even though they cause no physical or monetary harm. Libertarianism pretends that these moral issues don’t matter. “Live and let live.” But it violates reality and damages society because of it.


At a Libertarian Convention in California, a little girl stares innocently at two topless bitches. The situation doesn’t violate “live and let live”, but it is still wrong because the two women corrupt the innocent through their examples of deviancy and sexual exhibitionism. Libertarianism is inherently flawed, even evil.

In practice, rather than promote individual identities, libertarianism encourages small groups of individuals to coalesce around shared attitudes, hobbies, possessions, entertainments, et cetera, and to do so without the need to maintain conformity with the society at large. However they do impose some degree of conformity within their little groups. The only individualism the libertarian worldview promotes is  self-centeredness.

Western societies have increasingly embraced (and lately imposed) social libertarianism (also called social liberalism) since at least the 1960’s. Since then, we’ve disintegrated into smaller and smaller groups who have less and less in common with other groups in a nation, and to varying degrees these groups have lost their association with their original nations. Libertarianism corrodes the cohesion of homogenous societies.

Seeing the advantages of divide and rule, and desiring a secular global order, the ruling classes of the West encouraged this disintegration and legally protected it while deliberately attacking those who have resisted their imposed social liberalism as intolerant bigots. Intolerance for the “intolerant”.

Yet the ruling classes miscalculated. No matter how hard they tried, they couldn’t overcome race. In the United States, attempts to integrate blacks failed again and again, as blacks refused to abandon their blackness and we whites could not lose our inherent “racism” no matter how much we genuflected our brains to avoid appearing “racist”. Attempts to assimilate gigantic waves of non-white immigrants have similarly failed. Some of these non-white groups adapted more than others, but none of them has totally assimilated, least of all the Muslims.

The presence of these other races has sped up the abandonment of egalitarian philosophies like libertarianism. The immediate threat of racial conflict has placed political abstraction on the back burner for a lot of white people. It’s hard to be a libertarian when black people are rioting or Muslims are shooting people, all demanding power for their groups. Can we live and let live when transvestites and homosexuals parade naked in the streets?

This is why libertarians are becoming nationalists and fascists, why so many former conservatives and liberals are uniting in white solidarity behind Trump (whether they realize it or not). Whites are instinctively starting to realize that egalitarian philosophies don’t work in practice and that we need to unite against the growing numbers of browns and blacks, if not against sexual freaks.

Those who still cling to their egalitarian ideologies are actually going insane because they have to twist their perceptions so much to ignore the reality in front of their faces.

Race and ethnicity matter whether people want them or not. And so does gender, and ability, and moral standards.

We don’t have the luxury to pretend anymore. We don’t have the luxury to tolerate.

  • August 2016
    S M T W T F S
    « Jul    

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 51 other followers

%d bloggers like this: