Planting Forests: How We Can Restore Our Fallen White Communities

– 9 February 2018 –


In towns and cities across North America, and probably in the rest of the developed world, people have lost a sense of community with their neighbors and their fellow citizens. They are just clumps of strangers.

How many of us have ever introduced ourselves to our next-door neighbors? How many of our coworkers do we identify with at all? How often do we strike up conversations with strangers versus how often do we try to avoid even making eye contact with these increasingly incomprehensible, alien people?

How many of us ever see our cousins and aunts and uncles, or even know who they are?

It wasn’t always this way. Extended families used to matter. People used to welcome new neighbors, and they felt comfortable talking to strangers about more than just the weather. When someone’s house burnt down, the local community raised money for the victims and donated furniture and clothes and toys. Neighbors had barbecues and they fixed cars and roofs together. In most places, people could expect their neighbors to share most of their culture and values. Community wasn’t always the 1950’s ideal, but it was a helluva lot better than the lonely institutionalized wasteland that we inhabit today, where everything costs money, nobody is really safe, and nothing is personal.

Some of us have grown tired of endless consumption, self-absorption, and spiritual emptiness. We are tired of seeing a world full of strangers who have less and less in common with ourselves and each other. We are sick of having no one we can trust. We are disgusted with seeing our friends and families, and particularly our children, devolve into little more than their ugliest animal desires, depressed and dysfunctional.

We want our nations back, we want our communities back, and we want our families back. Enough is enough.

Building White Communities

At present very little remains of true communities that we can restore. Instead we have false communities that have grown around Harry Potter or Harley Davidson or wine tasting events, or even Sunday Christian pop concerts.

To restore our communities, we will have to grow them almost from scratch. In the 20th century, generations ceased to hand down their old traditions. The modern, scientific world always seemed superior. The old ways were obsolete. Now, most people have never experienced a mutually supportive, active community. And there is almost no community left for us to restore.

So where do we start?

We can’t simply manufacture communities like machines. True communities have to be planted. They grow organically, like trees.

To grow a tree, one needs to plant a strong seed in good soil where it will be nourished and won’t be disturbed, where it has room to grow and thrive.

Likewise, a long-lived community starts with a few high-quality people working in a moral, nourishing environment where outside influences can be limited, but where the community can still attract like-minded new members.

Good Seeds

The first thing that a brand new prospective community will need is people, a group of morally upright people who share common goals and a common worldview. They don’t have to match perfectly, but they have to be able to sacrifice together, spend time together, and work together for their overall benefit, and for the benefit of those under their care.

It’s important that these ‘seed’ people live up to their morals. If they are too flawed, then the community will die before it even has a chance to sprout. The stronger the morals of these people, the better chance their community will flourish.

Good Soil

Even the best of seeds won’t begin to grow without good soil.

The soil is the shared values, the purpose, and the social environment of the community.

Ideals such as chastity, honesty, hard work, duty, loyalty, respect, and honor should be clearly and explicitly encouraged. Respect for members’ lives, their family duties, their liberties, and their properties must be upheld for people to tolerate life in the community.

Would-be communities must also develop mutual trust among their members. Community leaders, which will naturally and continually arise, and rank and file members should all be seen to mutually sacrifice for their goals and help others when needed. Hypocrites and parasites break down social order.

These are the healthy values that will serve as the foundation—the soil—of a would-be community.


Good seeds planted in good soil still need plenty of nourishment in the form of water and sunlight. Likewise decent people with strong ideals will fail to grow—individually and collectively—without personal nourishment.

First, community members must be able to make a living for themselves and their families. Without the ability to gain food, clothing, shelter, etc., the members of a community will leave. In other words, the demands of a community shouldn’t interfere with its members ability to provide for themselves.

But community members must be willing to share a portion of their goods and services with the community as a whole. If too many members fail to voluntarily contribute to the needs of the community, then that community will wither and die. And without active involvement, an individual can’t help but estrange himself from his community.

Also, communities should never squander what people have shared. That would violate trust.

Second, communities must create an environment in which people can daily improve themselves and their families, and where they are likely to help others improve. This personal development can take the form of individual growth or advancement, material well-being, social standing, leadership, etc. If the community doesn’t support the growth and advancement of its members, then the people will grow disaffected over time.

Third, communities must mutually support one another, particularly those in need. This further builds trust and a sense of real community.

Some members will end up giving more than they take, and others will take more than they give. Some will work harder than others or show more dedication. To some extent, this disparity can’t be avoided. The important thing is the attitude of the people. Givers and producers should have an attitude of service, in cases of charity expecting nothing in return; takers should have an attitude of humility and thanksgiving; takers should never complain that they deserve more. Instead those who take more should try to contribute however they can to the community.

Fourth, new communities should develop their own culture through shared activities, festivities, and the development of unique art, entertainment, and history.

When people can live full lives in their new community, reaping mutual and individual benefits, then the community will serve as a vehicle for life. And it will continue to grow.

Free From Disturbance

The growing sapling, even in the best soil with plenty of water and sunlight, must remain free of destructive environmental forces in order to prosper. Diseases, pests, exposure to strong winds and flooding can all kill a young tree before it reaches maturity.

Likewise, the would-be community must be able to pursue its growth reasonably free from external threats and disturbances.

To minimize the threats of enemies, it is best to plant communities far away from large enemy populations. And while they develop, communities should avoid antagonizing their enemies any more than constructively necessary.

But new communities should also avoid too much isolation. It’s easier for enemies to destroy a stand-alone, isolated small community than if that community is surrounded by non-members whom the enemy doesn’t wish to alienate. Human shields, if you will. The days of hiding a community in a remote wilderness are pretty much impossible today.

Something should also be said about proximity of members. Ideally, community members should live close enough together that they can easily meet every day if they want. The more that members of a community can share their lives in both work and recreation, the stronger that community will grow. To whatever extent possible, the would-be community would be wise to encourage its members to live near one another while avoiding outright ghettoization (which can make the community an easy physical target). Overall, the more diffuse the community, the less cohesive.

Communities must provide for their overall security from those who would exploit or attack them. At a minimum, communities should train their members in personal defense and have a system in place where they can call on others to assist them when they are attacked. Systems of regular patrols might be necessary in some cases. If it won’t cause more harm, the people should arm themselves at all times, if only with knives or bludgeons.

In order to remain cohesive, communities should limit their exposure to alien cultures that might lead them astray or corrupt them. This is one of the reasons why it’s important to develop a healthy and engaging community culture.

To maintain safety, order, and discipline, communities should use social pressures, like chastisement or ostracism, or total shunning, to remove those who, willfully or otherwise, would actively destroy the fabric of the community. These social pressures are effective, and there is little that outside forces can do to force a community to undo them.

Room to Grow and Thrive

A tree that is planted from a good seed in good soil, with plenty of water and sunlight, and free from threats, will still lag in development if it doesn’t have room to grow and thrive.

Likewise, for communities to reach the greatest potential, they should be planted where they can best grow.

New communities should be planted where they can attract plenty of new members. If large numbers of good potential candidates can’t be recruited from nearby populations, the growth of the community is restricted.

Also, new communities must have a practical system for assimilating new members. This involves the recruitment of strangers as well as the nurturing of its own youth.

New recruits must be screened to make sure they can fit in with the norms of the community. There should be a period of probation for these members, preferably at least one year, perhaps longer. During this probation, new members should be taught what the community will expect of them, they should work in some form of service, and they should be exposed to community life to a limited extent. When their probation period is complete, the community as a whole, generally speaking, should mutually agree to accept or reject the candidates. Such decisions shouldn’t be made solely by an individual or an elite.

Members’ children and adolescents should likewise undergo training and education, with their community activities and responsibilities gradually increased until they reach adulthood. The rights of parents to raise their children and spend time with them must be respected, but without some form of civic education and community involvement, children are more likely to drift away and ultimately leave the community.

Be Fruitful and Reproduce

As years pass and our communities grow strong and we stand on our own, and our numbers of births exceed our numbers of recruits, our emphasis must focus especially on our reproduction and on raising healthy extended families.

First and foremost, we should strongly discourage contraception while we celebrate large families. It may be difficult for some to grasp how unnecessary a middle-class lifestyle really is for our well-being when we belong to a strong community.

Second, it is vitally important, as our communities grow, that parents maintain their authority over their children, and help them, even after they reach adulthood. Let us reject the concept of ‘once you’re 18 you can do what you want’ as the unnatural innovation that it is. We must approve where our adult children work, where they live, and whom they marry. If they don’t comply, then let us cut them off until they do comply. Without this policy, our communities will surely die.

Third, as our extended families grow, we should stay especially close to our aunts and uncles and nieces and nephews, helping one another day-to-day to raise the children and grandchildren, and providing them with employment and direction as adults. And we must honor our patriarchs and matriarchs, those who sacrificed to build these great families, so that our communities will grow all the more tightly bound.

Close-knit extended families, working together with other families, will preserve wealth, provide stability and security, and will form the backbone to what may grow to become a whole forest of strong communities, a new nation of white men and women.


White communities around the world, particularly in North America, are rapidly dying due to internal and external reasons, mainly due to the scourge of individualistic consumerism.

To counter these trends, new communities must be planted far and wide, communities that together can resist and ultimately overwhelm the alien forces that have invaded our lands.

God willing, as we sacrifice and grow together, we can cherish the hope that we have secured the existence of our people and a future for our white children.


These vague recommendations are well and good, and, frankly, a little obvious. What isn’t so clear is how you expect to apply this utopian apparition to the real world where people tend to focus more on advancing themselves and less on improving the whole. Most people aren’t socialists.


First of all, this is one of several concepts that people used to understand without thinking but now have to be explained and reasoned and argued. Like racial differences, or gender relations, or gender itself.

And the concept isn’t utopian at all, or particularly socialist. This article offers a set of general guidelines that will help communities to grow and prosper as they naturally did before modern times.

And communities exist today, like the Amish or the Mormons, that follow many of these methods.

We will of course have problems and conflicts in our growing communities. Human nature creates internal strife. But if people follow the general philosophy described here, then our developing communities will function more smoothly, grow more quickly, and last longer.


Constitution Day: The Pre-Civil War Constitution Served Us Well

jmTheForgottenMan 002

– 17 September 2016 –


Clusivius-sqAdam Grey at Faith and Heritage points out that the U.S. constitution was a wise and impressive document when it applied to semi-sovereign states and when moral, Christian white men served to uphold it.

For centuries Western European men have organized themselves on as voluntary a basis as possible.  Not all voluntary associations or measures of equality are inherently moral or wise, for sure.  The post-WWII American and European experiment has proven that beyond a doubt.

Yet not all voluntary associations or measures of equality are inherently immoral or unwise, either.  America’s Founding Fathers believed, on the one hand, that “all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,” and on the other hand, that Negroes, Indians, and women were not included in that statement of who was equal, or capable of rightly possessing and using certain rights.

Today, September 17, is Constitution Day in the United States.  It is the annual remembrance of the day that the Framers of the Constitution approved the final draft of the document at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

As we discussed in a recent AM Grey podcast, many of the post-Civil War amendments to the Constitution, and nearly all of the important post-Civil War Supreme Court subversions and perversions of the Constitution, are abominable. But the original document itself was remarkable and still deserves our praise.

At heart I still love limited government and individual liberty.

But those ideals simply do not work in a multi-racial society overwhelmed with self-absorbed freeloaders and degenerates. The American Founders knew that, of course.

Today’s Constitution Day is more appropriately a type of Memorial Day or Remembrance Day, a day of lamentation for what Americans have lost.

One day, perhaps, after the dust has settled, white nations will survive in America who can restore individual liberty and limited government run by free and honorable men for the benefit of their posterity.

But, oh, how the blood must flow between now and then!

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:

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.

Lawful Constitionalism or Blunt Nationalistic Force?


– 11 June 2016 –


Patulcius-sqVox Day succinctly and passionately sums up the Alt-Right position on Constitutionalism and “Conservatism”:

I think the old conservatives would do well to call themselves Constitutionalists, because it is obvious that the current batch don’t give a damn about it. And neither do we of the #AltRight, because it is obvious that the Constitution has not only failed, completely, by its own stated purpose, but is today being used as a means of hand-cuffing the Right. The #AltRight believes in three things:

  1. Nationalism.
  2. Western civilization.
  3. Winning.

Everything else is negotiable or a means to one of those three ends. We aren’t conservatives. We aren’t philosophers. And we don’t care about the Constitution, the Rights of Man, the Enlightenment, the Holocaust, or anything else with capital letters that is likely to get in the way.

A Constitutionalist can be our ally. A Zionist can be our ally. A National Socialist can be our ally. A Pan-Arabist can be our ally. We don’t care who you are or what you believe, as long as you’re aiming in the direction of the enemies of nationalism and Western civilization.

Not so many years ago, it still seemed feasible to fight the forces of social Marxism lawfully within the structures of our civil society and government. If only we could motivate and organize people, we believed, then we could win power and unravel the damage.

After almost eight years of Obama and his ilk, with their blatant disregard for the law, with the torrent of foreigners growing in our midst, is it now too late to thwart these enemies of civilization using legal, constitutional means?

There are some pipe dreamers who think that Ted Cruz or someone like him could still repair the damage. They decry the tactics of the Alt-Right and of Donald Trump as just as deplorable as those used by the Left. It’s just not the conservative way! We must follow decorum; we must respect the letter of the law!

As others have pointed out, we have already tried it the nice, civilized way. The polite, orderly, and noble ladies and geriatrics of the Tea Party, wonderful people that they are, have thwarted the Marxist advance about as effectively as the victim of a home invasion who threatens to call the police if the thieves and rapists don’t leave this very instant.

Nice guys finish last. We have seen with the Trump candidacy that the power of the Left depends on the meekness of the Right. When the Right refuses to submit, the Left crumples. The only concrete force that the egalitarians possess are their minorities, and the minorities have no loyalty to this country or even to those white liberals who fed and clothed them. Ultimately the white liberals will have to join our side against the angry tide of blacks and browns. And for the moment, whites still outnumber them.

“. . . it is obvious that the Constitution has not only failed, completely, by its own stated purpose, but is today being used as a means of hand-cuffing the Right. . . .  “

It’s sad to say, but the time of the Constitution has passed. Laws mean nothing when criminals run the courts. It’s time for the Right to flush out the criminals with blunt, brutal force.


Clusivius-sqHas it really come to this, Patulcius? Are you ready to throw away two-hundred years of American law, history, and tradition simply because the other side is bending the rules?

The problem with revolutionaries is that they want to blow up the entire house just to fight a fire in the kitchen.

What makes you think that the charred cinders of whatever survives the revolution will be preferable to the situation we have right now? Today’s crisis is not a hopeless situation. We can fix this country without scrapping our liberties.

The hope of a Donald Trump victory is that the people of the United States can unite against the insanity of the last eight years. Even many  liberals and minorities seem to support him.  This bodes well for uniting the country as a whole if Trump wins.

If the invasion of foreigners can be thwarted, then the Constitutionalists can work to restore the integrity of the people in government. Our nation has dealt with corruption before and we can do it again.


Patulcius-sqKeep dreaming, Pee Pee! That’s a lot of ‘ifs’ in your astral scenario! More hope and change!

You seem to forget the array of forces lined up against the restoration of our nation. Not only do we have the lunatic social Marxists and their brown hordes, we have the hostile media, we have the Established powers in government, and we have the international elites who run the world’s economic, banking, and political interests. None of them is going to sit idly by while their handiwork of the past two generations and more is overturned. On top of this, we have a morally perverted populace spoiled rotten through generations of peace and material wealth; how hard do you think they will fight for truth, justice, and the American way? They’d rather watch football and whack off to their iPads.

At best, the hope of a Donald Trump victory—or even his loss—is that the various factions fracture the country into racial and ideological sections, and do it soon enough that we have something viable left of our nation to salvage.


ConcorditasIt’s too early to write off the Constitution, or our country, entirely. We the people on the bottom have to see how events are playing out, prepare the best we can, and patiently but vocally wait. What other choice do we have?

As far as the Alt-Right, while some of them do exhibit a disturbing similarity to the Left, particularly when it comes to issues of social morality, their movement on the whole is a positive development, gaining cultural momentum against the long-uncontested worldview of the Left.

I do have a notion that the political system is now so rigged that the only way to win is to untie one’s hands, keeping the forms of the Constitution as much as possible for the sake of stability, like the transition of the corrupt later Roman Republic to the relative sanity and traditionalism of Augustus’ Empire. The people are now too corrupt and divided to govern otherwise.

The history of the world is driven by one set of elites steering their peoples against those of another elite, or of one shadowy group vying for power against another. They rise and they fall, just like nations as a whole. They are fallible. The corrupt elites of today, powerful as they seem to be, can and do regularly fail. And it’s very possible that they are overplaying their hands with these foreign invasions and tranny obsessions.

Low Wage Workers Should Think Twice About a $15 Minimum Wage


– 10 November 2015 –


Clusivius-sqLow-paid workers across the U.S. are demanding a $15 minimum wage, up from existing rates that vary among states and localities but meet, at the very least, the $7.25 federal limit.

Low-wage workers across the country joined fast-food employees in the largest-ever strike to hit the industry in the fight for higher pay. They hope to capture the attention of 2016 candidates by striking one year from Election Day.

Hundreds of protesters marched in downtown Brooklyn early on Tuesday, blocking traffic and carrying banners that demand that elected leaders implement a $15 an hour minimum wage and union rights.

In addition to New York City, workers began a walkout of their jobs starting at 6 a.m. in cities Chicago, Atlanta and Kansas City, among others.

New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio joined the protesters later on Tuesday morning to show his support.
“In New York City, we have well over a million people who don’t make 15 dollars an hour – a million people trying to struggle to get by.

And this movement shined a light on that reality and said: ‘we’re not going to go on like that,’” the mayor said to a group of demonstrators.

I sympathize with these workers, if not their manipulators. Plenty of poor people are working three or more part-time, low-paying service jobs, or menial factory jobs, whose families depend on this meager income.

The situation came about—in part—because many employers have cut the hours of full-time workers to part-time to avoid the insurance requirements of ObamaCare for those who work 30 hours or more. Also, modern business models all but require the tightest profit margins possible, using economies of scale, getting the most out of fewer workers. Add large-scale immigration, legal and illegal, to the mix, and suicidal trade pacts, and we have a large supply of very cheap labor.

And now many people can’t get full time employment while others have to work 60+ hours on the road because it costs too much to hire more.

Unfortunately, raising the minimum wage will only help a small number of these part-time low-wage, low-skilled workers.

As the cost of labor increases, employers who are already running under tight margins will have to reduce their labor pool to compete, or else go out of business. Consumers will see more automated check-outs at retail stores, and automation will replace other services, such as fast food work.


The restaurant industry is on the verge of an automated revolution. Do these protesters want to speed these changes into being?

Doubling the minimum wage would give the robotics industry a major boost. And once the industry reaches a critical mass, the prices for robots or other automatons will drop. Once automation becomes cheap enough, whole swathes of workers in the service sector, as well as what remains of our manufacturing sector, will find themselves unemployed.

What will societies do with all of these unemployable poor? The government can’t pay them all to do nothing, and even if the nanny state could somehow support these people they would still demand more benefits, like spoiled children.  It is a recipe for senseless revolution.

C. F. van Niekerk:

150708-van-NiekirkFrankly, I welcome automation.

The services that so many of these low-wage workers provide are often sub-par, even revolting. How many times must I deal with rude incompetent snots who obviously find my presence a terrible inconvenience to them? And what has happened to standards of appearance?

In recent years I have quit going to several businesses because I don’t want to see the freaks who work there.

I recently was served at a local credit union by a very polite but ghastly fat black(?) woman(?) with a fuzzy growth of black beard wrapped around its chin(?) like a wreath. It was too much uncertainty! Too much ambiguity and ugliness! I won’t ever go back. It took me days to recover!

We need more automation!


“Welcome to Taco Bell! Uh-hee-hee-hee! Uh-hee-hee-hoo-hoo!”

Ugly, Barney-Rubble-looking dykes took over the Taco Bell/Long John Silver’s near my workplace.  First it was the manager, then one of the cooks, and then the whole place fell to the onslaught. It reached a point where I couldn’t even consider the possibility of eating there without my mind forming a vision of three smelly tortilla-wrapped clam meals, all orbiting through the air around Barney Rubble’s chuckling face, clad in her(?) purple uniform. I won’t go back there either.

More automation, please!

Concerning the Jews


– 29 October 2015 –


Patulcius-sqThe best way to destroy one’s credibility in a political argument with the typical man-on-the-street pundit is to speak negatively against the Jews. In the minds of most people, the anti-Jewish argument is then not just lost, but obliterated. It’s likely that the opponent will actually feel a little sick to his stomach at the shock of hearing this verbal attack on God’s chosen people, and he will feel afraid that he is standing in the very presence of evil incarnated. Then the programming from some 70’s sitcom might kick in, and he will self-righteously proclaim, from the depths of his guts, that Nazis like me ought to be thrown in jail.

Well, this article is written as a criticism of Jews. The squeamish should flee.

I don’t intend to present an in-depth analysis here, but I will touch on some general points that persuaded me to accept the fact that Jews, as a group, end up becoming harmful to the nations that harbor them. I will also cover some of the common Jewish themes that have become politicized in the West, such as Zionism and the Holocaust. And I will propose a solution to the problems that Jews have caused.

The Nice Things About Jews

Jews, all 15 or 16 million of them worldwide, form perhaps the most intelligent, cleverest nation of people on Earth. Many anti-Semites dispute this fact, but the evidence seems clear enough to me. In just about every field that Jews have entered in the last 200 years, they have quickly risen to become the top practitioners.

Disproportionate to their numbers, they have excelled as doctors, lawyers, scientists, businessmen, financiers, administrators, educators, and entertainers. This has occurred in every society that has allowed Jews to rise without restriction, and while there must be some force of internal favoritism, there seems little doubt that the Jews advance because they are the cleverest in these fields. And this isn’t some contemporary anomaly; Jews have risen in these fields again and again throughout history and within a variety of civilizations.

Jews are well known for their philanthropy. They have helped the poor and hungry, established hospitals and schools, and contributed countless amounts of money to various worthy causes.

Jews are clever speakers, which is what makes them such excellent lawyers and entertainers.

When Jews act in the interests of their host nation, the nation benefits. Certainly the inventiveness, management, and honest business of Jews have benefited the West tremendously throughout our history, particularly in the past century.

The Not So Nice Things About Jews

Jews tend to simultaneously believe in their own superiority as a people while believing that they are an oppressed minority whose rights are always threatened. From this superiority we see their in-group promotion and their outright hubris in the demands they make to the majority nations in which they live. For instance, Jews account for about 25% of the students at Harvard and Yale when they make up 2% of the general population of the United States, and they complain when that number declines; Jews may be more intelligent, but they’re not that much more intelligent.

Jews feel a cultural responsibility to improve the societies in which they live. While this can take the form of charity and other humane activities, often they strive to culturally engineer society itself in order to meet their ideas of ‘improvement’. By working for these changes, they believe they are achieving some form of moral good.

Jews have an instinctive paranoia about the threat of persecution. They feel most comfortable where no single social entity can dominate (save their own). This manifests itself in their near constant desire to undermine or corrupt the cultures and values of their host peoples. Jewish entertainers make fun of or rebel against the most fundamental institutions of society—namely race, religion, nation, family, and gender—while their political activists demand the ‘reform’ or destruction of these institutions in order to protect an ever-growing list of socio-ethnic minorities. In practice, Jews would create a society composed of tiny social fandoms.


Jews promote open immigration in the countries they influence because they feel more comfortable where no single group can threaten them.

The Jewish facility of speech has greatly aided in their ability to persuade the public to embrace their demands, however much these demands might undermine the society of the majority whom they have persuaded. For example, Congressman Emanuel Celler introduced the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act in the United States in Congress, also known as the Hart-Celler Act.  More than probably any other law that the U.S. has passed in its history, the Immigration Act has endangered the culture of the White majority.

Jews seem to possess, more than other peoples, neurotic and obsessive-compulsive characteristics. On conjecture, this might stem from thousands of years of strict and tedious dietary and religious restrictions.  There is also evidence that they have higher rates of schizophrenia and bipolar disorders.

Jews, especially when they are disconnected from their religious roots, seem particularly vulgar and twisted in their habits and interests. Jews form a disproportionate number of homosexuals, pornographers, and degenerate artists.

Jews seem to be averse to hard manual labor or fighting in wars.  The exception to this, at least the military part, might be found in the state of Israel.

Jewish rapaciousness with money is their most stereotypical trait, and there is great truth to it, the crimes of Bernie Madoff being one of the more notorious recent examples, or even the whole 2008 sub-prime mortgage crisis. And it’s nothing new.  For instance, U.S. Grant, during the Civil War, actually ordered the removal of Jews from the occupied South in response to the swarms of Jewish carpetbaggers that followed the Northern armies in order to pick from the remains of the enemy.  This was perhaps the last of many mass Jewish deportation that were ordered throughout history, most of them made for the same reasons as Grant.


Two thousand years ago the Romans, in response to a revolt against their rule, destroyed the Jewish temple and dispersed the Jews throughout their Empire. Since that time, Jews have lived as a parasitic people, working to exploit their hosts to the benefit of their own people.

Jews, keeping themselves deliberately separate from the peoples around them, combined their natural talents with in-group cohesion. Their host nations, in turn, usually forced the Jews into separation while they exploited the Jews’ financial talents. The aristocracy had to limit the Jewish tendency to outperform and exploit the natives. They also sometimes used the Jews as scapegoats, such as tax collectors, in order to divert the anger of the people from them to the Jews. As the Jews frequently gained the upper hand in their host countries, causing commoners to despise them and the aristocracy to resent them, the host nations expelled the Jews into other lands where the process was repeated.


In modern times, Enlightenment ideals led to the removal of restrictions against the Jews starting with the French Revolution and accelerated by Napoleon, and the Jews excelled, particularly in business and finance. For instance, the powerful Rothschild banking family made enormous gains during this time, as did the Goldman-Sachs and Schiff families in the United States, and the Warburgs of Germany. Today these families essentially own the majority of shares in the largest banks in the world, including central banks.  Their ability to influence world events through these banks is incalculably enormous.

Jews didn’t have a monopoly on the moral corruption and the rise of destructive “-ism’s” during the 19th and 20th centuries, but they did hold key positions in several of them, particularly the ones that sought to transform or overthrow the structures and morals of White, Christian civilization.

  • Karl Marx was a Jew who, along with the non-Jew Friedrich Engels, developed Communism. Jews were very attracted to this philosophy, one that promised their political equality with the non-Jew.
  • Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis blamed human problems on repressed sexuality, and he helped open the doors to loosened sexual morals.
  • Jews comprised much of the leadership of the NAACP for its first decades, with Joel and Arthur Spingarn and Kivie Kaplan serving as presidents for 45 years. (The first black president of the NAACP didn’t serve until 1975).
  • Betty Friedan was instrumental in bringing about the second (and much nastier, Marxist) wave of feminism in the 1960’s.

Critics might say that the Jewish presence, even prominence, in these revolutionary movements only proves once again the superior talents of these people, not an unusual tendency to undermine society. Jews didn’t invent eugenics, feminism, Darwinism, anarchism, pornography, environmentalism, libertarianism, anti-colonialism, atheism, or revolutionary art forms like abstract painting and rock ‘n’ roll.

These critics are correct. Without Jews, the West would still face much of the degeneration that we see now. The decline of Western values cannot be blamed squarely on the Jews. Jews have simply played a disproportionate role in these corrosive forces.  They disproportionately want to revolutionize the Gentile cultures in which they live.

Examples of Jewish Domination of Non-Jewish Societies

There are four modern examples that I know of where Jews actually dominated a non-Jewish society: Soviet Russia from 1917 to about 1927, Weimar Germany from 1919 to 1933, and the United States from the 1950’s to the present day.

In Soviet Russia, Jews dominated the country politically but not so much culturally. They lost political power to the seemingly non-Jewish (though he sure looked it) Joseph Stalin before they could affect much change in the culture.

In Weimar Germany, however, Jews dominated the culture but not so much the government. They used this newfound dominance of the German culture to promote pornography and sexual deviancy, economic socialism, social individualism, and rebellion against tradition and the Prussian order. The changes occurred so rapidly that they generated a tidal wave of reaction that brought Hitler to power.

In the United States, Jews rose to dominance more gradually but now possess total control of the culture and overwhelming influence of the government. Jews began their influence in the 1910’s and 20’s with the establishment of Hollywood. Jews ran the largest Hollywood studios: Paramount, Warner Brothers, Columbia, MGM, and the now-defunct RKO. Very gradually they bought up newspapers. Adolph Ochs bought the New York Times in 1896; Eugene Meyer bought the Washington Post in 1933, but it wasn’t until the 2000’s that Jews owned just about every major newspaper in the United States. Controlling Hollywood all along, Jews extended their control into radio and the record industry, and then television. For a brief period in the 2000’s, every single major media company in the United States was run by Jews, but recently non-Jews have taken some positions while advancing the same themes as their Jewish predecessors.

Who Owns the Media 2015

A chart that shows the Jewish domination of the media. Jews frequently own or run the major media outlets in the United States.

The influence of this media power cannot be understated. It has transformed society from Leave it to Beaver to I am Jazz in a mere 50 years. Think of all the non-Jews who say “Yadda Yadda Yadda” without even knowing that the phrase is Jewish. This cultural shift has arisen from heavy Jewish cultural saturation.

Political dominance of the United States took longer. It began with the Frankfurt School in the 1930’s, the establishment of Israel in 1948, and the influence of Jews on the Federal Reserve, and has culminated in the 1960’s social revolution and the power of the ACLU, the SPLC, the ADL, and AIPAC. The Neo-Conservatives that have taken over the Republican establishment are mostly Jews: Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, William Kristol, and Charles Krauthammer, to name some of the most well-known.  The billionare George Soros infamously funds progressive-liberal causes in the U.S. and throughout the world. Today the interests of Israel dominate America’s foreign policy and the interests of the ACLU dominate the domestic.

And Jews have extended their power and influence from the United States to much of the rest of the world.

God’s Chosen People

For three thousand years the Jews have managed to survive as a distinct people despite the total disappearance of other neighboring ancient peoples, such as the Phoenicians or the Babylonians. That such a small nation could survive so long would seem to be, in itself, a miracle from God.

Not only have the Jews survived as a distinct nation, they have directly influenced the rise of the two largest world religions: Christianity and Islam. Once again their influence has been disproportionate to their numbers.

Since at least the 1970’s, unwitting Christian Zionists such as John Hagee and Hal Lindsey play into Jewish hands, giving them a pass as God’s chosen people.  They believe that many of the Old Testament prophesies for the Jews remain to be fulfilled, and they consider modern-day Israel to be the fulfillment of some of them. As the fulfillment of prophesy, they say that Christians must protect and uphold the nation of Israel at all costs.

Christian Zionists like to cite a verse that says “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” (Genesis 12:3). This refers to the descendants of Abraham but is interpreted more specifically to refer to Israel.  Christian Zionists point to various kingdoms and empires throughout history as examples, such as Spain, Germany, and Russia. However, they forget about the rise of England between expelling the Jews in 1290 and readmitting them in 1655.  They also forget that the Spanish Empire remained the preeminent power in Europe for over a hundred years after it expelled or converted the Jews in 1492 in the Alhambra Decree. History doesn’t support the Christian Zionists here.


According to this Chick tract, the British Empire fell because Britain crossed the Jews after World War I, failing to give them Palestine. Christian Zionists believe that the present-day Israel must be supported at all costs.

I support the right of the Jews to have a home in Israel and to protect their nation as they see fit (with the exception of the holy sites), and I certainly believe that the United States should retain friendly ties to the states of Israel, but it isn’t the job of our country to supplant our foreign policy for that of any other country. And taken with the manipulative actions that Israel’s leaders have used against us, such as the attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 Americans in 1967, presumably to draw the United States into the Six-Day War, or several spying incidents, Israel isn’t much of an ally anyhow.

It is very possible that God miraculously re-established Israel after nearly 2,000 years of diaspora. But surely if God is behind them, the Jews of Israel can take care of themselves.  The United States can maintain good relations with Israel, and we can even support them, without lying at their feet.

The Holocaust

The Jews have endlessly hammered and berated White nations about the Holocaust with a capital ‘H’, as compared to the Armenian holocaust or the Ukrainian holocaust that only deserve lower-case “h’s”. They have used their holocaust to extort money, privileges, and to push white nations’ passage of self-destructive immigration laws.

I don’t know how many thousands of Jews died in that crime against humanity, but I do have some doubts about the official “6 million” figure. The fact that it is a crime in many countries to even question that figure should lead one to harbor suspicions of its veracity. And the large number of Holocaust survivors, with thousands of them still alive today seventy years later, suggests something less than a determined plot to exterminate them. It seems that if the meticulous Germans really wanted to systematically kill off this people, they would have done a better job of it.  Nevertheless, there can be little question that millions of Jews died in the “Shoah”, as they sometimes call it.

War is a nasty business, and humanity is a nasty beast. If millions of Jews were deliberately killed in World War II, so were millions of Chinese by the Japanese, so were hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Germans killed by the Russians as the war concluded. I know that Jews are the most special people on Earth, but how many decades do we have to hang our heads in shame over the Jewish Holocaust?

Position of Jews as a Sub-Nation of the United States

Of course, Jews have had a small presence in the British North American colonies almost since their inception, nearly all of them Sephardic. And while they influenced the country, mostly as businessmen, they didn’t affect society drastically until enormous numbers of them began to arrive in the 1880’s. By 1929, when most immigration to the United States was banned, 2.8 million Ashkenazi Jews arrived from Eastern Europe.

Having lived and bred in the United States for almost 150 years, these people can justifiably claim to be a legitimate sub-nation of the United States. They share much of our history. They have largely assimilated and have often intermarried with the earlier population groups that compose the historically dominant white, Christian nation that has formed in the United States. Personally I lean heavily towards accepting them as a sub-nation that belongs in the United States.

But when even an established, legitimate sub-nation acts against the best interests of the dominant American white nation, which yet remains the majority of people here, it is the right of the ruling majority to limit the influence of the destructive minority on the rest of society.

What to Do About the Jews in the United States

There is no question that Jewish influence in the United States has led to the drastic weakening of the foundations and fabric of our society, perhaps beyond the point of recovery. Jewish dominance of the media especially has caused almost entirely pernicious results.

If the Jews weren’t a nation that belonged here, I would recommend, even demand, their complete expulsion from the country.

But they have lived here long enough to possess certain rights to this land.

Therefore, I recommend barring Jews from holding national political office or donating money to political campaigns, or from voting, from practicing law, from owning stock in media companies, and from having duel citizenship (as many of them possess joint Israeli citizenship). They should only live in certain areas, similar to the Pales of Settlement that the Russian Empire imposed, which might include the lower part of the state of New York and the entirety of New Jersey, plus the Miami metropolitan area in Florida, and the Los Angeles metropolitan area.


Jews in the United States mostly live in a few major metropolitan areas, such as the Boston to Washington corridor, Los Angeles, and Miami.

So that we can undo the damage caused by the Jewish media, we should restore and strengthen the Motion Picture Production Code that the United States enacted from 1930 to 1968 largely in response to the increasingly vulgar Jewish film industry of the 1920’s. And similar Codes should be implemented for the other forms of media.

And we should crack down on the parasites who make their fortunes in the financial speculation markets. My knowledge is pretty weak on the complexities of high finance, but I’m certain that something can be done to retain the benefits that this segment of the economy creates while reining in its excesses.

Likewise, usury in all of its forms should be banned. This is one of the few things that the Muslims have right.

Of course, some government entity would have to identify who is a Jew. Personally I think this should be applied leniently, with those who have at least one Jewish parent considered Jewish, along with those who actively practice the Jewish faith regardless of their ancestry. This would require much judgment and discretion on the part of the government, admittedly a difficulty.

The idea behind such laws is to not only prevent Jewish corruption in our nation, but also to encourage Jews to leave the United States to emigrate to Israel.

Obviously such laws would violate our present constitution. In my proposal, I am presuming that it is impossible to repair the damage of Jewish influence until after the U.S. collapses or otherwise transforms radically.  The house is infested with termites and must be rebuilt after its destruction.

This will sound like Naziism to most people, and that is understandable. But the Nazis were despicable secularists, criminals, and murderers, answering to no higher divine authority. I prefer to compare the system that I’ve proposed to the Spanish Inquisition, which to a liberal won’t sound any better than Naziism.  But liberals are also part of the problem.


I like and admire Jews in many respects. Their accomplishments in medicine, science, and invention are enormous and beneficial. Culturally, I have enjoyed their contributions to film, television, and music, often admiring their wit (while sometimes recognizing that what I am watching or listening to is harmful, such as the sociopathic characters on Seinfeld). I regularly listen to and usually enjoy Michael Savage‘s radio show, considering Savage’s work to run counter to the agenda of his fellow Jews while disagreeing with him on several fundamental issues, such as religion.

I also know that the vast majority of Jews are simply trying to live their lives like other Americans do. They aren’t consciously trying to subvert the country. Many of them aren’t even consciously Jewish anymore.

I wouldn’t even oppose the hegemony of Jews in society if they didn’t try to undermine and destroy the fabric of the nations within it. This enormously talented people could really act as a force for good if they simply respected the rights of the nations that they exploit. I even expect that when Christ directly rules the earth that the Jews will act in this beneficial capacity.

But it is clear that today’s Jews, taken as a whole, consciously or unconsciously, corrode our society and cannot help but act otherwise.

The Jews in the United States are like a smart and talented cousin who is living in a family’s house rent free, a live-in who dominates the entire household according to his wishes (while corrupting the children).  The husband and father of the family must make his cousin accept sane house rules or he must force him to move out for the good of the family.

Likewise, the power and influence of the Jews must be limited by law if any White, Christian nation is to have any hope of recovery.


Clusivius-sqIf our enemies in the culture wars are not exclusively—or even mostly—Jewish, then why make laws that specifically oppress all Jews when only a fraction of the Jews are causing problems in our society?  Wouldn’t this throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water?

The situation with Jews in a White society is comparable to that of Whites in a Black society.  According to a variety of sources, American Whites, on average, have an IQ of 100 to 103. American Blacks have an IQ of 85, a fifteen to eighteen point difference.  The average IQ of an American Ashkenazi Jew is about 110 to 115, about one-half to equal the difference between Blacks and Whites in the United States.

What might seem like a concerted effort by Jews to rule the world might in fact simply result from Jewish superior intellect and achievement. Even when the Jews are corrupt they achieve greater depths of corruption and debauchery than most of their Gentile counterparts.  When the Jews are intelligent, they are very intelligent; when they work, they work exceedingly hard; when they are generous, they are generous to a fault; and when they become wicked, they are the most wicked of all.

Often we Whites are incredulous when Blacks blame all of society’s problems on White people, saying that we are holding them back through discrimination because they fail to perform at the same level. We look at Black society and cringe.  We grow nervous when large groups of Blacks congregate near us, particularly if they are armed. When Whites are in charge of the Blacks, we imagine that we influence them for their own good, even if the Blacks don’t always see it that way.  This is very similar to the way that Jews view White society.

If the society of Blacks in the United States would decline without Whites to help them, then would not our White society, without Jews, miss the benefits that Jews bring?

As you said earlier, the Jews have shared enough of our history that they belong in this country.  As such, they are entitled to certain rights as a people. The restrictions that you suggest are too harsh and would require too much tyranny on the part of the government to enforce.  At the same time these laws would fail to address the other left-wing problems that we face, and the government would have to impose additional restrictions on the rest of the population.

While two-thirds of Jews vote Democrat, so do almost half of other Whites.  Left-wing activists are disproportionately, but not mostly, Jewish.  Most Jews are interested in working, living out their day-to-day lives, and raising their families. Most of them aren’t political activists. Restrictions on the Jews, even if they could be imposed, would not solve the problems of moral decay and elite corruption.

In order to remove the forces of decay, the majority nation of White America should reassert our power as the majority, demanding the recognition of our status as a White, Christian nation that tolerates others who don’t disrupt this status.

  • Decent community standards should have the power of law behind them, with social deviants pushed back into the closets and the red-light districts from which they came.
  • We should break up the monopolies in the media, banking, and other business sectors; they have grown unaccountable to the people.
  • We should cut off most immigration, legal as well as illegal, in order to assimilate those who have come here as much as possible.
  • We must restore the freedom of people to associate—or to not associate—with whomever they wish.
  • We should restore states’ rights while restricting the power of the federal government. Centralized government power and monopoly business power are equally harmful.
  • Campaign finance must be radically reformed, with these billion-dollar 18-month election cycles eliminated.
  • Single-term limits should be established for elected officials; all government officials, elected and non-elected, should be subject to popular recall.
  • And I’ll agree with you, Patulcius, about the elimination of dual citizenship.  A citizen can’t have equal allegiance to two independent states.

The trouble is, White America refuses to recognize our right to rule to act as a unified, majority nation.  White nations everywhere must re-recognize our mandate to rule and dominate.

We don’t need to target the Jews, we just need to assert our own rights as a nation.


ConcorditasThe plan of Clusivius is a good one for the United States, but it can only work when there is a strong enough core of people to work together as a nation.  But most White nations these days have fractured in their values to such an extent that they cannot coalesce as a political unit.  Russia is a noteworthy exception, as the Russians are operating as a unified nation.

This situation may change in the event of international crisis, which does seem to be fast approaching along various fronts.  The trouble is, the world elites—which seem to be a combination of super-rich factions that include both Jews and non-Jews—appear to be orchestrating the crisis.  We can only pray that God will foil their plans for global, anti-human tyranny.

Should White nations have the opportunity to restore their mandates to rule their people and their lands, they should limit the abilities of Jews in particular to influence their laws and their societies.

The trouble with the Jews arises from their superior abilities to achieve and influence compared to other nations of people.  Jews can’t help but rise to the top and exploit the societies in which they live.  They cannot help who they are and how they operate any more than Whites can help but rise to the top, as a group, in a Black society.

For the sake of all nations, peaceful separation (not necessarily geographical) and non-exploitation should be the rule.

While Jews, like other minorities, should be treated humanely by the dominant nations around them, they should be restricted in their ability to influence the laws and culture of the dominant society.  Possibly some combination of the laws that Patulcius suggested along with those of Clusivius would achieve this result without unduly oppressing the Jews (though likely Jews will consider any limits to their current freedoms to be a gross violation of their rights).

If Jews do not want to live under these restrictions, then they should move to their own nation-state of Israel and be thankful that such a nation-state exists.

  • May 2018
    S M T W T F S
    « Feb    
%d bloggers like this: