Christopher Columbus – Another White Hero Vilified by the Left


– 10 October 2016 –


Unless trends dramatically change in the next few years, official celebrations of Columbus Day around the world are coming to an end.

Via CNN:

Since Columbus Day 2015, at least 14 communities in the United States have passed measures designating the second Monday in October Indigenous Peoples Day.

The changes build on recent efforts to shift the day’s focus from the Italian explorer, beginning in big cities including Seattle, Minneapolis and Albuquerque, and spreading to counties and school districts.

“Indigenous Peoples Day represents a shift in consciousness,” said Dr. Leo Killsback, a citizen of the Northern Cheyenne Nation and assistant professor of American Indian Studies at Arizona State University.

“It acknowledges that indigenous peoples and their voices are important in today’s conversations.”

“Conversations.” There’s another word that the Left has hijacked and mangled. On the surface, it’s a mutual exchange of thoughts and ideas between multiple parties; but in the Left’s context, a “conversation” is their attempt to force one group of people to quietly accept self-righteous, condescending, and utterly self-destructive instruction.

Even in the Spain, where the monarchy sponsored Columbus’ voyage, people are rethinking his legacy.

A group of left-wing city council members in Barcelona called for the city to remove a 196-foot statue of Christopher Columbus in one of its most heavily trafficked intersections as part of a proposal to strike the October 12 national holiday and return it to a regular working day.

Council member María José Lecha González said public commemoration of Columbus glorifies colonialism and imperialism, and called the holiday a “mockery” of the genocide of the indigenous population.


Formerly a monument to the man who discovered the Americas for Europe, now a monument to the ugly barbaric forces who will destroy what European peoples have built.

Regardless of how Columbus treated the Indians he encountered (and it doesn’t seem that he treated them any worse than European peasants of that time), Columbus bravely crossed the Atlantic, discovered America for European civilization, and established an enduring European presence. We of European descent in the Americas owe our existence, our cultures, and our nations to the vision of this one man. Had some other explorer discovered America ten, fifty, or a hundred years later, today’s world would be radically different.

Those of native descent have no reason to celebrate Columbus. He ultimately brought the diseases that wiped so many of them out, and the settlers who displaced them. Today, some of these natives see the weakness of whites and are taking advantage.

But don’t imagine for a second that our capitulation to these groups will win their thanks and approval for very long. They don’t want dialogue and understanding, they will tear us down until we are a forgotten people, if we continue to let them. And these natives will live no better after our demise.

If we don’t defend our symbols and our history, then we have no future.

A good defense of Columbus can be found at the Catholic Education Resource Center:

In all of history, only the Europeans and the Polynesians of the south Pacific have been true discoverers, sailing for the explicit purpose of finding new lands, trading with their people, and colonizing them. And of all discoverers Christopher Columbus was the greatest, because he accomplished the most against the highest odds.

Before Columbus’ time all European voyages had followed coastlines, or crossed open seas to lands previously known or at least sighted by storm-driven ships. Only Columbus set off directly across a broad, unknown sea with no specific knowledge of how far it extended or what lay on the other side. To be sure, Columbus was convinced that he could reach Asia from Europe within the time during which the provisions he carried in his three ships would sustain his men. But he was wrong about that. If America had not existed — had not been in the way — Columbus would have had to turn back long before reaching his goal, or he and every man on his ships would have died.

[. . .]

When, after leaving the Canary Islands September 6, they had been out of sight of land for a full month — a longer voyage out of sight of land than any other in the history of the world up to that time — Columbus’ men became frightened and angry. During most of the voyage the wind, often strong, had blown from astern or nearly so. How were they ever going to get back, beating against it? Columbus knew that further north the prevailing winds blew from the west, and planned to go north to catch the westerlies before he returned. But his men knew nothing of world geography; all they knew was what they had seen, that in these strange and empty seas the winds almost always blew from the east or the northeast. On October 10 the men of the Santa Maria came to the verge of open mutiny.[6]

Columbus tells us in his Log how he answered them:

They [the crew] could stand it no longer. They grumbled and complained of the long voyage, and I reproached them for their lack of spirit, telling them that, for better or worse, they had to complete the enterprise on which the Catholic Sovereigns [Isabel and Fernando] had sent them. I cheered them on as best I could, telling them of all the honors and rewards they were about to receive. I also told the men that it was useless to complain, for I had started out to find the Indies and would continue until I had accomplished that mission, with the help of Our Lord.[7]

That last sentence summed up the heart and essence of the whole life and achievement of Christopher Columbus.

[. . .]

Upon the islands that he first discovered on the other side of the Atlantic, Columbus found native inhabitants, whom he called Indians, believing himself to be in “the Indies” of Asia. And here began the long and troubled story of Columbus’ interaction with the native Americans.

Before going into the historical details of that interaction, it is essential to clear away the fog of idealization and special pleading that now surrounds so much talk about the American Indians. First of all we have to understand the situation that existed in the world of the Indian of the Caribbean and mid- America when Columbus arrived.

It seems to be true, as is so often repeated today, that when Columbus found them, the Indians inhabiting the Bahama Islands, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the great island the Spanish called Hispaniola (now divided between Haiti and the Dominican Republic) were a gentle, happy, attractive people living peacefully in good ecological balance with their surroundings. They were known as Taino, or Arawaks.[8]

But they were not destined to remain in their Eden-like situation for long, even if Columbus and the Spanish had not come. Advancing steadily northward from the long chain of Caribbean islands called the Antilles was one of the most ferocious people in recorded history, the Caribs. They were savage conquerors who practiced cannibalism, not as an occasional cultic ritual, but as a regular diet. Captured prisoners were immediately eaten. Conquered peoples were systematically devoured. On every island they seized, the Caribs soon exterminated every Taino. On no island did the two tribes coexist.[9]

Across the island-studded Caribbean Sea lay Mexico. Though politically and culturally advanced beyond most other Indian cultures — the Mexica had a large army, a well-developed governmental administration, a system of writing, and stone temples — their empire, which we call Aztec, carried out ritual human sacrifice on a scale far exceeding any recorded of any other people in the history of the world. The law of the Mexica empire required a thousand human sacrifices to the god Huitzilopochtli in every town with a temple, every year; there were 371 subject towns in the empire, and the majority had full-scale temples. There were many other sacrifices as well. The total number was at least 50,000 a year, probably much more. The early Mexican historian Ixtlilxochitl estimated that one out of every five children in Mexico was sacrificed. When in the year 1487 the immense new temple of Huitzilopochtli was dedicated in Tenochtitlan (now Mexico City), more than 80,000 men were sacrificed, at fifteen seconds per man, for four days and four nights of almost unimaginable horror.[10]

It must be emphasized that there is no serious dispute about these facts and figures. All reputable and informed historians of pre-Columbian Mexico[11] accept their essential accuracy, though some prefer not to talk about them. These facts of history totally dispose of the romantic fantasy of a hemisphere full of peaceful, nature-loving Indians who threatened no one until the cruel white man came.

That the conversion of the people he found was a central purpose of Christopher Columbus is made unmistakably clear by an entry in his log book written November 6, when he was exploring the coast of Cuba. It is addressed directly to Isabel and Fernando:

I have to say, Most Serene Princes, that if devout religious persons know the Indian language well, all these people would soon become Christians. Thus I pray to Our Lord that Your Highnesses will appoint persons of great diligence in order to bring to the Church such great numbers of peoples, and that they will convert these peoples. . . . And after your days, for we are all mortal, you will leave your realms in a very tranquil state, free from heresy and wickedness, and you will be well received before the Eternal Creator.[12]


The War on White Monuments: Duke Supporters and Soros Marxists Clash in New Orleans


– 24 September 2016 –


Janus-smallA Leftist group called “Take Em Down NOLA” led a protest in New Orleans against the slow process of removing four Confederate statues and to demand further removals, particularly to take down the statue of President Andrew Jackson in Jackson Square.

Via the Kansas City Star:

Hundreds of people turned out Saturday in New Orleans’ historic French Quarter to protest a statue of Andrew Jackson and Confederate monuments in the city.

New Orleans has been struggling with what to do with a number of Confederate-era monuments in the city. The City Council voted last year to remove four of the monuments after heated public meetings but the effort has been stalled in the courts. A major hearing on their removal is slated for Wednesday.

Take Em Down NOLA, a group that has been advocating for the removal of monuments it describes as being linked to the city’s white supremacist history, called for a demonstration Saturday to take down the statue of Andrew Jackson in Jackson Square to protest the slow progress of taking down the Confederate monuments.

The Jackson statue is not one of the four Confederate monuments that the council voted to remove. Jackson is considered a key figure for leading the defense of the city in an 1815 battle against the British. But Michael Quess Moore, one of the group’s organizers, said Jackson was also a slave-owner who as president signed the controversial Indian Removal Act.

[. . .]

Shortly before the protesters arrived, white supremacist David Duke and a small group of supporters converged on the square, calling for the statue to be protected.

As Duke, who is also running for Senate, talked to supporters he was heckled by bystanders.

“I am here to defend our American heritage. Our Louisiana heritage and our New Orleans heritage,” he said.

The protests were largely peaceful although a few fights broke out between demonstrators. WWL-TV reported that seven people were arrested.


Bunch of Google degenerates with their printed signs and printed shirts. They appear well-enough funded. And no doubt the old white cuck on the right feels very self-righteous in joining this anti-white protest. I’m sure he brags about his involvement to anyone who will listen.

What is this “Take Em Down NOLA” group anyway?

Their website offers the following description:

We the people of New Orleans demand that the Mayor and City Council take immediate action to remove all monuments, school names and street signs dedicated to White Supremacists. These structures litter our city with visual reminders of the horrid legacy of slavery that terrorized so many of this city’s ancestors. They misrepresent our community. We demand the freedom to live in a city where we are not forced to pay taxes for the maintenance of public symbols that demean us and psychologically terrorize us. We demand:

  1. That the city release a timeline for the immediate removal of the monuments;
  2. That the city expand the definition from 4 specific monuments to encompass all monuments to White Supremacy;
  3. That the city develop a community driven process for the removal of the monuments and the choosing of their replacements.

If you really want to sign the petition, their site mentions that you will receive “periodic updates on activism opportunities from” Goody.

So what is Color of Change? From the ColorOfChange site:

Color Of Change helps people respond effectively to injustice in the world around us. As a national online force driven by over one million members, we move decision makers in corporations and government to create a more human and less hostile world for Black people, and all people. Until justice is real.

The Activist Facts website—which helpfully exposes the funding, agendas, and personnel of various Left-wing activist groups—mentions the Color of Change’s ties to George Soros:

Through the years, Color of Change has received considerable funding from groups controlled by George Soros, the billionaire best known for backing left-wing nonprofit groups. Since 2009, Soros’ Open Society Foundation (OSF) has given $550,000 to Color of Change and its parent organization, Citizen Engagement Laboratory (CEL). Among other recipients of donations from Soros are ACORN, People for the American Way, and, where James Rucker previously served as Director of Grassroots Mobilization. Color of Change has had numerous campaign partnerships and close ties with

Color of Change “partners” with, and is a project of CEL. CEL directs a number of other projects that could be considered carbon copies of Color of Change—most of these projects seek to engage and mobilize minority citizens to expand their political voice generally through the use of the internet. Similar to Color of Change, these organizations masquerade as champions of suppressed and disadvantaged individuals in order to advance their progressive political agenda.

Effectively, Soros and other billionaires are able to funnel their millions of dollars in donations into, CEL, and ultimately Color of Change to rally left-wing supporters to vote.

It’s interesting that these types of groups have already expanded their attacks on Confederate symbols to include Andrew Jackson tributes and memorials.

Once local and state governments quickly remove these symbols of whiteness, the Leftists will immediately demand the purge of other white icons, such as Christopher Columbus, most of our slave-owning Founding Fathers, and Henry Ford.

The cultural Marxists will not be satisfied until they have not only removed all of white history, but whiteness itself.

Alexander Dugin: Third World War Has Never Been So Close


– 19 September 2016 –


Janus-smallAlexander Dugin expects that the Western elites will jump-start World War III to prevent the election of Donald Trump.

Via Katehon:

The globalist US leadership obviously cannot rule the whole world and, what’s more, the threat posed by Trump puts their control over America itself into question. Now, while the puppet Barack Obama is still in office and the globalist candidate Hillary Clinton is falling apart in front of American voters’ very eyes, is the last chance to start a war. This would allow them to postpone elections or force Trump, if he were to win, to begin his presidency in catastrophic conditions. Thus, the US neoconservatives and globalists need war. And fast, before it’s too late. If Trump gets into the White House when there will be peace, then there will be no such war, at least for the foreseeable future. And this would spell the end of the omnipotence of the maniacal globalist elites.

Thus, everything at this point is very, very serious. NATO’s ideologues and the US globalists falling into the abyss need war right now – before the American elections. War against us. Not so much for victory, but for the process itself. This is the only way for them to prolong their dominance and divert the attention of Americans and the whole world from their endless series of failures and crimes. The globalists’ game has been revealed. Soon enough, they’ll have to step down from power and appear before court. Only war can save their situation.

[. . .]

The fatality of the situation lies in that, if Washington decides to opt for war now, then we cannot avoid it. If they will insist and repeat the September 17th situation again and again, then we will have to either accept the challenge and go to war, or knowingly admit defeat.

In this situation, the outcome of the struggle for peace which is, as always, fully in our interests, does not depend on us. We really need peace, to buy time until November 8th, and then everything will be much easier. But will the collapsing colossus allow us this time?

God forbid that this happens. But those who could pray prayed on the eve of the First and Second World War. In any case, our goal is always and only victory. Our victory.

The Americans our bombing our guys. A Third World War has never been so close.

Whether the election is postponed, or Trump wins, or Hillary, the Western elites want World War sometime in the next few months or the next few years.

Our best chances lie with the genius of Putin to prevent the war, as he did our intervention in Syria, and the election of Donald Trump to possibly thwart the elites’ foreign policy. Possibly.

Without divine mercy, the odds of avoiding the war are low.

We in the West deserve to be thrashed.

Nevertheless, if the war must happen, may God thrash us most mercifully.

Andrew Anglin: A Normie’s Guide to the Alt-Right


– 31 August 2016 –


Patulcius-sqToday Andrew Anglin at The Daily Stormer published a truly awesome article that explains the movement of which he is an enormous part. (And I use the word “awesome” in its classical sense, not the trite way in which today’s people abuse that formerly wonderful word.)

Additionally, Anglin addresses how he hopes the movement will evolve, growing beyond mere memes and trolling to real, concrete action and, eventually, to a cultural shift at least as thorough as that achieved by the 1960’s Commie radicals who rule society today.

The article addresses many of the future issues that the Alt-Right faces that C. F. van Niekerk coincidentally presented here last night.

Although somewhat long, the article is worthwhile and entertaining to read in its entirety:

Following condemnations by Hillary Clinton, everyone in the world is now trying to define exactly what the Alt-Right is. Most of them are getting it wrong.

The short story is that although the term could refer to a lot of different people saying a lot of different things, the people that it is being used to refer to by the media – Trump-supporting White racial advocates who engage in trolling an other activism on the internet – are the core of the movement, with any other groups and figures being peripheral.

The core concept of the movement, upon which all else is based, is that Whites are undergoing an extermination, via mass immigration into White countries which was enabled by a corrosive liberal ideology of White self-hatred, and that the Jews are at the center of this agenda.

The Alt-Right is a “mass movement” in the truest possible sense of the term, a type of mass-movement that could only exist on the internet, where everyone’s voice is as loud as they are able to make it. In the world of the internet, top-down hierarchy can only be based on the value, or perceived value, of someone’s ideas. The Alt-Right is an online mob of disinfranchised and mostly anonymous, mostly young White men.  This collective of dissidents argued with itself until it reached a consensus (consensus is yet to reach 100%, but it is damn close). We have now moved from arguments and debates and become a new political collective, a type of hive mind.

The mob is the movement.

Some of the ways the movement presents itself can be confusing to the mainstream, given the level of irony involved. The amount of humor and vulgarity confuses people. The true nature of the movement, however, is serious and idealistic. We have in this new millennium an extremely nihilistic culture. From the point when I first became active in what has become the Alt-Right movement, it was my contention that in an age of nihilism, absolute idealism must be couched in irony in order to be taken seriously. This is because anyone who attempts to present himself as serious will immediately be viewed as the opposite through the jaded lens of our post-modern milieu.

Now, on to the long story.

I will first lay out what the movement actually is and where it came from, and then layout what it appears to be to the mainstream media, and why I believe these narratives differ so drastically, and conclude with some loose predictions of where I see all of this going in the future.

Anglin follows up this introduction by:

  • Describing the major groups that converged to form today’s Alt-Right. It’s a fascinating evolution really. I hadn’t realized how many other people shared a similar evolution to what I went through from old-school white nationalism to conspiracy theories to Ron Paul libertarianism and paleoconservatism.
  • Defining for the “normies” some of the major tropes of the movement. Oddly, this felt like someone explaining a very subtle and funny running joke, almost ruining it. Almost.
  • Highlighting the major goals and concepts of the movement.
  • Best of all, Anglin reveals his ideas of how the hardcore Alt-Right should develop in the future, particularly on how the movement should interface with the real world without losing its soul.

Even though I disagree with some of it, Anglin has written a very noteworthy article, perhaps even an important one. It stands out like a culmination of years of work, or the end of the first chapter in a somewhat terrifying masterpiece.

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.

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.

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.

  • December 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « May    
%d bloggers like this: