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.


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.

  • January 2019
    S M T W T F S
    « Dec    
%d bloggers like this: