The Fourth Turning is Identity War

Strauss and Howe in The Fourth Turning describe the historical concept of the saeculum, a period of four generations which repeat themselves through history. Each generation goes through a certain phase of life during the four different stages, or turnings, of the saeculum. The turnings last around 20 to 25 years normally, so a saeculum usually lasts around 80 to 100 years.

The turnings are named High, Awakening, Unraveling, and Crisis. They can best be imagined as equivalent to spring, summer, autumn and winter. A High is when life is improving after the last Crisis, political institutions have been reformed and life is good. An Awakening is when a moral reformation occurs, while, or perhaps because, the political order remains stable. During an Unraveling, the political order starts to destabilise, usually related in some way to the changes that occurred during the Awakening. A Crisis occurs thereafter, leading to a political re-organisation. The Anglo-American Crises they list go back a half a millennium: Great Depression and World War Two (1929 - 1946); Civil War (1860 - 1865); American Revolution (1773 - 1794); Glorious Revolution (1675 - 1704); Armada Crisis (1569 - 1594); Wars of the Roses (1459 - 1487).

The saeculum is usually specific to a society or culture. There is no requirement that the saecula of different nations or peoples align. However, the closer any two nations are to each other, politically or geographically or socially or however, the more their saecula will align. Much like women's cycles. The most recent Crisis affecting the European peoples, the Great Depression and World War Two, synchronised all of their saecula. All white nations of the world seem to have started their most recent High somewhere around the mid to late 1940's.

Strauss and Howe wrote their book in 1997, and predicted the next American Crisis would start around 2005, with it possibly being sparked off by a financial crash, a presidential election, or an action along the lines of the Boston Tea Party. Well, in 2007 the Global Financial Crisis happened. In 2008 America elected Obama, who holds the record for most children killed by a Nobel Peace Prize winner. And around 2009 the Tea Party movement arose. Sparks aplenty for a Crisis, and we see how the political landscape is changing dramatically.

Trump is the polar opposite of Obama. The identity cracks, barely noticeable in the 1990's and early 2000's, widened under Obama and became gaping chasms during the 2016 election. Which, in hindsight, is definitely a result of the moral reformation which occurred during America's last Awakening, from 1964 to 1984 by Strauss and Howe's reckoning. The mid 1960's brought the Immigration and Nationality Act and Johnson's Great Society. Whether the goals were noble, self-serving or something else, these seminal events were definitely about identity. The Immigration and Nationality Act reformed the idea of what it means to be an American, allowing in non-Americans in such numbers that they would not be able to assimilate, even if they wanted to. It brought in foreigners from cultures totally alien to America's, making assimilation even less likely. And the Great Society tried to eliminate poverty and racial injustice, using programmes that only an academic could convince himself to believe effective. The moral reformation said people are all the same, and where they are unequal it must be rectified.

In the wake of the conquering ethnic nationalism of the WWII bad guys, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, it is perhaps unsurprising that the moral reformation which followed was about equalising all peoples. The political re-organisation of the Crisis moved the world from many heterogeneous nations to two competing globalist systems, relatively homogeneous internally: the capitalist First World and the communist Second World. After the ease and comfort of the High, came the moral reformation of the Awakening. The world did not long stay divided into First World and Second World spheres of influence; soon the Third World became a focus. Decolonisation made the savage nations of the world the moral equivalent of the civilised nations. Equality became the goal, even though there were some like Enoch Powell who foresaw "Rivers of Blood" in the forthcoming Crisis because of this. And others, like Kurt Vonnegut, who mocked the idea.

The First World nations now all have identity at the root of their incipient wars. America is full of blacks, Hispanics and Muslims who don't consider themselves American. They have leftists whites who see whites as bad, and they have right wing whites who see whites as the in-group. Europe is full of Muslims and Africans, who the native Europeans increasingly see as invaders, and who increasingly want to change Europe into something else. The Second World has largely escaped this, as Russia and the Visegrad Group seem to have resisted equalism - perhaps the horrors of equalist communism taught them enough to dampen their Awakening turning, and thus their Crisis turning.

In South Africa, the white population's saeculum remains closely timed to the First World's. After WWII came the High of the start of apartheid, great wealth and stability. From the 60's through the 80's came the Awakening, with anti-apartheid uprisings and the Bush War and international sanctions all reforming morally to say the races are equal. From around 1989 to 2009 was our Unraveling. De Klerk, Mandela and Mbeki presided over the end of apartheid and the start of the rainbow nation. The equality of the races was enforced, with compromises and negotiations. But since shortly after Zuma was elected, the inherent tensions have been pulling the country apart along racial lines. Whites are no longer accepting of second class political status due to affirmative action and BEE, not after the innocent white Born Free generation came of age. Blacks are no longer accepting of second class economic status, not after decades of being told the only reason they weren't as wealthy as whites was white oppression. And the violent crime rampant in the country gets blamed by both on the other: whites say blacks are violent criminals by nature; and blacks say their white-caused poverty is the root of the problem.

The Civil War saeculum in America was anomalous and abbreviated. It caused America to skip over their Hero generation. The Civil War was the bloodiest war America has fought. It pitted brother against brother. It was a short and extremely violent Crisis, and it is not surprising that there was no Hero generation following it. But from this we learn that our choices still matter. History is not foretold. The future is not set in stone. The saeculum will keep turning, no matter what. It is the nature of the world. It is the nature of mankind. But man is not a machine. There is freedom to choose. The choices we make can cause a Crisis to be better or worse. The choices we make can determine which side wins the war, and shapes the next saeculum. As biologists can predict the life cycle of a bee colony, without knowing where they will build their hive or where they will find food, so the saeculum can predict the cycle of history without knowing how it will turn out or which side of a war will win.

How to start from nothing

Some trades are payment first, then delivering value, be it goods or services. An example of this would be buying groceries. Other trades deliver value first, then payment is made. An example of this is eating out at a restaurant. There is another type of trade, exemplified by Stefan Molyneux and Jordan Peterson and others like them, where the seller delivers value first, with no obligation on the part of the buyer to make any payment. Molyneux and Peterson give away knowledge and understanding and advice. They ask you to support them with donations, but they can't make you. Much like a Renaissance lord patronising an artist, those who make payment subsidise the artist and allow the freeloaders to benefit. I'm not sure if that counts as charity, but it certainly makes the world a better place at least some of the time. If nobody patronises the artist, then it's charity by the artist for the freeloaders. If there are patrons, it's charity by the patrons for the freeloaders. With charity either by or for the artist, depending on how much he receives compared to the value he delivers, assuming some mystical 'just price' exists for his art.

Most politicians are like grocery stores. With a poor returns policy. You pay first by giving them political power, based usually on some form of false advertising. Then they deliver, well, let's not call it value. But they perform actions that they will tell you are of value. Unlike the grocery store, you can't return a rotten apple for your money back on the same day. You have to wait years to dispose of the bad apples, and you get nothing back for those who didn't act as advertised. It's the equivalent of having to wait years to throw rotting fruit into the garbage.

What if a politician was willing to deliver value in the same way as an artist in search of a patron was? This may not be as feasible on the larger political stages, but it certainly can be done at the local level. Think of the prosecutor who makes a name for himself by locking up bad guys before running for office. He has shown you the goods he delivers, and you are free to decide if you want to pay for them with your future vote. Or the businessman who brings jobs and prosperity to a town. He has delivered his goods as well, with no obligation on you to pay.

There are now political parties in South Africa without any political power, because they hold no elected offices. Some (see here and here) align with my suggestions for a more peaceful, prosperous and free South Africa. But they can do nothing without political power, be it the ballot box or the bullet box. Media interviews and social media campaigns will only take them so far. They need to deliver value to the people they hope to represent, first. And thereafter ask for payment in votes.

My suggestion is for the secessionists in the Cape to identify ways to deliver value on behalf of their parties, and go out and do just that. There are two big issues in the Cape currently which could be the answer. The water crisis is the first, and for most people the more pressing need. But without government money and political power, it will be hard to make an impact.

The second issue is where the real potential lies. Cape Town has some of the most violent crime in the country, and it is concentrated in the townships. A political party hoping to represent selected ethnic groups could benefit greatly by improving the violent crime rates amongst their peoples. When looked at in this light, the problem appears more manageable. The goal is not to reduce all crime in all of the provinces. It is not even to reduce all crime in all of Cape Town. It is to reduce violent crime in the white and Coloured populations. And since these parties have limited numbers and limited money and limited power, the goal should be to focus their forces as much as is necessary to achieve the goal at a Schwerpunkt. Instead of diluting their efforts to the point of failure.

These parties should ally with one another for the purposes of secession. They should identify a violent ward, in a poor Coloured area, where they have the most community support available. And in that single ward all of their resources should be devoted to improving the violence. But only that ward. Their focus must not spread itself thin. The only reason to look outside that ward is if the nature of the conflicts requires it. This must be their main effort, indeed their only effort. Once that ward has seen the value these peacemakers can provide, the people there will vote them into a seat of power. The first step of a thousand mile journey.

This is not a time for simple solutions which haven't ever worked, like more visible policing or anti-drug presentations at schools. These parties must learn the nature of these violent gangs. Why are there gangs to begin with? Why are they more violent than the norm? How are they financed? How do gang loyalties relate to family loyalties and racial loyalties and national loyalties and religious loyalties? Achieving this goal is a 4th Generation War. It must be fought as such. Just as winning at the strategic level trumps winning at the tactical level, so winning at the moral level trumps winning at the physical level. And what could be more moral than less crime and more peace?

There may be police raids. There may be realpolitik advancement of one gang over others for a Pax Romana. There may be negotiated agreements between them. There may be formation of non-state conflict resolution methods, like a Mafia don refereeing between two of his captains. There may be all of these things or none of these things. But this is the value the political parties need to deliver. If they fail, then they are no worse than the ANC or DA or EFF who haven't solved the problem either - so there is limited downside to this. But if they can solve this problem, then they prove they can do that which the larger parties cannot. That is a huge upside. That is the antifragility they need to grow into a force capable of actually seceding.

And since the antifragile ideal involves having many options with a large potential upside and a small potential downside, the secessionist parties could still try to help with the water problem. This would of necessity be on a small scale. But if they look at the model formed during the recent electricity load shedding, some possibilities present themselves. Shopping centres throughout the country pooled their tenants' resources to buy generators and fuel supplies for use during blackouts. Could businesses or gated communities or some other group of people or businesses pool their resources to buy or hire small scale desalination plants? In theory they could, but they face the problems of water use licensing and pumping and piping costs to get the water from the point of abstraction to the end users. Though this hasn't stopped the V&A Waterfront from providing land for free for such a plant. If these parties become organisers who improve the lives of the people, they prove themselves as leaders worth voting for.

Schooling ain't educating

Best line from this Daily Mail article: "I feel I'm hitting a brick wall."

You will soon, darling, and you're likely to be insol when you do.

These three women have confused schooling for education. They think they are superior to average men because they have, or will soon have, an expensive piece of paper which means less and less as each year passes.

The first describes two types of men she has dated. Those in her peer group find her boring, and would rather party with women who don't require a debate to get them into bed. Those older than her and willing to engage in intellectual conversations either dump her or tell her that she's a "princess". I know her cognitive bias won't let her believe she's at fault, but I suffer no such failing.

The next oldest has now spent a half a decade giving money to a university, and is about give more for another few years. To gain a trade she can improve the world with, you ask? Nay. To study cripples. Not to heal them, mind you. Just to hear about their feelings. I'm sure she could do this for free by finding some veterans, but then she wouldn't have the piece of paper which satisfies her desire to rule her husband, while also making it harder to find a man she's willing to submit to. And she also doesn't believe the honest man who told her that she thinks she's a "big shot".

As a side note which suggests that proles will save Christendom, it seems 51% more working class girls go to university than boys. Why will this save the West? Because the boys go into manual trades and become productive members of society. Or they will become, if their countries deal with their cheap labour glut.

The third one is 41, so the wall has arrived. She paid for two worthless degrees, so she must be really smart! Unfortunately the smart boys weren't sexy and the sexy boys wouldn't put up with her pseudo-intelligence. I honestly don't know why she couldn't find men who want to talk about "psychology and literature", since Jordan Peterson and Heartiste and Vox Day and Roosh V and Rollo Tomassi love psychology. And da GBFM loves literature.

Women want to marry a man of higher status than themselves. Men want to feel that they won't be emasculated for the next fifty years. These women's fathers should have told them this before they mismatched their believed status and their real status. Here's the real psychologist saying the same thing.

Order and nations

ZMan published an article today on Race Realism. In it is this quote:

"All human societies need order, otherwise they look like the Mad Max hellscape of places like Somalia. Order requires authority and that comes when the people being ruled over accept the people and system that provides order. The king is not going to be king very long if no one accept his right to rule. Similarly, people will not tolerate a ruling class that is populated by madmen denying reality. This is, in effect, what brought down the Soviet Empire. Even the beneficiaries of the system could no longer pretend it made any sense."

William Lind frequently mentions that the modern nation-state arose to provide order to the peoples of the world, as the systems before it had become chaotic. These nation-states did closely align with existing nations, and because of this provided order.

But we now have multicultural states with a high degree of anarcho-tyranny. The American state is still run by white people, even if they are establishment cucks and commies. They cannot comprehend the amount of imposed order - oppression, in other words - required to maintain order amongst the other nations within their borders. It often seems as if Detroit and Chicago need levels of oppression similar to those used by Saddam Hussein and Bashar Al-Assad to maintain order. This concept is foreign to whites, even though they realise that Tea Party libertarianism isn't feasible throughout the US. So they settle on a worthless middle ground of anarcho-tyranny: not enough government for the non-white tribes (anarchy); too much government for the whites (tyranny).

The South African state is in a similar situation, although it is not run by the white tribes any more. It is run by people who spent 40 or 50 years seeking less oppression, and working on undermining the state, without giving thought to what would be required to govern the black tribes. It is incapable of or unwilling to police black crime to any civilised degree (anarchy), and it blames whites for all problems and quickly seizes any opportunity to maintain the narrative by punishing even minor white wrongdoing (tyranny).

Perhaps the lack of policing is not even deliberate. I've read at least one black commenter say that whites complaining about crime are just getting what blacks got during apartheid in the black areas. Maybe I only think the South African crime rate is high because my race and culture are adapted to a different level.

And of course, the solution is really as simple as separation of the nations. Whether it's "they have to go back" or secession or ending forced integration like Section 8, different groups have different requirements. Those which self-regulate and order themselves need less government, and indeed suffer under too much of it. Those who cannot self-regulate need a harsher form of imposed order, and indeed suffer under too little government - witness the rise of ISIS in the absence of strong secular governments.

How to achieve this without war is the challenge. The closest I have come is a high level suggestion - but until I actually go out and do something about it, can I claim to have any skin in the game? (As an aside, I think Taleb might be my favourite Middle Easterner.) There are now many voices clamouring for such a solution, but I haven't encountered many working towards it or even planning how it could be done. Won't somebody cure my black-pilling?

Centres of Gravity

In the spirit of auftragstaktik, I am stating a goal I wish to achieve, which I assume many others desire as well. The goal is to achieve peace, self-determination and freedom for all people in South Africa.

The strategy I suggest to achieve this goal is separation of the non-black nations of South Africa from the black nations. This would make the country, or countries, more peaceful because it would prevent most of the inter-racial violence now occurring. Most of the remaining racial envy would not be an issue if the previously most advantaged and previously most disadvantaged were not competing for the same resources. This would allow for more self-determination, because the more homogeneous a country the more a consensus is achievable. Grouping the black nations together allows for a more unified black country, and grouping the Afrikaners and Coloureds together allows for a more unified Dutch-descended country. And it is a step towards smaller and less government for all, which means more freedom for all.

To achieve this, it is required to identify centres of gravity acting against a secession of parts of South Africa from one another. I have identified four:

1. Black nationalism
2. Demographic distribution
3. Oppression narrative
4. White guilt

Black nationalism in South Africa has a Weltanschauung which sees South Africa in terms of two groups: whites and non-whites, equivalent to oppressors and victims. The unifying ideology, which can be simplified to blaming the oppressors for all of the problems in the country, has two inherent problems. Firstly, it only unifies for as long as there are oppressors available to blame. With low birth rates and high emigration rates, the white oppressors will not be around much longer to unite the peoples of South Africa. Secondly, it doesn't actually address the true causes of the economic and crime problems in South Africa, nor does it allow for an orderly re-organisation around the other existing fault lines in society once the oppressors are gone. There are other fault lines already, and a sudden crack along them could be chaotic and unpleasant if they are simply ignored until it is too late. Besides the different nations, even within the currently united black race, there are already different economic classes amongst the non-whites. There are those with power and friends in government, and then there are those with nothing but the ability to protest and riot when the government doesn't deliver promised services.

To attack this centre of gravity, two options present themselves. The first is to change the narrative from white versus non-white, to black and (not versus) non-black. Instead of an adversarial world view, it should be seen as one family of related black peoples living as good neighbours alongside another family of related Dutch descendants. Forcing strangers to live in the same house leads to strife, but giving them each their own house with a clear border allows them to become friends. The second option must be done cautiously, as it has the potential to devolve into conflict if approached too swiftly. This is to highlight the natural fault lines in the black race which exist between tribes. This fault line was apparent before Zuma with the talk of a Xhosa mafia inside the ANC, and will become apparent again without an enemy to unify against. However, as part of a secession movement, federalising South Africa, before or after secession, along tribal lines and devolving power from the national government to the provincial or tribal level will empower the tribes without forcing them to compete for power over each other. If the federalising occurs before secession, it also opens up the possibility of one or more of the black tribes seceding as well. This can only strengthen the chances of secession succeeding.

The demographic distribution of peoples in South Africa is highly entropic. The only group with a fairly well defined territory is the Coloured nation. Whites live in pockets spread fairly evenly throughout the country, and there are significant numbers of blacks in the Coloured areas. To concentrate the Afrikaners and Coloureds, and presumptive English and Indian allies, it would be best to focus on an historically justifiable territory. The Cape Colony, with borders existing where the white settlers first encountered the black tribes, can be justified as an area to secede - and this is what the Cape Party proposes already. Two  other problems reinforce this centre of gravity, and those are affirmative action and the white standard of living.

Affirmative action limits the concentration of whites in large companies. This means that to have constantly progressing careers in a world of large corporations, whites must diffuse throughout the country. The relatively high white standard of living means that in the main, they are reluctant to move to a different part of the country and start with nothing. Most would rather emigrate to a higher standard of living. This is natural and to be expected. A possible work around is to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit in whites, and have them game the system by keeping their company small enough to allow them to employ only whites and allied Coloureds and Indians. Of course, this would be best done in the already suggested territory. A big problem exists in two overlapping groups, those of white farmers and Afrikaner nationalists. The farmers will be often be unwilling to abandon their family's heritage and their livelihoods, and the nationalists will often be unwilling to abandon the land of their forefathers. The nationalists can perhaps be addressed by convincing them that the continued existence of their people is more important than where their nation lives. The farmers are more difficult, and I'm not sure I have any good solutions. Some may sell their farms to buy land in a different area to farm, and some may sell their farms to start businesses elsewhere. But boere are stubborn and have the desire to own and farm land in their genes - this is a challenge.

The oppression narrative is the other side of the coin from black nationalism. For blacks, it can be addressed in an Agree & Amplify method. Remove the oppressive white monopoly capital from the rest of the country, and segregate them in their own homeland. Do as the apartheid regime did, and put the non-blacks in the poor part of the country which is mostly just desert and mountain and forest fires. There are plenty of black people in South Africa, already spouting murderous hate speech, who would probably be delighted to talk about pushing whites to one side and cutting them off from the wealth produced in the rest of the country.

For whites, and other non-blacks, the best way to destroy the oppression narrative is probably to attack directly the fourth centre of gravity, white guilt.

White guilt is the tendency of whites to focus on only the past sins of their race and only the past good deeds of other races. It is almost certainly a genetic trait, but that doesn't mean it can't be suppressed in favour of more productive tendencies. So long as whites see themselves as the bad guy, they won't be able to unite and ally with other nations for their own good.

Northwest Europeans, of which Afrikaners and English South Africans are a diaspora sub-group, are highly individualistic. They tend to think of themselves as individuals, which allows them to disassociate themselves from the sinful white oppressors they descend from. The sins of apartheid are the dominant narrative, with no geopolitical context of the time and no comparison to violent crime and anti-white hate crime in the present day. Factually, white guilt can be attacked, but for it to have effect on the majority it must be couched in effective rhetoric. If civil society organisations, like Afriforum or the Institute of Race Relations, can be enlisted to assist, it may be possible to force the SAPS to report crime statistics by race. Judging by the statistics in the US, it is expected that the racial disparities will show whites as the victims more than as the criminals. The same should be done with the South African Human Rights Commission, to highlight the large numbers of black Penny Sparrows. This is all well and good as far as facts go, but spreading the information rhetorically is another issue altogether. I don't know how to achieve this one yet. Perhaps Born Free's - those born after the start of black rule in 1994 - could be enlisted as spokespeople. There are now 23 year olds who have known nothing but black government, who are discriminated against because of previous white governments. I leave this for now in the hands of the memelords.

On a personal level, woke whites can shame their friends and relatives who don't love their own kind. This is easier for Coloureds and Indians, as white guilt isn't a problem for them, only their tendency to view themselves as non-white instead of non-black. But nationalistic love of culture and people should be encouraged. This is already encouraged once a year by the government, on Heritage Day. Do it for another 364 days a year. Be proud of your own. But there is no reason to make it competitive, and indeed it can be counter-productive. Afrikaners celebrating their culture works towards the goal, and Zulus celebrating their culture also works towards the goal. Tribes and nations occur naturally, and so there is a natural gravitational pull of power from government to these natural polities. Encourage it. However, I see cultural appropriation of the braai as acceptable by all.

This is a working idea, so add to it or critique it or improve it.

A case for separation in South Africa

The Cape Party in South Africa has a proposal for the area formerly comprising the Cape Colony to secede from the rest of South Africa, and be an independent homeland for the Coloured and Afrikaner nations (who share a common Dutch heritage).

This seems like a win-win situation. The black nations, assuming they don't themselves split up (Mangosuthu Buthelezi of the IFP had something to say about that recently), would no longer be oppressed by White Monopoly Capital. They would have the mines (coal, gold, platinum, everything). They would have the most fertile farms, in the Free State, old Transvaal, KwaZulu-Natal and most of the Eastern Cape. They would have the busiest port in Africa, Durban. They would have the KZN coast tourists, and the Kruger National Park tourists.

There would be no question of how much affirmative action to implement, or how much Black Economic Empowerment is required to right the wrongs of the past. The population would be almost homogeneous (if the government continued to see all blacks as the same, and not separate them into nations of Zulus, Xhosas, Sothos, etc.). BLF and the EFF could stop their negative whining, and focus on building up their nations instead (a problem they share with some on the right). With less diversity in the country, politicans can focus more on improving their country rather than just group interests.

The Coloureds and Afrikaners would get Cape Town, with its relatively small industrial base, the Garden Route, with its tourism, and the great big nothingness that is the Karoo. But it is the part of South Africa which was never inhabited by the black (Bantu) nations before the whites arrived. In comparison with other colonisation efforts (like the Mfecane or the Cape Frontier Wars or British expansion in Natal), the Dutch colonisation of the Cape was fairly peaceful - so peaceful, in fact, that the Dutch and Khoisan mixed to start the Coloured nation of today.

As a general rule, Diversity + Proximity = War. But if the differences between groups are small, and they are not forced to mix, it can succeed. Switzerland, with its German, French and Italian groups, is the usual example given. In the UK, the English haven't fought against the Scots and Welsh in a long time. I can't guarantee that a country made up of Coloured and Afrikaner nations (with the probable addition of the English and Indian nations in South Africa) will be free of strife and inter-group rivalry. I can say, with almost complete certainty, that a separation of the non-black South African nations from the other nations will be more peaceful. And I'm sure even the extremists and racists of both sides don't want a race war if they can help it.

Traitors and declared enemies

Traitors commit treason. They are enemies of the nation, its people and its culture. The traditional punishment for treason is death, just as in war one kills the declared enemy.

In Victoria (partially available online), Maine's Governor Kraft massacres unarmed university professors. Everyone in the Northern Confederation has freedom of speech, but it was not for their speech that they were killed. It was for their knowing and willing opposition to the people and culture of their nation. Had they believed their actions to be for the benefit of the nation, they would not have been killed. But as declared enemies, they forfeited their lives. This was an act of self defence by the people of the nation.

In unrelated news, the following events have occurred.

Several Muslim men kidnapped two English girls, in England, and gang raped them to celebrate their religion which declares the Queen and people of England to be infidels who deserve death or slavery. These men have been jailed, which is punishment, albeit insufficient (Reopen Tyburn). But "supporters in the public gallery hurled abuse at the judge as he passed sentence later." These supporters have declared themselves enemies of the people and culture of England.

Jorge Ramos declared that the American country no longer belongs to the American people, but to Latinos who have invaded America. He has declared himself an enemy of the people of America.

Members of certain political groups in South Africa desire a white genocide. They have declared themselves enemies of the people and culture of the white tribes in South Africa.

For all the talk of NAxALT, when a subset of x declares themselves as enemies of the people and culture of a nation, it behooves the nation to treat them as enemies. Failure to do that does not end well for the passive nation, as the Moriori failed to learn in time.

The only alternative is separation. Return of England to the English, and the Muslims to their homelands. Return of America to Americans (or even smaller divisions), and the Latinos to Latin America. Separation of South Africa into its different nations, with an independent Cape Republic and perhaps even an independent KwaZulu. Absent this, all we have left to look forward to is Diversity + Proximity = War.