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.
Tuesday, 11 July 2017
Saturday, 1 July 2017
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.
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.
Sunday, 18 June 2017
Libertarianism is lacking
Martin van Staden from Rational Standard reposted an article from 2015 on Rational Standard's Facebook page about the differences between liberal nationalism and libertarianism. My piece is to critique his libertarianism as deficient, rather than discuss nuances of phrase and ideology.
Van Staden begins by discussing the difference between people on either side of a border, like Khoisan in Namibia and South Africa, or Anglos in Canada and America. Which can be taken to show the arbitrariness of borders (Khoisan seem pretty homogeneous to me) or the difference in nations after only a short separation (Americans are different to Canadians). There is a difference between people of different nations. Even those of the same colour and continent can differ tremendously, as the Hajnal line illustrates (you can catch hbdchick on Twitter as well). And van Staden makes a semantic error which undermines much of his piece, when he equates the border-delineating state with the nation.
No, they can't. Massive waves of immigrants are detrimental to national identity because they are of a different nation. In the same way, adding red paint to green paint changes its colour from green to something else. Culture is downstream of identity, so it follows the same principle. And Muslims are freedom-hating statists who are making the welfare state worse.
Let us refute the refutation.
Islam is not just a religion, it is a holistic political system. It dictates sharia law for all. Politicised Islam is Islam, there is no non-politicised Islam. Equating Islam with any other religion is nonsense, because Islam is the most violent, rapacious religion in existence. It stole land and captured slaves and raped and murdered peoples until they converted. It is an evil ideology, and it should not be allowed to freely enter Christendom in just the same way child rapists should not be allowed to freely enter a kids play park.
As to equating Islamic statism with other forms of statism, it is almost as much nonsense. The only statism that compares with Islam in magnitude of horror is communism, and the now extinct Nazism. Other polities, when left unmolested by empires, have been much kinder to their peoples. And just to trigger folks: Marx was a Jew. Jews are a different nation to Prussians, whether they're the same colour or not. (Sperg alert: Mussolini was fascist, not communist.)
It is fitting that van Staden tries to downplay the evils of Islam by talking of the Cultural Marxism running rampant throughout the West (while omitting the fact that "pesky Mexicans" and all other immigrants vote overwhelmingly for said Cultural Marxism). The West, Christendom, has two great enemies: Islam, and Marxism (cultural and/or economic). Both have the stated goal of destroying all that the West has created. Both would condemn our souls. Both would impoverish us. Both destroy beauty and obfuscate truth and Truth.
His points being bunk, I conclude that while all large scale immigration adulterates a nation, Muslim immigration is particularly dangerous because it is so potent in its evilness. It must be prevented, which is how van Staden segues onto democracy as the means of doing so.
Given that nations exist, group actions must be decided upon some way. A democratic state is one way to do this, but it far from the only way. Monarchies exist. Feudalism used to. There are small tribes who make group decisions by consensus. Each nation or tribe or group can find their own way to decide. They should not be bullied and intimidated by rioting, raping, murdering Muslims into appeasing outsiders at the expense of their own people (point 10).
This quote in particular stands out: "Stated differently, you cannot delegate a right or obligation to an agent without you having the right or obligation in the first place." It is elegant and logical. It is emblematic of the inherent problem with libertarianism, which is that libertarianism is only sustainable in a population conducive to it. A primitive, violent group of people doesn't care about right and wrong, only possible and not possible. To the savage, might makes right.
Much talk and text has been devoted by libertarians to discussions of private security agencies for the inevitable bad actors, as the theory recognises not everyone will play along with the rules. But it does not discuss what happens when the majority of the group don't want liberty. For example, Rothbard's magic button to push to end the state, the pushing of which was his litmus test of whether one loved or hated the state, didn't take into account the fact that most Americans would just re-establish the state if it was pushed. There are collectivist and statist nations, and there are freedom minded nations. The American nations, and the other English diaspora nations, have been the most libertarian like. The Afrikaners may have turned out that way - they were very insistent on being independent of outsiders - if they had been on islands or isolated continents instead of stuck alongside primitive, violent tribes.
Libertarianism, whether minarchism or anarcho-capitalism or even some other variant, can work inside an amenable nation. But that nation needs a way to exclude statist outsiders, and protect itself from imperial outsiders. And a way to prevent degenerating into hedonistic, materialistic libertinism.
Van Staden claims to have problems with fake libertarians, who don't hold the Non-Aggression Principle and individual rights as the highest principles. On this basis I claim he lacks loyalty. Not even loyalty to nation or tribe, but loyalty to family. For who would not sacrifice innocents to save their own flesh and blood? Who wouldn't toss a grenade amongst a mixed group of loser terrorists and innocent hostages if it would save the life of their own loved ones? Whether this is irrational sentimentality or rational Darwinistic preservation of genes, loyalty does at least sometimes trump the NAP.
Jonathan Haidt identifies five moral intuitions that divide people into left and right (TED talk or article or book):
Van Staden begins by discussing the difference between people on either side of a border, like Khoisan in Namibia and South Africa, or Anglos in Canada and America. Which can be taken to show the arbitrariness of borders (Khoisan seem pretty homogeneous to me) or the difference in nations after only a short separation (Americans are different to Canadians). There is a difference between people of different nations. Even those of the same colour and continent can differ tremendously, as the Hajnal line illustrates (you can catch hbdchick on Twitter as well). And van Staden makes a semantic error which undermines much of his piece, when he equates the border-delineating state with the nation.
The state is not the nation. You would think a South African would know this, especially one with Afrikaner parents who lived through Apartheid. South Africa has several nations in its borders: Afrikaner, English, Zulu, Xhosa, Indian, Coloured, Pedi, etc. Other nations arguably are split between states, as the Pashtun in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Obviously it is not just citizenship that distinguishes a Canadian from an American. Citizenship is only relevant because state boundaries have driven separation of nations. But even in their absence, nations exist. A Boer is not a rooinek. A Welshman is not an Englishman. A Yankee is not a Reb. A Frenchman is not an Italian. A German is not a Pole. A Korean is not a Chinaman. A Zulu is not a Xhosa. Nations exist.
Saying nations exist is not to say that boundaries can't be fuzzy, as they are with race. It is not to say that a person is only defined by their nation, without any individuality. But ignoring them leads to problems, because of these two maxims:
- Identity > Culture > Politics
- Diversity + Proximity = War
In the below quote, van Staden is disloyal to his Christian heritage, and demonstrates blank slate egalitarianism. It is couched in terms of what is allowable by libertarian morality, but in the absence of any other moral system it appears to be his only basis for judging right and wrong.
"This anti-border libertarianism remained obvious to me for quite a while until I came into contact with various ‘libertarians’ who seemed passionately opposed to the fact that several million Muslims were now living in cherished Europe. Upon inquiry I was greeted with worrying responses qua libertarian. I was told that allowing massive waves of immigrants is detrimental to national identity, preservation of culture, and that Muslims were freedom-hating statists who were making the European welfare state worse. These arguments can easily be dismissed"
No, they can't. Massive waves of immigrants are detrimental to national identity because they are of a different nation. In the same way, adding red paint to green paint changes its colour from green to something else. Culture is downstream of identity, so it follows the same principle. And Muslims are freedom-hating statists who are making the welfare state worse.
Let us refute the refutation.
- National Identity: Libertarianism is intrinsically individualistic. With the non-aggression principle at its core, the philosophy of liberty concerns itself only with the legitimate use of force in society between individuals. Therefore any argument concerning national identity is irrelevant to libertarianism. Your national identity does not have a right of existence.
National identity may be irrelevant to libertarianism, but that doesn't make it irrelevant to people. A Russian is proud of his people and his history and would probably punch you for saying he is in fact Japanese or Swahili. A Japanese would be upset if you told him he was exactly the same as a Ghanaian or Spaniard. Nations exist, and national identity has value to people. The reason van Staden doesn't see this is because his ancestors were born on the outbred side of the Hajnal line. He is genetically predisposed to having less in-group loyalty.
- Preservation of Culture: Much like national identity, a given culture does not have an independent right of existence. A culture is not a rights-bearing individual. Every individual, however, does have the right to exercise his own culture, alone or in association with other individuals. Indeed, a Muslim moving into the neighborhood, or fifty Muslims moving into the neighborhood, is not going to get in the way of you exercising your culture unless they initiate force against you. If you feel a Mosque being erected next to your church is a problem – then at least divorce it from libertarianism. If that Mosque sits on legitimately acquired property then the libertarian answer is the exact same as when a competing barber shops opens up opposite yours: get over it – it’s their right to do so.
This is why people think libertarians are suicidal. A single Muslim moving into your neighbourhood will get in the way. He will initiate force. He will bring his family with, or force little girls into sex slavery and breed more Muslims. He will force restaurants to serve halaal meals. He will complain about eating during Ramadan. He will force you to mute your own religious celebrations. He will kill you for mocking his prophet (piss be upon him). History proves this is what Muslims do. Evidence trumps theory. And so we must realise that libertarianism is a deficient theory.
- Muslims are Freedom Hating Statists: I have never been one to shy away from expressing my distaste of Islamism. Islamism is politicized Islam. The extent to which Islamism disregards individual rights is shocking indeed and wholly incompatible with the libertarian perception of a free society. However, it is not the Muslims who created European statism, nor was it the Mexicans who created American statism. It was white men. White men also created and developed communism; it was a white man who was named Marx and it was a white man named Mussolini. It was white men who created Frankfurtian Critical Theory and gave us radical African postcolonialism. I am not assigning blame here. I am simply showing that the source of the issue is at home, and not coming in from abroad.
Islam is not just a religion, it is a holistic political system. It dictates sharia law for all. Politicised Islam is Islam, there is no non-politicised Islam. Equating Islam with any other religion is nonsense, because Islam is the most violent, rapacious religion in existence. It stole land and captured slaves and raped and murdered peoples until they converted. It is an evil ideology, and it should not be allowed to freely enter Christendom in just the same way child rapists should not be allowed to freely enter a kids play park.
As to equating Islamic statism with other forms of statism, it is almost as much nonsense. The only statism that compares with Islam in magnitude of horror is communism, and the now extinct Nazism. Other polities, when left unmolested by empires, have been much kinder to their peoples. And just to trigger folks: Marx was a Jew. Jews are a different nation to Prussians, whether they're the same colour or not. (Sperg alert: Mussolini was fascist, not communist.)
It is fitting that van Staden tries to downplay the evils of Islam by talking of the Cultural Marxism running rampant throughout the West (while omitting the fact that "pesky Mexicans" and all other immigrants vote overwhelmingly for said Cultural Marxism). The West, Christendom, has two great enemies: Islam, and Marxism (cultural and/or economic). Both have the stated goal of destroying all that the West has created. Both would condemn our souls. Both would impoverish us. Both destroy beauty and obfuscate truth and Truth.
His points being bunk, I conclude that while all large scale immigration adulterates a nation, Muslim immigration is particularly dangerous because it is so potent in its evilness. It must be prevented, which is how van Staden segues onto democracy as the means of doing so.
Given that nations exist, group actions must be decided upon some way. A democratic state is one way to do this, but it far from the only way. Monarchies exist. Feudalism used to. There are small tribes who make group decisions by consensus. Each nation or tribe or group can find their own way to decide. They should not be bullied and intimidated by rioting, raping, murdering Muslims into appeasing outsiders at the expense of their own people (point 10).
This quote in particular stands out: "Stated differently, you cannot delegate a right or obligation to an agent without you having the right or obligation in the first place." It is elegant and logical. It is emblematic of the inherent problem with libertarianism, which is that libertarianism is only sustainable in a population conducive to it. A primitive, violent group of people doesn't care about right and wrong, only possible and not possible. To the savage, might makes right.
Much talk and text has been devoted by libertarians to discussions of private security agencies for the inevitable bad actors, as the theory recognises not everyone will play along with the rules. But it does not discuss what happens when the majority of the group don't want liberty. For example, Rothbard's magic button to push to end the state, the pushing of which was his litmus test of whether one loved or hated the state, didn't take into account the fact that most Americans would just re-establish the state if it was pushed. There are collectivist and statist nations, and there are freedom minded nations. The American nations, and the other English diaspora nations, have been the most libertarian like. The Afrikaners may have turned out that way - they were very insistent on being independent of outsiders - if they had been on islands or isolated continents instead of stuck alongside primitive, violent tribes.
Libertarianism, whether minarchism or anarcho-capitalism or even some other variant, can work inside an amenable nation. But that nation needs a way to exclude statist outsiders, and protect itself from imperial outsiders. And a way to prevent degenerating into hedonistic, materialistic libertinism.
Van Staden claims to have problems with fake libertarians, who don't hold the Non-Aggression Principle and individual rights as the highest principles. On this basis I claim he lacks loyalty. Not even loyalty to nation or tribe, but loyalty to family. For who would not sacrifice innocents to save their own flesh and blood? Who wouldn't toss a grenade amongst a mixed group of loser terrorists and innocent hostages if it would save the life of their own loved ones? Whether this is irrational sentimentality or rational Darwinistic preservation of genes, loyalty does at least sometimes trump the NAP.
Jonathan Haidt identifies five moral intuitions that divide people into left and right (TED talk or article or book):
- Care/Harm
- Just/Fair
- Loyalty
- Obedience/Respect for Authority
- Purity/Sanctity
Leftists tend to only care about the first two channels, Care/Harm and Just/Fair, while those on the right are influenced by all five. And because of van Staden's lack of loyalty, I claim he is still of the left, and still has modern liberal tendencies to rid himself of. He appears to have no loyalty to his nation. A man who doesn't love his nation is deficient, he is missing something.
All of this should not be mistaken for love of the state on my part. I merely recognise that in this world of 4th Generation Warfare, there are things much worse than the state. Don't replace imperfect with comnpletely atrocious. Improve it in a sustainable way, but don't destroy a workable solution for the bad type of anarchy.
Wednesday, 14 June 2017
Build, don't just conserve
For too long, those on the right have been fighting a defensive war against the left. The cultural marxists ask for a lot, the conservatives ask for the status quo, and they compromise on another little move leftwards.
This is the problem with a defensive war. You can only win a defensive war if your opponent is weakened by every battle. Like invading Russia. But the left loses no men or morale battling to advance their ideology. They are emboldened by every small victory.
The Alt-Right and allies (Alt-Light, Alt-West, Alt-White) need to follow the advice from Jacobite Mag and learn from the left. Form tribes and fight back. Don't just resist. Be active in advancing your interests.
The time for conserving is past. It lost. That which we would have conserved is gone. Ugliness is now valued as beauty was. Degeneracy is now valued as decency was. Tyranny is now valued as freedom was. Conservation will do us no good. We need to stop merely maintaining and begin building anew.
In South Africa, the white tribes revel in a party which they think cares about their interests. But the only difference between the DA and the ANC is the level of corruption. The DA denouncing of Helen Zille for speaking an unpleasant truth shows their desire is not to build a better country for all the nations therein, but only to pursue power. Their stated policies are of the left. Their heritage is as liberals, in the modern sense of the word. Cucking themselves to the myth of equality. But egalitarianism is a revolt against nature. Men are not equal, and can only be forced into equality by a tyranny doling out equal misery.
The only groups actually building and creating a better world are those focused on helping their own tribe. The way Trump is building and making America great again by focusing on America first. It is time to stop throwing the children's bread to the dogs, and start looking after our own families and tribes. Loyalty is owed to God, family, tribe.
Love your family. Red pill your friends. Be a bold asshole who isn't scared to tell the truth. Join the existing organisations advancing the needs of your tribe. Create your own. Give heart to others of like mind by being as open and honest as you can. Build a tribe which is loyal to its own. Create a better future for your children. Or the nihilists on the left will destroy it.
Remember point 3:
And remember the Third Law is Purpose. Without it, you will lose.
This is the problem with a defensive war. You can only win a defensive war if your opponent is weakened by every battle. Like invading Russia. But the left loses no men or morale battling to advance their ideology. They are emboldened by every small victory.
The Alt-Right and allies (Alt-Light, Alt-West, Alt-White) need to follow the advice from Jacobite Mag and learn from the left. Form tribes and fight back. Don't just resist. Be active in advancing your interests.
The time for conserving is past. It lost. That which we would have conserved is gone. Ugliness is now valued as beauty was. Degeneracy is now valued as decency was. Tyranny is now valued as freedom was. Conservation will do us no good. We need to stop merely maintaining and begin building anew.
In South Africa, the white tribes revel in a party which they think cares about their interests. But the only difference between the DA and the ANC is the level of corruption. The DA denouncing of Helen Zille for speaking an unpleasant truth shows their desire is not to build a better country for all the nations therein, but only to pursue power. Their stated policies are of the left. Their heritage is as liberals, in the modern sense of the word. Cucking themselves to the myth of equality. But egalitarianism is a revolt against nature. Men are not equal, and can only be forced into equality by a tyranny doling out equal misery.
The only groups actually building and creating a better world are those focused on helping their own tribe. The way Trump is building and making America great again by focusing on America first. It is time to stop throwing the children's bread to the dogs, and start looking after our own families and tribes. Loyalty is owed to God, family, tribe.
Love your family. Red pill your friends. Be a bold asshole who isn't scared to tell the truth. Join the existing organisations advancing the needs of your tribe. Create your own. Give heart to others of like mind by being as open and honest as you can. Build a tribe which is loyal to its own. Create a better future for your children. Or the nihilists on the left will destroy it.
Remember point 3:
- The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
And remember the Third Law is Purpose. Without it, you will lose.
Saturday, 3 June 2017
The Wrath Of The Awakened Saxon
Heartiste posted an article the other day about why we don't see whites retaliating against those murdering them. His two "pillars" are:
It is almost certainly true that the wolves who conquered continents and tamed tyrannical tribes have been domesticated into floppy-eared dogs. This breeding of the weak must change, and is already. Barren wall-hitting feminist spinsters and effeminate shitlib pseudo-male hipsters are the cause of the declining white birth rate. But the rising MAGA-generation alt-right shitlords and shivladies are realising the importance of demographics and returning to traditionalism. They must outbreed the weak commies, and they must outbreed the evil infidels.
But I dispute his second point's importance. The state may punish vigilante vengeance, but that didn't stop Gary Plauche. There are now certainly hundreds, if not thousands, of husbands and fathers whose wives and children have been taken from them, and who have nothing left to lose. Is it fear of the state which restrains them? Or is it a weak, degenerate soul which makes them cringe in terror at the thought of stepping out of line and exacting justice?
The mood of the world is changing. The mood of the European nations, and their Anglophone cousins in North America and the Antipodes, is changing. Nobility shall return. Men will arise who came of age in this time of war. Who had heroes like Clancy's John Clark. Men who learned of the murders at the Twin Towers and the Rape of Rotherham.
And the wrath of the Saxon will awaken again.
- Whites of NW European extraction have been over-bred by evolutionary forces into passive, placid house pets who wouldn’t survive a day without a paternalistic owner to provide their comforts, and for whom every stranger, no matter how threatening, is a friend deserving tail wags and hand licks.
- The Globohomo-captured leaders and representatives of White nations won’t defend Whites from rapacious foreign and domestic enemies, and worse actively punish organic, local defenses that nationalistic (aka self-preserving) Whites may coordinate in their defense.
It is almost certainly true that the wolves who conquered continents and tamed tyrannical tribes have been domesticated into floppy-eared dogs. This breeding of the weak must change, and is already. Barren wall-hitting feminist spinsters and effeminate shitlib pseudo-male hipsters are the cause of the declining white birth rate. But the rising MAGA-generation alt-right shitlords and shivladies are realising the importance of demographics and returning to traditionalism. They must outbreed the weak commies, and they must outbreed the evil infidels.
But I dispute his second point's importance. The state may punish vigilante vengeance, but that didn't stop Gary Plauche. There are now certainly hundreds, if not thousands, of husbands and fathers whose wives and children have been taken from them, and who have nothing left to lose. Is it fear of the state which restrains them? Or is it a weak, degenerate soul which makes them cringe in terror at the thought of stepping out of line and exacting justice?
The mood of the world is changing. The mood of the European nations, and their Anglophone cousins in North America and the Antipodes, is changing. Nobility shall return. Men will arise who came of age in this time of war. Who had heroes like Clancy's John Clark. Men who learned of the murders at the Twin Towers and the Rape of Rotherham.
And the wrath of the Saxon will awaken again.
Tuesday, 30 May 2017
Malema = Nongqawuse
Nongqawuse was a Xhosa prophetess in the 19th century. She was told by her ancestors that if her people killed their cattle and destroyed their crops, "the spirits would sweep the British settlers into the sea." A few hundred thousand dead cows later, "the population of British Kaffraria [had] dropped from 105,000 to fewer than 27,000 due to the resulting famine."
In 2015, only 13% of the 53 million people in South Africa paid income tax. Of the money the government spent, 17% went to Social Welfare Grants. 45.5% of all households received at least one form of social grant. In 2013, 3.3 million of 51 million (6.5%) paid 99% of all income taxes. Looking at the racial breakdown in 2012, it appears whites and Indians pay a disproportionate amount of this income tax. This 2017 breakdown has an even starker divide.
More than a quarter of all government income is from income tax. Another fifth is from VAT, only collected from formal businesses and paid disproportionately by those who consume more - again, those rich whites (and Indians). And another sixth is business tax, paid not by street traders but by wealthy capitalist swine. Two thirds of all taxes are paid disproportionately by whites. 8.86% of the country is carrying almost half the rest of it.
And those idiot fucking commies call this capitalism? South Africa already has those with ability giving to those with need. And as the K-selected whites bear a heavier burden every year, they breed less and they emigrate more. And as the r-selected blacks sit in the townships and villages jobless and purposeless, they breed more and become more frustrated at the lack of meaning in their lives. The able are shrinking. The needy are expanding.
Malema and his kind blame the whites for all of their problems. Without those evil whites, life would finally be good in South Africa. Apartheid is the reason blacks are suffering. Never mind the fact that half the country only survives because of the productive white monopoly capitalists. Removing the whites from South Africa is not the solution for his claimed goal of economic freedom. Anti-white rhetoric is the solution for his actual goal of attaining power.
In 2015, only 13% of the 53 million people in South Africa paid income tax. Of the money the government spent, 17% went to Social Welfare Grants. 45.5% of all households received at least one form of social grant. In 2013, 3.3 million of 51 million (6.5%) paid 99% of all income taxes. Looking at the racial breakdown in 2012, it appears whites and Indians pay a disproportionate amount of this income tax. This 2017 breakdown has an even starker divide.
More than a quarter of all government income is from income tax. Another fifth is from VAT, only collected from formal businesses and paid disproportionately by those who consume more - again, those rich whites (and Indians). And another sixth is business tax, paid not by street traders but by wealthy capitalist swine. Two thirds of all taxes are paid disproportionately by whites. 8.86% of the country is carrying almost half the rest of it.
And those idiot fucking commies call this capitalism? South Africa already has those with ability giving to those with need. And as the K-selected whites bear a heavier burden every year, they breed less and they emigrate more. And as the r-selected blacks sit in the townships and villages jobless and purposeless, they breed more and become more frustrated at the lack of meaning in their lives. The able are shrinking. The needy are expanding.
Malema and his kind blame the whites for all of their problems. Without those evil whites, life would finally be good in South Africa. Apartheid is the reason blacks are suffering. Never mind the fact that half the country only survives because of the productive white monopoly capitalists. Removing the whites from South Africa is not the solution for his claimed goal of economic freedom. Anti-white rhetoric is the solution for his actual goal of attaining power.
Sunday, 28 May 2017
The decline of nobility
Nobility. Aristocracy. Royalty. Patricians.
There is a natural order of lower, working class peoples and upper class leaders. It will always exist, even under egalitarian communism (scorn be upon it). This is the way of the world, and is not in and of itself bad.
Nobles arose as men of merit and worth, gaining power and prestige through their achievements.
In days past, men like Charles Martel existed. A man who seized power from the degenerate and decaying Merovingians and made Frankia great again. He turned the Moors back, and kept his people free. In days past, men like Richard the Lionheart existed. A man who went to war to defend Christendom from a rapacious ideology, intent on enslaving the world. In days past, men like George Washington existed. A man who went against his natural Virginian royalist tendencies and was loyal to his tribe instead of a tyrannical government. In days past, men like Jan Smuts existed. A man so skilled in warfare that his erstwhile enemies made him a field marshal, and asked him to help lead the greatest war effort in the history of mankind.
I am saddened at the memory of these great, noble men. Because the leaders of today are cucks. Weak, craven appeasers of evil. They lick the boots of the commies and jihadis. They fail their people. They are no longer noble, despite what some of their titles claim. A duke is no longer dux, a great military leader. These people disgrace their lineages. Those of noble stock are no longer strong and good. Those of humble stock, who rose through skill at commerce, now debase their financial empires by chasing profit at the expense of decency and goodness, instead of in pursuit of virtue.
These weaklings must fall. Nations must uncuck themselves. Leaders must actually lead, or surrender the title to men who will. Not all are meant to lead. As Patton said: "Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way." It is time for leaders who will speak the truth and act in the interests of their own people, even if the rest of the world suffers. Loving your people means not loving the rest of the world.
I was inspired to this realisation most recently by a Gavin McInnes video from the other day. The reporter is a perfect example of the modern upper class retaining the arrogance and manners and speech of nobility, without having the nobility of spirit that is what really makes one noble. The soldier is a great example of why the symbiosis of noble and commoner works. He is humble, skilled at his profession, and loyal to his God, his family and his tribe. There are millions like him throughout the West. And all they need is strong and good leadership to unite them and lead them into greatness.
Destroy the cucks. God hates cowards. God wants brave, strong leaders. In Judges, God takes away the honour of victory from Barak for his cowardice and lack of faith. Be strong and of good courage.
And when the weak have fallen, we can learn how their blood was corrupted so that we don't let it happen again.
There is a natural order of lower, working class peoples and upper class leaders. It will always exist, even under egalitarian communism (scorn be upon it). This is the way of the world, and is not in and of itself bad.
Nobles arose as men of merit and worth, gaining power and prestige through their achievements.
In days past, men like Charles Martel existed. A man who seized power from the degenerate and decaying Merovingians and made Frankia great again. He turned the Moors back, and kept his people free. In days past, men like Richard the Lionheart existed. A man who went to war to defend Christendom from a rapacious ideology, intent on enslaving the world. In days past, men like George Washington existed. A man who went against his natural Virginian royalist tendencies and was loyal to his tribe instead of a tyrannical government. In days past, men like Jan Smuts existed. A man so skilled in warfare that his erstwhile enemies made him a field marshal, and asked him to help lead the greatest war effort in the history of mankind.
I am saddened at the memory of these great, noble men. Because the leaders of today are cucks. Weak, craven appeasers of evil. They lick the boots of the commies and jihadis. They fail their people. They are no longer noble, despite what some of their titles claim. A duke is no longer dux, a great military leader. These people disgrace their lineages. Those of noble stock are no longer strong and good. Those of humble stock, who rose through skill at commerce, now debase their financial empires by chasing profit at the expense of decency and goodness, instead of in pursuit of virtue.
These weaklings must fall. Nations must uncuck themselves. Leaders must actually lead, or surrender the title to men who will. Not all are meant to lead. As Patton said: "Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way." It is time for leaders who will speak the truth and act in the interests of their own people, even if the rest of the world suffers. Loving your people means not loving the rest of the world.
I was inspired to this realisation most recently by a Gavin McInnes video from the other day. The reporter is a perfect example of the modern upper class retaining the arrogance and manners and speech of nobility, without having the nobility of spirit that is what really makes one noble. The soldier is a great example of why the symbiosis of noble and commoner works. He is humble, skilled at his profession, and loyal to his God, his family and his tribe. There are millions like him throughout the West. And all they need is strong and good leadership to unite them and lead them into greatness.
Destroy the cucks. God hates cowards. God wants brave, strong leaders. In Judges, God takes away the honour of victory from Barak for his cowardice and lack of faith. Be strong and of good courage.
And when the weak have fallen, we can learn how their blood was corrupted so that we don't let it happen again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)