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.

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.

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:

1. Identity > Culture > Politics
2. 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):

1. Care/Harm
2. Just/Fair
3. Loyalty
4. Obedience/Respect for Authority
5. 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.

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:

1. 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.