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?