So blessed

It’s always great to be recognized for one’s accomplishments, but I feel so very honored and humbled to be included in the ranks of the most epic trolls of the Internet in 2016 by the Men of the West:

The 2016 Troll of the Year Nominations:

  • Donald J. Trump: for his presidential campaign.  Who can forget the masterful way the President-Elect played the media over and over again?  And let’s face it… his comment about Mexican rapists was classic old-school trolling.   Make a comment that superficially sounds awful but on close examination isn’t, then stand back and watch the explosion.  Or in this case… ride it to the White House.  Well played Sir.
  • Godfrey Elfwick: for his epic trolling of the Guardian.  We could just name these the Elfwicks and give them all to him.  The man is like a troll savant.  If we ever create a lifetime achievement award for trolling, it will really just be because we want to give it to him.  This particularly incident was noteworthy even for him though.  The real art is in the way the piece is written… it plays perfectly to the confirmation bias of the left… and yet has a trollish smell to it that cannot be missed by those of us on the right.
  • Vox Day and the Rabid Puppies: for nominating Chuck Tingle and My Little Pony for Hugo Awards.   Space Raptor Butt Invasion was nominated for the Hugo Awards.  Imagine the pretentious self-important types that hand out super important awards having to release that title or announce it at their stuffed-shirt ceremony.  Oh wait… we don’t have to imagine it.  We got to watch it live.  Thanks Vox.
  • The Baltimore Lyin’ Murderers: for the “Cheating to Win” game.   Its one thing to know the rules better than everyone else.  Its another to use the rulebook as a blunt force weapon to bludgeon the league that uses it.  Baltimore exploited a rule that does not add time back to the game clock after an offensive penalty.  So they just told all their players to blatantly commit holding penalties while the QB ran around and let the clock run out.  A million yellow flags hit the ground as soon as the play was over, but it didn’t matter.  Game over. Baltimore wins.  That’s some quality trolling.  Also…  Joe Flacco is not elite.
  • Senator Ted Cruz: for his speech at the GOP National Convention.   Some called it political suicide.  Some shouted praises of principled conservatism.  But everyone shouted… and that is the finest evidence of trolling there is.   The Senator from Texas as been an under-appreciated troll expert for years.  Let’s face it, the guy read Green Eggs and Ham on the Senate floor.
  • Jill Stein: for raising money for recounts in states Donald Trump won.  Campaign Finance Laws don’t apply to money being raised for recounts.   Call it shameless self-promotion… or a exploiting liberal butthurt in a blatant money grab…  either way it is clearly some quality trolling.

This is really a group nomination I’m proud to share with all the Rabid Puppies. But, as magnificent as our trolling was, it can hardly compare with that of St. Godfrey Elfwick the Wrongskinned or of the God-Emperor Ascendant himself. Sometimes, it’s just honor just to be nominated.

SWAN KNIGHT’S SWORD by John C. Wright

Christmas has come early for John C. Wright fans, with the publication of the third and final book in THE GREEN KNIGHT’S SQUIRE trilogy, SWAN KNIGHT’S SWORD.


Gilberic Parzival Moth is a strange and lonely boy who has grown up without a father, raised by a single mother who moves from town to town in fear of something she will not name. His only friends are animals, with whom he has always been able to speak. And after surviving his bewildering encounter with the two kings of Elfland and their many strange and wonderful and terrible subjects, as chronicled in FEAST OF THE ELFS, Gilberic finds himself honor-bound to travel to a house of living death called the Green Chapel.

Accompanied only by his faithful dog and following the directions of a talking horse, Gilberic must go against his beloved mother’s wishes and go in search of the Green Knight, the mysterious giant who is said to dwell in the chapel, and whom he had previously beheaded. SWAN KNIGHT’S SWORD is the third and final book of THE GREEN KNIGHT’S SQUIRE, the first volume of MOTH & COBWEB, an astonishing new series about magical worlds of Day, Night, and Twilight by John C. Wright. 

John C. Wright is one of the living grandmasters of science fiction and the author of THE GOLDEN AGE, AWAKE IN THE NIGHT LAND, and IRON CHAMBER OF MEMORY, to name just three of his exceptional books. He has been nominated for the Nebula Award, for the Hugo Award, and his novel SOMEWHITHER won the 2016 Dragon Award for Best Science Fiction Novel at Dragoncon.

SWAN KNIGHT’S SWORD is now available on Amazon for $4.99. It is 180 pages and DRM-free. It is old-school fantasy of the very best kind, more in the mode of Lord Dunsany, C.S. Lewis, and Lloyd Alexander than JRR Tolkien and GRR Martin.

THE GREEN KNIGHT’S SQUIRE trilogy is now complete.

The next trilogy will begin with the first book in the DARK AVENGER’S SIDEKICK, the fourth in the Moth & Cobweb series, DAUGHTER OF DANGER. THE GREEN KNIGHT’S SQUIRE will be available in omnibus paperback, hardcover, and audio editions next year.

Incoming: Round Two

The Left is beginning to hyperventilate about the possibility of another American civil war:

Since 1972, the General Social Survey has collected data on how many Americans think “most people can be trusted.” A guy named Josh Morgan graphed it, and while the south has always taken a more “we don’t like your kind ’round here” position, most of America started the 70s in a pretty good place:

Now fast-forward to 2012:

“Trust” isn’t just an intangible concept when we’re talking about the potential for civil warfare. Sinisa Malesevic is a professor who studies the sociology of civil wars and a survivor of the Yugoslavian civil war. He’s someone Marvel really should’ve reached out to for script advice, and he noted the breakdown of trust was one of the first traumatizing steps to war, “… in a very short period of time, there is a complete sense of fear, you do not know who is who, who is supporting which side … that fear spreads.”

Sinisa also pointed out that most civil wars start after a loss of trust in the government, particularly law enforcement: “One of the defining features of any state is a legitimate monopoly on the use of violence.” In other words, if we trust the police to handle bad guys better than armed groups of vigilantes, we’ll probably trust the government more than armed groups of insurgents.

“And if police are not seen as doing their job … I think that certainly has an impact.”

Now, what could possibly have changed since 1972? What could possibly have reduced the sense of community, and trust, and unity to the point that the average percentage of people who believe “most people can be trusted” has fallen from 46.2 percent to 32.4 percent.

Could it, perhaps, be the alteration of the country’s population demographic by the largest invasion in human history?

It might make Cracked feel better to know that their reasons for a possible civil war are largely irrelevant. It probably won’t make them feel better to be informed that there are much better reasons for a civil war to be almost inevitable at this point.

As I noted previously, Peter Turchin and his team have calcuated that the Population Stress Index is already at 1856 levels. While there is no definite trigger point, the USA is already well within the range that civil wars happen. And since the USA is not even a reasonable approximation of a genuine nation anymore, Round Two promises to be considerably less civil than its predecessor.

Donald Trump and the Alt-Right are very likely the last hope for avoiding the balkanization and break-up of the USA. Regardless of what you think of either, you would be wise to support both if you wish there to be domestic peace on the North American continent.

This is what Zero Fucks looks like

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
Pro tip: if you write me telling me you’re tired of me writing about politics, expect a response along the line of “I don’t fucking care.”


John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
Pointed out to me a certain racist failure is still desperately trying to prove he’s more popular than I am. Well, with assholes, certainly.


James S.A. Corey ‏@JamesSACorey 
How come you get all the cool enemies?


John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
Well, if by “cool” you mean “sad little bigoted manchildren, wailing disconsolately at the indifference of others”: just luck.


Edward Trimnell ‏@EdwardTrimnell
John Scalzi, studiously ignoring Vox Day. Lol.

MAGA Thermite ‏@SirThermite
It’s telling how Gamma 0 isn’t content anymore with calling @voxday a racist, has to lie about him being a failure

Just a reminder that John Scalzi is so successful, and cares so little about what other people think, that he told Lightspeed Magazine in 2010 that Whatever was getting more than 2 million pageviews per month when it was actually getting 409,745. As it is written, SJWs always lie. The first funny thing – and I would have spotted this if I’d been paying attention at the time – is that later that year, he reported 5,131,194 pageviews for the entire year. Be it lying, political analysis, or writing science fiction, he is a mediocrity.

It’s true that McRapey gives zero fucks, but about the truth, not about what you think of him. He cares very much indeed about that. And if you’re here reading this, you are probably already aware that John Scalzi says you’re an asshole. See: Third Law of SJW.

Speaking of the Laws of SJW, the second funny thing is that McRapey is still trying to preserve his narrative about my being a failure when Castalia House now sells more books than he does and November’s VP-only traffic was 3,446,312 pageviews, which happens to be 3.3 times more than Whatever’s very best month ever back in May 2012. Scalzi has been in decline ever since, as his site traffic and Google Trends and flat number of Twitter followers all demonstrate.

I’m not trying to prove I’m more popular than he is. I am conclusively proving it, using the very metric that he dishonestly used to create a false media narrative of his own popularity. Far from being desperate, I am distinctly amused at his complete inability to admit the observable reality; Gamma pride is truly a thing to behold. And once his attempt to rip off Isaac Asimov fails to take him to the next level, again, it’s back to the coal mines of the midlist for poor McRapey. His readers know the truth, of course, even as they rush to smooth his ruffled feathers.

Fledgist ‏@Fledgist
What matters is not the roar of the world but the love of your family & the affection of your friends. You’ve got that in spades.

Or, you know, maybe not.


John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
When retweeting things, try to be better than your racist aunt forwarding bullshit she found on Facebook. It’s easier than you think.

An Bhrí na Dheis Ailtéarnach

1. Tá an téarma Dheis Ailtéarnach bunaithe ar an coincheap polaitiúil de “an t-eite dheas”, mar atá sainmhínithe i Meiriceá agus san Eoraip araon. Níl siad na Sóisialaithe cuid den Dheis Ailtéarnach. Níl siad na Liobrálacha cuid den Dheis Ailtéarnach, nó na Forásacha. Níl siad na Cumannaithe, nó na Marxaigh, nó na Marxannaigh, nó na Marxaigh Cultúrtha; agus níl siad na Nua Coimeádaigh cuid den Dheis Ailtéarnach, ach an oiread.

2. Is í an Dheis Ailtéarnach mar MHALAIRT ar an ghluaiseacht coimeádach lárshrutha i SAM (Stáit Aontaithe Mhericeá), a bhí achoimríodh ar dtús san oráid dar teideal “10 Conservative Principles (10 Prionsabail Coimeádacha)” le Russell Kirk i mbliana 1987, ach i ndáiríre tá a chuiditheoirí tar éis a chineachadh i dtreo Progressivism. Tá an Dheis Ailtéarnach freisin mar mhalairt ar Libertarianism.

3. Ní an Dheis Ailtéarnach dearcadh cosanta í, agus diúltaíonn muid an coincheap de díomua uasal phrionsabálta. Is mór fealsúnacht ionsaí í, a dhíríonn ar an todhchaí, i ngach ciall an téarma sin. Creideann an Dheis Ailtéarnach i bua trí marthanachta ach fós ar aon dul leis an eolaíocht, réaltacht, traidisiún cultúrtha, agus na ceachtanna den staire.

4. Creideann an Dheis Ailtéarnach go bhfuil buaic den éacht dhaonna é sibhialtacht an Iarthair, agus tacaíonn muid leis na trí cholún a chuid bhunaíodh: An Chríostaíocht, na náisiúin den hEorpa, agus an oidhreacht Gréag-Rómhánacha.

5. Is an Dheis Ailtéarnach náisiúnaí i hoscáilte agus i gchomhfhios. Tacaíonn muid le gach cineál de náisiúnachas, agus an ceart de gach náisiún a mhaireann, aonchineálach gan mheascadh gan truailliú, den ionradh eachtrach agus inimirce.

6. Tá sí bunaithe ar a fhealsúnacht den frith-domhandach. Téann muid in éadan gach grúpa atá ag obair do idéalacha domhandacha nó cuspóirí domhandacha.

7. Is í an Dheis Ailtéarnach frith-comhionannas. Diúltaíonn muid an smaoineamh den chomhionannais ar an gcúis chéanna mar a séanann muid gurb ann aonbheannaigh agus leipreachain, mar aithníonn muid nach comhionannas daonna ann in aon foirm eolaíocha, dlíthiúla, ábhar inbhraite, intleachtúil, gnéasach, nó spioradálta.

8. Is í an Dheis Ailtéarnach scientodific. Glacann muid go creatúil na conclúidí atá ann faoi láthair ar an modh eolaíoch (scientody), afách – ag an am céanna – tuigeann muid a.) gur bhfuil na conclúidí faoi dhliteanas athbhreithnithe amach anseo, b.) gur é sin scientistry goilliúnach do éilliú agus c.) níl an comhdhearcadh sin ar a dtugtar eolaíochta atá bunaithe ar scientody, ach daonlathas, agus dá bhrí sin tá sé neamheolaíoch go bunúsach.

9. Creideann an Dheis Ailtéarnach go bhfuil féiniúlacht > (níos mó ná) cultúr > pholaitíocht.

10. Téann an Dheis Ailtéarnach in éadan an riail nó forlámhas d’aon ghrúpa eitneach dúchais ag eile, go háirithe ina dtíortha dhúchais ceannasach na bpobal atá faoi mhursantacht. Téann an Dheis Ailtéarnach in éadan aon ghrúpa eitneach neamhdhúchasacha a fháil tionchar iomarcach in aon sochaí trí nepotism, treibheachas, nó ar aon mhodh eile.

11. Tuigeann an Dheis Ailtéarnach go bhfuil Gaireacht móide (+) Éagsúlacht ionann (=) Cogadh.

12. Is cuma leis an Dheis Ailtéarnach cad a cheapann tú orainn.

13. Diúltaíonn an Dheis Ailtéarnach trádáil idirnáisiúnta saor in aisce, agus an saorghluaiseacht na ndaoine a éilíonn an trádáil sin. Na buntáistí a bhaineann le trádáil idirnáisiúnta saor in aisce nach bhfuil fianaise do na sochair na trádála idirnáisiúnta saor in aisce.

14. Creideann an Dheis Ailtéarnach gur caithimid an eiseadh a dhaingniú de na daoine na hEorpa agus don todhchaí den pháistí Eorpacha.

15. Ní chreideann an Dheis Ailtéarnach sa ardcheannas ginearálta aon chine, náisiún, daoine, no fo-speicis. Tá a láidreachtaí uathúla féin agus laigí ag gach cine, náisiún, daoine, agus daonna fo-speicis, agus atá ceart ceannasach acu ina tsealbha dhílis féin chun a gcónaí gan díobháil i gcultúr dúchais fearr leis.

16. Is í an Dheis Ailtéarnach fealsúnacht a chuireann luach ar an tsíocháin i measc na náisiún éagsúla ar fud an domhain agus i gcoinne cogaí a fhorchur luachanna náisiúin ar mhuin chomh maith le hiarrachtaí chun náisiúin aonair a dhíothú trí chogaidh, cinedhíothú, inimirce, nó comhshamhlú ghéiniteach.

Is í an Dheis Ailtéarnach idé-eolaíocht an Iarthair go gcreideann san eolaíocht, stair, réaltacht, agus an ceart chun náisiún géiniteach a bheith ann agus a rialú féin ina leasanna féin.
Ar dheis Dé go raibh muid!

Fake news interviews Gab

The Carlos Slim Blog interviews a known Alt-Right White Supremacist Ultra-Nazi, Utsav Sanduja of Gab.

Carlos Slim’s blog, The New York Times, a known political activist organization and fake news publisher, reached out to interview Gab. Our policy with fake news websites is to either grant them a recorded telephone interview or a written-only interview at our discretion. In this case, we opted for a written interview. We do this to keep the dishonest, politically motivated media in check. Only 6% of the American public trusts the media, and for good reason.

Here is the article that was published on Gab by The New York Times.

Below are the answers to the questions they sent us. We will let you decide if their article was objective, fair, and not politically motivated. The interview was with Utsav Sanduja, Gab’s Chief Communications Officer.

When did Andrew first conceive of Gab, and why did he decide to start a new social media platform?

Andrew first conceived the idea for Gab after reading about the censorship of conservative news and sources on Facebook’s Trending Topics. He witnessed extensive censorship on Reddit, Twitter, and other platforms during the recent election cycle and more broadly noticed a clearly progressive-driven agenda in Silicon Valley where he worked. It was from there he realized that the monopoly in the technology industry had to be shaken up.

What’s the thinking behind the main design features — 300 character limit, up and down voting, and the categories up top and down the side?

Gab has innovated in areas where other platforms have refused to. 300 characters allows for more thoughtful and meaningful discourse in a microblogging environment. Upvoting and downvoting allows both positive and negative sentiment as it empowers the community to surface great content. Categories help users discover interesting topics and diverse communities on Gab who share similar interests. Editing along with edit logs allows users to make quick changes and modify additional information, while keeping the integrity of the post in check.


What are the limitations of Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit? What does Gab offer that they don’t?

Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit are taking the path of censorship — Gab does not. This alone sets us apart from Big Social. The aforementioned platforms also rely immensely on advertising revenues for their core business model, a concept that is proving to be futile in an environment of ad blockers on both mobile and desktop web. Lastly, we feel that Big Social does not empower content creators, but rather exploits them as said companies make billions off their creativity, time and energy. Gab takes a different approach — we put the user in charge in the expurgation process, we put content creators first so they can sustain their business and passion. And more importantly, we put free speech above all else.


Why a frog? Does the frog have a name?

Gabby the frog was drawn from antediluvian and Biblical sources. First, from Exodus 8:2–7, which is the plague of frogs. The frog serves as a metaphor for Gab “releasing the frogs” on Silicon Valley to expose their corruption, censorship, and information monopoly on the web. Secondly, the African Bullfrog was a source of inspiration after Andrew viewed a Youtube video of this species digging a channel between a drying up pond and a lake to save his tadpoles. Finally, frogs have historically symbolized transformation, rebirth and fertility dating back to the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians.

Democrats need black female leadership

I could not agree more with this call for black women to lead the Democratic Party:

The leadership of the Democratic Party, at the highest levels, has consisted of mostly White men and women and a handful of Latinos. What Democratic leadership in the United States Congress, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) doesn’t have — and has never had — is a representative from its most loyal voting bloc over the last three presidential elections: Black women. To say that all quarters of Democratic Party leadership is in need of change is a vast understatement.

The numbers don’t lie. The Democratic Party has lost a historic number of seats across the board from federal representatives to statehouse races.  Part of that shift is due to a realignment caused by the appearance of the first Black president. But another part of it is a lack of strategy and misallocation of millions of dollars in resources focused on the wrong voters.  While Democrats roll out the same old leaders who employ the same old losing consultants and staff, they ignore members of their most consistently loyal voting group: Black women.

The 2016 election was, in some ways, a powerful statement on who remains loyal to the Democratic Party and who doesn’t. On that note, Latino voters shocked and confused everyone by giving Donald “build a wall” Trump nearly 30 percent of their votes.

In 2012, more than 70 percent of Black women voted, while White women voted at 65.6 percent. Black women continue to make up a larger proportion of Democratic votes than any other subgroup.  Given all the research, the Democratic Party continues to chase and reward other groups. One would think that ensuring that African Americans get to the polls would become a number one priority at the DNC and DCCC or to anyone campaigning for the White House.  Instead, the party continues to chase voters who seem to have less loyalty to the party than Black women, spending millions, while losing elections.

More than half of White women (53 percent) voted for Donald Trump. Meanwhile, just 4 percent of African American women and 26 percent of Hispanic women voted for the reality TV star.

Why shouldn’t Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Marcia Fudge (D-OH), Joyce Beatty (D-OH), Alma Adams and Rep-Elect Val Demings (D-Fla.) serve in leadership? They’re part of the most reliable voting bloc for the Democratic Party and Fudge, Beatty, Adams and Demings are from key swing states.  Who better to figure out how to win voters in other sectors than the members of the sector who’ve already shown support?  Who better to lead than a former college administrator, a former mayor in a swing state or a former police chief in a battleground state?

Why shouldn’t they indeed? If you’re a Democrat and you don’t support a gay black women for every party leadership position, then you are objectively a homophobic, racist, and sexist bigot. Loyalty must be rewarded and privileged Whites and Jews must be banished to the back of the party.

Let’s keep this party rolling, everyone!

That’s one down. Now we just need to convince the cuckservatives to either a) leave the White American Party altogether and sit in the back of the Not-White bus or b) get over their “I would just love to vote for a clean and articulate minority like [insert Black name here] to demonstrate how totally not-racist I am” fetish already.

Anyhow, this is the only chance black women are ever going to get. By 2020, Asians will be demanding their fair share of representation, which means Jews are all but done in both parties.

Tragedy in Brazilian soccer

In the aftermath of the plane crash in Colombia that wiped out an entire professional soccer team, there is nothing that can be done except for the families and the nation to grieve. But the various gestures being made by their rivals are touching nevertheless.

The plane was carrying Brazilian club side Chapecoense Real to the first of two games to decide the Copa Sudamericana, South America’s second-biggest club tournament. Based in the city of Chapeco, in southern Brazil, the unsung team was having a Cinderella season after defying the odds to reach the finals. The team’s goalkeeper Marcos Danilo Padilha, 31, whose heroic last minute save assured their progression, died on the way to hospital after the crash.

Soccer-mad Brazil declared three days of mourning while their opponents Atletico Nacional, of Medellin, asked for the winning trophy to be awarded to the Brazilians in honour of the dead.

Fellow top division Brazilian sides also showed solidarity by offering loan players to Chapecoense and urging the national federation to give it a three-year stay against relegation while the club gets back on its feet.

Meanwhile the legends of the sport – from Lionel Messi to Pele – sent condolences.

These gestures may seem empty and pointless, but keep in mind that they are gestures worth literally millions of dollars. It’s the equivalent of one team foregoing a Lombardi trophy and Super Bowl championship, and three other teams voluntarily giving up their chance at the big leagues and the subsequent TV revenue shares and advertising revenue that involves.

It won’t bring the Chapecoense players back, but it will ensure they are not quickly forgotten. And it is always inspiring to see basic human decency persevere in the face of tragedy.

Wat is die Alt Regs: 16 Punte

1. Die Alt Regs is polities “regs” in beide die Amerikaanse en Europese sin van die begrip. Sosialiste is nie Alt Regs nie. Kommuniste, Marxiste, Marxistiese ekonome, kulturele Marxiste, en neokonserwatiewes is nie Alt Regs nie.

2. Die Alt Regs is ‘n ALTERNATIEF vir die hoofstroom konserwatiewe beweging in die VSA wat nominaal verwoord word deur Russel Kirk se [10 Konserwatiewe Beginsels], maar in werklikheid afgewentel het na progressivisme. Dit is ook ‘n alternatief vir libertarianisme.

3. Die Alt Regs is nie ‘n defensiewe houding nie en verwerp die konsep van edele en beginselvaste nederlae. Dit is ‘n vooruitdenkende filosofie gefokus op offensief, in elke sin van die woord. Die Alt Regs glo in oorwinning deur volharding en deur in harmonie te verkeer met die wetenskap, realiteit, kulturele tradisie, en die lesse van die geskiedenis.

4. Die Alt Regs glo die Westerse beskawing is die toppunt van menslike prestasie en ondersteun die drie pilare van sy fondasie: Christendom, die Europese nasies, en die Grieks-Romeinse nalatenskap.

5. Die Alt Regs is openlik en uitgesproke nasionalisties. Dit ondersteun alle nasionalismes en die bestaansreg van nasies, homogeen en nie vervuil deur immigrasie of besetting nie.  

6. Die Alt Regs is anti-globalisties. Dit verwerp alle groepe wat streef na globalistiese ideale of doelwitte.

7. Die Alt Regs is anti-egalitaries. Dit verwerp die idee van gelykheid vir dieselfde rede waarom dit die idees van eenhorings, “leprechauns” of die tokkelossie verwerp. Dit neem waar dat daar nie so iets soos gelykheid bestaan in enige waarneembare vorm in die wetenskaplike-, regs-, materiele-, intellektuele-, seksuele of geestelike sin nie.

8. Die Alt Regs aanvaar die huidige gevolgtrekkings van die wetenskaplike metodiek (in Engels “scientody”), maar verstaan dat a) hierdie gevolgtrekkings onderworpe is aan toekomstige verwysing, b) dat die praktyk van wetenskap (in Engels “scientistry”) vatbaar is vir korrupsie, en c) dat die sogenaamde wetenskaplike konsensus nie gebaseer is op die wetenskaplike metodiek nie, maar op demokrasie, en daarom intrinsiek onwetenskaplik is.

9. Die Alt Regs glo identiteit > kultuur > politiek.

10. Die Alt Regs is gekant teen die regering of dominasie van een inheemse etniese groep deur ‘n ander, veral in die soewereine tuislande van die onderdruktes. Die Alt Regs is gekant teen enige nie-inheemse etniese groep wat buitensporige invloed in die samelewing bekom deur nepotisme, stamgebondenheid, of enige ander metode.

11. Die Alt Regs verstaan dat diversiteit + nabyheid = oorlog.

12. Die Alt Regs gee nie om wat jy daarvan dink nie.

13. Die Alt Regs verwerp internasionale vrye handel en die vrye beweging van mense wat deur vrye handel vereis word. Die voordele van intra-nasionale vrye handel tussen lande is nie bewyse van die voordele van internasionale vrye handel nie.

14. Die Alt Regs glo dat ons die voortbestaan van witmense en ‘n toekoms vir wit kinders moet verseker.

15. Die Alt Regs glo nie in die inherente oppergesag van enige ras, nasie, volk of subspesie nie. Elke ras, nasie, volk en menslike subspesie het sy eie unieke sterk- en swakpunte en beskik oor die soewereine reg om sonder inmenging van buite te verkeer in die kultuur wat dit verkies.

16. Die Alt Regs is ‘n filosofie wat waarde heg aan vrede tussen die verskeie nasies van die wereld en staan geweld om een nasie se waardestelsel op ‘n ander nasie af te dwing teen, sowel as pogings om individuele nasies uit te wis deur oorlog, volksmoord, immigrasie of genetiese assimilasie.