Henry Dampier

On the outer right side of history

by 5 Comments

The Globalist Elite Has No Cohesion

The attempt to form a global elite has failed, except at the surface. There are many reasons for this:

  • Lack of religious cohesion
  • Lack of ethnic cohesion and intermarriage except across certain lines
  • Lack of geographic cohesion
  • Lack of linguistic cohesion
  • Lack of shared moral rules
  • Lack of a functioning international legal framework (which will never happen for the above reasons)
  • Inability to command loyalty at a local level

This notion that the men of Moncole Magazine and Davos can rule over seven billion people without using much force at all has not been proven. And in fact, we see betrayal and backstabbing after backstabbing occur on the global scene.

If there was a truly global elite, Russia would be part of the fold. China would not be pivoting between the US and Russia as the situation suited it. Tell-all memoirs about CIA manipulation of the German press would not be top best-sellers.

Go and ask a White student at an Ivy League college what they think of their Chinese co-students. Ask the Chinese students what they think of their cracker counterparts. At the places where diversity propaganda is the strongest, cohesion is often rather weak.

The elite-formation institutions of the West used to exist largely to form strong bonds between future male leaders. These institutions are now primarily seen as places of both meaningless and extreme competition within the elite, which typically fails to produce much appreciable excellence. Most of the most lauded leaders from the current and previous generations are drop-outs who did not need to use the now-degraded elite formation institutions.

In fact, what is a tech startup but a tiny fraternity, almost always all-male, that includes stressful bonding rituals and typical young male tomfoolery?

Inviting the world’s best students was supposed to solidify a new American century. However, China’s ambassador to the US berates the latter country in one of the leading Foreign Policy magazines. Prime Minister Modi of India openly flouts America.

Wasn’t the globalist program supposed to foster international cooperation in a new ‘flat’ and ‘global’ world? Whatever happened to that? Will there be any accountability for the failure of this strategy?

by 14 Comments

England: The Land of Discount Slaves

After the release of the ‘Easy Meat’ report (which I read and summarized in that link), some predicted that the country would reform its ways and kick out the slavers.

Instead, roughly nothing has happened, although it has been used for a good headline on a UKIP advertising campaign.

Ukip 1400 Rotherham ad campaign.

For this ad, many prestige publications attacked the party, rather than perhaps considering the problems in their society that lead to tens of thousands of girls being enslaved for profit (often enormous profit, exceeding £600,000 annually per girl).

While there has been some bureaucratic shuffling here and there, and a few concerned newspaper headlines, essentially nothing has been done, and in fact the original report has been largely ignored in favor of the soundbite-friendly ‘1,400’ number, and the localization to a single region when the original report substantiated complaints to the entire country and the broader region of Northern Europe.

Because this has been a long term pattern in the UK, we should not expect anything to change on a dime. In fact, we should expect the problem (which is only a problem for white Britons — for slavers, it’s a bonanza of profitable pleasure) to become considerably more acute, and more widespread over the next decade.

Since the UK has elected to pursue the enlightenment system of reformatory criminal justice, we should expect more Muslim entrepreneurs to respond to the enormous profits that even an idiot can scoop up in front of the playgrounds of UK schools for the cost of a six pack of lukewarm beer. The worst that the state can do is put a person into a brief vacation-type jail sentence, after which he is free to return to his former line of crooked employment.

When a single kidnapping can provide more money in a year than a typical British person is likely to earn in a lifetime, you’d be quite stupid, at least materially speaking, to enter any other business. Further, kidnappers seem to enjoy higher status than most other classes of UK businessman.

For one, to be of diverse descent is to automatically enjoy a protected status. For another, it creates no emissions, it’s a green business, it requires no factory equipment, and most of the front line workers are young women.

The country that piously abolished slavery is becoming incapable of condemning the enslavement of its own population. It has become so accustomed to being able to issue moral complaints about other societies without actually having to do anything themselves that, when a moral crisis appears, it has no capacity to act in a meaningful way. It can create bureaucratic task forces and place charities on watch lists, but to take decisive action has become politically unspeakable.

If we accept the proposition the women of a country are its future, we should translate that into the observation that the future of the United Kingdom is slavery.

The West, accustomed to being on top of the world, may soon find big parts of itself being seized and trundled off to foreign hoards. Having lost the will to live, to defend itself, having taken the reflexive pose of toleration without regard to what is to be tolerated, it is losing its freedom.

We should also consider, that historically speaking, for such things to happen is not beyond the pale, and is actually quite normal. For all of Europe to be free of Oriental despotism of all kinds is odd. What is normal is for big swaths of what we call European countries to be dominated by foreign invaders for centuries at a time. This was certainly the case until World War I decimated the Ottomans, and it was the case before the Ottomans made Constantinople their new capitol.

Also, it is not ‘the people’ who wake up and resist the invaders. It’s also not typically ‘one great man’ who emerges from ‘the people’ to push them back. Far more typical is for the aristocracy to make a good living selling their own people out to the invaders, whom they are too weak and weak-willed to resist.

When a people are broken, everyone is broken, from bottom to top, and whatever deliverance may be forthcoming typically comes from outside, and at a different time.

by 3 Comments

Orson Scott Card on Civil War

One of America’s most popular living authors of fiction writes (h/t Anarcho Papist):

Rarely do people set out to start a civil war. Invariably, when such wars break out both sides consider themselves to be the aggrieved ones. Right now in America, even though the Left has control of all the institutions of cultural power and prestige — universities, movies, literary publishing, mainstream journalism– as well as the federal courts, they feel themselves oppressed and threatened by traditional religion and conservatism. And even though the Right controls both houses of Congress and the presidency, as well as having ample outlets for their views in nontraditional media and an ever-increasing dominance over American religious and economic life, they feel themselves oppressed and threatened by the cultural dominance of the Left.

And they are threatened, just as they are also threatening, because nobody is willing to accept the simple idea that someone can disagree with their group and still be a decent human being worthy of respect.

Can it lead to war?

Very simply, yes. The moment one group feels itself so aggrieved that it uses either its own weapons or the weapons of the state to “prevent” the other side from bringing about its supposed “evil” designs, then that other side will have no choice but to take up arms against them. Both sides will believe the other to be the instigator.

In 2009, when this was written, it seemed less likely. In 2014, it seems much more likely, as the free marketplace for ideas shuts down, as the ideals of free speech set out by John Stuart Mill become ignored and deprecated, and people on both sides are more open about calling to their men ‘aux armes.’

In 2013, Jim predicted something similar to what Card anticipated. He also predicted the shape of early conflicts, eerily predating the conflict in Ferguson, MO by more than a year.

Top Posts & Pages