top of page
Search
  • Writer's picture738

Immigration ≠ invasion (II)



In the previous article, I noted that Western countries have not been “invaded” or “conquered” via mass immigration—their armies are not defeated, and the immigrants are not self-reliant colonists but rather the opportunist scum of the world. Immigration happened because Western elites are decadent; under decadence, they bought into status competition that involved cosmopolitanism—the immigrants exist for elites to “love”, at a safe distance, and to differentiate elites from the racist rubes who have to share the negative externalities associated with immigration (grooming gangs).


Yet if you’re so low-status as to live in an area where your children are predated by grooming gangs then that just shows what absolute trash you are—humans punish other humans in sadistic ways to lower their status and enforce their status. Rotherham happened because the elites and higher social groups—police and social workers—like to punish low-status people within their tribe.


So the problem is the Western elites. Indeed, the whole rhetoric around grooming gangs and around “invasion” helps the elites. They need an antagonist to play the status-game. They need “racists” who march under England flags or with MAGA hats—these people establish the status hierarchy: smelly unsophisticated people care about “our girls” (Rotherham) or “our boys” (the British Army), whereas sophisticated people are above all that (don’t dirty their hands in the military, for instance). The elites need EDL marches and skinheads and “racists” to play the game.


They want people to be angry about “the Asians”, “the Pakis”, and “the trans” because they can then be safely out-grouped—and if they’re angry at the status-puppet, the racial group or sexual minority, then they’re not angry at the elites. Indeed, ethnocentric “traditional” people will treat elites as in-group (because “white”, because “our people”) even though these people loathe them as low-status.


The solution is to remove the elites; if the elites aren’t removed, then the problem will never be resolved—it is pointless to expend energy against different racial groups or sexual groups (you’re attacking the wrong target, you’re attacking the matador’s cape). This doesn’t mean that “we’re all in it together against the elites”—another attempt to look “nice” and to be democratic. The interests of immigrants are aligned against Europeans, grooming gangs and Islamic terror plots are real, and trans people are a danger to children—yet the real target has to be the elites.


By “elites” I mean every official—in the state or corporations—above the level of “colonel”. I use the military analogy because it is the case that coup d’états are almost always carried out by men at or below the rank of colonel. Why? Because all ranks over colonel are “political”—above that rank you are no longer involved in the real day-to-day business of the military (unless there’s a war) and are really engaged in inter-departmental politics. The rule can be applied to all large organisations—above “colonel”, whether in NASA or the BBC, what you do has nothing to do with what the organisation is meant to do and everything to do with garnishing your status (perhaps you join an organisation like the Freemasons at that point to smooth the passage upwards).


Coups happen with officers at colonel and below because these men still have some involvement with the actual troops—not abstract politics—and often see that what happens at the “political” level has nothing to do with them or their interests (consider a white officer today who realises he will never make a top rank because a woman or a black will be promoted over him as government policy, as part of high-status politics—from such men coups are made of, to make a coup you need to work on such a man’s ambition and vanity).


In Britain, the elites so identified probably amount to about 25,453 individuals and in America probably about 54,674. What needs to happen is for these people to be arrested. Then there need to be trials for the worst offenders—and executions (although that will only be practical for people in the military). The trials will not be “show trials” but they will be highly publicised—there will be ample incriminating material with which to disillusion the public with the ancien regime. People will read the revelations, more detailed than Wikileaks, and go “I always thought there was something fishy about him.” This will be necessary to discredit the old regime and the executions will be necessary to show there is no path back and that the old power structure has been destroyed. The remainder elite should be sent into “exile” with their wealth.


To be frank, it would be more prudent to kill them all, but I do not believe anyone in the West is as practical as I am or would be willing to do so—you have to work within realistic bounds (though to leave men displaced from power is dangerous—they still have resources and will be fuelled by resentment, since to lose status always creates huge resentment). Unfortunately, I just don’t think any such coup attempt would be that sensible—you have to work with the material to hand, and modern Westerners just wouldn’t be able to do that to “innocent” people.


A temporary solution to problems with large bureaucracies would be found by appointing “colonels” to lead the now leaderless organisations, but this would only be a temporary solution—the promotion alone would lead to “political behaviour”. Further, there is a problem as regards what to do with a large organisation like the BBC. If you acted like a libertarian and closed it down, you would just flood the country with resentful unemployed propagandists—a major risk for your own stability. Equally, you couldn’t kill everyone in an organisation like the BBC—such a “Mongolian” solution just isn’t Western, and is in itself fundamentally unjust.


The solution is to establish a parallel status structure in these organisations. Issue everyone in the BBC with a uniform and rank, to be worn at all times. Although people claim to hate uniforms, they actually love them—they find meaning and security in overt rank signifiers (it makes it harder to spoof status or to play “inverted snob” or “counter-signaller” as well). The ethos should be military, perhaps with actual management brought in from the military—the military is not “incorruptible” but it is less corruptible than other organisations because it is an existential occupation that relies on tradition to avoid death; hence it is the opposite to, say, the BBC where everything is about short-term status and “looking clever”. The uniforms and “militarisation” would not be about war as such, it would just be to create a parallel status structure that would displace the old one—most people would accept it with alacrity and prefer it to the old one.


With the new status structure established, the old bureaucracies could be safely dismantled without resentful blowback from displaced elite minions. A similar process could work with non-European racial groups and sexual minorities—they could be placed in special unit organisations that emphasised their national heritage, explicitly told them they were not British, and then re-deployed aboard (the model would be the Gurkhas). These formations would not actually be military, but would be modelled on the military ethos. Since these groups are, in fact, just atomised playthings for elites anyway they can easily be remodelled into other social formations—again, they will actually prefer to be organised in all-Pakistani “shock brigades”, patronised by, say, a particular duke, than to be just milling about as individuals under socialist-consumerism.


Trump talked about what I propose above: he talked about “draining the swamp” and “locking Hillary up”. The problem is that Trump is not a serious person—he is a showman; and, unfortunately, though he speaks the truth more than not, he bought his own bullshit. In Machiavellian terms, you should never threaten someone—especially if you don’t follow through. Trump threatened Hillary with jail—yet he’s the one who will be locked up. That was because he spent too much time in showbiz where what you say doesn’t really matter, it’s just a good joke to boost ratings. You shouldn’t make any threats against anyone, you should just work out how you’ll neutralise them and then act. Trump has suffered from the law of magical reversal: what you threaten rebounds on you—the humble man remains silent and acts. In short, what it actually takes to “drain the swamp” is total ruthlessness and discipline—and an ability to fly under the radar until you pop up and annihilate your enemies. Trump was not that man—not real.





155 views

Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas

1 Comment


Some guy with no plan
Some guy with no plan
Apr 05, 2023

Sad!

Like
Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page