2016 and the future – Robert Henderson

What has changed over the past year?
The grip of the Western globalists is slipping.   They do not   realise it yet but their day is  almost done. Their ramshackle ideology,   a toxic blend of open borders politically correct internationalism  and what is crony capitalism but called by  those with a vested interest in it neo-liberal or laissez faire  economics , has wrought as it was certain to do,  rage and increasingly despair amongst  the majority of electors in Western states who are increasingly turning to  politicians that at least have some grasp of what is necessary to preserve  the viability of Western nation states.

The most  optimistic possibility for the West  is that  parties which do have some real attachment to what the great mass of people seek will be both elected and when in office carry through their pre-election promises.  But this is far from certain. It does not follow that what will replace globalism will be a politics which reflects the wants and needs of Western voters because the existing elites may drop all pretence of being anything other than an authoritarian clique and go in for wholehearted suppression of any dissent.  There are already signs that  this might happen with  the  growing willingness  amongst Western  elites  to  censor  political ideas, potent examples of which have been the  recent conviction of Gert Wilders in Holland for inciting racial hatred by saying there should be fewer Moroccans in  Holland , while in the UK  the  Prime Minister Theresa May has just sanctioned the putting into law of a definition of anti-Semitism so broad that any criticism Jews or Israel could be interpreted as anti-Semitic. Much will depend on how Donald Trump’s presidency develops.

In Britain the  EU referendum  has dominated everything both before and after the vote to leave in the political year .The anti-democratic mind-set of those who wanted to remain in the EU has been nakedly shown by colossal attempts to  sabotage the result of the referendum through legal  and political action and an incessant bleat about how they want a soft Brexit not a hard Brexit when only  Brexit  exists.

Something which the government calls Brexit will  eventually emerge,  but it could easily  be  a beast which is  directly at odds with what the British people voted on when they went to the polls on 23rd June, namely, for a clean break with the EU.  If this government, or conceivably its successor, concludes  a deal which stitches the UK back into the EU with  such things as free movement of EU citizens into the UK, the UK paying for the “privilege” of remaining in the Single Market and the UK being subject to the European Court of Justice, there  is surely a serious risk of political violence. But even if that  is  avoided British politics would be seriously curdled by such a betrayal.

The other  pressing political  need  is  for an  English parliament and government  to balance the devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A procedure to have only  MPs sitting for  English seats  voting on English only legislation  (English votes for English laws  or EVEL for short)  began a trial in 2015,  but  it  has few teeth because  it is difficult to disentangle what is English only  legislation, not least  because  MPs  for seats outside of England argue  that any Bill dealing solely with English matters has financial implications for the rest of the UK and , consequently, is not an England only Bill. Nor does EVEL allow English MPs to initiate English only legislation. Most importantly  England , unlike Scotland,  Wales and Northern Ireland, is left without any national political representatives   to concentrate on purely English domestic matters.

The House of Lords review of its first year  in operation makes EVEL’s  limitations clear:

The EVEL procedures introduced by the Government address, to some extent, the West Lothian Question. They provide a double-veto, meaning that legislationor provisions in bills affecting only England (or in some cases, England and Wales, or England and Wales and Northern Ireland), can only be passed by the House of Commons with the support of both a majority of MPs overall, and of MPs from the nations directly affected by the legislation.

Yet English MPs’ ability to enact and amend legislation does not mirror their capacity, under EVEL, to resist legislative changes. The capacity of English MPs to pursue a distinct legislative agenda for England in respect of matters that are devolved elsewhere does not equate to the broader capacity of devolved legislatures to pursue a distinct agenda on matters that are devolved to them

The most dangerous general global threats are plausibly these in this order

  1. Mass immigration, the permitting of which by elites is the most fundamental treason because unlike an invasion by force, there is no identifiable concrete foreign enemy for the native population to resist. Yet the land is effectively colonised just the same.

2 Uncontrolled technology, which leaves the developed world in particular  but increasingly the  world generally,  very vulnerable  to suddenly being left without vital services if computer systems fail naturally or through cyber attacks.  Judged by the number of reports in the mainstream media the frequency of personal data being hacked and major computer systems  going down, most notably banks, is increasing. This is unsurprising because both state organisations and private business are remorselessly  forcing  customers and  clients to use web-based contact points rather than deal with a human being.  This in itself makes life unpleasant and for older people in particular most difficult.

In the  medium  term –  probably within ten years –  there is the existential  threat  to humans of general purpose robots being able to cause a catastrophic  drop in demand by taking over  so many jobs that demand collapses because huge numbers are rapidly made unemployed.  To that can be added the development of military robots which have the capacity to make autonomous judgements about killing humans.

The  general lack of political concern and a seemingly  universal inability of those with power and influence to see  how robotics and AI systems generally  are rapidly  developing is astonishing. Time and again when the subject of robots and AI systems is raised with such people they will bleat that new jobs will arise due to the new technology, as new technology has always created jobs, and these developments will provide the jobs for humans.

This is sheer “it’ll never replace the horse” ism .  Intelligent robots and AI systems will not only take existing jobs,  they will take most or even all of the new jobs that arise.  This is the potential catastrophe that humans face from robots and AI,  the rapid loss of such  huge amounts of employment  that the economic systems of both the developed and the developing world cannot function  because of the loss of demand,  not the SF style scare stories about intelligent robots making war on humans.  The other thing that  politicians do not seem to understand is that when there are  robots and AI systems sophisticated enough to do most of the jobs humans do, the loss of human jobs will occur at great speed. We can be certain of this for two reasons; our experience with digital technology  is of rapid advances and robots and AI systems will be able to design and build even more advanced  robots and AI systems, probably  very quickly.

Aside from digital technology,  advances in genetic engineering and ever more radical transplant surgery raise the question of what it is to be a human being if full face transplants are now available and the possibility of things such as a head being transplanted in the not too distant future.   We need to ask ourselves what it is to be human.

  1. Islam – serious unrest is found throughout the world wherever there are large numbers of Muslims.
  2. Ever increasing general instability. Contrary to Steven Pinker’s view that the world is becoming more peaceful, if civil conflict is included things are getting worse.  Formal war may be less easy to identify , but ethnic  (and often religious ) based strife plus repression by  rulers  is so widespread outside the West that it is best described as endemic. Globalisation =  destabilisation because by making the world’s economic system more complex , there is simply more to go wrong both economically and socially. Sweeping aside  traditional relationships and practices is a recipe for social discord.  All of economic history tells you one thing above all else: a strong domestic economy is essential for the stability of any country.   The ideology of laissez faire, is like all ideologies,  at odds with  human nature and reality generally and its application inevitably creates huge numbers of losers when applied to places such as China and India.

The most dangerous specific  threats to global peace and stability are:

–              The heightened tension between China and the rest of the Far East (especially Japan) as a consequence of China’s growing territorial ambitions.

–              China’s extraordinary expanding  shadow world empire which consists of both huge investment in the first world and de facto colonial control in the developing world.

–              The growing power of India which threatens Pakistan. An India/Pakistan nuclear exchange is  probably the most likely use of nuclear weapons I the next ten years.

–              The increasing authoritarianism of the EU due to both the natural impetus towards central control and the gross mistake of the Euro.   This will end either in a successful centralisation of  EU power after the UK has left the EU  or the attempt at centralisation will lead to a collapse of the EU.

The Eurofanatics  continue to play  with fire in their attempts to lure border states of Russia into the EU whilst applying seriously damaging sanctions to Russia. It is not in the West’s interest to have a Russia which feels threatened or denied its natural sphere of influence.

–   The ever more successful (at least in the short run) attempt of post-Soviet Russia to re-establish their suzerainty over the old Soviet Empire and Putin’s increasingly martial noises including substantial re-armament.  However, these ambitions will be likely to be mitigated by the plight of the Russian provinces of the Far East where there is unofficial Chinese infiltration of the sparsely populated and natural resource rich land there. Eventually China will wish to capture those territories.



  1. “The ideology of laissez faire, is like all ideologies, at odds with human nature and reality generally and its application inevitably creates huge numbers of losers when applied to places such as China and India.”

    It isn’t even in existence at present.

  2. The idea that anything resembling freedom, democracy, or government by consent, can exist in any environment other than a nation state of manageable proportions is laughable.

  3. I am only going to deal with the robots/automation point here, though I note that the EU was never really for free trade and that the UK trade will most likely be freer once the complete break has been made.

    Uncontrolled technological innovation will only boost wage rates as a result of increasing output. The potential jobs out there in the mass urban society is limitless. No finite amount of workers or machines can ever hope to do the lot. So this boosts demand rather than diminishing it. That is why it gives rise to many new jobs as it makes all jobs more viable. So workers face no problem from AI. It does not matter than they can do any sort of jobs, they cannot do all the work and can only boost the wage rates of jobs that workers do.

    There is the problem with computer software and the other with robot soldiers. The latter is imposed only by the state. If we get rid of the state then we get rid of the problem of war.


    • You have ignored the killer fact I presented which is that robots and AI systems will be able to not only do the vast majority of human done jobs which exist but also any new jobs which arise.

      • I have not considered the depth of this point before.

        I have argued in the past that “productivity” is increased with the advancement in technology, but the long term forecast of it may not be so great after all.

        The example that is often cited is that of fruit pickers and the vast numbers of hand car wash places now operating in England. Both of these are often almost entirely low wage non-white immigrant staffed (car washes) and/or Eastern Europeans.

        The government and pro-immigration types seem to argue that these are good for the economy. They talk of entrepreneurs, small businesses, the relative cheapness of having cheap labour wash their cars for them and pick their fruit – but the productivity is dire, the infrastructure burdened, the taxes raised are poor.

        Rather than import such people to do these menial tasks (in the case of fruit picking a quite back-breaking job at times) it would be much more productive to be opening a factory that made car washing machines or fruit picking machines.

        Such things would need designers, engineers, the manufacture of plant equipment to make their parts upon, assembly lines, quality control management, sales, repair technicians / on site maintenance – and eventually, the purchase of new machines.

        This would require staff who were much more skilled, educated, trained than four Roma with buckets and sponges, or seven Slovaks crawling on their knees to pick strawberries. It is crazy, to me, that people are allowed to keep transforming this country in this way rather than rectify the real problems or invest in mechanisation like the Japanese.

        But I think you may be right about the security of those “better jobs” not necessarily being viable. If technology can easily learn to re-design and improve CAD designs of equipment, or reduce the need for 20 design staff to be 3 design staff….or if the assembly line and manufacture is made on 3d sinter laser machines, welded by automated robots, painted with robots, delivered to site by automatically driven transport……. we could be in tricky territory.

        Angela Merkel has literally killed Germany with her actions.

        Inviting over 1.5 Million poor, uneducated, barely literate people who, so far, are costing £Billions and of which only a tiny fraction are employable is bad enough. Reducing European/Caucasians, the original native peoples of Germany to an ethnic minority within our lifetimes is an act of such wickedness and arrogance that it is breathtaking.

        She is in part acting on the advice of “financial experts” who advised that Germany needed to import x-amount of immigrants every year for the next few decades to keep stability, due to the low birthrates and ratio of workers to pensioners.

        But by “saving the nation” as a PLC, they are carrying out an act of genocide and an abolishment of what Germany ever was. They are not even “saving” the German PLC with these people, who are going to drain the place and ultimately turn it into a violent dysfunctional hell hole.

        Technology is a much better option than doing this. I support it for that reason, and for the improvements it could bring. We cannot hold back technology and still maintain a decent place in this world. I don’t know what the solution is.

        European populations are shrinking, which if it wasn’t for racial destruction, could be an advantage in some ways (in terms of less jobless etc), but we are being replaced and having our own futures made uncertain by both this and the advent of technology so sophisticated it could place us out of work.

        My eyes are also on Africa. With Europe heading the way it is (both technological and demographical) and with Africa set to quadruple their numbers from 1.1 Billion people today to nearly 4.7 Billion by the end of the century…… what are they all going to do and where are they going to want to go?……. the answer for us is not good at all.

        • Concerned Briton, you were right on jobs and robots before but you seem to be falling into confusion on the topic now. There is nothing to the Luddite outlook. Robots can never cause mass unemployment, only unemployment pay can do that, but robots can only boost wage rates for all jobs by increasing output and thus demand. Robert seems not to grasp this aspect of reality.

          The population replacement problem is not so unrealistic, though.

      • No, if you read what I said again, you will see that I have not ignored your brutum fulmen, Robert. All the potential jobs out there cannot be done by any amount of people or robots. You have never understood free trade but why not give the LA a talk in 2017 about what you feel is the folly of it?

Leave a Reply