Niall Ferguson: The Global Network Has Become Dangerously Unstable

Niall Ferguson has some food for thought:

“The world today is like a giant network on the verge of a cataclysmic outage. …

You cannot understand the world today without understanding how it has changed as a result of new information technology. This has become a truism. The question is, how has it changed? The answer is that technology has enormously empowered networks of all kinds relative to traditional hierarchical power structures. …

The reality is that the global network has become a dangerously unstable structure. Far from promoting equality, the network does the opposite, by allowing hyperconnected “superhubs” to emerge. Surprise, surprise, from Donald Trump to PewDiePie, these turn out to be rather the reverse of saintly role models.

Far from spreading truth and love, the network excels at disseminating lies and hate, because those are the things we nasty, fallen human beings like to click on. …”

I’ve been thinking along the same lines.

We need to act locally, but think globally. I can sit here in the middle of nowhere in rural Alabama and poison discourse in, say, Sweden at 1:00 AM in the morning. I can connect with likeminded people on social media all over the world and gang up with them to assault the Narrative. We have all the tools we need to delegitimize the fake news Lügenpresse and challenge the liberal establishment.

Note: I like this video. I think of it as a visualization of what is possible. The little bomb here represents discourse poisoning and the Romulans are the liberal politicians and the mainstream journalists who have lost their legitimacy in the eyes of the public. You are FAKE NEWS!

About Hunter Wallace 12387 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. Far from spreading truth and love, the network excels at disseminating lies and hate, because those are the things we nasty, fallen human beings like to click on. …”

    That sound suspiciously like an admission that existing society was built on a foundation of sand, especially if you translate “truth and love” as “falsehoods about human nature and capacity.”

  2. Germanic, Celts, and Turks could be invasive and destroy stuff all over… but they also could build upon the destruction and invasion. Germanic folks later built civilization. So did the Turkics. And Celtics.

    In contrast, black Africans have not proven civilizational capability.

    Europeans Europeanize wherever they go. Asians Asianize. Arabs Arabize. Hindus hinduize.

    Some build civilizations better than others. White Europeans have demonstrated best ability to build and make progress.

    Africans have proven they have the least ability to build stuff. Africanization is mostly destructive.

    So, African takeover of Europe will be totally different from Germanic Barbarian conquests or even Turkic or Moorish invasions.

    It will spell the end of civilization, a permanent Detroitization of the world. A Europe that is Africanized is finished forever. It will not be a dark age followed by new beginning. It will be permanent dark age… like most of black Africa.

    In the end, it’s not about ‘liberal democracy’ or some such. Sure, liberal democracy is nice, but what really makes a system work is a combination of race/genes, culture, values, work ethic, manners, habits, and attitudes.

    Consider some of the Bio-Cultural Ruling Systems:


    Germanocratic(includes Scandinavia and is close to Anglocracy)




    Sinocratic(of which even Japan may be a part)


    Indocratic(hindu stuff)


    I would argue that Anglocracy without democracy will work better than Afrocracy with democracy. Anglocracy is a system of rule by sober, serious, intelligent, and well-mannered peoples(before UK allowed the yobs to run wild). Consider Hong Kong. Under most of British rule, it was no democracy.

    It was Anglocratic in terms of elite rule. And most of society was Sinocratic, managed by Chinese as middlemen and workers. And it worked. How did it work without ‘liberal democracy’? Cuz Anglocracy was clean and efficient, and Sinocracy was sober and hardworking. Singapore was also the result of fusion of Anglocracy and Sinocracy.

    And even today, Singapore is not a liberal democracy. But things run well there cuz Sinocracy, though not very innovative, is serious and intelligent.

    Now, I’m not knocking liberal democracy. But the REAL reason why one system works and another doesn’t has MORE to do with combo of genes, values, work ethic, manners, and attitudes.

    In the 19th century, France was sometimes ‘democratic’ whereas Germany was ruled by imperial system. And yet, Germans surged ahead, even surpassing UK in industry and many academic/scientific fields. How was that possible when Germany didn’t have liberal democracy? Cuz its Germanocratic virtues were harder version of Anglocracy.

    Israel proves that Judeocracy works very well too.

    Indocracy is a mixed bag cuz of caste legacy and genetic diversity of India. It works in some ways, in other ways it’s a mess.

    But Afrocracy? You can instruct Africans in all the liberal democratic theories around the world. It won’t do much good. African genetics leads to Africanization of society. And African manners, temperament, and etc lead to social chaos, though I don’t mind when they talk about how homos ‘eat da poo poo’.

    Now, compare Anglocracy vs Latinocracy.

    Some will say US made more progress cuz of liberal democracy whereas Latin America came later to democracy. But really?

    Is democracy really such a charm? But Mexico in late 19th century was democratic whereas Germany wasn’t. Yet, Germany did so much more. And Japan, though undemocratic, achieved more than Mexico from late 19th century to WWII era.

    And compare US vs Argentina. The latter had so much potential and had democracy, but why did it lag? Latins ruled with their attitudes and styles. It will build and maintain civilization, but not a very efficient and sober one.

    I would argue that even if the Brits had won the war and American Independence has been crushed, the US under Anglocratic rule(of British) would have achieved nearly just as much.

    Slavocracy? Russia existed for much much longer than the US. And it had many more people than the US in the 19th century. But in short time, Anglos swept across the continent and created a great powerful nation. In contrast, Russians were still digging dirt on the same plot like they’d been for many centuries. Russians then went for communist revolution. It too failed. Why? Cuz Anglocracy has a great combo of order and individuality. It empowers each person as a free agent. But it also instills order and unity and common purpose. In contrast, Slavocratic model was to treat people like cattle, either as serfs or comrades. So, the sense of initiative and responsibility didn’t develop in the Russian heart and mind.

    But one good thing about Slavocratic heaviness is greater sense of roots and belonging. In contrast, the Mercurean mobility of Anglocracy may have led to too much atomization and deracination in the end. Of course, Anglocrats of the past understood this danger. This is why they balanced out their globo-mobility with British patriotism, loyalty to Queen, Anglican Church, and race-ism. As Anglocrats were high-spiritedly moving all around the world, there was the danger of becoming one with the natives. So, race-ism was necessary to maintain British unity and uniqueness. And it was good for the natives too since white race-ism meant white men were discouraged from sexually exploiting the native womenfolks. In contrast, the Latinocrats led to much more sexual abuse of local womenfolk in other lands. Hopkins has impressive race-ist attitude in THE BOUNTY. Good man.

    Judeocracy is very formidable but complicated. Jews have so long operated by latching onto OTHER peoples that one wonders how it would do on its own. Israel is such an experiment, but even it is heavily dependent on the support of great powers. So, the jury is still out on the true power of Judeocracy as an independent ruling system.

    Slavocratic model:

    • Jews are only formidable if their hostility and parasitism are ignored. What’s complicated about that? It’s the same for Israel and the diaspora. Jewish history is as instructive as African, Anglo, Latin, Sino, Russian or the history of any other group.

      Andrea, why do Jews always claim to view others clearly, but claim everything is complicated when examining themselves?

  3. Since Professor Ferguson refuses to discuss race or Der Judenfrage I cannot respect him as a true scholar.

    • The Prof also enthusiastically supported every (((neocon))) foreign policy love-affection-freedom measure in the Bush era where messages of Jeffersonian democracy covered in Biblical love were delivered on Iraq to kill / maim millions while the borders at home were kept open for savages to come in. Vile nasty creature.

  4. “Poisoning discourse”?
    I cannot understand why you are embracing this negative phrase. Rather, it is the dominant discourse/narrative, the one which the establishment media and hostile-alien-elite culture promotes, which is noxious. Anything that counters that toxin is an antidote, not a “poison.”

    • This tendency on the alt right to say “evil beest thou my good” in reaction to being labled heretics by the Enemy.

      • I don’t think that this is wise. I think that we should always frame our actions in positive terms — because they are — and the hostile elite’s agenda as wicked — which it is.
        This is important both for our own personal mindset and, even more so, for redpilling normies, who desperately need to feel that they are on the ride of moral right. Given that we ARE on the side of right, we should emphasize this fact at every turn and operate from such a perspective.

      • Yes, but the point must be made that THEIR NARRATIVE IS POISON, that THEIR DISCOURSE IS TOXIC.

        “Discourse poisoning” makes us sound like Antifa, and not in a cool counter-culture way but in a nihilist way.

  5. The irony, had the NWO been one world, one rule, under the White race they’d have had it by now. They made it incumbent upon destroying the most stable, successful, and intelligent race. Relying instead on 3rd worlders in the absence of Whites is as silly as it is insane. They are reaping just what they have sown.

  6. The problem is not the global network it is that there is no authoritative and honest place toward which one can seek recourse against the lies. Everyone is on their own. All news is politicized now. It is all a matter of opinion and within a complex system anyone with an opinion can solicit facts to “prove” their case. To be a responsible person in the world today takes a ton of work. The best approach I have found is to head backward and read the writings of solid people of the past and build on that as a foundation for discernment in the present situation…

  7. I suspect that these superstar professors are beginning to see students express crime think in seminars and lectures. Imagine
    Trolling Ferguson as he lectures…he sounds spooked in that article.

  8. The problem with current discourse is we talk of ‘Russia’ and ‘America’. But there is a third force in the Power Equation: Judenia. US is under globalist-imperialist rule by Judenia. Russia was under Judenia in the 90s, but Russians regained national sovereignty.

    So, it is not about Russia vs America. It is about Russia at odds with America under Judenia.

    Jewish power is globalist, and the US is merely one of its many prizes. Sure, the US is the biggest prize of Judenia, but there are many others. Russia is not dealing with a sovereign nation but with a nation under the power of Judenia, a totally globalist entity(that is hellbent on replacing American and European peoples with masses of Third World folks).

    Jewish interests are NOT the interests of most Americans. Weiss talks about Israel, but the issue is much bigger. Even if Israel were vanish overnight, Jewish Power in America would still not represent most Americans. Jewish interests would still be at odds with that of most Americans and Europeans. If not for the Jewish monopoly of the media, so many people would be waking up.

    THAT is the real key issue. Not Israeli interests vs American interests but Jewish interests vs American gentile interests.

    American Gentiles are better off being inspired by Russian example than remaining under Jewish supremacist influence.

    At the very least, let’s talk of Russia and America and Judenia. If we pretend that America and Judenia are one and the same, we will never understand what is really going on.

    Americans have to wake up to the fact that America is not some ball to be kicked around by Judenia. America is 98% gentile, and there is NO reason for Americans to take orders from Judenia. And what free press in the US when Judenia monopolizes it and uses it to serve the interests of the 2%?

    If Weiss wants Trump out, then he is just a BS artist. Deep down inside, despite his criticism of Israel, he is just another advocate of Judenia’s rule over America.

    Indeed, I wonder if some Jews denounces Israel because he really wants to strengthen Judenia’s hold over America. After all, as long as Jews are associated with Israel, they can be accused of ‘nationalism’, ‘racism’, and etc. But if Jews are freed of ties to Israel, they can pretend to be universal globalists promoting ‘diversity’. But Judenia uses diversity in the West to play divide-and-rule among various goyim, thereby strengthening the supremacist power of Judenia.


  9. ‘The Global Network Has Become Dangerously Unstable…’

    I would put this differently : the stability of the global racket, in recent decades was what was ‘dangerous’.

    To the extent that it is becoming unstable, is the extent to which it is becoming less dangerous.

Comments are closed.