One day last week I received a mail from GT which contained a criticism of his which we know well.  “There is no merit,” he said, “in bringing the “life” approach to narcissistic, urban Internet “warriors” of paleoconservative/libertarian bent.”  Now, I have a lot of respect for GT, combative as he is, so I’ve replied in a considered form and in the context of the week’s big news in the long war for the Globality and against European Man ...

There it stands, the Big Lie of the moment: global warming is caused by our carbon emissions.  Sworn by the high priests of a new “science”, received by an owned political class, brought into the public consciousness as an article of faith insulated as far as possible from rational examination ... it is everything that interested parties need to deliver Europe’s benighted children from comfort and prosperity unto a life of need and, through need, subordination.

Interested parties?  Well, I will leave you to google “Lord Monckton” for a spotlight on the UN.  But here (pdf) is an essay titled ” Trading Emissions – Full Global Potential” and written by Simon Linnett, Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild, calling for a new legislative system to regulate emissions trading (aka “cap and trade”) and a global body, the World Environment Agency, to oversee it.  It was published by the Social Market Foundation in January 2008.

Governments must establish this legislative system, it says:

... on a “Triple L” programme – “Long, Loud and Legal”:

• Long: it is going to be around for a long time;

• Loud: it will be the dominant mechanism for sponsoring changes in behaviour and we are going to make this perfectly clear to the world’s people; and

• Legal: we will enforce it through law.

... As emissions trading expands so will its message. It could be envisaged that, across the world, each individual will come to know, when the bill comes in, exactly what the cost of turning on the gas or a light was to the environment. Perhaps individuals will gain a new appreciation of their burden on the broader world.

As mentioned in 4.1, this system whose size of allocations are based on population could act as a serious restraint on population growth, although a “release valve” might be required to allow targets to be adjusted to take account of population migration. More significant however, is the prospect that these allowances become the reserve currency of the world, taking over that role held for most of the 20th century by gold.

So emissions trading could establish a new world order for a sustainable planet.

Those three little words, which one would think people like Linnett, who move in Rothschild circles, would know better than to use in public, first appear in the Introduction to the essay:

it might be regarded to as having wider benefits than merely “saving the planet” – perhaps it might be the basis for a new world order, one that is not based on trade and/or conflict resolution – and, even:

Perhaps one can see a way to achieve this goal, through leadership, vision and some marginal and manageable renunciation of national sovereignty, how the world might just get there.

And they appear for the third and final time at the end of the section “How to get there”:

READ MORE...

My next MR Radio interview subject is Lee John Barnes of the BNP.  His contributions to recent threads here have been interesting, to say the least, and this is your opportunity to help frame the questioning he will receive sometime in the next week.

My interview of Dr Dan Roodt, which took place on Tuesday evening, is now on the Radio page.  It is in three parts of about 20 minutes each.

Dan Roodt is a leading campaigner for the white South African and, most especially, Afrikaner cause.  He is also an author, journalist and blogger, and links to his on-line publications are here:

Dan Roodt’s blog.
Dan Roodt’s pro-Afrikaner campaign organisation.
Dan Roodt’s English-language news site.

It is five weeks since Hunter Wallace asked a question on our 5th birthday thread that deserves a proper response.  It was this:

Any thoughts on the next five years? What direction would you like to take?

For one reason or another I let HW’s question slip down the list of things to do at MR.  But I’m going to answer it now.  It will take only a little time.

Let’s start with the admission that it takes someone very special - a lot more gifted than me - to plan and to be entirely consequent.  Generally speaking, Man just proposes, you know.  And that’s what I did back in the summer of 2004 when, with Phil Peterson as sounding board, I cooked up a blog that would not simply be another guy sounding off about this wicked old world but would model the broad right - radical, hard and traditional - and contain all its ideological tensions.

Phil and I did not - could not - know how it would be received, let alone whether any synthesis might emerge.  Neither, since it was, anyway, designed for a larger purpose than anything one might achieve through blogging, could we know what direction it would take or how long it would hold together.  It had to be free to run its course.

As most of us no doubt recall, it did not hold together.  The principle reason was that Phil and I had decided to airbrush out the JQ to allow a better chance of success, but the “harder” right would not have that!  To be precise my most respected friends wintermute and ben tillman almost immediately drove a big, fast coach and horses straight through it.  We were left with the choice, which was no choice at all, of pretending to be Larry’s pals or challenging the “soft wing” to recognise that all those awful and impolitic things WNists say about the JQ have the benefit of being fundamentally true.  Some could not deal with that.

READ MORE...

by The Narrator

There continues to be debate about the pros and cons of religion, specifically Christianity, around pro-Western and semi pro-Western blogs and sites. Does religion help? Does it hurt? Is it a bulwark against multiculturalism and diversity or is it their foundation? The following will address some of the points which often come up in this ongoing discussion.

A recent article at Takimag.com put forth the (somewhat common) theory that part of The West’s problems in regards to the promotion of multiculturalism and immigration is one of fertility as it relates to theist vs. atheist influence. The theory goes that as Whites drift away from theism (usually specifically Christianity) they cease having children in sufficient numbers.

Now the problem with this theory is obvious. Namely, there are actually very few atheists in the world or the West in particular.  (And for the clarification of the uncertain here, a theist is not a Christian. A theist is someone who believes in a deity or deities or the supernatural in general. In other words Julian the Apostate and Martin Luther were both theists.)

This article at Wikipedia sources a Eurobarometer Poll from four years ago informing us that France has the highest percentage of those who “do not believe there is a spirit, God, nor life force” at 33% (within the European Union 18% fell into this category).  In America the percentage of atheists is even fuzzier with various polls suggesting somewhere around 4% to 9%.  Further problems are created when agnostics are lumped in with atheists.

At any rate, when it comes to numbers, theists seem to hold a firm majority.  So much so that to contrast theist vs. atheist fertility rates may be impossible as the later could easily fall into the ‘margin of error’ on most polls in many Western nations.

READ MORE...