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...

DanielJ has made a very sensible observation about the tendency for outbreaks of strife on this and, as far as I can see, every other free board in our political micro-world.  In consequence, we are changing mod rules initially for a trial period of one month to see if we can eliminate the more abusive commentary which sometimes deforms MR threads.

Criticism, constructive or otherwise, remains fine - and personal criticism too.  But serious and inflammatory abuse is out.

This has always been the case here, of course.  But now the MR team, which comprises four old hands as well as myself, will remove not only the abusive comment but every entry by the miscreant on that thread.

If the word sinks in and the standard of commentary improves as expected we will relax the policy in some form - I like good and interesting but free speech.

This is the first time comment policy has been modified in MR’s history.  It does not represent a trend.  We will never go to full moderation or no comments, as some folks have suggested in the past.  Latitude and inclusiveness remain core values of this blog.

Central London early this morning.  Clear skies, cold air.  No crowds of the aimless and the atomised.  Not all that many cars.  Most of the city is still observing the leisurely ritual of awakening to the weekend.  But a few people are out running or just wandering in Hyde Park, all whites bar the only two blacks that seem to have got themselves out of bed without being paid to do so.  The rest of central London, meanwhile, is strangely bereft of Africa’s giftless gifts to civilisation.

Asia has stirred, however, and is shuffling along the pavements, coldly gazing ahead, nothing to do with me.  But if it could just stay like this, one finds oneself thinking, it wouldn’t be too bad.  One could almost mistake my old city for being really quite white.  Almost.  The illusion won’t survive too long in to the day, of course.

First the Marylebone Road, then Kensington.  An hour’s meeting with an Italian client finishes at 11.00am and I am done.  I take my leave by the huge glass revolving door of the hotel and step out into the still cold air to find a cab.  It is now mid-morning.  But the city is quiet and two cabs, black and maroon, wait to my right.  The driver of the first one, the black one, sees me approach and lowers his side window.  First impression, Nick Griffin’s bad-boy bouncer.  Shaved head, strong features, but a bright and intelligent eye.  Good man to have on your side if trouble comes calling.

“Victoria,” I say, and we are on our way.

READ MORE...

by K R Bolton
Academy of Social and Political Research

Multicultural politics, including that concerned with immigration, is a method of social engineering. Whoever raises a voice in public in opposition or even merely of caution is pilloried as a “racist” and a “reactionary”. Conversely, those who champion multiculturalism are upheld as the paragons of ‘progress’ and humanitarianism. Yet behind the moral façade multiculturalism is a cynical stratagem, an important part of the process of globalisation in the interests of a small, self-appointed plutocratic elite. This essay examines how multiculturalism is an aspect of globalisation.

“See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist—it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn’t built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super-exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist - just because it’s anti-human. And race is, in fact, a human characteristic - there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that’s produced - that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance.”
Noam Chomsky

It is ironic that an intellectual championed in particular by the anarchist-Left has given such a cogent definition of the motivating force behind multiculturalism. Among the numerous references to Chomsky made by the Left his diagnosis of capitalism as being “anti-racist” because it aims to create a society of humans as nothing more than “interchangeable cogs”, does not receive the same attention as his other views. As Chomsky states, individuals cannot function at an optimum level as producers and consumers if there are racial or what we might further categorise as cultural and national, divisions.

Chomsky is outside the mainstream of Leftist ideology, which sees humanity and the individual in precisely the same terms as capitalism sees humanity as defined by Chomsky in the above passage. Both capitalism and Marxism are globalist, and both are reductionist in seeing economic factors as the primary determinants of human behaviour and history.  Marx himself was not adverse to Free Trade capitalism. He supported Free Trade insofar as he saw it as a dialectical catalyst for the destruction of national boundaries, which would internationalise “the proletariat” and eventually lead to a global system. Global capitalists maintain the same outlook today. Marx’s analysis in regard to Free Trade was correct, although his alternative is nothing more than to change the ownership of production and distribution. Marx said of Free Trade:

“National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the modern of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto. The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish faster.”

Today’s global corporate executives and planners concur with Marx. Marx further identified “protectionism” as the conservative position, Free Trade as subversive and revolutionary. Those – mainly political scientists and journalists, especially in the English-speaking world – who insist on defining “conservatism” (sic) as Free Trade liberalism, should return to an actual source; in this instance Marx, to re-evaluate their definitions:

READ MORE...

The 2010 election cycle is rapidly approaching. It’s extremely important that each of us ‘register’ (Rep or Dem) and attend our local precinct caucus.  Register as the party not currently in office with the US House of Representatives from your District.  Contact your county recorder for a precinct map of your county.  Find at least one person in each precinct in your county who supports the Laboratory of the States Platform and who is willing to lead that precinct.

Laboratory of the States Platform:

1) Bring all troops home and make the top priority of the Federal government to protect US territory from trespass.

2) Only one Federal tax:  5%/year on land value.  No filing.  Individuals own first $80,000 of land value tax-free.

3) Turn over all Federal programs to the States, with funds apportioned by number of adult citizens.

The objective is to control the US House of Representatives in the next election cycle.

Send this to everyone you know.