The Savage Noble
While it is tempting to lay blame for our present situation squarely at the feet of Jewish subversion of the Historic American Nation specifically, and the West more generally, this would not have happened without the betrayal of the West by its own “elites.” The upper class has long fetishized the Other, since at least Rousseau and his “Noble Savage,” but their “telescopic philanthropy” was generally harmless and remote until the mid-20th century when the Third World trickled, streamed, and now floods into the West. Whites have none of the allure of the jungle primitive or the mystique of the green-eyed Muslima, face hidden behind her niqab. We are drab, boring, “vanilla,” and “white bread.” As whites, we are permitted no identity beyond whatever guilt is assigned to us collectively, and by extension, we are denied full personhood, especially if we are from the loathed lower classes.
The wealthy don’t have to worry about their wages being depressed, their neighborhoods becoming violent and over-crowded, their children’s schools deteriorating, or their water becoming foul and un-drinkable; they have their own little enclaves to retreat to and lecture us from whilst, as Victor Davis Hanson says, “They don’t have to live the consequences of their own ideology.” Bel-Air can have walls and security, but the US border with Mexico may not. As Kambree Kawahine Koa quipped on Twitter: “Liberals: ‘Don’t let unvaccinated kids in schools!’ - Same liberals: ‘Let 10,000 unvaccinated illegal immigrants in!’”
The dis-connect is astounding. The fawned-over “migrant caravan” which violently tried to force its way across the border in Tijuana not only is riddled with lice, Hepatitis, tuberculosis, respiratory infections, and HIV/AIDS, but is 80% male—and hundreds of them have criminal records. Further, they have been trashing Tijuana, leaving bottles of urine and mountains of trash for the locals to have to clean up. Illegals crossing the border between Mexico and Arizona discard in excess of four million pounds of trash in the desert annually. This might even be a low figure, for Arizona’s Bureau of Land management estimated the volume of discarded trash from the period 2003-2005 at twenty-five million pounds. The aforementioned caravan’s LGBTQ-whatever members had to leave it for the sheer amount of abuse and harassment they were receiving, yet the “liberals” who paint a rainbow flag over everything insist we accept the totality of not just this caravan, but any other that happens to show up. The words and deeds indeed do not match, but again, this is unsurprising. Misguided liberal crusades typically cause far more harm than good; Iain Murray catalogues just a few such instances:
Environmentalists have covered up the polluting effects of contraceptive and chemical abortion drugs—did you know that estrogen from birth control and “morning after” pills is causing male fish across America to develop female sex organs? Funny how “pro-choice” and “environmentalist” liberals never talk about that. Or how about this: the Live Earth concert to “save the planet” released more CO2 into the atmosphere than a fleet of 2,000 Humvees emit in a year?
Emmanuel Macron is perfectly happy to introduce yet more fuel taxes that would effectively be the nail in the coffin of the country’s middle class in the interest of “reducing carbon emissions”—almost as big a scam as the UN Migration Pact—whilst in Brazil:
The Amazon recedes at a rate of 325,000 hectares each year in favour of Soya crop, according to NASA (my note: is there a more perfect image of modern neo-liberalism?)…Replanting a hectare of forest removes 175 cubic tons of carbon from the atmosphere compared to a maximum saving of 56 tons when bioethanol replaces fossil fuel. But clearing one hectare of rainforest releases an immediate one-off 200 cubic tons of carbon into the atmosphere and also destroying nature’s mechanism for trapping carbon.
Thus, even if we were to accept for the sake of argument the fraudulent “science” of carbon emissions and “climate change,” the alternatives have proven catastrophic for the environment in a very real, tangible way, rather than in the vagaries and abstractions that appeal to the Davos set. This faux concern for the environment is nothing but a front for neo-liberal economics, but the social cache the “elites” can acquire from signaling their support is tremendous, even while real pollution, environmental degradation, and species endangerment are apparently no longer of concern. If our “betters” were concerned about carbon dioxide emissions, then the solution is easy and obvious: MORE TREES. I’ll quote myself from the very first piece I wrote for The Anatomically Correct Banana:
Speaking of climate change né global warming, whatever happened to campaigning for an end to the destruction of the rainforest? If Leftists are so concerned about global warming, why have they ceased discussing the de-forestation and environmental devastation of this fragile ecosystem? To say nothing of the DIVERSITY of the rainforest, trees need carbon dioxide the same way we need oxygen; an acre of trees can store 2.6 tons of carbon dioxide and produce enough oxygen for eighteen people per year!
Instead of crippling the economy with the Paris Accord, why not continue to push for conservation, and even put international aid to good use by helping impoverished equatorial countries so they don’t have to engage in massive de-forestation to grow more crops or create grazing pastures for cattle as in Brazil? Why not create bilateral trade deals with different countries for the medicines and herbs that can be harvested from the forest? Per the Growing Air Foundation, if we can convince farmers to harvest the sustainable products of the rainforest such as nuts, fruits, medicinal extracts, and essential oils, they would reap an average of $2,400 per acre U.S., as opposed to $60 for cattle and $400 for timber.
What about clean drinking water? Trees act as a natural filter of rainwater and help shield aquifers from pollutants. Trees also stave off soil erosion and have been proven to trap other harmful gasses such as carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. What about the environmental cost of exponential population growth? As we know, the global population in many Third World countries is set to triple or quadruple by the end of the century, and legitimate conservation attempts have gone the way of Free Tibet bumper stickers. Concerned about carbon emissions? Protect the forests we have, practice sustainable logging and farming, and hell, maybe even grow more trees! Per North Carolina State University’s Trees of Strength website: “The evaporation from a single tree can produce the cooling effect of 10 room size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day.”,
In the face of severe over-population and environmental degradation we are instead treated to an array of platitudes about how migration “is a human right” and that, despite the consternation of the Justin Trudeau’s of the world over the carbon footprint of Western nations, there are economic benefits to be had from untold millions more (non-white) people, especially those with low impulse control and high time preference, for such people make ideal hyper-consumers. From the political angle, these folks are generally lower IQ and do not really think critically, and are thus more pliable and easier to control (if more violent), and have proven themselves to be easily bought-and-sold through lavish entitlements from the state. Though Northeast Asians do not fit this template, they’ve proven in the United States to overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party, a viciously anti-white and anti-American party generally just as beholden to globalist financial interests as the bulk of the GOP, but with a significant sub-set of largely non-white socialists. They up the diversity quotient, though, and that, we are told, is a good thing indeed. Beyond the accrual of social “brownie points” for supporting the abolishment of our borders, the facilitation of more non-whites into Western nations, then, is an intrinsic good in and of itself. You are not permitted to question that.
While C.S. Lewis was absolutely correct about moralizing ideologues, even as luminescent a mind as he couldn’t have foreseen the descent into depravity of our modern iteration of the robber barons. Their avarice knows no bounds and it doesn’t sleep, either. It is poisonous, it is genocidal, and yet it wears all the trappings of virtue. Thus what appears as deeply misguided were altruism the motivating force behind many governmental initiatives—and to be sure, many of the individuals who advocate for “social change” and who uncritically support neo-liberalist economics under its guide of “progress” do believe that they are “doing good”—is actually the product of a system that regards itself as “too big to fail” and is only just gearing up for the endgame.
To quote V. I. Lenin, “Among one hundred so-called Bolsheviki there is one real Bolshevik, with thirty-nine criminals and sixty fools.” The pretensions of our ruling class are purely in the realm of abstraction. One such case is the Yellow Vest protests that began in France but are now spreading across the European continent and even Canada. Essentially, the “elites’” vague concerns over carbon emissions—utterly disconnected from the onerous tax burden placed on the middle class to: a) adhere to an Accord all developing nations, including India and China ignore; and b) pursue a quixotic “environmentalist” agenda based on faulty and dubious research whilst ignoring real issues like over-population, pollution, and environmental degradation—have compounded the economic malaise of nations like France and continued to adversely affect many other Western nations while they simultaneously receive a massive influx of foreign nationals in the millions, bringing with them all of the attitudes and behaviors feminists attribute to the demonized white male patriarchy. That is the foolish enough, but of greater concern is the criminal negligence of our rulers and their twin engines of malice and avarice. We don’t even live in a society anymore. We live in a market. Though carbon-trading is framed as “green business,” the only green here is greed. All of the extraneous “positives” of the carbon concern are just cover for the creation of yet another new avenue for profit to accrue to a tiny minority. This is very clearly not motivated by any legitimate concern for the environment, but rather to create another market for a small cabal of globalist bankers to reap a massive financial windfall. James Kanter reports:
Louis Redshaw, a former electricity trader, met with five top investment banks to propose trading carbon dioxide. Only one, Barclays Capital, was interested in his proposition. Three years later, the situation has turned around entirely, and carbon experts like Redshaw, 34, are among the rising stars in the City of London financial district. Managing emissions is one of the fastest-growing segments in financial services…“Carbon will be the world’s biggest commodity market, and it could become the world's biggest market overall,” said Redshaw, the head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital…[and former] power trader at Enron…If greed is suddenly good for the environment, then the seedbed for this vast new financial experiment is London. A report released Tuesday by International Financial Services London, a company promoting British-based financial services, said that British companies were the leading global investors in carbon projects and that more carbon was traded in London than in any other city. The rapid emergence of carbon finance in London - not only trading carbon allowances but investments in projects that help to generate additional credits - is largely the result of a decision by European governments to start capping amounts that industries emit…Overall, prospects for the industry are good, especially if the United States joins Europe in establishing a trading system, said Imtiaz Ahmad, 34, senior carbon trader for Morgan Stanley in London. Ahmad has already lured a senior European Union environment official and a BP employee to join his three-member trading team… Carbon could become “one of the fasting-growing markets ever, with volumes comparable to credit derivatives inside of a decade,” said Chris Leeds, 38, the head of emissions trading at Merrill Lynch in London, who plans to expand his team to five traders from two by the end of this year.
The carbon trading market is eerily reminiscent of the housing market just prior to the market crash and Great Recession of the late-2000s. Consider that, as Kimberly Amadeo writes:
The idea of a tradeable market based on something that is just a concept takes trading to a new level. Even if the value of a mortgage-backed security is far removed from its underlying asset, you can still trace it back to something tangible: a loan made by a bank to a person who owns a house. Increasingly abstract forms of currency are on the rise. The 2008 financial crisis was created by new types of derivatives. The value of these collateralized debt obligations and MBS expanded far beyond that of the hard assets upon which they were based.
And from Bank Track:
Carbon trading, especially through banks’ proprietary trading desks, is a way for banks to make money from money, without contributing new capital towards solving climate change. As with other forms of derivatives, the use of such increasingly complex instruments creates potential systemic risks when this entails over-abundance of “sub-prime” carbon credits entering the market.
Though the banks hold a significant share of the blame for the Great Recession, the government is not exempt from blame. In fact, the government’s intrusion into generally-sound vetting procedures for would-be homeowners’ mortgages in the form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was the ultimate catalyst to the whole house of cards coming crashing down. William Triumph explicates:
Banks know who to lend to. They have teams of actuaries that have it down to a science as to who is, or is not, worthy to lend to. What Congress saw was that blacks and Latinos were not getting mortgages at the same rate as whites and Asians (who they never mention). But when they looked into (multiple times) they couldn’t find banks (in modern times anyway) discriminating against blacks and Latinos. What they found was the banks doing their due diligence with regard to lending practices. After about 20 years of this they decided that they were going to tip the scales of the entire housing mortgage market in the direction of the blacks and (especially) Latinos that weren’t getting as many loans as they would like. They had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac not only make very high risk loans, but they also instructed them to buy high risk loans from non-GSE mortgage lenders. This caused the entire mortgage loan market to react in a way that was completely un-natural when it comes to market conditions - they now had to compete with two lending institutions with unlimited ability to lend (because they were federally backed and could operate a huge losses - at least they could at the time) AND they knew they could make bad loans and offload those loans to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The problem is that the banks weren't stupid - they all knew this was going to cause a crash. They knew that if they had made all these bad loans that other banks were having to make them too - they all knew that everyone was going to be repackaging and offloading these loans in any way they could, and they all did. If banks like country wide didn't compete with Fannie and Freddie then they would have lost out to Fannie and Freddie and any other bank that did - so they had to make the bad loans - companies like countrywide made them and sold them off quickly. Too many people on the left wanted to point the finger first and foremost at investment bankers–they didn't cause the crisis, they just threw gasoline on the fire after it was lit.
Neo-liberalism as an economic system and liberalism as a social ideology do not always work in tandem, and when that happens, there can be very serious upheavals in the operation of the system. That said, in the case of the housing market crash and the Great Recession, the government was able to use taxpayers’ largesse to off-set the damage done to the corporations for unsound business practices. In a truly free market, a whole lot of companies’ boards would’ve been axed, and more than a few of the companies themselves would’ve gone out of business. But that’s not what happened. Instead, CEOs awarded themselves giant raises for a job well done, blacks and Hispanics had homes repossessed that were actuaries allowed to do their jobs properly they wouldn’t have gotten mortgages for in the first place, and the permanent bureaucracy and politicians took care of the donor class and the permanent underclass on whom they rely for continued re-election. It is the worst of both worlds: a government unafraid to “play God”—going so far as to generate an entirely new population amenable to their designs—and an oligarchic set of international bankers and businessmen who’ve seen to it that the game is rigged in their favor.
The unmooring of capital from a tangible backing (ie-the gold or silver standard, let alone any kind of underlying asset) to the increasingly intangible has allowed for the conditions of modern neo-liberal economics. It’s a shell game. By rights, the Great Recession should’ve been catastrophic, and in a sense it was—for the middle and working classes. Everyone else made out just fine. All of the true costs were shunted on to the thoroughly un-exotic whites ear-marked for oblivion by oh, around the year 2100 or so. The carbon-trading market, masquerading as “environmentalism,” does nothing positive for the environment nor does it even address the “problem” of carbon emissions. Per Rowena Mason:
It’s not just speculative profiteering and outright fraud that have caused outrage. There is also concern that industry is going to get huge windfall profits from the sale of carbon allowances accumulated during lower activity in the recession. One of the main problems highlighted by bodies such as the Committee on Climate Change is that there are too many free credits floating around. This means it is often cheaper for companies to just pay and pollute than invest in energy efficiency.
The meat of the problem affecting the average people and the working class in Europe (and the rest of the West) is that, again quoting Mason, “It pushes up household bills and the price of manufactured goods in return for the wider social good of falling carbon emissions.” Furthermore, Mason expands:
The European Commission admits that around half of Europe's registries are not protected against fraud…Some, like Friends of the Earth, prefer the concept of a flat tax on carbon, fighting against the idea that millionaire offset investors such as Vincent Tchenguiz and Al Gore, or the proprietary trading desk at Citigroup, are likely to end up with sizeable financial proceeds from a system that adds to household energy bills (my emphasis)…The worst offender has been “industrial gas credits”…[now-banned] allowances for destroying dangerous greenhouse gases used as refrigerants called hydrofluorocarbons. It costs 7p to eradicate gases equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide and the resulting offsets could be sold on the market for about €11, giving a total return of more than 99pc. Developers found this so lucrative they were creating the gases purely to be destroyed and adding to other dangerous by-products in the atmosphere. In the end, industrial gas credits made up 85pc of the market. Critics say this is awarding free money to Chinese and Indian developers straight from the utility bills of European consumers with no environmental gain. In fact, Michael Wara of Stanford University estimates it unnecessarily cost billpayers $6bn (my emphasis).
The tab we are stuck with continues to balloon both literally and figuratively, and they expect us to never stop paying until we are all, in every sense, totally bankrupt.
 Murray, Iain Hamish. Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophies Liberals Dont Want You to Know About--Because They Helped Cause Them. Regnery Publishing, 2008.
 Another, related alternative: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120849322
 C.S. Lewis: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
 As just one example, from James Kanter: “Lionel Fretz, the chief executive of Carbon Capital Markets, a trading and finance company also located in Mayfair, is among those who fiercely criticize projects to clean up refrigerants in China that generated hundreds of thousands of credits and large profits for other investment companies like Climate Change Capital” without any actual solution (https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/business/worldbusiness/20iht-money.4.6234700.html). In fact, as Rowena Mason writes: “Low carbon projects, such as wind farms in Africa, are given credits to reward them for not making carbon, which can be sold on to European polluters who need allowances to cover emissions. Critics argue that many inappropriate projects with dubious green credentials are getting handed out allowances all over the place. For example, a Chinese hydroelectric dam, for which people had to be displaced from their homes and was already planned long before trading came into force, is being showered with the high-value credits. Even high-carbon coal plants can get credits, if they can claim their technology is the most efficient type” (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8290533/The-great-carbon-trading-scandal.html). From Bank Track: “All existing carbon trading schemes allow emitters to purchase emissions reductions credits from outside of the scheme to comply with their targets, i.e. to offset some of their emissions reduction obligations. Through this reliance on carbon trading and the role that emissions trading schemes play in generating increased demand for offset credits - such as with the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) - carbon trading is not only failing to deliver on its cited goals of guaranteed emissions cuts and technological innovation, it is actively undermining global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and bringing further negative social and environmental impacts. Many CDM offsets are not additional, resulting in business-as-usual emissions levels (see for instance studies by Stanford, and CarbonTradeWatch)…There are proposals under consideration in the negotiations for the extension of offsetting mechanisms to include forest carbon trading through Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). The same problems with offsetting apply to REDD but the scheme also has major implications in terms of impacts on the rights and livelihoods of forest-dwelling communities and Indigenous Peoples (https://www.banktrack.org/campaign/banks_and_carbon_trading#_).
 We know NOAA falsified their data ahead of the summit to introduce the Paris Climate Accords, and that Michael Mann’s “study” based on one tree from the Gaspé Peninsula has a replicability problem, the same as that confronting the University of East Anglia researchers, whose computer with all of their data mysteriously crashed.