The Economic Nationalist

Lawyers make law for the benefit of other lawyers, computer programmers write software for other programmers, and professors train their best students to be professors. The fictional protagonists writers create in literature are often writers; the press’ favorite topic seems to be the press. To follow the pattern, The Economic Nationalist would blog about blogging and bloggers—which would be boring. As editor, I try to avoid that trap.

I would like to bend the rule today, however. The following interesting exchange has occurred in an anti-Semitic thread at Tanstaafl’s blog, Age of Treason. Before quoting the exchange I should like to say a word or two about anti-Semitism. I am arguably a racist, and if you want to add other descriptions that are supposed to be insults, I am arguably a sexist, a homophobe (what a stupid word), a nativist, an isolationist, a nationalist, a protectionist, a dogmatist, even by some definitions a fascist. Some people mistake me for an extremist. A left-wing “Kossack” once good-naturedly labeled me an “age-ist,” whatever that is, so if it pleases anyone to do so then he can add that epithet to the silly list, too. One thing however that no serious person has ever accused me of is being an anti-Semite. I am a pro-Zionist and philo-Semite and every Jew who knows me knows this—and not because of any Politically Correct nonsense about liking people regardless of where they come from (I regrettably seldom like blacks, for instance, though I try). I am a pro-Zionist and philo-Semite only because I have known my share of Jews over the years and personally happen to have liked almost every one of them. There’s no accounting for taste, I guess.

I have no truck with Political Correctness, however. Since World War II, some Jews (along with some gentiles acting in the name of Jews) have understandably but systematically chosen to intimidate anyone who publicly expresses anti-Semitic thoughts or feelings. Well, like it or not, if you intimidate people, then there’s going to be some pretty bitter blowback from some quarters. The anti-Semitic thread referenced is an example of this. Adult Jews are grown-ups: if they can dish it out, then they can take it. It is unfair to genuinely pro-American Jews of Barry Farber’s, Dennis Prager’s, Marcus Epstein’s and Lawrence Auster’s mold, but I don’t know exactly what they expect. Life isn’t fair. If there remain Jews who want to sell the idea that anti-Semitism is even worse than Political Correctness, then, sorry; I’m not buying.

After warning the reader to expect a bit of an anti-Semitic shock, without further introduction, an excerpt from Tanstaafl’s article that started the thread:

Assimilation should be voluntary. I don’t wish assimilation forced on anyone. I resent that it is being forced upon my family. We don’t want to live in a Latin American [deleted], but it is being forced on us. We don’t want our lives controlled by a government that has failed in its most basic function, national defense, and has morphed into a “proposition nation” where the proposition is compulsory subsidization of global corporations and invading aliens. I don’t want the sweat of my brow seized and used to fund schools that indoctrinate their students that non-Whites, feminism, homosexuality, and abortion are inherently good - and Whites are inherently bad.

These are things many Whites consider wrong, and as I have only slowly and recently come to realize, many jews consider them right [ed.: as a matter of semantics, this blog remains unsure that defining Jews as nonwhite were helpful, useful or even taxonomically correct, but let us not quibble; Tanstaafl’s meaning in context seems clear enough]. Anyone who wishes can freely discuss how inherently nativist or xenophobic or racist or prone to pogroms or just downright stupid Whites are, but nobody in “polite society” is free to make similar generalizations so flatly critical of non-Whites, including jews. In our ultra-tolerant liberal society such criticism is not tolerated, whether it’s true or not. This is a double standard. It is wrong. It must end.

One unmentionable truth is that Whites are not in a position to assimilate anyone else because Whites are in fact the ones being assimilated. We are immersed in the culture of progressive-globalist universalism. It is a culture of lies and contradictions where all men are created equal, but non-Whites are more equal and jews are the most equal of all. [Deleted] is art. Perversion is glorified. Materialism rules. The … Global Economy is god. Wrong is right and right is wrong. PC egalitarians inform us that the White race is a mere social construct, even while Whites are openly and consciously blamed, disenfranchised, and displaced. The obvious end, if not the intent, is liquidation. To top it off none of this may be discussed in our craven “polite society” because to do so is “politically incorrect”. To those who point out that Whites are complicit in this, well yes I agree many are. There were jews complicit in the Holocaust too. We have a word for such behavior. The word is not “excuse”. The word is “treason”.

I favor separatism. People who don’t want to assimilate or even associate with others, for any reason whatsoever, should not be forced to. I find it disturbing that so many jews infer White separatism as “deport all Diaspora jews to Israel”, or worse. Why, if jews have Zion, can they not understand or tolerate the notion of a White Albion? White self-determination, whether separatism or nationalism, is about what’s good for Whites, just as Zionism is about what’s good for jews. The enemies of Whites will concede only the latter point, or neither, and none of them will squarely face the inconsistency.

Many people have felt compelled to uproot and flee the unhealthy consequences of the “diversity” that totalitarian liberals, including a preponderance of jews, have seen fit to force on us. I advocate a nation where force is used toward a different goal: protecting Whites. I see many practical problems with creating and maintaining such a nation, but I do not accept that it is immoral or impermissible to discuss the exclusion of anyone, for any reason, whether it’s jews, latinos, muslims, blacks, asians, lepers, eskimos, or totalitarian liberals. I would move to such a nation immediately, no matter where or how small, and would have much less cause to complain. I would happily pay my taxes and urge my progeny to serve in the government and the military, all things which I will not do under the current anti-White regime.

Wow. Are there any liberals reading? Do you not see what liberalism has created? Tanstaafl is surely excited but if you can convice yourself that he were somehow deranged then that’s more than I can do. The world has many deranged souls in it but Tanstaafl is not one of them, and you and I both know it. What Tanstaafl is, is one voice of a rapidly growing U.S. rebellion. (Don’t believe the “rapidly growing” part? Have you ever heard of Joe Horn? If you haven’t, these people have, and I agree with them.) Keep provoking, and the blowback is not unlikely to resemble the blowback in Germany, 1933—and, believe me, fascist or not, I want that to happen little more than you do. Yet any liberal who thinks that, when it came to it, I would regard Tanstaafl as less than a friend and ally in the struggle to save my beloved nation is confused. My advice to liberals (gentile and Jew): stop pushing it. Stop now.

Anyway, a long discussion thread followed. Much of it consisted of debate over how anti-Semitic America was or should be. Some of it was slightly anti-Catholic (being Catholic, I did not like that part; but when many of our own bishops have been agitating so misguidedly for open borders, the “blowback” theory applies to us, too, and I know it.) Then entered Katrina:

How fearless are you really? You’re all posting either anonymously or with pseudonyms.

Its like the KKK wearing hoods over their heads.

If you really want change, stand up with your head held high and say what you want.

Tanstaafl:

katrina, I don’t consider myself fearless. In fact I think I’m a coward. And a moron to have been so misled for so long. I am however aware that a “head held high” voicing politically incorrect thoughts has a tendency to get pounded down. What difference does it make to the truth if the person who speaks it is anonymous? What kind of insecure and fascist system can’t stand criticism from cowardly anonymous morons?

Finding myself in the unaccustomed, uncomfortable position of the thread’s relative left wing, I wrote:

Katrina’s comment bothers me. She has a point: writers who actually stand in their own names behind unpopular views merit extra respect. However, some of us have families to support. Katrina knows of the price our families would pay if we gave our true names, and she also knows how unjust that price would be. We are neither politicians nor journalists, only citizens. We make our livings in other lines of work. Would Katrina really impose on us the choice of surrendering either our livelihoods or our right to speak? Because, for some of us, that is the choice.

If Katrina really does not like the pseudonyms, she might focus her effort on creating a culture in which such pseudonyms were unnecessary.

However, at bottom, Katrina is right. The failure to sign one’s real name is a sign of prudence; and the line between prudence and cowardice is not always easy to discern.

Changing the subject, Tanstaafl:

History is nonlinear. It brings many surprises and does not lend itself to neat solutions. Is there anything wrong with the plan of halting immigration (illegal and legal), letting things settle for a few years, and then deciding if further action is necessary?

Let me tell you why I ask the question. I fully agree that some Jews are highly unpleasant, but I don’t know how many. I can only go by my own experience which, unfortunately, does not help your case. I like the Jews I happen personally to know. I would be lying to you if I said the same of blacks, for example; I wish that I did like them, but I don’t. You may view this as irrelevant and you may be right, but, anyway, it’s where I come from. In my youth thirty years ago I had a Jewish roommate who is still a friend of mine; an old Army buddy was married to a Jewish girl; a Jewish kid and I worked on our Boy Scout badges together; etc. I have never lived in New York City, West Palm Beach, or any other great center of American Jewry, but as far as I can remember I have had only one unpleasant Jewish experience in my entire life—there was this brainy Jewish kid in high school who routinely went out of his way to embarrass you in front of the teachers—but that was it, and it was a long time ago. As far as I know I have no Jewish neighbors at the present time, but in any case mine is not a background that tends to make one anti-Semitic.

When black men are roaming around causing mayhem, when Mexican kids are spray-painting walls and stop signs, when Muslims with every manner of bizarre habit seem to be sprouting like mushrooms in a country in which such people and habits were wholly unknown forty years ago, am I wrong to ignore the Jews and to worry about the ethnic groups that actually seem to be causing the problems? American Jews seem to hold some unhelpful opinions but they seem to pose zero threat to steal, vandalize and rape what is mine. Anyway, if it is a matter of unhelpful opinions, then my own, larger ethnic group—Christian whites—supplies far more of it than the Jews do.

Of course there exist counterarguments to every one of these points. Naturally I know who Herbert Marcuse was, nor do I think it an accident that anti-Semitism seems to arise wherever Jews live. But do you see what I am getting at? I don’t want to be anti-Semitic. Is it really necessary that I be? Jews are imperfect but they have been in this country for a long time, and there seems no danger that they will demographically take it over. Am I short-sighted or merely prudent to focus on the other, darker-skinned ethnics who seem to pose the immediate problem?

Please recall that I was and remain one of those who defended your reputation against Auster. The question is not to harangue you; it is an honest question.

And, sorry, Katrina. I must pseudosign,

Howard

Tanstaafl:

Howard J. Harrison, I am sympathetic to your thoughts. They are similar to my own, short one recent insight.

Concerning wanting or finding it necessary to be anti-semitic, I’m afraid that whole line of thought is a pitfall. I am no longer concerned whether blacks or latinos call me a racist. If anything it demonstrates their own “racism” and their recognition of me as a racial enemy. I will not huddle in a corner nibbling my nails because of their name-calling. I will do what I can to defend myself.

Likewise, but moreso, with anti-semitism. If you really think about the bigoted assumptions built into that epithet, the racial discrimination it assumes and the special status it accords a particular race, then you will recognize how baldly hypocritical that slur is.

For my part I have been called a racist, and now an anti-semite, because I have been able to not only discern my enemies, but also call them out. Many in the mob crying “racist” and “anti-semite” are simply brain-washed sheep. They have been imprinted from birth with illogical and inconsistent equalitarian values that they cannot now help but echo. There are some who lead the cries however, the ones intelligent enough to consciously distort and exaggerate the thoughts and ideas of supposed White “racists”, even while they obscure and diminish the same sentiments in non-Whites. These people are evil. They are enemies. They prove such in their deeds and actions.

Tanstaafl continued in that vein, and others followed who agreed with him. Then returned Katrina:

I understand being afraid of crazies. I can almost guarantee that I am the only one here who has, in the last two weeks, been contacted by the jewish anti-defamation league and been explicitly told to stay off this site.

If true, bad move by the ADL. Katrina continues:

Would I change the fact that I use my real name? That I’ve mentioned personal facts in these and other blogs that allow the Jewish Anti-defamation league find me? No. Absolutely not. Its ok for me to question - to discuss. If I felt as strongly about any topic as you seem to feel about this one. I would stand proud and refuse to live in fear … and I would lose my job …

I like this blog. I happen to personally know some of the people on it and hold them in high regard. However, I often see calls to organize and to affect change. Your cries for change will go unheard if not done honestly. Do you really want change or do you want to just talk about it?

As far as I know, there were no pseudonyms or anonymous signers on the Declaration of Independence.

–katrina

Start doing the things you think should be done, and start being what you think society should become. Do you believe in free speech? Then speak freely. Do you love the truth? Then tell it. Do you believe in an open society? Then act in the open. Do you believe in a decent and humane society? Then behave decently and humanely. —Adam Michnik.

He who does not have the courage to speak up for his rights cannot earn the respect of others. —René G. Torres

Katrina’s comment about “crazies” appeared to respond to Vanishing American’s words earlier in the thread:

katrina I notice does not post under her full name but then I suppose she is not voicing a politically incorrect opinion. I blog under a pseudonym for a reason, which I have written about. I am honest in my personal life about my views; in no way do deceive anybody about where I stand, although obviously I have to refrain from expressing all my thoughts in certain situations as we all do.

Is it cowardly to use a pseudonym? Our Founding Fathers, who were no cowards, wrote many of their best essays in anonymous or pseudonymous pamphlets. Discretion is sometimes the better part of valor.

And no matter how brave we care to be, we have loved ones who may be affected by the ‘controversial’ opinions we express, and why expose them to the possible consequences of our dissent? There have been instances of controversial bloggers being harassed and stalked by readers who think politically incorrect bloggers should be silenced. The internet is a place where it is foolish to put one’s personal information out there for all to see and use.

“Skeptical” however replied to Katrina thus:

katrina,

I am sorry to hear about the ADL personally contacting you. That has to be unnerving.

However, the pro-White (or White Nationalist) movement is currently disorganized and relegated to the very fringe of societal thinking. Ordinary White citizens have been conditioned to the point that they’ll turn every which way in an attempt to save their country before they give themselves over to a White Nationalist approach. At the moment, pro-White peoples who would seek to make a stand have no active “movement” to fall back on for support.

Currently, anyone who dares to speak the truth will have to endure the consequences alone with only his wits and resources to aid him. And need I remind anyone around here of the difficulty in even learning about the truth and the powerful taboos that have been put in place to prevent people from finding it.

I am an ordinary White man (as I would imagine Tanstaafl to be as well). As an academic/scientist I am the farthest thing away from all the traditional pro-White stereotypes. You will never find me in Klan Robes, Jackboots, or some such costume. I don’t tattoo my body with ancient runes or any other such thing. When people like me turn to White Nationalism it means something is afoot.

And this isn’t the 17th or 18th century either, where independent communities of White farmers can provide and support each other when one of them takes a stand. I am a highly trained cog in a complex interdependent scheme, which makes money for those committed to “diversity”. How are people like me supposed to disconnect from modern society and continue to be able to pay our bills? We are living in the early 21st century and must respect the concomitant limitations that come with our time.

In an attempt to end this rambling comment, I would like to simply say that there currently is no active “movement” that individuals can rely upon. White Nationalism exists as a proto-movement and as a powerful thought that hasn’t yet taken physical form. For many the thought is still too radical to their liking and they aren’t prepared to think in ways that manufactured society has designated “evil”. Our numbers remain too small and too thinly spread out. Perhaps if the whole of us were concentrated in North Dakota we’d able to take action this instant, but such isn’t the case. And for that reason we need to wake others up and to increase our numbers so that we can have a legitimate mainstream movement that can effect change.

Once 10-30% of White American turns to [b]explicit[/b] White Nationalism (instead of 2-5%) then we’ll have something to work with. But until then the anti-White system can continue to play whack-a-mole with those willing to stand alone.

“When people like me turn to White Nationalism it means something is afoot.” Indeed.

I followed:

Skeptical speaks for me. We live in the real world, in which I have children and grandchildren, not only myself, to think of. In my youth when I wore the uniform of the U.S. Army (I did nothing special; I merely served), my life maybe was my own to risk. No longer.

Besides, when you’re badly outnumbered, guerilla warfare is what works. None understood this principle better than our own forebears, the rank-and-file American revolutionaries of 1775–1781. If Katrina thinks that I would do more good for the nationalist cause by going out in a Timothy McVeigh-style blaze of glory, well, she and I think differently. But actually I suspect that Katrina just thinks that I should speak my mind in my own name, and damn the costs.

There is a long, sordid tradition of people who like to volunteer others for sacrifice, in war and otherwise. Katrina, aren’t you flirting with this now? Surely you are not suggesting that pseudonyms were immoral! Ungallant, yes; but immoral? I am blessedly neither a politician nor a journalist, merely a citizen. When you are married and have children (if you are not and have none already) and your husband determines to be gallant at your expense, then you and he can discuss the proper balance of courage against prudence. Until then, what more can I say to you in the matter? You are entitled to deprecate my views, or Skeptical’s, or Tanstaafl’s, or Vanishing American’s, at any rate of discount that seems fitting to you. In the meantime however we shall keep beating our drums from the cover of the woods, whether our style and rhythm suit you or not.

Personally, though, I think that you might show a little more empathy, and cut us a little slack. Our nation is shabbily being stolen from us. We are trying to recover her before she has gone beyond recall, for your sake no less than for our own.

As for me, I admit that the only people who could likely persuade me to anti-Semitism are Jews themselves; and in my own life, Jews have done little but kindness to me and mine. I am for this reason perhaps a poor subject for conversion to the anti-Semitic cause. This however does not mean that I think that Tanstaafl has no point. We white gentiles may be somewhat less clever on average than Ashkenazi Jews but, actually, we can think, too. Tanstaafl does have a point and I know it, and so would any Jew know it who could do the hard act of stepping outside his own perspective.

My advice to any Jews who happen to be reading these words is that the best thing they could do would be to put themselves boldly out in front of the right-wing U.S. nationalist parade (of course it would be hypocritical of me, pseudonamed as I am, to castigate such a pro-American Jew for lack of boldness, but the Jew ought at least to get the sentiment right; the recovery from nihilistic liberalism starts from that point). Unlike most blacks, who regrettably seem to lack the needed temperament and intelligence, American Jews should easily be smart enough to figure this out. Now, I realize: there remain a handful of notorious German examples from the 1920s and 1930s of misguided pro-Nazi Jews, but that was then and there; not now and here. If you are a Jew who really believes that the only way to prevent a new Holocaust is to subvert and destroy each Western nation, then you are in fact the enemy and I think that you ought to be honest enough to admit this.

Personally, though, I suspect that the truth is rather less sinister. I suspect that you Jews have outwitted yourselves. The good news today is that you can just stop, turn about, and start pushing with us the other way. It will be all right. And if you ever thought that cultural diversity in America would mean safety for American Jews, maybe you were right, but what at what cost to my people who welcomed you, who even (maybe inadvisedly) destroyed the Third Reich for you? Stop now. My goodness, but how much diversity is enough?

Come, my Jewish friends. You are bigger than this. You are certainly smarter than this. Start acting like it. You must learn to control your antinationalist reflex, and you must stop imagining veiled threats against you where none exist. This article for instance brings neither veil nor threat. Think. Think hard. Can you not grasp that the years in which American patriots could be manipulated by Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism are drawing to a close? Do you not understand what this means? Have you no respect for the anti-Semitism Jewish antinationalism is now beginning to breed? Life in this fallen world will never be perfect, but every Jewish Zionist should by projection be able to understand what the American nation means to an American patriot. It is a matter of blood and soil. Yet there are exemplary Jews out there, and in my own experience you Jews though admirably inconformable are in an American context a good, culturally compatible people. If Barry Farber, Dennis Prager, Marcus Epstein and (when he isn’t going hyperbolic over anti-Semitism) Lawrence Auster are not the right models for the American Jew, then who is?

No individual American Jew can control the anti-American ADL, of course, or the ACLU, the SPLC, etc.; but any individual American Jew can move energetically to counteract such bad Jewish actors. If you are an American Jew, then you can and should so move, in my view. Do what is right. Do it for your country. Do it now. For, though Tanstaafl’s tone might not wholly suit you, is there no substance in his views?

HJH

[The blog pretends to remain on hiatus.]

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 16th, 2008 at 3:14 pm and is filed under Immigration. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.