The Economic Nationalist

I do not know what to make of this, but to an American vaguely inclined to sympathize with the British National Party, well, it does not look too good. Context is lacking but it looks, more or less, as though hot-tempered BNP stormtroopers had gratuitously roughed up an invited guest at a BNP event—and then as though the party, rather than to apologize and graciously to make amends, had pugnaciously defended the act.

Read the article and watch the video here.

Note the siege mentality evident in this highly placed BNP response.

The guest’s name is Dominic Kennedy, a reporter for the Times of London.

The mainstream English media have “covered” the BNP for so many years with so flagrant a disregard for objectivity that it grows hard to sift the competent reporting from the adolescent preening masquerading as reporting. Persistently bad news coverage of a political party however does not in itself make the party good. However many party-meetings anarchists might in the past have disrupted, you don’t invite a reporter from a leading newspaper and then rough him up after he arrives. You just don’t. Not even if he stalls a bit when you ask him to leave.

The BNP’s Fuehrer Nick Griffin naturally accuses the Times of lying. (Fuehrer is a loaded term, is it not? Can’t help that. The term here is not actually an insult but an informed description.) Nick Griffin does that. A lot. If among the past ten years you can identify a single month during which Mr. Griffin did not loudly accuse at least three perceived political foes of lying about him and his party, well, Mr. Griffin was probably on vacation that month. You might not identify so much as a single week. I don’t know about you, but for my own part I tend not to trust folks so ready to accuse others of lying, even if the accused are liars. Mr. Griffin need not worry about me, of course, but the principle at stake does seem to be something Mr. Griffin does not understand.

Taki Theodoracopoulos has described the relationship between Nick Griffin and the English media as an encounter respectively of the unsuitable and the inappropriate. It seems that Taki may be right. Too bad.

We Americans naturally will not worry much about this, one way or the other, for the most excellent and fortunate reason that it is not our problem to worry about. I have often thought however that I would cheerfully vote BNP if I were English. This particular event stands in another light.

Considering not Messrs. Griffin and Kennedy in particular, incidentally, but Englishmen generally, have you not observed that that most famous of English modes of expression, understatement, seems to have become a thing of the past? It is hardly to be believed that Americans do it better now, but do it better we do.

It is a bad time to be English, a good time to be an American.

HJH

Barack Obama and his motley Congressional Democratic majority of resentful nonwhite ethnics and graying, 1968-style liberals have met such political troubles as few Republicans would have dreamed one year ago, though the Economic Nationalist is pleased not to be surprised. Events are now in the saddle, so to speak, as foretold here. The horse has the bit in its teeth.

Joe Guzzardi said from the start that the 111th Congress would never be able to pass a major immigration amnesty. Mr. Guzzardi’s forecast looks righter and righter. If so, this is very good news.

Things are looking up. Rested and tanned after a blessedly enforced political vacation, the Republican party is back in a semblance of fighting trim, and its members in Congress, though not yet exactly receptive to a Buchananite, neoconservative, alternative Right world view, do seem less actively hostile to such a world view than in recent memory. This is especially true of younger members who, though variously flawed, represent a significant improvement over the older generation of Republican Congressmen they will gradually supplant. The bad news is that, though the Republican party is better, the Democratic is much worse, whereas our Republic is safe when she enjoys two good, patriotic national parties. One such party however is preferable to none.

(There remain those conservatives, among them friends of this blog, who believe that even the Republican party is good for nothing. I have already explained how strongly I feel that their belief stands on a fundamental misconception of the kind of thing a national party is but, for readers new to the Economic Nationalist, consider: a good dog barks at visitors after nightfall, runs on and tears up the lawn, and slobbers on its water dish, even when such caninity is inconvenient to the dog’s master. A good dog behaves as a dog, just as a good national party behaves as a national party. It is no use to wish a national party to be something it was never meant to be, something no national party ever has been; and it is even less use to compare a national party, by its very nature a power-seeking coalition of significantly divergent interests, against a boutique party like the Constitution party which, though honorable and worthy of respect, simply is not the same kind of thing a national party is. A survey of the center-right national parties of the Western world reveals how fundamentally sound, how relatively good our Republican party truly is, now that Republicans are rid of the bad leadership of George W. Bush and John McCain. That political parties in a democratic republic are, by their very nature, generally somewhat wretched hardly indicts America’s specific, fairly excellent Republican party. It tends to indict the very principle of democracy, rather—a principle the United States, being what they are, probably cannot escape. We work with what we have. But I digress.)

What nervous Republicans misunderstood in 2008, and indeed what this writer misunderstood as recently as 2004, was that the only way out was through, so to speak. The Republican revolution of 1994 having failed, Democrats were bound to get their shot at mismanaging the Republic. Democratic mismanagement is bad for the United States, of course, but if inevitable then sooner was better than later. Either John Kerry or Barack Obama would have sufficed to lead the inevitable Democratic mismanagement, putting an end to the all-too evitable Republican mismanagement under the well meaning but inflexible, incompetent George W. Bush. The only way out was through.

The real danger is that, when we Republicans return a Republican to the White House, we might choose the wrong Republican again. Traditional America might not survive another such mistake; we have run out of room for error. Fortunately, the clearly leading Republicans, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee (and even Sarah Palin if you like) are each much preferable to any candidate the party has nominated to the presidency since Reagan. A return to Reagan would be ideal, but Reagan is dead, Romney is rock-solid (I should explain why in a later article) and Huckabee, though sometimes worrisome, is at least an intelligent, perceptive man who actually grasps the issue of economic nationalism. We stand well going into 2010 and 2012. And, indeed, who would have thought it? The year 2010 has arrived already.

In the meantime, given the sorry circumstance of 2008, the Obama administration is working out beautifully thus far for American patriots, better than even this writer had hoped. The danger was that Mr. Obama would swamp us with an immigration amnesty but he seems barely interested in immigration. Mr. Obama seems interested rather in doing every other stupid political thing he can think of to do. How he and his Democrats have turned the health-care issue, a sure winner for 2009 Democrats, into a political loser will remain a textbook-example of political incompetence for years to come, but turn it into a loser they seem indeed to have done.

Ironically, voters seem inclined to punish rather than to reward Mr. Obama even for the one important thing he has done right, namely, to save General Motors. Remarkably few Republicans seem to grasp the fundamental importance of having saved General Motors, which is why when their party returns to power it will, obliviously, do the right thing at the right time for entirely the wrong reason: it will privatize General Motors again, and America will be strong back in the auto business.

There is still a God in heaven Who blesseth the United States of America, undeserving though they have become. The signs are there to see for those who will. The story of America is not over, yet.

*  *  *

Few readers will wonder why the Economic Nationalist has published little lately, but a brief account might be given those few. There are at least three reasons for the relative quiet. First, the Economic Nationalist’s eponymous issue, economic nationalism, has slumbered; the issue will stir again, but maybe not this year. Second, national media now echo themes the Economic Nationalist discovered a year or two ago: it seems thus unnecessary to belabor such themes at the moment. Third, the major issue of the moment, Democratic health-care reform, is a subject of broad, vigorous debate across the news media, a debate to which I lack the knowledge meaningfully to add, except to state that I am fairly persuaded by that which has become the conventional Republican position on the issue. When events provoke it, the Economic Nationalist will wake again.

In the meantime, for something completely different but maybe of even deeper importance in the long term, I have turned to writing a slow article or two on Aristotle. If I can only work the article or articles into pleasing forms it or they should prove edifying, but the articles’ publication lies days, weeks or months away, if indeed ever. We shall see.

More later.

HJH

Vaguely philo-Semitic but mostly uninterested in Jews as such, I seldom care to write on Jewish topics. This however is a U.S. nationalist blog and, well, if you have not heard why a U.S. nationalist should be interested in Jews then you can just skip this article. I would.

For those of you still reading, it is supposed by some that American Jewry persistently, actively undermined the American nation. This notion has been advanced by one Kevin MacDonald, a courageous man and a careful scholar, as far as I am aware America’s leading exponent of suspicion of Jewish activity as such.

(more…)

The Economic Nationalist is in the throes of an economic exercise. Its editor is making money overtime.

That is the good news. The bad news is that it leaves one little time to write articles until—well, I’m not sure when. Maybe, if fortune holds, January 2010; but the work in question is unrelated to economic nationalism.

In the teeth of the present recession one must earn the living one can, accepting bounty with gratitude against the prospect of future lean times. In the meantime, to offer some edifying reading, here is a link to a thought-provoking economic article by the formidable Edwin S. Rubenstein.

Here is an unexpected thing. According to analysis of the Web server’s logs by the software Awstats, one of the Economic Nationalist’s most assiduous readers is located in Moldova.

Moldova!

One wonders if Awstats were not somehow confused.

Though the Economic Nationalist, specifically a U.S. blog, seeks no international audience, all the big people of little Moldova are welcome to read if they wish, for their own, inscrutable reasons. One hopes that they find the reading edifying.

The anti-American, left-wing wench Joan Walsh writes recently in Salon,

I was on “Hardball” today talking about the climate of extreme right-wing rhetoric today, and whether it had anything to do with Wednesday’s tragic shooting at Washington’s Holocaust Museum, or the May 31 murder of Dr. George Tiller by an antiabortion crackpot.

Let’s get this straight. The psychopathic Dr. Tiller was a cold-blooded serial murderer who delighted in full-term abortions so gruesome that even his colleagues in the abortion trade found themselves too squeamish to execute the infernal procedure. It is thankfully not given to this writer to judge whether a radical abortionist deserves to die but, if Miss Walsh came to the Economic Nationalist for affirmation that the likes of Dr. Tiller deserved to live, then she would have come to the wrong place. If Dr. Tiller was not a very monster, distinguishable from Stalin principally only in the scale of his opportunity to spill innocent blood, then this writer does not know what a monster is.

As Ann Coulter has observed, the U.S. abortion profession has aborted 49 million since Roe v. Wade, 1973, whereas antiabortion zealots have claimed the lives of precisely five abortionists during that time. It seems rather fair to observe that the abortionists have had the upper hand.

Now, a disastrously but honestly mistaken case can be made for abortion, and this writer does not advocate vigilante slayings of abortionists. (Does he condemn vigilante slayings of abortionists, therefore? Answer: no comment. By refusing to answer such mischief this writer will cordially decline to dance to the puppet-strings of the liberal left. The leftist who asks such a sordid question, which does not merit the dignity of a reply, can go carry his own filthy water, as it were, for this writer will not do it for him. Let the leftist condemn, if that’s what he wants. What this writer wants to know is why the left is so fond of killing babies.) To use the exceedingly rare but maybe well deserved fate of the monster Dr. Tiller as an excuse to implicate a nonexistent, extreme right-wing cabal however is a bit rich.

(more…)

If readers would indulge the writer in a self-referential blog post about the blog, the Economic Nationalist would like to acknowledge the valuable contribution the pseudonymous reader “Dr.D” has persistently, generously lent. His running series of remarks demostrate an insight that, one suspects, only long years of experience can bring. Where Dr.D and this writer have disagreed, the disagreement has always been civil, but indeed our profitable discourse has gone beyond mere disagreement, both on- and off-line. I have learned from him, and indeed his constructively provocative remarks have provided the germ for new articles here.

Readers working their way through the archives below are commended not to skip past Dr.D’s remarks but rather to read them, for they are invariably worth the reading. It is virtual friends like Dr.D that have made the blog enjoyable to write.

HJH

News breaks in Europe. The quinquennial election returns to the European Parliament roll in by the minute, when the mildly fascist British National party (BNP) looks set to capture not one but two of Britain’s 72 seats. Party leader Nick Griffin is in for Manchester. For the first time, the BNP is going to Brussels.

(more…)

If one enjoys writing as I do, then part of the fun in blogging lies in building up a regular readership. According to the Web server’s logs the Economic Nationalist now enjoys a readership of a thousand distinct readers a month. Not bad, as such things go, I think. Naturally I appreciate your reading, and believe and hope that you will have found the reading edifying.

(more…)

In response to this and this, a reader identifying herself as Jane Doe writes the following, published here with permission.

Funny you should post this. I’m a childless career woman with a high IQ, although most emphatically not a feminist, and when I read your last post, I just nodded in agreement without commenting.

My reasons for being childless: I married my high school sweetheart. We were going to have children, but we could barely support ourselves, so we were waiting until we had more money. (My grandmother was appalled; my grandfather and several of my great-uncles were in the same line of work as my husband and had no trouble supporting wives and children at the same age. That was before feminism changed the economy so that employers didn’t have to pay a man enough to support a family.) By the time we were more solvent, well, he left me. Not for any particular reason he could give; I think it was just that he grew up in a broken home, so it seemed normal to him. His father was married four times, and his mother ran off when he was a baby and was never heard from again. My husband didn’t learn any concept of sticking with a relationship. His parents were 17 when they conceived him, by the way. Three years later and he’d have been aborted, as would my first boyfriend and my high school best friend. This is what encouraging premarital sex did to people.

I hoped to marry again, but finding someone who wants to commit and raise a family these days is hard. It would have helped if I’d been religious, but unfortunately, when I was in my teens I allowed my parents to pressure me out of my natural inclination to be deeply religious, and I didn’t find my way back until I was in my 30’s. Just another of the ways in which today’s society tears apart the things that hold us together and keeps us on the right track when we don’t have the wisdom to figure it all out for ourselves.

Now I’m 38. I’m considering having some of my eggs frozen because at my age, that’s the only way I’ll have any chance at all, but as I’m still single and have no prospects, I’m not at all sure I’ll ever take it, or that I ought to. I don’t blame the men I meet; if I were a man, I’d want to marry a woman in her 20’s, whose chances of conceiving and delivering a healthy child are much better than mine are.

I’m very bitter, I admit it, at the way our society has discouraged people from making commitments and having real relationships until they’re so old that having children requires expensive and sometimes risky medical assistance. I’m not the only adult who’s approaching middle age alone, childless and lonely.