The Economic Nationalist

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.

The last article, archived just below, unnecessarily lacks tact. I regret this. Let me explain.

(more…)

Do feminist career women with high IQs not grasp the long-term danger inherent in permitting, even encouraging, their intellectual inferiors to outbreed them? If they do grasp it, do they care?

HJH

Vanishing American writes,

The truth will out, though, and we will all be freer in a society in which people can speak the truth without fear of ‘offending’ some person with an agenda, and without fear of being attacked verbally or otherwise for expressing an unpopular or unflattering truth. As each of us does a small part to resist the conditioning and the propaganda, and to weaken this climate of fear and timidity, the PC taboos will eventually break down. Lies are harder to maintain than the truth, which is often self-evident, once the lies have been challenged firmly. PC is a high-maintenance ideology; our opponents and enemies have to work day and night to maintain the crumbling facade of political correct multiculturalism. That’s the reason for their relentlessness and their fanaticism; they know, subconsciously at least, that they have to work frantically to keep their deception intact.

Just so.

Before quoting Cambria Will Not Yield, ere readers point the fact out to me, I would state that I am well aware of Cambria’s enthusiastic anti-Catholicism. What is important to understand however is not that Harrison is Catholic and that Cambria is anti-Catholic, for though Harrison is indeed Catholic (and happily so) The Economic Nationalist is not The Catholic Apologist, nor is it principally about Catholicism as such. Rather, what is important to understand—indeed, critically important—is that nearly the worst, most contemptible, most disloyal, most cowardly thing we right-wingers have been prone to do in recent decades is to tear one another down in a pathetic, servile show meant to impress godless liberals whose hearts, emptied of the love of Christ, are filled instead with black hatred for us.

Our civilization is dying. We have no time any longer for internecine warfare on the right, and it is unseemly—or worse—that you and I should tolerate relentless, repeated, intentional injury by the left better than we tolerate mere perceived heterodoxy among our own friends, fellows and kin.

I for one shall not play that liberal game. I am determined to provide a model of the manner in which we men of the right ought to treat one another, if we men of the right really care about passing down to our posterity the magnificent civilization our ancestors have passed down to us. I am therefore entitled to regard Cambria as friend and I shall do so, with pleasure and without reservation. The privilege is mine.

Cambria writes,

The 21st century liberal, therefore, is a lot meaner and less willing to engage in debate than his 1950’s counterpart. He is meaner because his ideas have become embodied and are self-evidently wrong, thus forcing him to stay mad-dog delusional every single second of his life. And he is unwilling to debate because he has consolidated his power and doesn’t have to debate.

Cambria is right.

Howard J. Harrison

Demons of conservative surrealism and ghosts of 1812 haunt John Zmirak’s night:

For over 200 years [the Canadians] have just—sat there. Like a deeply dysthymic blind date who stares down into her cooling vichyssoise, they were waiting for us to start the conversation. To entertain them. To fill the cultural, cognitive void they created by showing up. Did we invite them? What are they doing up there? Can you think of a single thing that has happened in Canada in the course of the past 20 years? Neither can they. (Entire newspapers are printed in Windsor and Halifax containing nothing but blank pages and ads for American films.) That’s why they mostly huddle south, close to the border—eavesdropping at our door. It’s all so—unsavory—like having a Mongoloid child as a neighbor.

It really is too much to take. In fact, there are thousands of square miles we really can take—and transform those barren plains into speedway tracks where NASCAR races can extend across a continent.

There is not much new content here recently, for one does not like to retread old articles and I just do not seem to have much new to say on the topic of economic nationalism lately. New events will transpire someday and then I will have something new to say. Until then, the blog stirs little.

(more…)

This is not an article but an administrative post. As the number of hyperlinks in the blog’s right panel slowly grows, I have found it convenient to divide the links into a larger number of smaller categories. A problem however arises in naming the new “Far Right” category. (more…)

A thing done heartily, energetically and well, though done imperfectly, can far excel a thing done with sterile precision. In The American Conservative, Daniel McCarthy heartily writes,

The conventional wisdom overvalues politics and undervalues the philosophy of the movement: it overlooks the ways in which [1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry] Goldwater succeeded far beyond the electoral success of a Johnson or a Nixon—or a Bush. [Goldwater’s 1960 book] The Conscience of a Conservative continues to be read today because it isn’t a political tract, a soulless campaign book of the sort generated by every other modern presidential effort.

The idealism and amateurism of the Goldwater people inspired a movement in a way that political professionals never could: indeed, the cynical professionalism and win-at-all-costs mentality of today’s conservatives, best represented by Karl Rove, has had the opposite effect. Goldwater galvanized America’s youth—Young Americans for Freedom grew directly out of Youth for Goldwater. Under the professional Republicans of the past decade, on the other hand, conservatives have lost whatever momentum they had with the next generation.

Wise words. The full article is recommended.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. —Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, December 15, 1791.

Whereas the First Amendment protects freedoms of speech and worship against the federal government only, the Second Amendment is more strongly worded: “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Americans however dispute the meaning and effect of that first clause: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State….”

(more…)