IDEOLOGY AND ETHICS SURVEY
Additional Commentary and References
||Why should we prefer forms of protectionism to borderless free trade?
||A strong environmental.viewpoint:
A strong genetic.viewpoint:
|We should favor free trade because it
|"Protectionism" means "charity begins at
||may quickly increase commerce
home" which is both instinctive and moral
|We can relocate industry abroad and
Foreigners can be unpredictable and can
||trust foreigners will not confiscate it
expropriate American holdings abroad
|Free trade can reduce special privi-
We require long term reinvestment in
||leges and restructure home industries
white communities as well as our industry
Sample argument (anarcho-libertarian) view: Protectionism means that government slaps tariffs on imported goods or steers trade through regulation, supposedly to support domestic industries. Tariffs are excise taxes. From a libertarian perspective, all taxes are bad because when importers pay tariffs they transfer wealth from the efficient private sector into wasteful government hands. Consumers who substitute domestic goods for imports whose prices have been raised by tariffs wind up providing a wealth transfer to domestic producers who otherwise would not be able to compete under free trade in a global market. From an anarcho-libertarian perspective, the key here is to understand that dropping all trade barriers can open up the whole world to vast markets. People around the world will then tend to focus upon economic areas that give them the strongest comparative advantage. In theory, by bringing more working hands into the global economy, and by encouraging more global specialization, the free market will show us how and where to make things the cheapest. The overall wealth of the world should increase. From this perspective, ideas about the importance of maintaining the racial and ethnic integrity of white communities are unimportant. It does not matter if America accumulates large trade deficits that foreigners such Chinese and Japanese can use to buy up control of major U.S. industries. We can trust foreigners to think just like libertarian businessmen and give U.S. citizens fair business breaks once they are in the saddle. When America relocates its strategic industries in foreign countries, we can trust the foreigners to never expropriate them either outright or in more subtle ways by unilaterally hiking their tax rates. We can trust that they will not use them to make war against us either. We can expect people around the world to always be rational economic actors, who will always recognize the logic of free trade and of pursuing their own comparative advantage. We can trust them to never act upon alien tribal interests at the expense of maintaining free trade policies. In contrast, if we engage in protectionism, we cannot trust home industries to take the additional income they get from tariff protection and invest it wisely to upgrade their businesses and become more globally competitive. Instead, we expect them to misuse the money as corrupt crony capitalists. Only a globalized free market can show us how to rationally structure home industries, or engage in rational long term automation investment. If the white middle class goes down, no problem, we will simply replace whites with Mexicans and Asians. We can trust that these people will have the same capacity for innovation as whites. We expect them to also have the same sentiment for the Bill of Rights if we allow them to become the majority and take over our institutions. We can trust them to be fair and reasonable towards whites once whites become just another minority.
|. . .
Sample argument (libertarian racial nationalist) view: Libertarians may be correct that on a theoretical level all taxes are bad, but it is too utopian to think we will get rid of all taxes and government. Back in the 19th century the U.S. Government relied on tariffs and land sales as the least bad sources of revenue. People around the world are not always particularly fair and reasonable. In fact, they frequently engage in unfair trade practices and deception to gain advantages for their own groups. Protectionism is very much a part of human nature. Even on the street level in America people tend to steer business towards people they like and away from people they dislike. The long term issue actually has more to do with the need for self-sustaining industrial reinvestment at home and preserving shared racial biology than anarcho-libertarian economics. The real reason for the de-nationalization of American trade policy is that American national media and banking have been under the long term control of Jewish supremacists. They think like an alien race and completely lack any loyalty to America's rapidly dwindling white middle class. Jews are instinctively attracted towards creating mixed up, multi-racial, multi-cultural borderless societies designed to one day revolve around Jerusalem everywhere they go. The key to long term economic prosperity is to retain the long term cohesion and integrity of white communities, who historically have been among the most innately productive and innovative peoples on the planet. This is particularly true of Northern European countries. The long term key to increasing the quality of products while dropping the costs of production is to continually invest in smart white people, white middle class communities, and advanced automation infrastructure at home rather than try to find unlimited supplies of ultra low cost coolie labor abroad. Countries such as Japan and Iceland have been able to remain homogeneous and in the economic vanguard at the same time with such policies. This is not hard to do if people put their minds to it and have loyal members of their own group in control of the strategic bases of their society. We can trust racially-conscious and patriotic white business owners to take the additional revenue that they would make from tariff protection and invest it wisely over the long run. We can wean industries off protectionism once they become globally competitive to reduce the potentially corrupting effects of protection. We can trust that the higher wages that go towards supporting the white middle class will continually result in entrepreneurial surprises on the home front. We would expect to see more Henry Ford and Steve Jobs types inventing cool things in their garages. Currently when white communities get replaced by Mexicans and blacks, we see welfare costs rise. We also see a nearly complete lack of Henry Ford and Steve Jobs types. The decline of the white middle class means the death of America as we have known it.
(Last updated Monday 13 Aug 2007)
What makes the free trade issue so difficult for so many people is that like so many other social and political issues, it is not really one issue all by itself, but rather it consists of many different social and political issues mixed up with each other. It is the fault zone where a seemingly high specific issue involving setting tariffs and trade preferences can quickly become the collision point between the tips of two very different philosophical icebergs. Here, we see the whole philosophical structure of nationalism (or the genetic worldview) opposing the philosophy of internationalism (or the purely environmental worldview).
On the one hand, if we want to maximize short term business growth and profits and not worry about the impact of our extremely open policies on mixing up our underlying society on a cultural, ethnic and racial level, and furthermore if we do not care that aliens might slip in and grab control of the strategic bases of our society, or that our society might hemorrhage vital manufacturing and other industries overseas, then the pure free trade anarcho-libertarian viewpoint is definitely the way to go.
The big problem for anarcho libertarians is that the racial nationalist are correct on many important points over the long run. If a country relentlessly follows a pure free trade policy, over the very long it is almost inevitable that many strategic industries required to defend itself in time of war will be shipped overseas or will be taken over by foreigners. It is also highly probable that aliens will seize control of media, banking, and other strategic bases and promote exploitive economic polices that will cripple the ability of the society to determine its own destiny on a cultural and political level and also to wisely reinvest in itself in a disciplined manner to maintain its domestic industry and economic prosperity.
The protectionist viewpoint makes tremendous sense if we take the position that we absolutely must maintain a certain level of ethnic and racial homogeneity and cultural coherence to have a viable and productive society. Furthermore, in order to determine our destiny as a people we must insure that our own people retain control of certain strategic bases of our society such as banking, government, and media. This also implies that we must maintain a certain critical mass level of hard manufacturing industries and other strategic industries within our borders. Finally, if we believe that we must maintain the racial and cultural integrity of America's dwindling white middle class, then it is absolutely necessary for us to maintain various forms of protectionism at all times.
The problem for hard core protectionists is that over the long run the anarcho-libertarians are correct about many of its adverse and corrupting influences. It is possible that prolonged protectionist measures can encourage certain industries to become lazy and globally noncompetitive. Furthermore, protectionism has the potential to corrupt politicians who might be more interested in using protectionism to subsidize industries not for genuine national interests, but rather to get kickbacks from industries in the form of campaign contributions.
Before getting into a background discussion on the ill effects of protectionism, let us first start by defining "protectionism." Like so many social and political policies, it exists in various degrees, ranging from simple tariffs to outright mercantilism.
Simple tariffs mean that the government slaps a simple excise tax on international transactions. So for example, the government decides that it will force any importer to pay 10% of the value of his goods at the dock where his goods unload for the privilege of selling his goods inside the U.S. The government may also decide to tax a percentage of the value of exports.
Mercantilism means that government not only taxes import and export transactions, but also takes complete control by physically directing the actual flow and quantity of trade. So for example prior to the American Revolution, American merchants were required to physically ship their goods through British ports rather than export them directly to various other European cities. As another example, the U.S. Government may tell certain super computer manufactures or uranium industry producers that they are simply prohibited from selling their products altogether (or in extremely limited quantities) to certain countries deemed hostile to America. Obviously American leaders may be concerned that the supercomputers may wind up directing the navigational paths of uranium products inside in-flight ICBM's that could vaporize American cities.
There are three basic problems created by government-sponsored protectionism. First, they are a form of taxation, and from an anarcho-libertarian perspective, all taxes are bad because they transfer wealth from the more productive private sector to the government, which in essence is an inefficient, predatory animal based on force, politics, and bureaucracy, and which rarely has anything to do with sound economics.
Secondly, all taxes (tariffs included) distort a free enterprise economy in some way. So for example, by slapping a 20% tariff on imports of a certain product, this means that a domestic manufacturer can get away with being much less efficient than a foreign manufacturer since he can now charge up to 20% more for his products and still sell them (assuming that they still have the same competitive quality). The consumer ends up paying the higher prices created by the tariffs, just as increased taxes (which from a business viewpoint are simply increased costs of doing business) in all other areas also end to get passed on to the consumer.
The third problem is that protectionism can create an enormous temptations for crooked politicians to turn government into a giant ponzi scheme. Here is how the game works. A crooked politician goes to an industry and says, "If you give me the under-the-table funding that I need to win an election, I will make sure that once I use that money to run a high profile campaign and demagogue the public and get in office, I will pass protective tariff legislation as a kick back." The crooked politico promises all this even if the industry in question has absolutely no need whatsoever for protectionism.
This approach becomes a ponzi scheme over the long run because this behavior encourages the rise of corrupt politicians and lazy and corrupt industries. Now all that an industry needs to do is merely raise tariffs to grab some profits. It now has a short cut in the place of engaging in a very disciplined and focused long term process of continually reinvesting in new product development and advanced manufacturing techniques. This is an unsustainable and self-defeating "ponzi scheme" over the long run, because while this scheme may be financially profitable to corrupt politicians and businessmen in the short run, people who rely on political manipulation to earn a living tend to fall by the wayside over the long run compared to equally smart but hardworking and honest people who are capable of staying focused on a disciplined process of producing tradable goods of real value with a trend of increasing quality and decreasing prices.
Protectionists typically offer three important counter arguments. First, not all "protected" industries are lazy and corrupt and abuse tariffs to engage in more "make work" and feather-bedding. Instead, they can use the stream of enhanced revenues provided by protectionism to help rebuild themselves and become globally competitive. In the real world, businesses may need a certain level of protection during prolonged business development incubation periods in order to make a reasonable return on their long term investments.
Secondly, when Americans buy American goods, their money gets recycled within the American economy to support more jobs and industrial infrastructure for Americans, which in turn helps pay for long term social improvements. Among other things, it puts more money in the pockets of white Americans to provide money to support having families of white children. It also gives Americans more pocket money that they can use to support local charities or local schools and other social infrastructure.
Lastly, protectionism is not just an ideological problem as many anarcho-libertarians would have us believe. It is also a biological imperative firmly rooted in human nature where every group must practice "charity begins at home" and reinvest in its own kind first on a genetic, cultural, and economic level if the group is to survive in the real world. In fact, there are some extensive sociobiological arguments that take this view on a purely genetic level as well as economic arguments that deal with physical production processes.
There are many intangibles involved in preserving the cultural and racial integrity of the white middle class and its economic prosperity that yield important dividends over the long run. In the old American white middle class, we used to see lots of cool innovations coming out of garages. Out of these innovations came great companies like the Ford Motor Company, Hewlett Packard, and Apple Computer. In contrast, out of the Mexican and Black neighborhoods that are literally replacing white middle class neighborhoods, we see rising crime and welfare costs. We perceive a deathly silence in terms of technological innovation and productive new business development.
One can get an important biological perspective on economic nationalism by reading Dr. Norman Hall's article "Zoological Subspecies in Man." Dr. Hall maintained that racism is instinctive among virtually all mammalian species in addition to homo sapiens. Therefore, when you mix up races, you can risk developing a situation closer to race war than enlightened anarcho-libertarian social cooperation. In addition, Tom Chittum makes the important point in Civil War Two: The Coming Breakup of America, that once a dominant ethnic group slips below approximately 75% of a country's total population, historical studies show that the level of social instability and centripetal ethnic forces has tended to skyrocket exponentially.
Also, I need to call attention to the admirable book In Praise of Hard Industries: Why Manufacturing, Not the Information Economy, Is the Key to Future Prosperity by Eamonn Fingleton. He argues that hard manufacturing industries are the only thing that is infinitely scalable in terms of productivity, unlike service industries. Hard industries have a better capacity to raise real wage levels than any other industries because of their superior productivity and ability to support rising employee wages as a relatively small fraction of the total costs of plant and equipment. Lastly, people need to maintain physical control of advanced industrial equipment within their own territory to better support satellite industries and educational infrastructure that enjoy mutually supportive relationships. Advanced automation progress is about tinkering, and there is no substitute for having advanced manufacturing equipment (to include mobile robotic devices) under your own physical control within your own country.
In short, Eamonn Fingleton argues that heavy industry supports the rest of the economy. Therefore, it is dangerous to let if fall to less than 33% of the total economy. In fact, America has lost somewhere over 60-80% of its hard industry in the past few decades, depending on whose statistics one refers to. Heavy industry is now somewhere between 5-12% of what is now an extremely overly indebted and vulnerable service economy. .
Yes, it might be rear-end-backwards economic policy to support protectionism first in order to try to keep heavy industry at 33% of our economy (presumably a more enlightened economic policy would focus directly upon maintaining competitiveness and boosting productivity first and consider protectionism as a very last resort), however, such a crude and unenlightened economic policy seemed to work in 19th century America, despite all the corruption and economic distortions that it engendered. It is hard to argue with success, even if intellectually we cannot quite get our arms around why certain things happened to work in the real world. By the end of the 19th century, the average American worker was paid twice the real wages of average workers in Europe, and America led the world in industrial might. American industrial output was greater than that of Britain and Germany combined.
Today the trend is in the exact opposite direction, with the average American drowning in debt, his former better-paying job off shored to China or India, and the gap between rich and poor reaching Third World levels. Better a defective policy that somehow worked for America than our current so-called free trade policies which seem to encourage America to economically bleed to death.
There is an interesting irony here involving the famous saying by the libertarian economist Frederic Bastiat "When goods do not cross borders, armies do."
Anarcho libertarians love to repeat this quote to make their case that free trade and the cause of international peace and mutual global prosperity all go hand in hand. However, the anarcho libertarians are missing an important point that tends to sneak up from behind and eventually strikes like a cobra. When goods and people freely cross borders, this can create enormous social instability over the long run from domestic race-mixing. It can also cause a loss of heavy manufacturing industries that hold up the rest of the economy, thereby eventually causing severe economic stress.
In other words, while free trade policies may help avoid international war in the short run, they may paradoxically help build up the social dry tinder that ultimately ignites a civil war in the long run. See Civil War Two: The Coming Breakup of America for more details.
Libertarian theory presupposes that people tend to be rational, reasonable, and sportsmanlike in their dealings with each other. It is what I call a "mutualist" philosophy in my mutualism vs parasitism article. Sportsmanlike free enterprise competition is supposed to help everyone find the best use for their talents and become more productive towards society as a whole, not cut each other's throats. In the long run, it is supposed to be a win-win situation for everyone.
However, libertarianism becomes completely decoupled from reality --it breaks down completely and begins to look ridiculous -- when we are dealing with people who are basically criminal or hostile in the way they treat each other (ie. act like predators or parasites, whether openly or covertly). There is such a thing as too much competition when it makes people so desperate that they start hiring aliens in the place of their own kind and start engaging in tricky financial maneuverings that may boost profits in the short term but eat their economic seed corn over the long haul.
The Chinese and Indians have billions of people who are willing to work for almost nothing like combat soldiers in trenches. They are prepared to steal market share and industry from us with the same grim determination and sacrifice that one would expect of a Banzai! charge. This is not exactly the social tone that I would expect in a free trade libertarian environment. It has more of the look and feel of economic warfare.
Furthermore, in Final Judgment Michael Collins Piper describes how Jewish supremacists helped arm China with the atomic bomb. When John F. Kennedy objected, Americans were taught in Dallas, Texas in November 1963 whose interests held the upper hand. In my Preface to Ways That Are Dark, I describe how Israelis continued to arm Red China with conventional weapons under the guise of trade. The CIA and Mossad have run the drug trade out of the Golden Triangle and Afghanistan. The list of anti-American skulduggery is actually endless, but the point I wish to make is that the whole flavor of America's relationship with China, India, Israel, and other recipients of America's exported industries and technology actually involves "war by other means" rather than some kind of sportsmanlike libertarian mutualism.
Furthermore, if the same pattern of treacherous Chinese behavior persists that Ralph Townsend identified in Ways That Are Dark regarding their treatment of Christian missionaries and American businessmen in the 1930's, we can expect that some day the Chinese will expropriate virtually all American investment in their industrial infrastructure. In fact, Eamonn Fingleton claims in In Praise of Hard Industries that American businessmen maintain willful blindness towards the way in which the Chinese continue to steal our patents and other proprietary technology with almost complete abandon.
But let me try to be fair here and give the libertarians more of a hearing. In my centralization vs decentralization discussion, I cover the way in which Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo has dramatized the anarcho-libertarian viewpoint on protectionism through his severe criticism of the career of Abraham Lincoln:
It Gets Even Worse with "Ponzi"
It is bad enough that government bureaucracies tend to grown on
their own like cancers. Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, author of How
Capitalism Save America and The Real Lincoln,
describes how government can get even worse by degenerating into
a big ponzi scheme. I think that it is important to spend some time
explaining Dr. DiLorenzo's views, since we see forms of ponzi government
everywhere in America today. In addition, Dr. DiLorenzo provides
important insights regarding a critical juncture point in American
For the un-initiated, the "Ponzi scheme" comes from the
1920's racket where Charles
Ponzi solicited funds from investors, claiming he would give
them a portion of the in-excess of 400% he was supposed to make
on an international postal redemption scheme. Rather than invest
the money, he paid part of the funds to himself and sent another
part back to investors as "dividends." Since the money
was not invested in anything that achieved a real return, the ponzi
game continued as long as the scam operator could provide convincing
fake investment reports and continually find new investors to contribute
We can see how Charles Ponzi's game was unsustainable. Nothing productive
got added to the system, while he continually extracted funds for
his own use. We can also see how the spread of his unsustainable
approach throughout America's financial system could ultimately
lead to total system collapse.
According to Dr. DiLorenzo, Abraham Lincoln publicly confessed that
the central platform of his career was to promote the "Whig
program" of protective tariffs, public works, and a central
bank This was a centralizing program of special privilege initially
championed by Alexander Hamilton and later upheld by Henry Clay.
An excellent overview article is "The
Real Henry Clay: The Corrupt American Architect of Mercantilism
and Protectionism" by Ryan Setlif.
Abraham Lincoln never deviated from Clay's so-called "American
System" during his entire career. It was his central purpose.
In contrast, he waffled back and forth on the slavery issue, despite
his image today as "The Great Emancipator."
As some examples of waffling back and forth on slavery and broader
racial issues, Lincoln once voluntarily defended a Kentucky slave
owner who sought to retrieve his runaway slave who had fled to Illinois.
During the Lincoln-Douglas debates in southern Illinois, where Lincoln
played to a large population sympathetic to the South, Lincoln claimed
that Negroes were unfit to serve on juries and could never be the
full equals of whites. Shortly after he became President, Lincoln
supported the original 13th Amendment, which guaranteed slavery
in the South, provided that the South agreed to stay in the Union
and pay the new high tariffs. Lincoln also openly advocated repatriating
blacks to Africa, and defended his Emancipation Proclamation as
a ploy to appeal to anti-slavery liberals in Britain and hence help
prevent Britain from entering the war on the side of the Confederacy.
However, as Sam Dickson points out in his brilliant article "Shattering
the Icon of Abraham Lincoln," while it is true that Lincoln
spoke out of both sides of his mouth, the general trend of his career
was to the left, so we can at least credit him with consistency
as an abiding leftist on social issues.
But let us get back to the "Whig program" from which Lincoln
never wavered. The problem with this kind of program is that in
the hands of irresponsible demagogues, it can foster an unvirtuous
cycle of corruption that can ultimately destroy a limited republic.
It can send government spiraling along the path towards a spendthrift
and ultimately bankrupt Jacobin government, which describes what
we have come to at present.
As a first step of this political ponzi system, the political hack
opportunistically hunts for unethical business operators who are
happy to offer under-the-table kickbacks to the politician in return
for his ability to pass pork legislation so that the police power
of the state now supports their products against free market competition
and forces patronage at higher prices.
Getting back to my discussion about the fundamental difference between
the voluntary nature of most business transactions and the involuntary
nature of government taxation, here is a case where the proverbial
soap, automobile, and toothpaste manufacturers want to figure out
ways to get government agents to threaten to blow your head clear
off if you do not patronize their products at higher prices. Meanwhile,
the political hack gets a kickback for creating laws that compel
this patronage, while you the consumer get soaked.
Somehow I just do not think this is the kind of thing that America's
Founding Fathers had in mind.
The happy hunting grounds in Lincoln's era for finding crooked businessmen
willing to pay big kickbacks in return for state-enforced patronage
lay in three main areas:
a) industrialists who benefited from high protective
b) contractors who benefited from government-funded public works
c) bankers who benefited from central bank bailouts.
Let me interject here some qualifications based
upon my own personal views. I believe that business interests are
entitled to legitimate political representation. In addition, there
can be some strong and valid nationalist arguments for protectionist
tariffs, particularly when faced with a compelling need to create,
jump-start, or revitalize certain strategic industries.
However, anarcho-libertarians are correct that if certain protectionist
measures are left in place for too long, they tend to adversely
distort free markets, corrupt politicians, and can spoil the competitive
edge of domestic industries. Therefore genuinely patriotic nationalists
realize that protectionism is heavily "contra-indicated"
medicine that must be applied sparingly and with great wisdom and
Expressed differently, you may need to put the patient on the operating
table, but you dare not leave him unconscious with his body opened
up and on life support for too long. Protectionist measures should
be generally removed after they have done their job helping certain
industries achieve critical mass.
We should also note that a protectionist tariff is nothing more
than an excise tax on international trade. In the long run, all
taxes are bad. All taxes transfer resources from the more productive,
entrepreneurial, and decentralized private sector to the more politicized,
bureaucratic, and centralized government sector. In other words,
taxes shift economic resources to the government where they tend
to get wasted.
This is not to say that tariffs are inherently evil. Income taxes
are worse, because they involve collecting private information on
individuals. Estate taxes are worse, because they double-tax income.
Domestic excise and property taxes are worse because they tax property
ownership and internal commerce.
In contrast to all of this, tariffs may have the slightly redeeming
quality that they can force segments of American industry to make
long term reinvestments in American plant and equipment rather than
export jobs and infrastructure overseas. Admittedly, having to force
Americans to invest in fellow Americans reflects a pretty sad state
of affairs, but when we are hemorrhaging most of our industry and
skilled jobs, even medicine with bad side effects may be better
than none at all.
Most 19th century politicians viewed tariffs as a least bad form
of taxation. During this period the U.S. Governments drew most of
its income from tariffs and land sales. The government generally
refrained from levying personal and corporate income taxes in peacetime.
Therefore, a genuinely patriotic libertarian nationalist favored
tariffs only to the extent that he is very serious about eliminating
all other types of taxes.
In contrast to responsible nationalists, the political hack is out
to install protectionist measures every place he can in order to
jingle his personal cash registers. This gun for hire also likes
to leave protectionist measures in place indefinitely as permanent
cash cows for both himself and his corporate cronies. He could care
less about the long term impact on free markets, consumers, industrial
competitiveness, or anything else. He is only out for himself.
When Lincoln ran for office, he was clever enough to pose as a folksy
populist who cared about the electorate first, and not as someone
working for the kick-back. However, according to Dr. DiLorenzo,
Lincoln pulled many self-dealing pork whoppers. A major political
"fixer" in his state, he helped relocate the state capitol
at tremendous cost to Illinois taxpayers in order to benefit only
a few business supporters. He also helped locate the terminus of
the transcontinental railroad near some land that he owned. Awarded
his own private rail car by a big rail road company, Lincoln become
wealthy as a lawyer representing big railroad interests. His legal
work for common people was mere window dressing by comparison.
The tariff racket
Raising tariffs in America beyond a certain point in Lincoln's era
was especially irresponsible and dangerous given that South Carolina
made a very serious secession threat following the 1828 "Tariff
of Abominations." Despite this, Lincoln campaigned hard for
the Morrill Tariff of 1861, which initially pushed the average tariff
up to about
36.2% compared to the 18-20% rate that had been the norm in
the 1820's. Back in those days, tariffs in the 10-20% range might
be considered "normal," whereas tariffs over 40% might
be considered hostile acts. Lincoln's high stakes, pork-oriented,
political brinkmanship poker game blew up in his face and precipitated
the War Between the States that got 640,000 Americans killed.
With only a third of the U.S. population, the South paid about two
thirds of the tariffs. A huge portion of the Southern economy involved
exporting cotton directly to Europeans. The most profitable and
uncomplicated way to carry on volume trade with the Europeans was
to exchange Southern cotton for European manufactured goods, and
then back haul these goods to America. The increased tariff rate
to 36.2% significantly reduced what Southerners could net out for
their cotton sales both at home or abroad.
In contrast, many Northern industrialists could not compete very
well against English manufacturing. They benefited by keeping European
manufacturers out of the U.S. market by forcing consumers to pay
higher prices for their tariff-protected goods. These industrialists
were Lincoln's primary political constituents.
Many intelligent observers understood all this at the time. In fact,
even Karl Marx, who admired Abraham Lincoln's leftist tendencies,
observed that the War Between the States was first and foremost
a war fought over the tariff issue and not slavery.
As much as I agree with most of the points that anarcho-libertarians make about the potential ill long term effects of protectionism, I also take the view that not engaging in various of protectionism can create even greater evils involving loss of control of industry and reduction in necessary domestic reinvestment.
One way to try to reduce the negative impact of tariffs is to simply phase them out over time after hopefully they have served their purpose of helping to rejuvenate strategic industries and make them globally competitive. Another approach is to make tariffs only work as direct taxes that are applied evenly and consistently across all import industries. This reduces the opportunities for unscrupulous politicians to target specific industries for special protectionist favoritism as a tool to get political kickbacks. Finally, a racial nationalist approach is to insure that only people with shared racial, ethnic, and cultural values man the strategic bases of society, on the theory that only they will have enough of an emotional identification with the middle class and working class people to protect their fundamental interests.
Whereas the prime issue for anarcho-libertarians is maximizing short term business profits, the ultimate issue for nationalists is maintaining control. Increasing ones equity stake and exerting control is always a major issue everywhere you look in business, whether among publicly traded industries on Wall Street or among privately held firms.
One potential solution to the ills of government-run protectionism is what I call "genetic bottom up" libertarian racial nationalism, which for all practical purposes has major similarities to the brand of 19th century classical liberalism espoused by early American leaders such as John C. Calhoun (exempting his pro-slavery sentiments) and Thomas Jefferson (exempting his continued ownership of slaves throughout his life). In other words, we create homogeneous white ethnostates in North America with an explicitly stated mission to defend white ethnic genetic interests along with Western Civilization. We try to keep the burden for maintaining protectionist policies as decentralized and voluntary as possible. We try to rebuild grass roots pro-white social, religious, and political institutions that compel white business leaders to practice "charity begins at home" based primarily on moral suasion rather than government coercion.
Next go around, sometime after the current morally and financially bankrupt American imperium collapses, we may also want to try to create a moral image like many of the cute little Scandinavian countries such as Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland before most of them got hit with massive Third World immigration. We may also want to stay away from slavery, genocide, imperialism, class oppression, race-mixing, neo-Jacobinism, boot-licking pro-Zionism, and other evils.
Such a society today cannot exist today, given that we are cursed with a Jewish supremacist-controlled national media that promotes aggressive globalism while vilifying all forms of white racial nationalism. We are also saddled with a highly Jewish-dominated federal government (see, for example, The High Priests of War and The New Jerusalem) whose regulations seek to destroy all forms of white separatism and economic self sufficiency. This monster that I call "predator" in my Critical Issues discussion relentlessly forces race mixing in the work place, in our residential neighborhoods, in our schools, in the military, and in virtually every other nook and cranny of American society where our imperial, alien-led government can insert its neo-Jacobin tentacles.
I can fault the anarcho-libertarians for creating a very utopian model totally out of step with the real world. From my own experience in the business world,
people instinctively practice subtle forms of "protectionism" (or politically motivated economic preferences) all the time in their everyday workaday lives. On a very abstract level, protectionism involves situations where one tries to give business to people one wants to support, and conversely one withholds his business from people he finds threatening or otherwise dislikes.
Let us suppose that in my personal dealings I try to approach a pure free trade anarcho-libertarian with a business partnership idea. Let us imagine that he totally ignores me or rudely cuts me off because he does not like my willingness to openly discuss racial nationalism. This may include my explicit criticisms of groups like Jews, blacks, and Mexicans.
In such a case, our pro-free trade anarcho-libertarian acquaintance is practicing an abstract form of de facto protectionism called the boycott. Other fairly soft and intangible forms of boycott might also include refusing to post articles that I might submit to an anarcho-libertarian blog simply because someone might find any mention of the philosophy of racial nationalism to be distasteful.
Ironically Jewish supremacists, who suppress white nationalism while championing globalism, also happen to be the biggest racists and protectionists in the entire world in the way they act among themselves. Take for example the state of Israel, where only hereditary Jews are allowed to hold key positions in government and industry. Consider also the kosher tax system here in America. Jews are not only famous for bending over backwards to find jobs for fellow Jews and boost each other's careers, but they also have a stealth certification system that steers Jewish consumers towards Jewish-friendly producers. They rake in hundreds of millions of dollars in Kosher fee income. Lastly, consider U.S. law that makes it illegal to refuse to trade with Israel. America also protects Israel's economy and military establishment with untold billions of dollars in foreign aid subsidies every year. The state of Israel is a socialist economic basket case that could not survive a day were it not for the continued massive economic protectionist support of America that has been going on ever since its founding in 1947. America is every bit as extremely protective of the economic interests of Israel as it is extremely non-protective of America's dwindling white middle class.
This economic protectionist hypocrisy is so extreme that one is left with the impression that white Americans have been horribly cheated and duped. Given current trends, we might even see quite a few fellow whites walking around naked inside barrels some day as a "gift" of our supposedly enlightened free trade-oriented economic "leaders."
Return to question 25
Proceed to commentary for question 26