Sometimes you merely have to see how your enemies feel about a policy, idea, or proposition to know what the correct solution or policy is for you to follow — it would be an opposing or opposite course of action.
I believe this is the case on the subject of whether protectionist tariffs are good or bad for the nation or the White race, which should represent the nation. There is debate amongst nationalists on this subject, but no conclusive stance is ever agreed upon to the point where an action program is adopted.
If we examine the “arguments” of our enemies on this subject, I think we can adopt an answer we can be confident in. An illogical article in “The Economist,” an internationally oriented weekly newsmagazine of long standing affiliated with the Rothschild influenced School of Economics, should lay this matter to rest. The article entitled, “The Toll of Tariffs: Agriculture and Demography” can be found on page 63 of the April 16th, 2016 issue.
Perversely and weirdly, the anonymous author argues that tariffs are bad because they increase the fertility of the rural population, as if we need to put a lid on the number of “rubes” allowed to proliferate in society as a matter of policy. He/she/it admits that tariffs on agricultural goods result in higher domestic food prices and increased wages for agricultural workers. An obvious benefit, of course, is that domestic output is increased at the expense of foreign imports, which is not mentioned in the article.
The increased wages allow for the rural sector of the population to have more children, which is especially important to farmers because these children usually lend a hand in the farm work without having to be paid wages.
The author incomprehensively without explanation argues that such a development is contrary to “economic development.”. Apparently the author equates importing foreign guest, seasonal, or even permanent workers with economic “development,” even though such practices reduce wages and create unemployment for the native workers. This feeds indirectly into the feminist movement because more native mothers and female family members have to join the workforce to support their families.
These developments have taken a toll in such countries as Germany and Japan, where birthrates are far below replacement levels, causing their cultures to wither as their populations age; and taxpayers, especially younger workers, are overburdened.
The article’s author merely states, “Tariffs are bad for a country’s economic development because they ‘coddle’ farmers and encourage them to have more children.” Does the author just plain hate children in order to make such a statement?
A race is born in the country, where folks marry early and have lots of kids. A race dies in the city, where people often go unmarried and have few or no children.
Included with the subject article is a painting that shows women working around a haystack. The caption below it says, “Too much rolling in the hay.”
“Not enough” is my reply.
Read the rest of this article and all Nationalist Times articles by subscribing to America’s best political newspaper: http://americanfreedomunion.com/subscribe/
Or subscribe by snail mail for the ridiculously low price of just $19! That’s less than one-third the regular subscription rate! Or subscribe for two years for just $37. Send your subscription (check, money order or cash) to: The Nationalist Times, P.O. Box 281, Wildwood, PA 15091.
This great offer is for new subscribers only; it is not a renewal rate for current subscribers.