Discussion:
Patriotism is not an optional extra
(too old to reply)
Robert Henderson
2007-12-21 17:32:55 UTC
Permalink
Patriotism is not an optional extra

What is patriotism?

By patriotism I mean the sense of belonging to a people, of owning a
land, of instinctively favouring your country men and women, of
knowing that the interest of the "tribe" must come before any other
consideration.

The value of patriotism lies in its ability to produce social
coherence and an enduring and discrete population . Without patriotism
a country becomes no more than a geographical expression and is prey
to colonisation by foreigners by overt conquest or covert conquest
through mass immigration.

The notion , assiduously disseminated by liberal internationalists,
that human beings are interchangeable social atoms who may live as
readily in one society as another is a recipe for national suicide
because it embraces policies such as mass immigration which directly
lead to the weakening and ultimately to the destruction of their own
nations. Of course, for the liberal internationalist the destruction
of nation states and the subordination of nations are desired ends ,
but this is predicated on the false premise that diverse populations
will live as peacefully and productively as homogeneous ones, indeed,
they claim that diverse societies will be stronger than homogenous
ones. The internationalists have no meaningful grounds for believing
this for the whole experience of human history and the world as it
is today says that diversity of race and ethnicity in the same
territory equates to violence and social incoherence.

Ironically, the consequence of mixed populations is not a diminishing
of national/tribal sentiment, but an inflation of it. A people secure
in its own territory does not need to engage in constant national
expression because nothing threatens it: a people in a mixed society
must constantly do so because all the ethnic/racial groups are
necessarily in conflict because of the need for each to compete for
power and resources for their own group.

Tribes are natural

The sense of being separate, of belonging to a discrete group with
identifiable characteristics is a necessary part of the human template
because Man is a social animal. All social animals have to have
boundaries to know where the group begins and ends. This is because a
social animal must operate within a hierarchy and a hierarchy can only
exist where there are boundaries. No boundaries, no hierarchy, because
no individual could ever know what the dominance/submission situation
was within their species or at least within those members of the
species with whom they interact.

Where does "must operate within a hierarchy" come from? First the
observed facts: all social animals do produce hierarchies - although
these vary considerably in form - and human beings always produce
hierarchies, whether they are hunter-gatherers or people populating a
great modern city.

Why do social animals always form hierarchies? For animals other than
Man the answer is I think simple enough: only by forming hierarchies can
social groups cohere. This is most probably because animals vary
considerably in their physical and mental qualities. Observe any animal,
even the simplest single cell organism, and differences between
individuals within the species will become apparent. Some are more
vigorous than others, some larger, some, more adventurous and so on.
Individuals will also vary by age and, in sexually reproducing species,
sex.

In a solitary animal the practical consequences of differences between
individuals will be decided by direct competition, most commonly by the
formation of territories and the attempted monopoly of mates and food
within the territory, with the best endowed animals on average being
more successful.

When an animal is social, differences in individual quality have to be
resolved by something other than the methods used by solitary animals
such as scent marking of territory boundaries and serious fighting
because the animals have to live in close proximity. Competition for
desirable goods still occurs, most notably competition for mates, but
normally within behaviours which are not fatal to other members of the
group or behaviours which are so disruptive as to threaten the survival
of the group. The upshot of this social accommodation is the formation
of different social niches into which individuals fit.

Group behaviour is a compromise between the immediate advantage of the
individual and the diffuse advantages derived from group activity. The
compromise is given structure by hierarchies, whether that be a fixed
biological distinction by sex or caste (for example, social bees) or a
transient one due to the age of an animal. Hierarchies are built on the
differences between individuals and the more rigid the hierarchical
structure the greater will be the selective pressures to produce
individuals in the right proportions to fill the various social niches
within the group.

Consider what would happen if hierarchies did not exist. There would be
constant conflict within the group because no individual would have
cause to defer to another except from fear of physical harm and such
fear is a blunt and very limited instrument of social control, whether
it be of humans or animals. It is a strategy more suited to the solitary
animal than the social one.

Hierarchies also make sense in terms of the development of social
animals. Social animals are ultimately descended from asocial animals.
The movement from asocial to social animal is presumably akin to the
evolutionary process whereby a parasite is converted to a symbiotic
partner. It is a process of gradual behavioural accommodation.

Social animals on the bottom rung of the social animal ladder may do
little more than associate together at certain times. The next rung up
and the animal frequently associates with others of its kind. One more
step and the animal forms more or less permanent groupings. And so on
until we reach the ultimate social animal: Man.

The gradual evolution of social behaviour of itself points to the need
for hierarchy, because at each stage of the evolution the natural
overtly selfish behaviour of the original solitary animal has to be
modified. That modification will only come through natural selection
working on behavioural traits which favour more complete socialisation.

What about human beings? Are they not capable of breaking the biological
bounds which capture animals? Does not their immense intelligence and
possession of language place them in another category of being? Could
Man not simply decide not to behave in a non-hierarchical manner? The
fact that human beings have never done so is of itself sufficient
evidence for all but the most ideologically committed nurturist to
decide that human beings cannot do it and to conclude that the forming
of hierarchies is part of the human template. However, to that fact can
be added another, the dominance/submission behaviour which every person
witnesses daily not merely in positions of formal dominance and
subordination such as the workplace, but in every aspect of social life.

Nations

Nations are tribes writ large. They are remarkably durable. Empires
invariably fall but a true nation is potentially eternal unless utterly
destroyed through an act of genocide. Even the loss of a homeland - the
most traumatic loss any nation can sustain - does not destroy a
people as the Jews have dramatically shown for nearly two thousand
years.

A shared faith or political ideology does not make a nation. Muslims
may claim to be one people but the reality is very different as the
continual strife between Muslims bears witness. Not only is there
the major division between Shias and Sunnis, Muslim dominated states
of the same ostensible branch of Islam are often hostile to each other,
while Muslim terrorists/freedom fighters (take your pick) willingly
kill fellow Muslims - women and children included - in large numbers.

Similarly, Marxist Leninists in the Soviet Union and Red China may have
maintained the fiction to the bitter end of the Soviet Bloc that
the international proletariat was as one , but the substantial
deviations between their ideologies and the viciously repressive
measures they used to deny their own proles contact with outside world
(and hence the rest of the proletariat) told another tale.

Today, the doctrine of liberal internationalism pretends to a
universality of human experience and commonality which is refuted
every day by the manifold social, ethnic and racial strife throughout
the world.

The Jews are something of an oddity. Until the modern state of Israel
was founded in 1948 they had been without a homeland for nearly two
millennia. Because of that they were able to convert their religion
into a cultural suit to be worn by all adherents in a way that Islam
and Christianity or any political ideology never could. Denuded of
their own land, they could neither be oppressed by an invader nor
oppress others by invasion. They could not exercise state power. All
they had left was cultural power, whether that be intellectual or
economic. The consequence was that Jewish culture became the badge
of the Jew, not merely his or her religion.

A national territory is essential to the well-being of the nation. .
The fate of the Jews after they lost theirs is a cautionary tale for
anyone who believes otherwise. The ideal is a territory which is
controlled entirely by the nation , a population which is
overwhelmingly comprised of people who are true members of the national
"tribe" through their parentage and upbringing. The prime example of
such a state is the pre-union England, which was the first true nation
state.

The next best choice is for a nation state containing different
peoples who each have de facto their own national territory. Britain is
a first rate example of such a state, with the four home nations having
their own national territory. Being formally master in your own house
is best, but actually having a territory in which you form the majority
on the ground is a great consolation and benefit . That applies even
to a people such as the Kurds who are divided between Turkey, Iraq and
Iran. Being the dominant population they have both the reassurance of
their physical control of the territory - boots on the ground - and the
consoling possibility of converting that demographic dominance into
political control in the future.

Nations are organic growths. They cannot be constructed consciously as
the "nation-builders" of the period of European de-colonisation
fondly imagined and their liberal internationalist successors today
continue to at least pretend to believe. This is so because nations are
developed through the sociological process of establishing trust within
the group. This only happens when others are recognised as belonging
naturally to the group. That does not mean that every member of the
nation is seen as equal as an individual, whether for reasons of
personality, ability or social status, but it does mean they are
accepted automatically as being part of the nation. An English duke
may have little if any social contact with the English working man,
but each would instinctively recognise the other as English because
despite their social distance they fall within the recognised template
of what it is to be English.

Just as a nation cannot be consciously created the individual cannot
decide in anything other than the legal sense that they are this or
that nationality. A man may decide to become a British citizen
through an act of will but he cannot decide to be English. That is
because being English is the consequence of parentage and
upbringing, something over which the child has no control. It is the
unconscious imbibing of a culture something visceral.

Most vitally, a person has to be accepted without thinking by other
members of the nation as a member of the nation to be of that nation.
That is why the claims of English men and women to be Irish, Welsh or
Scots are both forlorn and ridiculous. As the English film director
Stephen Frears wittily remarked of the very English actor Daniel
Day-Lewis "I knew Daniel before he was Irish".

Like it or not, the upbringing of these wannabe Celts has made them
English. Not only do they think like the English, understand English
mores and are armed with a library of English cultural references ,
they have a personality which falls within the English spectrum. Put
them in a room with foreigners or the Celts they wish to be and they
will be taken for English. Such people cannot be anything but English ,
because only by being raised in a society where you are accepted
without question as being part of the nation can the person become
part of a nation. An Englishman who wishes to claim that he is a Scot
cannot do so because he lacks the cultural imprinting of a Scot. It is
not something which can be faked.

The democratic value of nations

Politically, nations are immensely valuable because the nation state is
the largest political unit which allows any meaningful democratic
control. Indeed, it is arguable that representative government at the
national level is the only real opportunity for serious democratic
control because represenative bodies below the national level are
always subject to the national government or a supra-national
authority.

Only in a country where there is a sense of shared history, culture
and communal interest can representative government function, even in
principle, as a conduit for the interests of the entire population.
In a country which is riven by ethnic and racial difference
representative democracy invariably deteriorates into a mass of
competing groups all struggling for their own advantage. Policy
making and its execution becomes fragmentary and it is impossible to
construct a coherent approach to promoting the common good. In a nation
state with a large degree of homogeneity the political process is
concentrated instead upon policies which affect all, , or at least the
overwhelming majority, of the people. For example, before post-war
mass immigration fractured Britain , the great political questions were
ones related to class. Policies were put forward which either were
intended to better the situation of the working class or to resist
change.

Once a country’s sovereignty is breached through treaties which
commit countries to bow to the will of supra-national bodies , as has
happened with the constituent countries of the EU, democratic control
withers on the vine because mainstream politicians of all stamps begin
to formulate their policies within the context of what the
supra-national body allows not in the interests of the country..
Eventually, a situation is reached, as has been reached in the case of
the EU, whereby all parties with an opportunity for power sing from the
same policy hymn sheet. At that point representative government
becomes a shell and democratic control is gone because there is no
opportunity to vote for any party which will change matters. That is so
because the grip of the existing elite is so tight on all the levers of
power, most importantly the mass media, that no new party can even get
a serious hearing.

Where the form of government is parliamentary, the difficulty is
enhanced by the fact that very large numbers of candidates must stand
to both be taken seriously and have any chance of forming a majority.
This imposes an immense organisational and economic burden on the new
party., not least because the party will lack experienced politicians
as candidates and party bureaucrats. Add in things such as
first-past-the-post voting in individual constituencies and the deposit
of £500 for each candidate which is at risk of being lost in the vote
does not reach 8% of the total, and the British system is just about the
best armoured against new parties gaining a foothold in government as
any in the world.

The liberal internationalist

The liberal internationalist ideology is diametrically opposed to
what Nature has decreed. As mentioned at the beginning of this essay
it states that homo sapiens is a single species whose atoms, the
individual human being, are interchangeable. For the liberal
internationalist discrimination is the dirtiest of words and a word
which he interprets to the point of reductio ad absurdum.

That is the theory. In practice, the liberal internationalist
complains if discrimination only when it effects those whom it includes
within the protective embrace of political correctness. Those outside
that embrace may be abused and vilified as strenuously as . Most
perversely this attitude frequently results in members of a majority
actively discriminating against their own people. Nowhere is this
behaviour seen more sharply than in the attitude of the British elite
towards the English to whom they deny any political voice - a privilege
granted to the other parts of the UK - and actively abuse them by
representing English national feeling as a dangerous thing.

The liberal left internationalists may have made truly immense
efforts to portray nations as outmoded relics at best and barbarous
survivals from a less enlightened past at worst, but despite their best
(or worst) efforts they have not changed the natural feelings of
people because these feelings derive from the general biological
imperative common to all social animals: the need to develop
behaviours which enhance the utility of the group.

But if our elite have not destroyed the naturally patriotic feelings
the people they rule, they have tainted them by suppressing their
public expression through the use of the criminal law (incitement to
racial hatred etc) and civil law (unfair dismissal through racial
discrimination etc) and by the ruthless enforcement of their
liberal-left ideology throughout politics, public service, academia,
the schools, major private corporations and the mainstream media. So
successful have they been that rarely does any native dissent about
immigration and its consequences enter the public realm , while it is
now impossible for anyone in a senior position in any public
organisation or private organisations with a quasi-public quality, for
examples, charities and plcs, without religiously observing the
complete elite ideology which has solidified into what is now called
political correctness. The consequence is that people have developed
the mentality common in totalitarian regimes that certain feelings,
however natural, are dangerous and should be the subject of self
censorship. People stil have the feelings but they are withdrawn from
public conversation and increasing private discourse.

It is important to understand that even the most vociferous liberal
does not believe in his or her heart of hearts that humanity is a
single indivisible entity whose atoms (the individual) are in practice
interchangeable. They wish it was so but know it is not so. However,
the ideologically committed continue to live in hope that minds and
behaviours can be changed by what they are wont to call "education" for
which read indoctrination. The rest go along with the idea because it
has been built into the structure of the elite and the doubters prize
ambition and their membership of the elite above honesty.

Incredible as it may seem liberal internationalists experience the
same fears as everyone else, an unsurprising fact because they have
the same biological template. This is what drives them to live in a
manner which is directly at odds with their professed ideology. Look at
the life of a white liberal and you will find that they arrange their
lives so that they live in very white, and in England, very English
worlds. They do this in two ways. They either live in an area which
is overwhelmingly white - the "rightest of right-on" folk singers Billy
Bragg chooses to live in the "hideously white" county of Dorset - or a
gentrified white enclave is created on the outskirts of an area such as
Islington which has a significant ethnic content to its population.
The latter tactic allows the white liberal to luxuriate in the faux
belief that they are "living the diversity dream" whilst in reality
encountering little if any of the "joy of diversity" they are so
vocally enthusiastic about.

These people socialise in worlds which are almost entirely white. The
BBC presented Adrian Chilles described in 2003 how he realised this
when he looked at his wadding photographs which were taken only a few
years before. With a guest list of several hundred he was unable to
find a single non-white face staring out at him. The only ethnics
they have equal or extended contact with are those they meet in their
work, ethnics who are middleclass and westernised. They will also be
few in number for even the workplace of the white liberal will be very
white in most instances.

What the individual owes to the nation

It is a very great privilege to be part of a nation for it is the place
where you automatically belong. Just as a family is the place where
most people can find automatic support so is the nation. In fact, the
nation is even more reliable than a family because no one can remove
the nationality which has been imprinted into a person while a family
can reject a member. In an advanced country such as Britain
membership of the nation state is valuable indeed.

Patriotism should be viewed as a matter of utility, an absolutely
necessity for the maintenance and coherence of a society. Membership
of a nation places a duty on the individual to support the nation.
It is of course impossible to consciously force someone to be patriotic
but there is no need to because the natural instincts of human beings
is to be patriotic. All that needs to be done is to remove the
constraints placed on national expression by the liberal
internationalists and the natural instincts will re-assert themselves
. That can be done by the political elite changing their tune towards
a defence of the nation and the nation state. Let the political;
rhetoric alter and the public mood will.
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Robin T Cox
2007-12-21 18:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
Who is the author of this piece, and what is the link, please?
Gaz
2007-12-21 18:14:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
Who is the author of this piece, and what is the link, please?
RH is quite talented and is fully capable of writing such a document, if he
had not wrote it, he would have credited those that had.

Gaz
Robin T Cox
2007-12-21 18:23:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gaz
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
Who is the author of this piece, and what is the link, please?
RH is quite talented and is fully capable of writing such a document, if
he had not wrote it, he would have credited those that had.
Gaz
But did he in fact write it?
True Blue
2007-12-21 18:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Gaz
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
Who is the author of this piece, and what is the link, please?
RH is quite talented and is fully capable of writing such a document, if
he had not wrote it, he would have credited those that had.
Gaz
But did he in fact write it?
Yes.
Robin T Cox
2007-12-21 18:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Gaz
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
Who is the author of this piece, and what is the link, please?
RH is quite talented and is fully capable of writing such a document,
if he had not wrote it, he would have credited those that had.
Gaz
But did he in fact write it?
Yes.
Then why does he not say so?
True Blue
2007-12-21 18:49:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Gaz
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
Who is the author of this piece, and what is the link, please?
RH is quite talented and is fully capable of writing such a document,
if he had not wrote it, he would have credited those that had.
Gaz
But did he in fact write it?
Yes.
Then why does he not say so?
Because his name appears in the "from" column and it's a given that the post
is your original view, and you state your source if the post is *not* your
own. Unless you're Chris X, that is. Then the rules are: anything over two
lines or twenty words is regarded as being lifted from another source.
Robin T Cox
2007-12-21 20:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by True Blue
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Gaz
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
Who is the author of this piece, and what is the link, please?
RH is quite talented and is fully capable of writing such a
document, if he had not wrote it, he would have credited those that
had.
Gaz
But did he in fact write it?
Yes.
Then why does he not say so?
Because his name appears in the "from" column and it's a given that the
post is your original view, and you state your source if the post is
anything over two lines or twenty words is regarded as being lifted from
another source.
Your name is in the book as an RH worshipper.

I don't deal with minions.
True Blue
2007-12-21 23:21:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by True Blue
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Gaz
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
Who is the author of this piece, and what is the link, please?
RH is quite talented and is fully capable of writing such a
document, if he had not wrote it, he would have credited those that
had.
Gaz
But did he in fact write it?
Yes.
Then why does he not say so?
Because his name appears in the "from" column and it's a given that the
post is your original view, and you state your source if the post is
anything over two lines or twenty words is regarded as being lifted from
another source.
Your name is in the book as an RH worshipper.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.politics.misc/browse_frm/thread/148b88af279b9e5f/4e5004e0977a4430?hl=en&lnk=st&q=%22henderson%22+group%3Auk.politics.misc+author%3ATrue+author%3ABlue#4e5004e0977a4430

Well, look again!
Post by Robin T Cox
I don't deal with minions.
You have a high opinion of yourself Mr/Mrs Cox.
That's rather agrandisinzing
onlyme
2007-12-21 18:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Gaz
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
Who is the author of this piece, and what is the link, please?
RH is quite talented and is fully capable of writing such a document, if
he had not wrote it, he would have credited those that had.
Gaz
But did he in fact write it?
Yes.
It's important to Cox to know these things for sure....you see, once every
so often, someone comes along and hits the nail right on the head.
Alarm bells immediately start ringing all over the offices of the powers
that be..."oh shit...they're onto us"...etc
And the message goes out to all their sycophantic arse-licking minions such
as Cox - to "seek and destroy (the author of the message).

A bit like yourself...whenever anyone slags off Gravy-Train Guy!
True Blue
2007-12-21 18:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by onlyme
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Gaz
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
Who is the author of this piece, and what is the link, please?
RH is quite talented and is fully capable of writing such a document,
if
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Gaz
he had not wrote it, he would have credited those that had.
Gaz
But did he in fact write it?
Yes.
It's important to Cox to know these things for sure....you see, once every
so often, someone comes along and hits the nail right on the head.
Alarm bells immediately start ringing all over the offices of the powers
that be..."oh shit...they're onto us"...etc
And the message goes out to all their sycophantic arse-licking minions such
as Cox - to "seek and destroy (the author of the message).
A bit like yourself...whenever anyone slags off Gravy-Train Guy!
Who wants to apply the brakes!

Latest Farage clip: "what drives this agenda of course, is a political
class" - bang on.


Robin T Cox
2007-12-21 20:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by onlyme
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Gaz
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
Who is the author of this piece, and what is the link, please?
RH is quite talented and is fully capable of writing such a
document,
if
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Gaz
he had not wrote it, he would have credited those that had.
Gaz
But did he in fact write it?
Yes.
It's important to Cox to know these things for sure....you see, once
every so often, someone comes along and hits the nail right on the head.
Alarm bells immediately start ringing all over the offices of the powers
that be..."oh shit...they're onto us"...etc And the message goes out to
all their sycophantic arse-licking minions such as Cox - to "seek and
destroy (the author of the message).
A bit like yourself...whenever anyone slags off Gravy-Train Guy!
I don't deal with minions.
Robin T Cox
2007-12-21 20:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
Who is the author of this piece, and what is the link, please?
I'm still waiting for your answer.
Robert Henderson
2007-12-22 05:21:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin T Cox
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
Who is the author of this piece, and what is the link, please?
I am. Sorry, I forgot to put my name on it. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
John of Aix
2007-12-21 18:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
What is patriotism?
By patriotism I mean the sense of belonging to a people, of owning a
land, of instinctively favouring your country men and women, of
knowing that the interest of the "tribe" must come before any other
consideration.
That sounds more like nationalism to me.
Farmer Giles
2007-12-21 22:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by John of Aix
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
What is patriotism?
By patriotism I mean the sense of belonging to a people, of owning a
land, of instinctively favouring your country men and women, of
knowing that the interest of the "tribe" must come before any other
consideration.
That sounds more like nationalism to me.
Then you clearly don't understand the meaning of either, nor the
distinction. Then again, I suspect that you do - but your agenda
requires you to derogate all forms of nationalism, except that to which
*you* subscribe.
MM
2007-12-22 00:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
What is patriotism?
By patriotism I mean the sense of belonging to a people, of owning a
land, of instinctively favouring your country men and women, of
knowing that the interest of the "tribe" must come before any other
consideration.
The value of patriotism lies in its ability to produce social
coherence and an enduring and discrete population . Without patriotism
a country becomes no more than a geographical expression and is prey
to colonisation by foreigners by overt conquest or covert conquest
through mass immigration.
The notion , assiduously disseminated by liberal internationalists,
that human beings are interchangeable social atoms who may live as
readily in one society as another is a recipe for national suicide
because it embraces policies such as mass immigration which directly
lead to the weakening and ultimately to the destruction of their own
nations. Of course, for the liberal internationalist the destruction
of nation states and the subordination of nations are desired ends ,
but this is predicated on the false premise that diverse populations
will live as peacefully and productively as homogeneous ones, indeed,
they claim that diverse societies will be stronger than homogenous
ones. The internationalists have no meaningful grounds for believing
this for the whole experience of human history and the world as it
is today says that diversity of race and ethnicity in the same
territory equates to violence and social incoherence.
Ironically, the consequence of mixed populations is not a diminishing
of national/tribal sentiment, but an inflation of it. A people secure
in its own territory does not need to engage in constant national
expression because nothing threatens it: a people in a mixed society
must constantly do so because all the ethnic/racial groups are
necessarily in conflict because of the need for each to compete for
power and resources for their own group.
Tribes are natural
The sense of being separate, of belonging to a discrete group with
identifiable characteristics is a necessary part of the human template
because Man is a social animal. All social animals have to have
boundaries to know where the group begins and ends. This is because a
social animal must operate within a hierarchy and a hierarchy can only
exist where there are boundaries. No boundaries, no hierarchy, because
no individual could ever know what the dominance/submission situation
was within their species or at least within those members of the
species with whom they interact.
Where does "must operate within a hierarchy" come from? First the
observed facts: all social animals do produce hierarchies - although
these vary considerably in form - and human beings always produce
hierarchies, whether they are hunter-gatherers or people populating a
great modern city.
Why do social animals always form hierarchies? For animals other than
Man the answer is I think simple enough: only by forming hierarchies can
social groups cohere. This is most probably because animals vary
considerably in their physical and mental qualities. Observe any animal,
even the simplest single cell organism, and differences between
individuals within the species will become apparent. Some are more
vigorous than others, some larger, some, more adventurous and so on.
Individuals will also vary by age and, in sexually reproducing species,
sex.
In a solitary animal the practical consequences of differences between
individuals will be decided by direct competition, most commonly by the
formation of territories and the attempted monopoly of mates and food
within the territory, with the best endowed animals on average being
more successful.
When an animal is social, differences in individual quality have to be
resolved by something other than the methods used by solitary animals
such as scent marking of territory boundaries and serious fighting
because the animals have to live in close proximity. Competition for
desirable goods still occurs, most notably competition for mates, but
normally within behaviours which are not fatal to other members of the
group or behaviours which are so disruptive as to threaten the survival
of the group. The upshot of this social accommodation is the formation
of different social niches into which individuals fit.
Group behaviour is a compromise between the immediate advantage of the
individual and the diffuse advantages derived from group activity. The
compromise is given structure by hierarchies, whether that be a fixed
biological distinction by sex or caste (for example, social bees) or a
transient one due to the age of an animal. Hierarchies are built on the
differences between individuals and the more rigid the hierarchical
structure the greater will be the selective pressures to produce
individuals in the right proportions to fill the various social niches
within the group.
Consider what would happen if hierarchies did not exist. There would be
constant conflict within the group because no individual would have
cause to defer to another except from fear of physical harm and such
fear is a blunt and very limited instrument of social control, whether
it be of humans or animals. It is a strategy more suited to the solitary
animal than the social one.
Hierarchies also make sense in terms of the development of social
animals. Social animals are ultimately descended from asocial animals.
The movement from asocial to social animal is presumably akin to the
evolutionary process whereby a parasite is converted to a symbiotic
partner. It is a process of gradual behavioural accommodation.
Social animals on the bottom rung of the social animal ladder may do
little more than associate together at certain times. The next rung up
and the animal frequently associates with others of its kind. One more
step and the animal forms more or less permanent groupings. And so on
until we reach the ultimate social animal: Man.
The gradual evolution of social behaviour of itself points to the need
for hierarchy, because at each stage of the evolution the natural
overtly selfish behaviour of the original solitary animal has to be
modified. That modification will only come through natural selection
working on behavioural traits which favour more complete socialisation.
What about human beings? Are they not capable of breaking the biological
bounds which capture animals? Does not their immense intelligence and
possession of language place them in another category of being? Could
Man not simply decide not to behave in a non-hierarchical manner? The
fact that human beings have never done so is of itself sufficient
evidence for all but the most ideologically committed nurturist to
decide that human beings cannot do it and to conclude that the forming
of hierarchies is part of the human template. However, to that fact can
be added another, the dominance/submission behaviour which every person
witnesses daily not merely in positions of formal dominance and
subordination such as the workplace, but in every aspect of social life.
Nations
Nations are tribes writ large. They are remarkably durable. Empires
invariably fall but a true nation is potentially eternal unless utterly
destroyed through an act of genocide. Even the loss of a homeland - the
most traumatic loss any nation can sustain - does not destroy a
people as the Jews have dramatically shown for nearly two thousand
years.
A shared faith or political ideology does not make a nation. Muslims
may claim to be one people but the reality is very different as the
continual strife between Muslims bears witness. Not only is there
the major division between Shias and Sunnis, Muslim dominated states
of the same ostensible branch of Islam are often hostile to each other,
while Muslim terrorists/freedom fighters (take your pick) willingly
kill fellow Muslims - women and children included - in large numbers.
Similarly, Marxist Leninists in the Soviet Union and Red China may have
maintained the fiction to the bitter end of the Soviet Bloc that
the international proletariat was as one , but the substantial
deviations between their ideologies and the viciously repressive
measures they used to deny their own proles contact with outside world
(and hence the rest of the proletariat) told another tale.
Today, the doctrine of liberal internationalism pretends to a
universality of human experience and commonality which is refuted
every day by the manifold social, ethnic and racial strife throughout
the world.
The Jews are something of an oddity. Until the modern state of Israel
was founded in 1948 they had been without a homeland for nearly two
millennia. Because of that they were able to convert their religion
into a cultural suit to be worn by all adherents in a way that Islam
and Christianity or any political ideology never could. Denuded of
their own land, they could neither be oppressed by an invader nor
oppress others by invasion. They could not exercise state power. All
they had left was cultural power, whether that be intellectual or
economic. The consequence was that Jewish culture became the badge
of the Jew, not merely his or her religion.
A national territory is essential to the well-being of the nation. .
The fate of the Jews after they lost theirs is a cautionary tale for
anyone who believes otherwise. The ideal is a territory which is
controlled entirely by the nation , a population which is
overwhelmingly comprised of people who are true members of the national
"tribe" through their parentage and upbringing. The prime example of
such a state is the pre-union England, which was the first true nation
state.
The next best choice is for a nation state containing different
peoples who each have de facto ...
Erfahren Sie mehr »
I don't feel in any way patriotic to the British state. I did not ask
to be born. It was pure accident that the "I" here happened to be born
English, just as half the Royal Family a few generations ago was born
German. I certainly do not sense even one whiff of patriotism when it
comes to New Labour's Britain, which is becoming more alien to me year
by year. My message to the British Establishment is, take patriotism
and stick it where The Sun don't shine! Until Britain becomes a
sensible. tolerant nation again. Merry Winterval!

MM
True Blue
2007-12-22 08:50:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
I don't feel in any way patriotic to the British state.
I bet you don't.
Post by MM
I did not ask
to be born. It was pure accident that the "I" here happened to be born
English, just as half the Royal Family a few generations ago was born
German. I certainly do not sense even one whiff of patriotism when it
comes to New Labour's Britain, which is becoming more alien to me year
by year. My message to the British Establishment is, take patriotism
and stick it where The Sun don't shine! Until Britain becomes a
sensible. tolerant nation again.
When - in your opinion - was Britain last "tolerant".
Post by MM
Merry Winterval!
MM
2007-12-22 10:50:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by True Blue
When - in your opinion - was Britain last "tolerant".
BNL (Before New Labour).

Yes, everything's relative, but it's especially the last ten years
that I feel have brought a marked decrease of tolerance. Our
authoritarian leaders now have the bit between their teeth and they're
not letting go of us. We are the government's creatures now.

Come to Hamburg and marvel at the lack of CCTV cameras! Watch the
police patrolling the streets instead of hiding away in police
stations filling in forms and watching CCTV!

Most of Europe today is celebrating the widened Schengen area as
borders everywhere are dismantled. Of course, insular, xenophobic,
basket-case Britain, so fearful of everything beyond Dover, is not a
part of it, but, surprise, surprise, did anyone really expect any
different attitude to emanate from The Island? Here in Germany the
front pages show pictures of German and Polish police exchanging
smiles and handshakes as the barriers are lifted. Somehow Europe WILL
cope with no barriers from the Baltic to the Atlantic, but Britain
will just sit there, psychologically isolated in its anti-Europeanism,
grumbling away to itself.

MM
True Blue
2007-12-22 12:41:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by True Blue
When - in your opinion - was Britain last "tolerant".
BNL (Before New Labour).
Yes, everything's relative, but it's especially the last ten years
that I feel have brought a marked decrease of tolerance. Our
authoritarian leaders now have the bit between their teeth and they're
not letting go of us. We are the government's creatures now.
Come to Hamburg and marvel at the lack of CCTV cameras!
Yes, and try saying "I think that only 3 million Jews were murdered by the
Nazis and not 6 million, as conventionally believed"....and see how your
"free society" treats you!
Post by MM
Watch the
police patrolling the streets instead of hiding away in police
stations filling in forms and watching CCTV!
Most of Europe today is celebrating the widened Schengen area as
borders everywhere are dismantled. Of course, insular, xenophobic,
basket-case Britain, so fearful of everything beyond Dover, is not a
part of it, but, surprise, surprise, did anyone really expect any
different attitude to emanate from The Island? Here in Germany the
front pages show pictures of German and Polish police exchanging
smiles and handshakes as the barriers are lifted. Somehow Europe WILL
cope with no barriers from the Baltic to the Atlantic, but Britain
will just sit there, psychologically isolated in its anti-Europeanism,
grumbling away to itself.
Tabloid rubbish.
Post by MM
MM
j***@robbiekeane.zzn.com
2007-12-22 14:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Most of Europe today is celebrating the widened Schengen area as
borders everywhere are dismantled. Of course, insular, xenophobic,
basket-case Britain, so fearful of everything beyond Dover, is not a
part of it, but, surprise, surprise, did anyone really expect any
different attitude to emanate from The Island? Here in Germany the
front pages show pictures of German and Polish police exchanging
smiles and handshakes as the barriers are lifted. Somehow Europe WILL
cope with no barriers from the Baltic to the Atlantic, but Britain
will just sit there, psychologically isolated in its anti-Europeanism,
grumbling away to itself.
MM
This is just fluffly lefty tabloid spin. Just wait when Germany
eventually has to open up it's labour market to the hordes of eastern
european migrant workers the way that Britain has. This is when the
proverbial will hit the fan on. Like in the UK, most Germans will Then
view the EU in a much different light.

Jonah
John of Aix
2007-12-22 17:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@robbiekeane.zzn.com
Post by MM
Most of Europe today is celebrating the widened Schengen area as
borders everywhere are dismantled. Of course, insular, xenophobic,
basket-case Britain, so fearful of everything beyond Dover, is not a
part of it, but, surprise, surprise, did anyone really expect any
different attitude to emanate from The Island? Here in Germany the
front pages show pictures of German and Polish police exchanging
smiles and handshakes as the barriers are lifted. Somehow Europe WILL
cope with no barriers from the Baltic to the Atlantic, but Britain
will just sit there, psychologically isolated in its
anti-Europeanism, grumbling away to itself.
MM
This is just fluffly lefty tabloid spin. Just wait when Germany
eventually has to open up it's labour market to the hordes of eastern
european migrant workers the way that Britain has.
Germany's labour market is open to all member states just as everywhere
else in the EU, including the UK. All that has changed with this
agreement is that the new Schengen members will no longer have to show
passports when crossing borders into the old Schengen area.
Post by j***@robbiekeane.zzn.com
This is when the
proverbial will hit the fan on. Like in the UK, most Germans will Then
view the EU in a much different light.
See above. It is wise to know what you are talking about before ranting.
j***@robbiekeane.zzn.com
2007-12-22 18:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by John of Aix
Germany's labour market is open to all member states just as everywhere
else in the EU, including the UK. All that has changed with this
agreement is that the new Schengen members will no longer have to show
passports when crossing borders into the old Schengen area.
Post by j***@robbiekeane.zzn.com
This is when the
proverbial will hit the fan on. Like in the UK, most Germans will Then
view the EU in a much different light.
See above. It is wise to know what you are talking about before ranting.-
Shite jono, it is you who needs to know what you are talking about
before you make a fool of your self..

Germany was one of many EU countries that closed its labor market to
the eight eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004 along
with Cyprus and Malta.

The Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Slovakia and Slovenia joined the EU in May 2004, while Bulgaria and
Romania became members at the beginning of 2007.

The restrictions were imposed for three years and then extended for a
further two years to 2009. A final possible extension to 2011 is a
hotly debated topic in Germany, with business in favor of opening up
and politicians largely against.

Britain, Ireland and Sweden opened their labor markets immediately,
and most other "old" EU members have since followed.

Jonah
MM
2007-12-22 18:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@robbiekeane.zzn.com
Post by John of Aix
Germany's labour market is open to all member states just as everywhere
else in the EU, including the UK. All that has changed with this
agreement is that the new Schengen members will no longer have to show
passports when crossing borders into the old Schengen area.
Post by j***@robbiekeane.zzn.com
This is when the
proverbial will hit the fan on. Like in the UK, most Germans will Then
view the EU in a much different light.
See above. It is wise to know what you are talking about before ranting.-
Shite jono, it is you who needs to know what you are talking about
before you make a fool of your self..
Germany was one of many EU countries that closed its labor market to
the eight eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004 along
with Cyprus and Malta.
The Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Slovakia and Slovenia joined the EU in May 2004, while Bulgaria and
Romania became members at the beginning of 2007.
The restrictions were imposed for three years and then extended for a
further two years to 2009. A final possible extension to 2011 is a
hotly debated topic in Germany, with business in favor of opening up
and politicians largely against.
Britain, Ireland and Sweden opened their labor markets immediately,
and most other "old" EU members have since followed.
So which countries are wearing the dunce's cap? (Hint: Not Germany,
obviously...)

MM
Paul Hyett
2007-12-23 08:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@robbiekeane.zzn.com
Germany was one of many EU countries that closed its labor market to
the eight eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004 along
with Cyprus and Malta.
The Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Slovakia and Slovenia joined the EU in May 2004, while Bulgaria and
Romania became members at the beginning of 2007.
The restrictions were imposed for three years and then extended for a
further two years to 2009. A final possible extension to 2011 is a
hotly debated topic in Germany, with business in favor of opening up
and politicians largely against.
Britain, Ireland and Sweden opened their labor markets immediately,
and most other "old" EU members have since followed.
But I suspect people from the new members would still have come here,
rather than nearly Germany, even if they'd had the choice.

We may not be able to stop them coming here, but we sure as hell
shouldn't make it so easy to steal British jobs!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
MM
2007-12-22 18:51:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@robbiekeane.zzn.com
Post by MM
Most of Europe today is celebrating the widened Schengen area as
borders everywhere are dismantled. Of course, insular, xenophobic,
basket-case Britain, so fearful of everything beyond Dover, is not a
part of it, but, surprise, surprise, did anyone really expect any
different attitude to emanate from The Island? Here in Germany the
front pages show pictures of German and Polish police exchanging
smiles and handshakes as the barriers are lifted. Somehow Europe WILL
cope with no barriers from the Baltic to the Atlantic, but Britain
will just sit there, psychologically isolated in its anti-Europeanism,
grumbling away to itself.
MM
This is just fluffly lefty tabloid spin. Just wait when Germany
eventually has to open up it's labour market to the hordes of eastern
european migrant workers the way that Britain has. This is when the
proverbial will hit the fan on. Like in the UK, most Germans will Then
view the EU in a much different light.
So why hasn't this happened already? Britain has this friggin great
stretch of water around it, like a moat, whereas Germany has just a
marker point every few hundred metres. Should be easy for the "hordes"
to invade and yet somehow the Germans manage to keep the lid on. Maybe
it's just because the Germans are far better at border control than
the British are?

MM
Paul Hyett
2007-12-23 08:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by j***@robbiekeane.zzn.com
This is just fluffly lefty tabloid spin. Just wait when Germany
eventually has to open up it's labour market to the hordes of eastern
european migrant workers the way that Britain has. This is when the
proverbial will hit the fan on. Like in the UK, most Germans will Then
view the EU in a much different light.
So why hasn't this happened already? Britain has this friggin great
stretch of water around it, like a moat, whereas Germany has just a
marker point every few hundred metres. Should be easy for the "hordes"
to invade and yet somehow the Germans manage to keep the lid on. Maybe
it's just because the Germans are far better at border control than
the British are?
I think the concept of 'willingness' is pertinent...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
creusa
2007-12-22 14:34:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by True Blue
When - in your opinion - was Britain last "tolerant".
BNL (Before New Labour).
Yes, everything's relative, but it's especially the last ten years
that I feel have brought a marked decrease of tolerance. Our
authoritarian leaders now have the bit between their teeth and they're
not letting go of us. We are the government's creatures now.
Come to Hamburg and marvel at the lack of CCTV cameras! Watch the
police patrolling the streets instead of hiding away in police
stations filling in forms and watching CCTV!
Most of Europe today is celebrating the widened Schengen area as
borders everywhere are dismantled. Of course, insular, xenophobic,
basket-case Britain, so fearful of everything beyond Dover, is not a
part of it, but, surprise, surprise, did anyone really expect any
different attitude to emanate from The Island? Here in Germany the
front pages show pictures of German and Polish police exchanging
smiles and handshakes as the barriers are lifted. Somehow Europe WILL
cope with no barriers from the Baltic to the Atlantic, but Britain
will just sit there, psychologically isolated in its anti-Europeanism,
grumbling away to itself.
MM
Bolllocks.
We had and still have a VERY open door policy to those wishing to come
here from India and Pakistan. We were stuck with it from Queen
Victoria but we did honour it. That means that we had millions coming
here during the last 50 years...entire extended families had the right
to come here. Nothing like that ever happened in any other European
city. We don't have as much land mass as you so our housing is
difficult. We have, until this year, also done our European duty and
let in thousands of immigrants from new European countries. Rather
than beig fearful, we are very open and welcoming. howevr we don't
fall for that hands across the borders stuff. We are also pragmatic.
MM
2007-12-22 18:54:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by creusa
Post by MM
Post by True Blue
When - in your opinion - was Britain last "tolerant".
BNL (Before New Labour).
Yes, everything's relative, but it's especially the last ten years
that I feel have brought a marked decrease of tolerance. Our
authoritarian leaders now have the bit between their teeth and they're
not letting go of us. We are the government's creatures now.
Come to Hamburg and marvel at the lack of CCTV cameras! Watch the
police patrolling the streets instead of hiding away in police
stations filling in forms and watching CCTV!
Most of Europe today is celebrating the widened Schengen area as
borders everywhere are dismantled. Of course, insular, xenophobic,
basket-case Britain, so fearful of everything beyond Dover, is not a
part of it, but, surprise, surprise, did anyone really expect any
different attitude to emanate from The Island? Here in Germany the
front pages show pictures of German and Polish police exchanging
smiles and handshakes as the barriers are lifted. Somehow Europe WILL
cope with no barriers from the Baltic to the Atlantic, but Britain
will just sit there, psychologically isolated in its anti-Europeanism,
grumbling away to itself.
MM
Bolllocks.
We had and still have a VERY open door policy to those wishing to come
here from India and Pakistan. We were stuck with it from Queen
Victoria but we did honour it. That means that we had millions coming
here during the last 50 years...entire extended families had the right
to come here. Nothing like that ever happened in any other European
city. We don't have as much land mass as you so our housing is
difficult. We have, until this year, also done our European duty and
let in thousands of immigrants from new European countries. Rather
than beig fearful, we are very open and welcoming. howevr we don't
fall for that hands across the borders stuff. We are also pragmatic.
"we are very open and welcoming" - yeah, right!

What about: "They are stealing all our jobs!"

MM
The Stainless Steel Cat
2007-12-22 07:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
What is patriotism?
By patriotism I mean the sense of belonging to a people, of owning a
land, of instinctively favouring your country men and women, of
knowing that the interest of the "tribe" must come before any other
consideration.
The value of patriotism lies in its ability to produce social
coherence and an enduring and discrete population . Without patriotism
a country becomes no more than a geographical expression and is prey
to colonisation by foreigners by overt conquest or covert conquest
through mass immigration.
Why should I have loyalty to a geographical grouping? That seems very "last
millennium".

I have very little in common with the people around me, far more in common
with people across the world with similar interests and beliefs. Why should
I not have more social coherence with people I communicate with across the
Internet, than with the illiterate, drunken neds down the road, or the
middle-class social climbers across the town, or the greedy businessmen and
corrupt politicians in the city?

Why should my "country" not be a a geographically random subset of the
users of the global communication system? Because it doesn't have a flag?
Because it doesn't consist of people who look the same? Because there's no
hierarchy to nestle in, "I-know-my-place" style?

Cat.
True Blue
2007-12-22 08:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Stainless Steel Cat
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
What is patriotism?
By patriotism I mean the sense of belonging to a people, of owning a
land, of instinctively favouring your country men and women, of
knowing that the interest of the "tribe" must come before any other
consideration.
The value of patriotism lies in its ability to produce social
coherence and an enduring and discrete population . Without patriotism
a country becomes no more than a geographical expression and is prey
to colonisation by foreigners by overt conquest or covert conquest
through mass immigration.
Why should I have loyalty to a geographical grouping? That seems very "last
millennium".
I have very little in common with the people around me, far more in common
with people across the world with similar interests and beliefs. Why should
I not have more social coherence with people I communicate with across the
Internet, than with the illiterate, drunken neds down the road, or the
middle-class social climbers across the town, or the greedy businessmen and
corrupt politicians in the city?
Why should my "country" not be a a geographically random subset of the
users of the global communication system? Because it doesn't have a flag?
Because it doesn't consist of people who look the same? Because there's no
hierarchy to nestle in, "I-know-my-place" style?
Why do you choose to live here?
The Stainless Steel Cat
2007-12-22 11:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by True Blue
Post by The Stainless Steel Cat
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
What is patriotism?
By patriotism I mean the sense of belonging to a people, of owning a
land, of instinctively favouring your country men and women, of
knowing that the interest of the "tribe" must come before any other
consideration.
The value of patriotism lies in its ability to produce social
coherence and an enduring and discrete population . Without patriotism
a country becomes no more than a geographical expression and is prey
to colonisation by foreigners by overt conquest or covert conquest
through mass immigration.
Why should I have loyalty to a geographical grouping? That seems very "last
millennium".
I have very little in common with the people around me, far more in common
with people across the world with similar interests and beliefs. Why should
I not have more social coherence with people I communicate with across the
Internet, than with the illiterate, drunken neds down the road, or the
middle-class social climbers across the town, or the greedy businessmen and
corrupt politicians in the city?
Why should my "country" not be a a geographically random subset of the
users of the global communication system? Because it doesn't have a flag?
Because it doesn't consist of people who look the same? Because there's no
hierarchy to nestle in, "I-know-my-place" style?
Why do you choose to live here?
Why would I choose to live elsewhere? Admittedly, I could do with being
somewhere a bit cooler in the summer. Any suggestions?

Cat.
True Blue
2007-12-22 12:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Stainless Steel Cat
Post by True Blue
Post by The Stainless Steel Cat
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
What is patriotism?
By patriotism I mean the sense of belonging to a people, of owning a
land, of instinctively favouring your country men and women, of
knowing that the interest of the "tribe" must come before any other
consideration.
The value of patriotism lies in its ability to produce social
coherence and an enduring and discrete population . Without patriotism
a country becomes no more than a geographical expression and is prey
to colonisation by foreigners by overt conquest or covert conquest
through mass immigration.
Why should I have loyalty to a geographical grouping? That seems very "last
millennium".
I have very little in common with the people around me, far more in common
with people across the world with similar interests and beliefs. Why should
I not have more social coherence with people I communicate with across the
Internet, than with the illiterate, drunken neds down the road, or the
middle-class social climbers across the town, or the greedy businessmen and
corrupt politicians in the city?
Why should my "country" not be a a geographically random subset of the
users of the global communication system? Because it doesn't have a flag?
Because it doesn't consist of people who look the same? Because there's no
hierarchy to nestle in, "I-know-my-place" style?
Why do you choose to live here?
Why would I choose to live elsewhere? Admittedly, I could do with being
somewhere a bit cooler in the summer. Any suggestions?
Siberia.
Post by The Stainless Steel Cat
Cat.
creusa
2007-12-22 09:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Patriotism is not an optional extra
What is patriotism?
By patriotism I mean the sense of belonging to a people, of owning  a
land, of  instinctively favouring  your country men and women, of
knowing  that the interest of the "tribe" must come  before any other
consideration.
Far too singullar for my taste. The value of a tribe ended during the
last century when we saw the inevitable results of nationalism. With
globalisation, our "tribe" should be the world...we can and should
care about everyone, not just ourselves.
Post by Robert Henderson
The value of patriotism  lies in its ability to  produce social
coherence
You mean "cohesion". Coherence has to do with being understood....not
babbling.


and an enduring  and discrete population . Without patriotism
Post by Robert Henderson
a  country becomes  no more than a geographical expression and is  prey
to colonisation by foreigners by overt  conquest  or  covert conquest
through mass immigration.
Rubbish. I am sure that the Native American Indian cared deeply for
their land...in fact more than the average American does now. Yet they
were conquered. The Aztecs and Incas cared deeply for their cultrue
and yet they were conquered. GB cared for their sector of Britain and
yet they were conquered by the Romans, the Angles, etc. The Vascons in
France and Spain cared deeply for their land and yet were pushed outt
by the Romans. it isn't possibe that caring for your tribe protects
you from invasion.
Post by Robert Henderson
The notion , assiduously disseminated by  liberal internationalists,
that human beings are  interchangeable social atoms who may live as
readily in one society as another  is a recipe for national suicide
because it embraces policies such as mass immigration which directly
lead to the weakening and ultimately to the destruction of their  own
nations.
The actual figures of the wealth created by immigrants in GB over the
last 50 years is in the billions.If the US didn't rely on immigration
their population would figure to be the size of Massachusetts. The US
IS immigration.



 Of course, for the liberal internationalist  the destruction
Post by Robert Henderson
of  nation states  and the subordination of nations are desired ends ,
A very poor assumption, numpty. This is your opinin and should not be
disguised inside some treatise-sounding verbage.
Post by Robert Henderson
but this is predicated on the false premise that  diverse populations
will live as peacefully and productively as homogeneous ones, indeed,
they claim that diverse societies will be stronger than  homogenous
ones.  The internationalists have no  meaningful grounds for believing
this   for the whole experience of human history  and  the world as it
is today says that  diversity  of race and ethnicity  in the same
territory equates to   violence and  social incoherence.
Agaain may I point you to consider the US...maybe a tad too violent
for my tastes but undeniably successful...
Post by Robert Henderson
  Ironically, the consequence of  mixed populations is not a diminishing
of national/tribal sentiment, but  an inflation of it. A people secure
in its own territory does  not need  to engage in constant  national
expression because nothing threatens it: a people in a mixed society
must constantly do so because all the ethnic/racial groups are
necessarily in conflict because of the need for each  to compete for
power and resources for their own group.
Rubbish. In good socialist organisations, everyone works for the
community, not for themselves. Think of Kibbutzim. A more varied
population you will not meet.
Post by Robert Henderson
Tribes are  natural
Tribes are archaic and divisive. They, religious or territorial, are
the source of all wars and discord.
Post by Robert Henderson
The  sense of  being  separate, of belonging to  a discrete group with
identifiable characteristics  is a necessary  part of the human template
because Man is a  social animal.  All social animals have to have
boundaries to know where the group begins and ends. This is because a
social animal must  operate within a hierarchy and a hierarchy can only
exist where there  are boundaries. No boundaries, no hierarchy, because
no individual could  ever know what the dominance/submission situation
was within their  species or at least within those members of the
species with whom they  interact.
This is behaviour exhibited in dogs, sir, not humans. We should strive
to be a lot better than dogs. I dispute your sociology and ask that
you give references to support your claims. This is not a definition
of "a social animal". A social animal is merely one which works and
interacts with others, instead of alone. Fish are social animals but
need no hierarchy within their own species. The only hierarchy that
works there is the number of teeth the other guy has.
Post by Robert Henderson
Where does "must operate within a hierarchy" come from? First the
observed facts: all social animals do produce hierarchies - although
these vary considerably in form - and human beings always produce
hierarchies, whether they are hunter-gatherers or people populating a
great modern city.
That does not mean it is a desireable state of affairs. IMO the need
for hierarchy is a faiing we shouold all try to overcome, not accept
as the natural state. It is as archaic as the Elizabethan World
Picture which was entirelky hierarchical in construction. Thank
heavens we have moved away from it. Humans should always strive for
equality, not accept differences.

The rest is gobbledegook sociology cobbled together by RH for
justification of his right-wing anti-immigration propaganda.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...