2007-12-21 17:32:55 UTC
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
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,
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
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 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
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 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
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
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
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.
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk