Tag Archives: Patriotism

Liberty, Nationalism and Patriotism


I listened with interest to the first two videos[1][2] in the recent series “Chris Tame from Beyond the Grave,” in which Chris discusses immigration. David McDonagh’s dissenting view[3] I also found most interesting.

Unfortunately, there are no transcripts of the videos. So, for the first one, I’ll copy the notes I made on it. “Chris likens immigration to an invasion. The invaders are not acclimatized to, or may even be hostile to, liberal (American readers: libertarian) values and liberal civilization. They might – or might not – assimilate quickly if this was a free market society; but it isn’t. He concludes by describing this immigration as an act of ‘national murder.’” For the second video, I hope David won’t mind me quoting his summary: “Chris says the national state has been justified and he says mass immigration will lead to totalitarianism, to a low wage economy, that mass immigration is not free anyway as we have the welfare state, that it is more like an invasion than mere immigration, as the newcomers are hostile to British culture, that the ruling class has organised this to cow the native workers on low wages and that despotism will be the result.”

I confess I didn’t know until now that Chris near the end of his life had taken such a strong nationalist and anti-immigration stance. At the time he made the video (late 2005) there had indeed, in the previous year or so, been the start of a huge influx of immigrants into the UK. But a high proportion of immigrants at that time were Polish. Maybe some of these Poles, having only recently been freed from communism, were in a sense not acclimatized to liberal values. But at least going by the Polish people I know both here and in Poland, I don’t think the accusation that they are hostile to liberal civilization stands up to scrutiny.

As to Muslims, Chris may perhaps have been on somewhat firmer ground, with the terrorist attacks of July 2005 still fresh in people’s memories at the time. (Since I started writing this, further atrocities have happened in Brussels, which also may well prove to have been the work of Muslims). But I still think it’s wrong to cast aspersions on all Muslims just because some Muslims behave badly. Granted, Islam isn’t a very nice religion. But then, as anyone who has ever read the bible cover to cover will know, Christianity isn’t very nice either.

Read more

101 Years Ago – G.K. Chesterton on the English Governing Class


Christopher Houseman

the evil of aristocracy is that it places everything in the hands of a class of people who can always inflict what they can never suffer. Whether what they inflict is, in their intention, good or bad, they become equally frivolous. The case against the governing class of modern England is not in the least that it is selfish; if you like, you may call the English oligarchs too fantastically unselfish. The case against them simply is that when they legislate for all men, they always omit themselves.

Chesterton, G. K. (2010). Heretics (276). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

In 2010, for instance, most UK citizens live under such strict gun control laws that even the British Olympic pistol shooting team has to go abroad to practice. Meanwhile, members of the Royal family and Government ministers have armed bodyguards available whenever they appear in public.

Current gun control laws are a frank admission by our glorious leaders that the only ordinary British citizens who might carry guns near their leaders are would-be assassins. This in turn rests on an unspoken acceptance by the governing class that (no matter who’s apparently in charge) at least some of its policies are deeply provocative to a sizable number of British citizens and/or visiting foreigners.

I can think of no other way to explain the governing class’ obvious conclusion that the vast majority of law-abiding British citizens can’t be trusted to train and equip themselves to defend themselves, their homes, and their leaders. Tragedy, farce and gross insult are, in this case, aliases of our leaders’ (in)actions. The sensible political option remains what it has always been – to govern less and so cause less offence in the first place.

“PATRIOTISM IS NOT AN OPTIONAL EXTRA” … by Robert Henderson


David Davis

Libertarians are unfortunately quite good at viewing their philosophy (or the several ones?) in isolation – in a vacuum as it were. In this respect we often fall victim to the chronic psychological condition, suffered by most lefties and other types of theoretical fascists, which I now call Marxistitis; this condition is sometimes compicated by acute bouts of  massive watery Verbose-Hegeliorrhoea. (These are NOT links! I don’t put links in red – it’s just that I have not written their two wikipages yet.)

We often tend to get a bit like that when “two or three of us are gathered together”… we think the battle of ideas is won, merely because we are right (of course we know we are, and we even know that…that fascist leftism will crumble into dust eventually.)

But not yet. And in the meantime, the forces of wickedness are daily gaining ground, and we are losing even the battle for liberty in Libertarianism’s country of birth, and its civilisational “range” (I use “range” in the zoological sense here, as of an area that’s effectively benign for a species and in which it occupies ecological niches).

Yes, we now have blogs – and ours are good, and better than the enemy’s, who howls “FOUL!” (because we know we are right.) So what? Cisco and the fat-pipe-people (good name for a “beat group”, yes? I think they are called “bands” now…) can pull the plug, or else our ISPs could be nobbled. So we could all go down in the end, and have to become as silent as 20-odd years ago, if a dash of Liberarian Nationalism is not, I think, injected, in order to at last bring about Sovereign Libertarian Polities (or even one.) I have got into deep shit for this on here before, but I think it matters.

Here’s Robert Henderson:-

<!–[if !mso]> <! st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } –>

PATRIOTISM IS NOT AN OPTIONAL EXTRA

Robert Henderson

Contents

1. What is patriotism?
2. The value of patriotism
3. Tribes are natural
4. Nations are tribes writ large
5. The importance of a national territory
6. The democratic value of nations
7. What the individual owes to the nation
8. The liberal internationalist
9. How to move from multiculturalism to patriotism

2021

Twenty twenty one
And the pogroms come
Because no public One
Would heed Nature’s thrum
Saying ever on
Before each one
The tribe must come.

1. What is patriotism?

By patriotism I mean the sense of belonging to a people, of owning a
land, of instinctively favouring your own country’s men and women,
of knowing that the interest of the “tribe” must come before
everything else. By this definition patriotism is something which the
vast majority of human beings can understand, – the only people who may
be genuinely immune to such comprehension are those who are severely
mentally retarded and those with a personality disorder such as autism
which reduces their ability to understand the social context.

The ease and near universality of understanding sets patriotism apart
from ideologies such as Marxism and liberal internationalism which ask
the individual to master both the tenets of the ideology and complicated
arguments to support of the ideology against attack Those who respond
to the call of patriotism cannot be hoodwinked and manipulated by the
few because almost everyone understands what patriotism is
instinctively. Contrast this with the fate of the majority of those
who, while professing to be adherents of an intellectually demanding
ideology , actually have little understanding of it, either because
they are intellectually lazy or because they lack the intellectual
wherewithal to master the ideology. Such people are left in the position
of the laity in Europe in mediaeval times when the use of Latin in both
translations of the Bible and church rites meant that the vast majority
of the population were left at the mercy of the a small clerical elite
who simply told them what to believe whether or not it was sanctioned by
the Scriptures.

2. The value of patriotism

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 ready
prey for colonisation 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 demonstrably false premise that diverse
populations will live as peacefully and productively as homogeneous ones
. Indeed, the common internationalist claim is that diverse societies
will be stronger and, by implication, more enduring 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. There is
literally no example of a diverse society which has not suffered from
its diversity.

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.

3. Tribes are natural

The sense of being separate, of belonging to a discrete group with
identifiable characteristics is a necessary part of being human
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 ind Read more