Nationalism, defender of the Faith and Nation
- Written by Albion
There are two main perspectives on the origins and basis of Nationalism, one is the Primordialist perspective that describes Nationalism as a reflection of the ancient and perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to organise into distinct groupings based on an affinity of birth; the other is the modernist perspective that describes Nationalism as a recent phenomenon that “requires the structural conditions of modern society” which I can only assume is Gobblygook or BBC-Speak for Multiculturalism.
I maintain that one certainly cannot separate Nationalism from its first perspective Primordialist, or you could be mistaken or worse unknowingly embrace a bastardised form of Nationalism called Civic Nationalism.
Emotions aside, we must understand who we are politically. What we do know without any doubt is who our political enemy is. It is that form of government or group whose political ideology is opposed to the ideals of identification with their own people, or in other words is Anti-Nation or who wish to divest a nation of its identity or separate it from its distinct ethnic grouping, or the deliberate blurring of any Primordialist association with ancient loyalties.
When feelings of Nationalism are removed it leaves an empty shell, remove a nation’s identity and you remove the last vestiges of a nation. Multi-Culturalism is the perfect tool to destroy any sense of Nationalism so by definition Multi-Culturalism is Anti-Nation.
The Liberal champions of Multi-Culturalism never reveal that community cohesion was never a problem prior to Multi-Culturalism being forced on a tightly knit homogenous nation without their consent.
Nationalism as we understand it today is a recent phenomenon. Prior to 1948 the strong identification with our ethnic group was tacit, whether it was from a Modernist or Primodialist aspect. When both world wars commenced it was the people’s loyalist’s instincts, for Loyalist read Nationalist instincts that the government called on to encourage young men and women to defend and die for their country.
It was only when basic human rights, freedom of speech and the destruction and scattering of an ethnic group that Nationalism emerged in the way it is understood today. If the threat to our ethnic solidarity was our only enemy we could fight the enemy but what we are seeing at present in the UK is very worrying indeed.
I should again stress at this point one must be careful of identifying with Civic Nationalism which defines the nation as an association of people who identify themselves as belonging to the nation, who have equal and shared political rights, and allegiance to similar political procedures. I repudiate Civic Nationalism as according to the principles of Civic Nationalism the nation is not based on common ethnic ancestry, but is a political entity whose core identity is not.
In other words it is accepted that a British passport will suffice as identifying a person who can claim identification based on an affinity of birth, which is blatantly ridiculous.
To cement my argument on what is True Nationalism I quote Pierre van der Berghe in The Ethnic Phenomenon (1981) where he emphasizes the role of ethnicity and kinship involving family biological ties to members of an ethnic group as being an important element of national identity. Van der Berghe states the sense of family attachments among related people as creating durable, intense, emotional, and cooperative attachments that he claims are utilised within ethnic groups.
Van der Berghe also identifies genetic-relatedness as being a basis for the durable attachments of family groups, as genetic ties cannot be removed and they are passed on from generation to generation. Van der Berge identifies common descent as the basis for the establishment of boundaries of ethnic groups, as most people do not join ethnic groups but are born into them, so Civic Nationalism is a non-starter.
As an aside, the sense of strong family attachments also includes Negros, Arabs and Pygmies. You will be relieved to know there is no exemption clause for Britons.
Mark Twain wrote “it is prohibition that makes anything precious”. In contemporary Great Britain basic rights of freedom of speech are being stifled under the guise of race-hate crimes that might cause personal offence which in turn might cause alarm, distress or harass the recipient, Oh and thought crimes. Name calling in school might also come under this umbrella. Prohibition in the UK at present involves prohibition on what you can or cannot say and Government sanctioned restrictions on the right of free association.
I am going to mention George Orwell here because his writings are very pertinent to the England we see today. His powerful dystopian novel 1984 warning of a future world where the state machine exerts complete control over social life might describe the direction Great Britain is taking today. John Podhoretz an American neo-conservative columnist for the New York Post, the editor of Commentary magazine, the author of several books on politics, and a former presidential speechwriter claimed that if Orwell were alive today, he’d be standing with the neo-conservatives and AGAINST the Left.
Orwell described himself a Democratic Socialist which is a political philosophy and social movement that rejects centralised, elitist or authoritarian means of transitioning from capitalism to socialism. Democratic socialism advocates for the immediate creation of decentralised economic democracy from the grassroots level, undertaken by and for the working class itself.
I repeat, Prohibition in the UK at present involves what you can or cannot say and as Orwell noted “freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear” but ordinary people also have a right to this freedom. Try telling the authorities you do not agree with nation wrecking using Multi-Culti as a tool.
Orwell would have readily recognised the Great Britain of today that is undergoing the painful birth of a totalitarian and authoritarian society, he wrote about it.
Orwell also wrote if you want a vision of the future imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever. We haven’t quite got to that stage in this country, we do have only a hand over our mouths at the moment and woe betides the person who innocently utters forbidden spoken words.
Orwell also wrote “every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defence against a homicidal maniac”.
Nevertheless it is the victor who writes the rules and judges over its former enemies, that is how it has always been.