Patriotism from Life-Saving to Destructive Force

Below is one of the most lucid and insightful analyses of patriotism I've come across, dissecting the various stages through which this sentiment can go and clarifying at which of them it can or does become toxic.

"All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy.", said the Swiss Paracelsus, one of the early chemists, founder of the discipline of toxicology. Even the best life-giving medicine, capable of restoring health if used in the appropriate way, may cause serious harm if misused and administered in the wrong dose.

I have some doubts only about the specific movements to which the poisonous level of patriotism is attributed, and I spot a certain harshness in the way the excerpt treats the USA, one of my favourite countries.

Also notice that, although the passage only deals with country patriotism and references to God and religion in it only concern Christianity, the final stage, the description of the "lowest rung of the ladder" can very neatly be applied to Islamic patriotism (or nationalism).

It is an extract from the upcoming book Democracy as a Neocon Trick by my friend, author and thinker Alexander Boot. That's how he describes it:

It's a thorough debunking of every political presupposition of modernity. The conclusion is the same as that reached by T.S. Eliot: democracy (the modern, unchecked version thereof) is incompatible with Christianity -- and therefore the Western political tradition. But Eliot had other irons in the fire, which is why he didn't approach the subject as systematically as I try to.

These are Alex's other books.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obviously Americans were not the first people to love their birthplace. Patriotism may have been the last refuge of a scoundrel to Dr Johnson, and indeed many a scoundrel has used it as such. But there is nothing wrong with loving one’s country, especially if it is lovable. (“For a country to be loved it ought to be lovely” was how Burke put it.) However, patriotism elevated to the perch previously occupied by religion is always pernicious. Here it would be useful to consider various levels of patriotism as expressed through everyday phrases uttered to describe them. This is best imagined as a ladder, with degrees of patriotism forming descending rungs.

“I love my country” sits at the top. This is a laudable statement. The country in which one is born and grows up does not have to be ideal any more than a woman has to be ideal to be loved. Whether it is perceived as perfect or flawed, one’s own country offers the degree of intimacy, warmth and shared historical memory that is keenly felt and cherished. Like two siblings who possess a knowledge inaccessible to a stranger, countrymen – regardless of their individual differences – are united by a bond as strong as it may be invisible to outsiders.

To expand on this observation, earlier I pointed out the intellectual weakness of the phrase “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” But the phrase is unassailable on a sub-intellectual level: a nation truly becomes one when most people in it regard most of the same truths as self-evident. In that sense the American states had been united even before the Declaration – that is, united in what most of their denizens accepted as axiomatic. Such shared knowledge and mutual understanding indeed come close to the feelings of two siblings: in that sense, brotherly love and love of one’s country are similar.

Nor is there anything wrong with regarding one’s country as unlike any other. All countries are different; if they were not, we would not have so many different countries. This is so obvious that one would think it hardly needs saying. But of course what matters here is not the text but the subtext: when people insist that their country is exceptional, they usually do not mean ‘different from…’, they mean ‘better than…’. They are entitled even to that opinion, as long as they recognise that tastes may differ.

Moving down a step, “I love my country, right or wrong” begins to be problematic. However, the problem is not insurmountable: after all, though we like for something, we love in spite of everything. A normal son cannot always stop loving his mother just because she is a compulsive shoplifter. Nor will a normal mother stop loving her son even if he boasts a string of juvenile convictions before his sixteenth birthday. So perhaps Burke’s aphorism quoted above ought to be ever so slightly modified. A country has to be lovely to be liked – loving it is a slightly different matter.

Another step down, and we overhear the statement “I love my country because it is always right.” Between this step and the previous one a line was crossed separating patriotism from jingoism. No country is always right. The belief that one can be is as false as it is widespread at the American grassroots.

When such sentiments are translated into action, we begin to leave behind the rivers supposedly flowing with milk and honey and approach a swamp fuming with putrid emanations. Implicit in this statement is tribal, what before the advent of political correctness used to be called Hottentot, morality: if I steal his cow, that is good; if he steals my cow, that is bad. It took several millennia of civilisation to overcome such tribalism, and by the looks of it the job has never been finished.

Another step down, and the morass sucks us in waist-high. Here one hears “My country is always right because it is guided by God in everything it does.” Typically this has nothing to do with any true religious faith: after all, Christ was unequivocal in stating that his kingdom was not of this world. America or any other country is ‘under God’ because everything is – but only for that reason.

At this level ‘manifest destiny’ and ‘a city on a hill’ are joined by the ‘Third Rome’ of Russia (replaced for a few decades by a more aggressive communist messianism) and the ‘Gott mit uns’ of the SS. The underlying assumption is that our actions cannot be judged by infidels, only by God, and he has given us an open-ended endorsement. Thus anything we do is justified simply because we do it.

The lowest rung reaches to the bottom of the swamp, where real creepy-crawlies take refuge. Here the sentiment is “Because our country is guided by God, it is our duty to impose our ways on others, whether they want it or not. Others may be either seduced or coerced, it does not matter which, as long as they join the fold.” Since no real faith in God underlines this feeling, the explanatory clause at the beginning of the sentence may at some point be dropped for being superfluous.

Only Americans and Russians ever descend this ladder below the top two rungs in noticeable numbers, and only Americans hardly ever stumble along the way. Also unique to America is the heavy representation of this genre of patriotism in the political mainstream. In other countries it is usually relegated to the lunatic fringe, an area inhabited, say, by France’s Front National, German neo-Nazis or our own dear BNP. Other places also have individuals prepared to dive headlong into the swamp of sanctimonious jingoism, except that in those places such willing divers do not represent the dominant, nor even influential, ethos.

Multigenderalism on Facebook

After multiculturalism, now we have multigenderalism.

The Telegraph reports that, whereas until recently people had to identify themselves as "male" or "female" when they signed up for a Facebook account, from the last Valentine's Day, 14 Feb 2014, Facebook has offered users the choice of no fewer than 50 gender options, including "intersex" and "androgynous".

Politically correct imagination - with its triumph over nature and reality - knows no boundaries. I don't really think that this news requires much comment.

A Tale of Two Conferences

I recently attended two conferences. One left me full of enthusiasm, the other dispirited. The former was the Campaign for an Independent Britain's rhetorical-question-titled conference “Can Christianity and the European Union Survive One Another” on February 22. The latter was the London Evening Standard's “London Needs More Immigration” debate on March 3.

All this shows very clearly why opinion polls and other demographic or epidemiological (in medicine) studies need samples which are highily representative of the populations surveyed in order to have any meaning at all.

Neither meeting's audience was representative, both were very much self-selected, which explains my elation at the first and frustration - if not despair - at the second.

All three speeches at the Christianity and EU discussion were excellent and inspiring. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali’s was my favourite. His speech “Christian Europe or Federal Europe” I consider one of the best I’ve heard in a very long time. He went through a concise but complete history of the close relationship between Christianity and the West, covering all the important points in a short time, and in so doing answering some of the questions I had in my mind. An illuminating speech.

Last but not least, to see a large room full of Christians and other people quite enthusiastic and prepared to do something about Christianity was a novel, rare, wonderful experience. Admittedly, the average age was very high, which could be the only worrisome aspect.

The audience at the London immigration debate was larger, several hundred people, on average younger and multicultural.

The speakers were lacklustre, and some, like Labour MP for Tottenham David Lammy, seemed more suitable to address a kindergarten assembly than a gathering of adults interested in political issues. Suffice it to say that, for him, immigration's gift of Kylie Minogue to London was a good enough reason to support the population replacement the city has been going through.

To me, a long-time sufferer of addiction to Question Time (often a stressful experience), the discussion was very evocative of the BBC program, in that the views expressed seemed so much at odds with both reality and what people in the street would say.

Where the 70% of people in Britain who want immigration to be reduced or stopped completely - although apparently they are 65% in London, which is still two thirds anyway - had been hiding during the ES debate I don't know, but they certainly were not there.

A vote was taken at the end, which showed a majority in favour of the motion “London Needs More Immigration”. That's why George Whale of Liberty GB, who also attended the conference, suggested as this article's title "London Surrenders".

Questions that should have been asked at the immigration debate but never were

1) So far we've talked about immigration, but not much about immigrants. A particularly numerous group of them is Muslims. If the panellists take a look at a map of the world and listen to international news, they'll see that in every country in which Muslims reach a certain number - they don't need to be the majority, only a sizeable minority -, they try to impose sharia law on everybody and often use violent means to that end. What makes the panel think that Britain, once Muslims become 10, 20, or 30 percent of the population, will be the exception to the universal rule?

2) Member of the panel and Labour MP for Tottenham David Lammy said that immigration should not be stopped - far from it -, but all debate on immigration should, as it's toxic, like the debate on abortion in America. Although I disagree on his suggested repression of freedom of speech, I find his parallel appropriate. I'd also add that the reason why both debates are toxic and divisive is the same. Abortion on demand was undemocratically imposed on the American people, the majority of whom were opposed to abortion, by a in which not a law of the US Congress, but unelected judges of the Supreme Court liberalised it in the landmark Roe v. Wade case ruling. Similarly, mass and uncontrolled immigration from all over the world was imposed on the British by successive governments which never bothered to consult the opinion of the people about this huge social experiment which was going to change their lives forever in the most dramatic of ways. Doesn't the panel think that divisions within a nation are created by undemocratic and unpopular decisions of the ruling elites, which lead to forced conformism by a part of the population and opposition by the other?

3) Panellist Tessa Jowell, Labour MP for Dulwich and West Norwood, and others have claimed that resistance to change is a major reason for the hostility towards uncontrolled immigration. Does the Right Honourable Dame Tessa believe that all change should be welcome just for the sake of novelty? Should Germans have been happy when Hitler, who represented lots of changes, became chancellor?

4) If immigrants are so beneficial for London's (and one presumes Britain's) economy, how is it that, after many years of this beneficial open-doors immigration policies, the country has a national debt of one and a quarter trillion pounds, a peacetime record, equivalent to 76.6% of GDP (the highest ratio to GDP since World War II and predicted to rise to 94.30% under current trends) - although, factoring in all liabilities including state and public sector pensions, the real national debt is closer to £4.8 trillion, some £78,000 for every person in the UK -, growing at a rate of over 5,000 pounds per second? To give you an idea of how fast public debt is growing, it was only £0.53 trillion, less than half, in 2008.

Could this be because the present immigration and welfare policies, working together, are bankrupting Britain? Don't take my word for it. The most far-reaching study ever conducted on the impact of migration on taxpayers, a University College London’s study covering 16 years, concluded that immigrants from outside the EEA (European Economic Area) take £100 billion more in benefits than they pay back in taxes. Non-Europeans immigrants dig a deep hole in our finances: the amount taken in benefits and services by them is 14% higher than money put back.

European immigrants pay 4 per cent more into the tax system than they take out, while British-born people pay in 7 per cent less than they receive from the state.

But this does not mean that, as the spin goes, immigrants positively contribute to Britain. It just means that a high number of even hard-working European immigrants hurts the British economy, as they take jobs that would otherwise be filled by British people, who in turn because of that are on the dole and a burden for taxpayers. If natives did those jobs, they would contribute to the revenue the same amount of tax as the immigrants, instead of living on benefits.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) report Work for the Dole shows that it’s not true, as we often hear, that the jobs simply aren’t there, particularly with the difficult economic situation. Its analysis shows that 3.5 million new jobs have been created since 1997, and that employment today stands at a higher level than at any time in UK history. As 2.5 million jobs were created since 2000, out-of-work welfare claimant rolls stayed about the same. UK welfare claimants were not moving into work as jobs were created, while 68% of the jobs created were taken by immigrants prepared to work hard rather than rely on benefits, and while many British people on out-of-work benefits evidently weren’t interested in the new jobs.

Stopping uncontrolled immigration, combined with a plan for helping and training natives on the dole to get into work - as outlined in the TPA’s document -, is what is needed, and this is what the Liberty GB party has in its manifesto policies.

The question for the panel is: why don't you all stop talking nonsense and start joining and voting for Liberty GB?

Kent Tenants Evicted While Immigrants Move In

First published on Liberty GB's European Election website

by Enza Ferreri


Landlord to evict British families on benefits to make room for Eastern European migrants, headlines the Mirror.

The landlord in question is Fergus Wilson, who owns over 1,000 properties around the Ashford area, in central Kent. He explains that he has issued eviction notices to all of his 200 tenants who depend on welfare to cover their rent.

The reason is very simple: in the last two years, while none of his tenants who work has defaulted, more than half of those on housing benefits have. Many of the evicted tenants will be replaced by Eastern European immigrants with jobs, whom he describes as “a good category of tenant who don’t default on the rent."

Mr Wilson is the rule rather than the exception. The National Landlords Association says that as many as 4 out of 5 of its members won't even consider renting to anyone on benefits.

What happened is that rent prices have gone up due to increased demand for accommodation caused by immigration-fuelled population explosion, while housing benefits have been reduced by the Coalition that needs to find a way to stop the economic blackhole created by the past Labour government from expanding and swallowing up the whole country.

Mr Wilson is right when at the end of the short video he says that the fundamental problem is that there are too many people and not enough houses.

We don't want to apportion blame to anyone here, except the previous and current governments who have allowed this situation to develop. People tend to act on individual self-interest, be they the immigrants who leave their countries looking for a better life and work hard for it, the landlords who operate for profit, or the benefit claimants who find ways to make ends meet and stop paying rent.

It's just the role of those in power to protect the borders and the population of the country who elected them for that purpose. Families and pensioners who were born and bred in Britain becoming homeless because of unregulated and out-of-control immigration is a sufficiently good reason to withdraw votes from the Labour, who are the most responsible for the immigration disaster, and the Coalition partners Tories and LibDems, who haven't done even remotely enough to reverse it.

Liberty GB is the only credible party in the 22 May European Elections which does not compromise on immigration and on putting the interests of British people first.

Nationalism or Patriotism?

Is nationalism a good thing or a bad thing?

Some people say that nationalism is bad, whereas patriotism is good.

In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "patriotism" is defined as love for one's country or devotion for it, even to the point of sacrifice. It seems that there is no excess of patriotism in this sense, as it's always positive.

The Merriam-Webster gives this example of use of the term: "You may not agree with him politically, but no one can question his patriotism."

The two examples offered by the same source for "nationalism", on the other hand, are: "The war was caused by nationalism and greed." and "Nazism's almost epic nationalism appealed to downtrodden Germans still suffering the humiliation of being defeated in World War I." Not very nice.

This belligerence associated with nationalism is reflected in the Merriam-Webster's definition of the word, with loyalty to and pride for one's country replacing patriotism's more benevolent connotations of love and devotion. The belief that one's homeland is better and more important than other countries also forms part of the definition, as well as placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups, and a desire to be a separate and independent country.

The motto "My country, right or wrong" should probably sound nationalist, not patriotic, according to these definitions.

Wikiquote would generally agree:

This page is for quotes about Patriotism, which is a term denoting a devotion to fundamental fellowship with other human beings united in common causes, usually related to identified geographic regions or those within particular political associations and boundaries. Frequently compared or contrasted with ideas of nationalism, which are often, but not always, designated as less noble manifestations of similar distinguishing impulses with a greater accommodation of bigotry.

The Oxford Dictionary is more nuanced in its distinction, though. It provides this definition and example for "patriotism":

[V]igorous support for one’s country: ‘a highly decorated officer of unquestionable integrity and patriotism’

and for "nationalism":

Patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts: ‘an early consciousness of nationalism and pride’. An extreme form of patriotism marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries: ‘playing with right-wing nationalism’. Advocacy of political independence for a particular country: ‘Scottish nationalism’.

So, not all nationalism is bad, it implies, only its extreme manifestations.

"Liberals" (a misnomer) can be blamed for many things but not for having too clear ideas. Notoriously Leftist Wikipedia says:

Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation. Nationalism involves national identity, by contrast with the related construct of patriotism, which involves the social conditioning and personal behaviors that support a state's decisions and actions.

What? Maybe the second sentence's utter confusion explains why at the moment the Wikipedia entry page on patriotism is empty, and the relative Talk page reveals a political-ideological row among its editors that I have no desire to follow in this little semantic tour of mine.

Other sources use "nationalism" and "patriotism" almost interchangeably and think that both can be excessive.

What conclusion to draw from all this? I think that nationalism, as well as patriotism, can be a force for the good. Human beings, like all social animals, need to be part of a group, to "belong", and recognising one's membership of a circle of people inherently has a divisive element. If there is an "us", there must be a "them".

There is nothing wrong in this. Not only is it natural, it is also beneficial in establishing ties and communities and in the organisation of human societies. A world government is only desidered by totalitarians like people who adhere to Islamic law and communists.

To blame nations for wars and national supremacism is like, as Richard Dawkins and his fellow self-alleged - there is no element of novelty in their ideas - "new" atheists do, to blame religions for wars: absurd.

As a zoologist, Dawkins should know that many social animals including human beings, especially the younger males of the species, will fight other groups or individuals. Humans just find more inventive excuses to do so. If you abolish nationhood or religious affiliation, they will make up something else. They've already done so: now that these groupings are less strong than before, they've created more artificial ones, like football teams, as a cause to battle for, sometimes even violently.

My conclusion is simple. Words don't have a magical power. Some semantic disputes are useful to clarify issues while others are pointless. This particular one seems a borderline case to me. But, for purely pragmatic reasons, given a choice, I would opt for the term "patriotism", as it usually - albeit not necessarily - denotes a more benign feeling and less aggressive idea than "nationalism".

Religions Are Not the Same, Not even Monotheistic Religions

The often heard view that all religions are the same or, at least, the monotheistic or so-called Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) are very similar is an extremely fallacious view, with potentially deleterious consequences due to the confusion it generates.

This is another myth of our age. The belief in God is too generic to form a common basis. The Christian God is not the Muslim God, and I'm referring to the concepts of God.

To say that all religions are the same (they all involve a belief in God) is equivalent to saying that all physical theories are the same (they all deal with time and space).

A concept takes its meaning from the theory of which it is part.

So, for example, Newtonian time and space are different from Einsteinian time and space. When a new physical theory (relativity) is developed, it redefines the concepts of the old theory (classical mechanics) in a way which may completely transform and revolutionize them.

So is the same for the concept of God in different religious doctrines.

To Be "Liberal" Means...

To be "liberal" means to say BCE (Before the Common Era) for BC (Before Christ), and never to call the Pope "Holy Father", but to call "Holy city (or town)" every place that Muslims call that way.

Another small detail is to write “the Prophet” Muhammad with a capital P but to write “the pope” with a small p.