By Bosco – Irish Sentinel Contributor –
True nationalism is not racist. Nationalism properly understood emerges from an ethereal notion of being that is transformed into the visceral outward expression of ethnicity. Many nationalists today seem to be reluctant to engage in the central question, what is nationalism? Primordialism is one conception of nationalism if not the preferred, in my opinion. Why so? It is the idea that nations or ethnic identities are fixed, natural and ancient. Primordialists maintain that individuals have a unique inborn ethnic identity independent of historical processes. This coheres with the belief that true nationalism is founded upon satisfying, in my opinion, two basic limbs that conform with identity; blood and culture. The blood aspect obviously relates to an ancestral lineage, whilst its cultural facet connotes love of the outward expression of that ancestry in terms of shared values, attitudes and belief system. It is possible that one could have, say, Irish blood coursing in one’s veins yet be a traitor. Consequently, it could be argued that under these circumstances one severs the bond to nation (after all is there is any more mortal blow to a bond than treachery?) Similarly, one may exhibit a profound love of a nation, its history, language and culture etc but because there is no blood connection, no bond can be properly forged. Therefore, a foreign aficionado of another’s culture may become a friend, even an ally of the tribe of people but never a member of that tribe. This essentialist perspective has of course its critics, so I invite you readers to investigate those for yourselves. Suffice to say, I adhere to primordialism as a theory to understand nationalism.
Returning however, to the idea that being a nationalist is not ipso facto a segue into racism is founded on the idea that nationalism, in fact, seeks to preserve diversity. The preservation of diversity is itself contrary to any accusation of racism. A world of beige (the world globalists seek to enforce) is the antithesis of diversity, where all peoples and cultures are thrown into a cauldron, mixed together to form a glutinous blob of bland “beige-ness”. Such a worldview seeks to denude every culture and ethnic group of its unique place, its character, and replace them with a banal one-size- fits all. Instead of visiting Italy, its people and enjoying the delights of a local Tuscan café and the charm within it, the globalists instead want to envision every street corner occupied with a corporate franchise of some globalist chain like Starbucks, with its beige characters serving you, where the décor is the same, the crockery the same, the food the same etc. No matter where you are in the world you will be rest assured you will get the same packaged commodity. This is anti-diversity in action. A meadow examined for its flora and fauna, but discovered to have only one extant specimen would be labelled by a biologist to be a place lacking bio diversity. A field abundant with different species would be properly labelled bio-diverse. The same applies to the globe and its peoples and cultures. An Ireland containing distinct Irish people and its culture, or a Spain with theirs, or Chad or Egypt with theirs, is diversity fully actualised.
The world is full of stunning scenery and of course, Ireland has its own fair share of stupendous vistas, but what marks Ireland out as Ireland is not just its landscape, but its ruins. The ruins that are dotted around Ireland, of dilapidated forts, castles, round towers and monasteries reminds the tourist to the country of the history contained within those derelict walls. It is the stories contained within that history, found in those decrepit walls. that give a country its unique flavour, its special, priceless, heritage. Each falling wall tells a story, each hedgerow a possible school or large rock a place where mass was held during the penal times. To outsiders, these remain mere hedges and rocks, but those who experience a genuine connection to our ancestors the hedge and the rock are as valuable as gold laden Egyptian sarcophagus.
During the 1970s, scientists at Mankato State University exposed paramecia or freshwater protozoa to Pavlovian type training sessions consisting of four-second sound or tone paired for the last two seconds with an electric shock. The scientists discovered that after two or three sessions, about half or more of the apparently gun-shy paramecia initiated “avoiding response”, or a backward jerk and/or turn and resumption of swimming—in response to a solo tone. Unbelievably, the cells could remember to do this for at least 24 hours. They could also be untaught if the tone continued to be unaccompanied by a shock, and then be retrained by pairing them once again.
Moreover, early evidence of cellular memory shows that it’s not just our brain, but our body’s cells that could hold an imprint of past traumatic events, and my word, do we Irish have a catalogue of historical trauma. It could be reasonably argued therefore that within our ethnic makeup, deep within our cellular structures reside remnants of past historical trauma that create a particular bond to our nation that cannot be merely replicated, copied or manufactured. It is like when two people share a similar traumatic event, say a terrorist attack, and they will be forever conjoined by that traumatic experience, some forming closer bonds than relatives, such is the strength of a bond of trauma.
A certificate proffered by a corrupt government based on self-interested immigration policy as well as articulated on mass produced parchment can never ever make up for the cellular memory contained in every Irishman and Irish woman. And it is the unique terrain of the land that elicits a particular response, reminding the people through its culture of that special attachment to the past, just like one of Pavlov’s dogs who is primed to respond to certain preprogramed stimuli. It might explain why many French people cried viewing the burning of Notre Dame cathedral, it would also describe why a native Irishman might react a certain way to a viewing of the movie “ The Wind That Shakes The Barley” over a newly arrived a certified “new Irish”. We saw in Ukraine how men and women were willing to stay and fight for their homeland, while, “new Ukrainians”, who no doubt feigned love of Ukraine when it suited, were first to abandon ship once the war started. People will die for someone or something they care deeply for, and many certified “new” citizens, of whatever, country, just don’t have that adequate emotional attachment to their adopted country to justify such an ultimate sacrifice. That of course, is not to say that all natives would care to fight, and some non-natives might, but by and large, the truism persists that patriotism requires self-sacrifice, and this self-sacrifice emerges from a sense of self compelled duty, which itself derives from a genuine bond to something meaningful. It could also be argued, by some, that non-Ukrainian combatants say, fighting with Ukraine, don’t fight for Ukraine but for the principle of defence of nation which is a reminder to themselves of a sacred duty to protect a mother or fatherland. The same with the Russians. Young men will seek to defend the Russian motherland because it is a sacrifice worth making. Our ancestors knew this only too well. Ancestors maligned now by traitors and those with no real connection to the country absent a certificate awarded by crooks.
Nationalism isn’t synonymous with racism for the simple fact too that every genuine nationalist recognises the same virtue in other nationalists who hail from other nations. Irish nationalists share comity with, say, Polish or even English nationalists because we both understand the value of preserving our own faith, people, land, and culture. White European nationalists commend black African nations for refusing to be coerced into accepting the globalist and imperialist LGBT agenda. White European nationalists understand the plight of semitic Palestinians who will fight for their territory, or the Nepalese for theirs. Nationalism is not synonymous either with conquest over other nations, as most nationalists merely seek to exist alongside other nations and to co-operate, from a far, with them, and to engage in trade and commerce, for the betterment of all our nations, qua unique independent nations etc. This explains most people signed up for, what was then known as the EEC (European Economic Community). We said yes to cooperation, not subjugation. When an Irish nationalist goes to Paris, he or she wants to enjoy the uniqueness of Parisian life, and to share in its delights and its haughty citizenry before returning home, it is all part of the charm. If every quarter of the world is dominated by franchises and beige citizens then there will be no desire to sample another’s culture, because the very aspects that make that culture desirable to see, its difference, will be absent.
Those who chastise nationalism as being equivalent to war mongering and conquest need to rethink their accusation. Most English men for example didn’t benefit from their Empire, they remained in tenements and in hovels such that authors like Charles Dickens memorialised their ordeals and hardships Even today, working class white English men and women are ridiculed for hoisting a ST George’s flag. So too now in Ireland where protests held by Irish patriots are singled out as fascists for wanting to display the tricolour. The ones who benefitted from empires are the same one now driving diversity. It is not a mirage to find a wealthy Dublin 4 resident demand diversity but not in their backyard, nor a WASP in Martha’s Vineyard. The diversity the wealthy demand is motivated to be provided with cheap labour and more willing consumers.
American tourists, I have been told, are truly disappointed when they arrive in Ireland and their first greeting is a Nigerian taxi man, or a Polish hotel receptionist. This isn’t to say that the taximan or receptionist are inferior human beings to an Irish man or Irish woman, but that they lack the quality of Irishness that the tourist seeks to experience, such an interaction with uniquely Irish people is one of the latter’s primary motivating factors in choosing Ireland in the first place.
The extreme far left, enabled by wealthy self-interested progressives, now seek to propagandise a primed and receptive gullible audience to believe that nationalists are fundamentally,’ peddlers of hate’. The truth couldn’t be any more different, and it is that difference that the globalists, armed with genuine hatred, seek to destroy. As I have stated previously in an article, since published here on the Irish Sentinel, that the left enable a disparity to exist between rich and poor in the developing world when they allow middle class migrants ( the only ones who can afford the price of trafficking, it costs a lot you know! And the poorest in those countries cannot afford the prices) to make their way to Europe, the radical left inveigle the normies that the Irish public must share with these self-interested middleclass migrants (middle class relative to the poor in their own countries) limited national resources of the host country, only then to remit billions of dollars back home, therefore, widening the gap between rich and poor in the process. The left achieves the same outcome with diversity. Instead of protecting diversity, they are in fact destroying it, but they are clever in fooling the ignorant to believe their litany of lies.
If nationalists were indeed to be considered racists, why then do we resist incursions by those who ostensibly look the same as us, but come from different European nations? If nationalists are racist, why do we support Africans who refuse to be colonised with LGBT propaganda? Why do we oppose mass abortions of tiny black babies? If nationalists are racists, why do we hold so much more contempt and animus for those with Irish blood, who look the same as us but whose blood runs clotted and stale in their veins due to their treachery? The fact is, nationalists seek to preserve their nation, not to see the annihilation of theirs, nor that of others’, which is, ironically, the motive of those who call us hateful racists.