Tag: nationalism

That’s because you’re not American

Sarah Silverman explains how she was shaken and scared by the sight of a young man flying an American flag.

I had a boyfriend many years ago, he was my first boyfriend who had his own house, and one day I went outside to see what he was doing, and he was hoisting an American flag up the flagpole in his front yard. And I instantly felt very weird. It didn’t make sense, but I felt this feeling of like, um, I felt scared – yeah, I felt scared. So I was like, ‘Uh, what are you doing?’ and he said, ‘Raising the flag,’ and I was like, ‘Why?’ and he’s like, ‘Um, because I love America?’ and I was like, ‘Right, right, of course.’ But inside I was shaken.

And then I calmly walked to my car and I got inside and I called my sister Susie to tell her what happened. Now, maybe you’re thinking, ‘What do you mean what happened? Nothing happened, your boyfriend put an American flag up at his own house.’ No, you’re totally right, I had no idea why I was freaking out. I just – I had this very visceral reaction and my sister, who knows shit because she’s a rabbi in Israel, explained to me, she was like, ‘Dude, nationalism is innately terrifying for Jews. Think about it: flags, marching, blind allegiance? These things tend to ring a bell for us.’ Right. Of course. Duh. It made sense.

I would be very interested to hear how those who genuinely believe that Jews are Americans to explain this reaction. Especially if they can do so without resorting to civic nationalist historical revisionism.

Then, for an encore, I’d like to hear how Japanese are true Englishmen and Dalits are true Brahmins.

What the civic nationalists and Israel uber alles crowd don’t seem to recognize is how fundamentally offensive, racist, and anti-American their false narrative is. In order for their revisionist myth to be true, there can be no genuine American nation. There can be no heritage America. There can be no American people and there can be no American history. Which, of course, is precisely why revising and destroying history has been one of the primary goals of the Fake Americans for more than 100 years.

“Ethno-nationalism” is a redundancy. There is no nationalism that is not ethnic and a more proper term for “civic nationalism” is “civic statism”. “Ethno-nationalism” is just anti-nationalist propaganda, and it is such an intrinsically false concept that it did not even exist before 1955.

Too little, too late

If former Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont had truly sought independence for Catalonia, he might have been taken more seriously. But this belated turning against the EU tends to underline both his current irrelevance as well as his earlier failure to understand the basic European political realities.

Deposed Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont has branded the EU a ‘club of decadent countries’ and said a British-style ‘Catexit’ might be the solution. The pro-independence politician attacked the organisation as outdated in an interview for Israeli TV after his failed attempts to get European backing for his cause from his hideaway in Brussels.

He claimed the EU was a ‘club of decadent and obsolescent countries controlled by a small few and closely linked to increasingly debatable economic interests.’

Arguing Catalonia should turn the tables on EU chiefs who have warned there would be in place in Europe for the region if it breaks away from the rest of Spain, he added ‘They’re constantly telling us we’re going to be left out of the European Union but the ones who should take that decision are the citizens of Catalonia. Lets see what the people of Catalonia say. Perhaps there are not many people who want to form part of this EU…so insensitive to the abuse of human rights, of the democratic right of a part of its territory only because a post-Franco right wants it to be that way.’

The leftist Puigdemont made the same mistake that many in the American Fake Right do. You cannot be both pro-nationalist and pan-European. Europe is not a race, Europe is not a people, and Europe is not a nation. It is a continent.

Pan-Europeanism is, like American civic nationalism, a form of Globalism Lite. No true nationalist can support either. And pan-Europeanism will not succeed any more than the repeated attempts at pan-Arabism or pan-Africanism has.

As I have previously stated on many occasions, the fundamental political divide is now nationalism vs globalism. And the latter comes in many flavors, more than a few of which are cloaked in false forms of fake nationalism.

Inexplicable inequality

It is hard, so hard, to discern a pattern here:

It’s hard to discern a pattern in the violence that has wracked the Swedish capital Stockholm for five nights. Rioting in the city’s suburbs has raised the national debate about immigration, unemployment and social inequality.

The cars attacked in the violence are not high-end – not the BMWs and Porsches you might expect to see torched by class warriors – but the vans which ordinary people need to go about their business. Schools, a station and a library have been attacked as well as a bank and a police station…. Many said there was a wider context of a growing gap between rich and poor in Sweden.

On OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) figures, Sweden has seen the biggest increase in inequality of any developed country over the past 25 years. Immigrants and their descendants tend to congregate in areas such as Husby, the neighbourhood west of Stockholm where the violence started on Sunday. About 80{23e931505c9998ea7789b03fa212186bf4d6af5391998e330e3a146ae78b2862} of the 11,000 residents are either first- or second-generation immigrants.

It is not any more the Sweden we all thought we knew.

What do you know. Another Magic Dirt fail. Apparently even Scandinavian socialist magic isn’t powerful enough to transform immigrants into Real Swedes Just Like All The Other Swedes Except For Their Darker Skin.

Identity always trumps ideology, regardless of whether that ideology is free market capitalism, American civic nationalism, or socialism.

Nations are people. Nations are genetic. Nations are tribes. Nations are neither propositions nor geography nor political constructs. FFS, before you embarrass yourself with ignorant objections, look up the etymology of the freaking word! Nationalism is literally genetic tribalism and nations are nothing more than genetic tribes with shared cultural, religious, and linguistic customs.

1250-1300; Middle English < Latin nātiōn- (stem of nātiō) birth, tribe, equivalent to nāt(us) (past participle of nāscī to be born) + -iōn- -ion

Mailvox: midwit history

It’s no secret that I am not a fan of midwits. These responses to my previous post on Fake Americans and their Fake History may help explain why. They are the walking, talking examples of Dunning-Kruger in action. When I talk about them being relative retards, this is exactly the sort of thing I’m describing. Be sure to note how JM actually thinks he is correcting me.

According to your theory Britain, Canada (until two decades ago or so), Australia and New Zealand should be the best examples of freedom loving people in a land where the rule of law exists, where the government is not massive and social and economic freedoms are respected, in other words, Switzerland or close to it since their populations are by far MUCH MORE ANGLO than whatever you find in the U.S., less “tainted” by Germans, Italians, French and so on. I think we can all safely agree and that ALL the countries mentioned and less free and their populations endure more oppressive governments (female idiocy to the max, PC quasi-dictatorship, socialist policies, end to the right to bear arms, etc etc.). The worst part is that peoples of those countries CLAIMED FOR, ELECTED, AND ENACTED their governments actions with glee, only a tiny minority resisted or tried to do so. 

That’s ridiculous. The “British brethren” of the British Empire were obviously a different subset of Anglo stock than the American settlers. Anglo-Saxon Protestant heritage is a necessary requirement of reliable community support for individual liberty and limited government, but it is not a sufficient one. Many Canadians are descended from British settlers who were loyal to the crown and were driven out. Australia is descended from criminal deportees; if you ever wondered why Sydney is a center of gay depravity, look up the crimes for which many of those criminals were deported.

As for the British themselves, they went through several hundred years of exporting and killing off their best and boldest. It should be no surprise that those who remain today are little more than island-dwelling dodo birds, blithely welcoming the newcomers who have already replaced them in their capital.

Anyone who thinks Switzerland is a bastion of individual liberty has never spent more than five minutes there. A friend of mine who worked in Zurich for five years collected various fines I would not have believed possible, including one for excess noise after 10 PM and another for turning on his fog lights when the amount of rain did not necessitate doing so. To put it his way, “imagine a homeowner’s association run by uptight German women.”

Whether you like it or not, your theory is full of holes and cannot explain why the peoples whose entrance you decry were allowed to enter en masse by the “virtuous protestant men of British stock” that inhabited the US back then, while the countries that should be shining examples of freedom due to their Protestant ethic (hahaha) and Anglo-saxon “pure” heritage sink ever so low. You don’t seem to realize that Irish and Italians were brought as low cost labor not out of a “duty bring white men of good character”. You don’t seem to realize that if anything, the mixture of European peoples in the U.S. might have slowed down the destruction of the liberties that many Americans take for granted etc.

This guy’s binary reasoning is so inept that he would similarly argue that my theory of NFL defense is full of holes and cannot explain how the Vikings were able to score on the Rams; obviously if the Vikings reached the end zone, then the Rams must have intended for them to do so.  And the idea that the addition of various peoples with no tradition of liberty or limited government somehow managed to slow down the destruction of now-vanished American liberties that their most illustrious members openly worked to destroy is simply too stupid to be mendacious.

Every generation has a faction arguing that relaxing the rules can’t possibly do any harm. The Founders were no exception; the fact that they were naive about immigration and failed to adequately protect their posterity from themselves does not change the fact that their original vision for the United States in no way approximated anything even remotely close to what we see today. The irony is that in JM’s arguing for American civic nationalism and the irrelevance of national origin, he is actually making a strong case for utterly ruthless ethnic cleansing, as evidently permitting even one otherwise unobjectionable exception is sufficient cause to give future civic nationalists grounds to destroy the nation.

Sertorius is similarly confused, but less obnoxious:

The Framers absolutely intended a British ethnostate, yet welcomed all white men of good character. Which was it? And since “intention” implies instrumentality, where exactly are the plans–even if they’re just jottings on a cocktail napkin–that will bring forth such a polity?

Both. First, they had a very different definition of “white” than we do today. Second, they only intended to allow enough whites of good character to permit them to fully assimilate through interbreeding. (Notice that they didn’t establish a reliable mechanism for policing “good character” either, therefore they must have intended to import criminals and Satanists, right?) Third, they had set up a structure in which the several States were supposed to be entirely sovereign. They felt that this arrangement would suffice to address any fundamental differences; what would it matter to Massachusetts or Virginia if Pennsylvania was adulterated by Germans? Of course, the Civil War proved them wrong only four-score-and-change years later.

The Founding Fathers didn’t intend a single British ethnostate, but rather, a number of distinct British ethnostates as well as a few mixed white ethnostates. If you recall, they were rather favorably influenced by the historical Greek city-states. This is exactly why citizens of the USA should be praying for a reasonably peaceful breakup and non-violent ethnic cleansing instead of desperately trying to preserve the unsalvageable.

The real problem the civic nationalists have with history is that it clearly spells out the horrors that are likely on the way for the West. They avert their eyes and offer silly, nonsensical arguments about the intentions of the Founders in order to dispel the fear that is quietly gnawing at their bellies. But it won’t work, and in any event, nothing they say, and nothing I write, is going to make any difference whatsoever. I have no doubt that back in 372 AD, there was a Roman living in the town of Marcianopolis who was looking on in disbelief as 200,000 desperate Visigoths were permitted to cross the Danube to protect them from the Huns. Because refugees.

What could he have done about that? What possible difference could his arguments and his opinion have made? I like to think that Roman was smart enough to leave Marcianopolis and go very far away before Fritigern rose up to pillage the Roman north and slaughter the Emperor Valens at Adrianople six years later.

Fake Americans, fake solutions

This article by an early Fake American conclusively proves the power of identity politics even as he attempts to “solve” the problem of them.

The beginnings of identity politics can be traced to 1973, the year the first volume of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago—a book that demolished any pretense of communism’s moral authority—was published in the West. The ideological challenge of socialism was fading, its fighting spirit dwindling. This presented a challenge for the Left: how to carry on the fight against capitalism when its major ideological alternative was no longer viable?

No, the beginning of identity politics in the United States can be traced to the mass immigration of Italians and Irish back in the 1800s. But as students of Roman and Byzantine history know, mass immigration and the identity politics that follow from it long precede the existence of the United States.

In 2004, Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington published Who Are We? Huntington examined the stunning immigration, both legal and illegal, from Mexico and argued that it was undermining longstanding notions of American national identity. America, Huntington said, has both a creed and a culture. The creed is formulated in the founding documents of our nation and in the speeches of Abraham Lincoln. The culture derives from the Anglo-Protestant settlers who first peopled North America. Huntington worried about a “hispanicization” of American culture. This book was controversial, to say the least. Nor was it without weaknesses. It is hard for this descendant of Irish and Italian immigrants to accept the notion that America’s culture is monolithically Anglo-Protestant.

Every single time. And why would it be hard for Mr. Continetti to accept a basic fact of American history? Because his name is Continetti. The amusing thing is that he would probably angrily deny my claim to be a true blue Italian despite the fact that by his own illogic, I am more genuinely Italian than he is. Those who deny identity politics while clinging to their own identities will inevitably descend into self-parody sooner or later.

Identity politics is a veneer over the class politics that truly defines our society, and education is the best prism through which to view class in America today. 

Ironic, that a self-styled conservative would turn to a Marxian analysis in order to deny the identity politics that give him feelbads. Conservatives really have become yesterday’s liberals. Identity politics is not a veneer. It is the inevitable consequence of rival identities. Note that in Singapore, the leadership began consciously managing identity politics and to characterize Singaporeans by citizenship rather than national identity because its population was only 75 percent Chinese, (13.7 Malay, 8.7 Indian, 2.6 various), a percentage they felt to be too low to support genuine nationalism.

To combat identity politics, we must emphasize an American nationalism based on both a commitment to the ideals of the American Founding and a shared love of our national history and culture—a history and culture of individual freedom and religious pluralism, resistant to centralized authority and ever expanding into new frontiers and new possibilities.

Who is this “we”, kemosabe? How is this fake nationalism going to survive when it is based on a commitment that no one has to actually make and a love that is never going to be measured or held accountable? Will those who refuse to commit or simply don’t possess the love be stripped of their paper nationality and expelled? If not, then this is just more high-minded Fake American blather meant to disguise the fact that while they are citizens of the same multinational imperial state, neither they nor their ancestors were ever truly Americans.

UPDATE: So much for propositional conservatism. He has to go back.

The GOP tax bill’s bringing out my inner socialist. The sex scandals are bringing out my inner feminist. Donald Trump and Roy Moore are bringing out my inner liberal. WHAT IS HAPPENING?

Game theory and civic nationalism

Tipsy explains how logic dictates that civic nationalism is intrinsically doomed to failure in any multicultural society.

Civic Nationalism is doomed to fail in a multicultural society because it represents an unstable pareto-optimal equilibrium of the game of resource optimization through democratic politics. The non-cooperative Nash equilibrium, i.e., everyone out for their own group, becomes more stable when a democratic political system is overwhelmed by disparate ethnic groups.

For those inclined to read further about the distinction between these two equilibria, here’s an example of game that admits both types of equilibria. Suppose we have two players, A and B, who are playing a croquet game on a level field. Both players have a croquet mallet that can hit a ball exactly one foot in any direction and they get to hit it exactly once per round of the game. For each round, Player A is rewarded $1 for each foot the ball goes North and player B is rewarded $1 for each foot the ball goes West.

They both start the game willing to cooperate, and thus they decide to employ the Pareto-optimal solution, so they both hit the ball to the Northwest. They ball will go 2 feet Northwest and both player A and B will both get $1.41 (i.e., round(100*sqrt(2))/100).

Now, suppose in the next round, player A hits the ball to the Northwest as agreed upon, but player B decides to no longer cooperate. After player A hits the ball, player B hits it due West. Player A ends up with $0.71 and Player B gets $1.71 for the round.

Player A then gets pissed, and decides not to cooperate. So, the next round he uses a Nash strategy and hits the ball North and the still uncooperative Player B hits it West. They both end up with $1 for the round.

Note that the Pareto-optimal (cooperative) equilibrium yields the most money for both, but it is leaves each of the players vulnerable to the other cheating. The Nash-optimal (non-cooperative) equilibrium leaves both with less money, but structures the game in such a way that minimizes the consequences of the other cheating.

The Left has been using a Nash strategy for years, and “Conservatives” have been duped or shamed into using a Pareto strategy. The alt-Right is finally saying “Ok, you want to play that way, we will too.” This pisses the Left off, because they liked the marginal advantage that cheating in a cooperative game gave them. The alt-Right doesn’t care, goes full on Nash, because it understands the “game” is fundamentally non-cooperative now.

The scary thing is that the situation is even worse than he explains it. There have actually been THREE players, a Pareto player, a Nash player, and an anti-Pareto player. The anti-Pareto player has been playing to either a) hurt the Pareto player or b) help the Nash player, as he has no interest in money, but simply wants the psychic reward of achieving either (a) or (b).

What has changed is that a new Nash player has entered the field. This modeling is probably too complicated to bother with, especially since any numbers assigned would be arbitrary to the point of complete fiction, but regardless, both Tipsy’s original description as well as the more complicated version suffice to demonstrate that civic nationalism could never survive once sufficient Nash players were on the field.

There is nothing cooperative about US politics now. This is both an observable reality as well as a logically dictated consequence. Civic nationalism is now every bit as discredited and thoroughly disproven as communism, and any intellectually honest man will have to admit as much. Ironically, most of those still attempting to disprove it will achieve little more than revealing that they are actually Nash players hiding under a false Pareto front.

To sum up the discussion from last night in the other thread, it is observably better for a nation to be atomic-bombed, militarily defeated, and occupied by a foreign power than for it to adopt civic nationalism and mass immigration.

It is inevitable

Faith Goldy makes the move to the Alt-Right:

My heart is with civic nationalists, I want to believe. However, a deliberate evisceration of national identities coupled w mass migration has made my head at odds with my heart. Right wing civic nationalists are no better than Leftist do-gooder multicultis — result is ethnocide.

I completely understand those whose emotions trouble them on this subject and desperately want civic nationalism to be true. I once felt much the same way about it and other concepts I ultimately had to reject. But in the end, the head must always rule the heart, and the lessons of both history and current events are absolutely clear. Civic nationalism is nothing more than globalism lite.

Globalism is bad for all nations

Including the Jewish nation, as Moshe Feiglin, the leader of Zehut, points out:

Radical Left MK Merav Michaeli, who stated last week that the core family “is one of the things that we need to start breaking apart” did not actually say anything we did not know. All she did was to directly say what she and the entire politically correct dictatorship that rules Western and Israeli consciousness say all the time – just in a more sophisticated manner.

Although their values represent a minority, these forces rule Israeli consciousness by means of all the unelected power hubs in the country: academia, the media, the justice system, the welfare systems, government bureaucracy and the defense system.

Until now, these forces were smart enough to blur their statements and outsmart the public. Instead of saying that the family is bad, they would say: “Everything constitutes a family” (in which case nothing constitutes a family).

Instead of saying that it is bad to have children, they would say that we must safeguard them. (In other words, detach them from their parents).

Michaeli simply said these things directly. “The core family is the most dangerous place for children… and it must be broken apart”. Yes, she really said it.

(The claim that the core family is the most dangerous place for children is ridiculous blather. But who is checking? Children are attacked wherever they are. If they are in dormitories or any other situation outside their family, they are attacked even more. Michaeli could just as soon have claimed that breathing air is most dangerous to society. After all, 100{7a570d310fd04ee61246b4469264ca1004967a98be813fe63aaa5d2057987204} of the deceased lived and died in an oxygenated environment…)

Michaeli has removed the mask and has allowed the tip of this giant, lethal iceberg to peek out from the depths. By doing so, she has performed an important service for Israeli society.

When somebody tries to speak the simple truth, he is immediately denounced by the politically correct octopus. This means that if you are a consumer of the general media and rely on it to gain a sense of what is legitimate and what is not, what is good and what is bad, what is light and what is darkness – then you are forced to adopt these mad positions. Nobody will dare to take the media to task and tell you the truth.

Take for example Minister of Labor, Chaim Katz. The Knesset, including the Minister, decided that children will be adopted by normative families only. Makes sense, right? But the consciousness octopus immediately recruited all its heavy hitters and wonder of wonders – in just a short time Minister Katz announced that the law would be changed and the State would no longer give children for adoption to normative couples only, but would include same-sex couples, as well.

It is important to understand – these children will not be thrown into the streets. Thank G-d, the demand for children for adoption in Israel is much greater than the supply. The question here is the welfare of the child. You do not have to be a genius to understand that a child needs both a father and a mother. But the child does not really interest the octopus. What really interests the octopus is to dissolve the institution of family. That is why it is so important to it is to keep drilling into our heads that anything can be defined as a family, making nothing a family. Mission accomplished. No more family, no more society, no more nation. We have successfully destroyed the old world down to its foundation.

“What is good for the Jews” is not an appropriate objective for Americans or Europeans. They are not part of the American nation or any of the European nations, they are the Jewish nation, a people in their own right. But what is good for ALL nations is good for Jews and Americans and everyone else alike and what is bad for all nations is bad for Europeans and Asians and everyone else; nationalism is the only secular force strong enough to conquer globalism and it is in the interest of all nationalists to support the existence and objectives of all non-imperialist nationalisms.

This observation is somehow beyond the understanding of some nationalists of various types, who foolishly think that they are going to be the first nation to ever successfully oppose the entire world on their own, without any friends or allies. But it is nevertheless what both logic and history dictate.

The octopus seeks to strangle us all. Only through collective commitment to our division can we expect to withstand it.

Mailvox: America and Not-America

A people have the right to define themselves, whether they are in Texas or Catalonia:

I am in Dallas for a long weekend with my parents, and we went to the State Fair of Texas. Featured event: Grambling State vs. Prairie View AMU (both HBCUs) at the Cotton Bowl. We decided to go for the marching bands.

A bit to my surprise, everyone I could see in the stands stood for the national anthem. (The teams were not on the field at the time.) More to my surprise, there is a black national anthem. And they all joined in singing it, fists raised, where they hadn’t sung the national anthem.

Takeaway? They consider themselves blacks first, and Americans second.

They consider themselves to be a distinct people, a distinct nation, as is their right. It’s going to be fascinating to see how those who have always considered Confederate secessionists to have been racists and traitors try to get their heads around the growing movement towards black nationalism, particularly because black nationalists have no more use for white liberals than they do for white conservatives or the white Alt-Right.

We American Indians have our segregated and sovereign reservations. Why shouldn’t American whites and American blacks exercise the same Freedom of Association that is their unalienable right?

Partition of the United States is coming, whether you believe it or not, and it will most likely begin within the next two decades. I hope it will be accomplished peacefully, and with a reasonable amount of justice and good will on every side, but I am skeptical that this will be possible, in part because the vast majority of people are still hopelessly delusional about the very nature of the multinational empire in which they reside.

Skeptical nationalism

John Derbyshire contemplates Catalonia and California:

The great classic Chinese novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms opens with a sentence that any literate Chinese person can quote to you: 話說天下大勢, 分久必合, 合久必分 — “It has been said of all under Heaven that what was long divided must unite, what was long united must divide.”

As well as being a fair summary of four thousand years of Chinese history, that’s not a bad guide to history at large. Nations come together and merge; empires form then disintegrate.

Yes, there are those big historical tides ebbing and flowing. But we can form preferences related to our own time and place. Mine are nationalist, with a seasoning of skepticism.

Nationalism isn’t hard to understand. People want to live among and be governed by other people mostly like themselves, with the same language and shared history, not by foreigners in some distant city who don’t understand them.

It is of course the case that our co-ethnics may be crazy beasts — North Korea‘s a nation; Khmer Rouge Cambodia was a nation — while the foreigners in that distant city might be benign and wise, or at any rate not life-threatening. The Middle East under the Ottoman Empire was not an exemplar of peace and justice, but it doesn’t compare badly with today’s Middle East.

The great British national conservative Enoch Powell, who fifty years ago gave those eloquent warnings about the evils of mass immigration, once said that if Britain were at war he would fight for Britain, even if it was a communist dictatorship.

The Greek poet in Byron’s Don Juan, living under the Ottoman Turks, likewise looked back to the Greek tyrants of antiquity and sighed:

Our masters then

Were still, at least, our countrymen.

I’m basically on the same page with these nationalists, but with reservations. When the Vietnamese army put an end to the Khmer Rouge government by invading Cambodia, most Cambodians hailed them as liberators. Perhaps I would have, too; perhaps even Enoch Powell would have.

So there are qualifications to be made about nationalism, especially small-country nationalism or sub-nationalism. You’re not drawing from a big pool of political talent there. I have mixed occasionally with Scottish and Welsh nationalists; let’s just say I wasn’t impressed.

Sub-nationalism like Catalonia’s is also in contradiction to nationalism proper. Who’s the truer nationalist: the Spanish citizen who would fight and die for Spain, or the Catalan separatist who feels the same way about his province?

Here you’re in the zone of differences that can only finally be decided by force of arms.

Derbyshire comes out for Spain, in the end, in favor of nationalism over sub-nationalism. I would be vastly more inclined to do so if Spain would also abjure the European Union; as usual, binary thinkers can’t seem to grasp the observation that neither side is good and both sides are idiots fighting over the right to be directly subservient to the European Commission on behalf of the Catalans.

The sour joke in Britain thirty years ago was that having fought eight hundred years for their independence, the Irish had then sold it for a package of EU agricultural subsidies. That’s not altogether fair. But looking at Ireland today gives you a jaded perspective on Irish nationalism. The seminaries are full of Nigerians [ How Catholicism fell from grace in Ireland, Chicago Tribune, July 92006] the cab drivers are all Polish; and the current Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar, is an open homosexual whose father was an Indian born in Bombay. For this the heroes of 1916 faced the firing squads?

MPAI is one of the sad realities of history. Regardless, Derbyshire’s most important idea is here: We can call this alliance the Natintern, the Nationalist International. I’m still waiting for someone to come up with a suitable anthem, to be called of course The Nationale.