It almost sticks in the throat if I try to say it out loud but, as a progressive internationalist mugged by reality, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the key ordering principle of the success of Poland, and the way forward for the whole of the West, is a healthy dose of inclusive, positive-sum, moderate, calm and confident nationalism. Modern, first world, constructive patriotism. Not so much blood and soil as free-thinking European civilisation and open society, but, importantly, strict on those who refuse to contribute to its maintenance. Some call it muscular liberalism.
I am at pains here to draw a sharp contrast between the Polish version of temperate (some call it conservative) nationalism, and Hungary’s pro-Russia and pro-China variant. I also hasten to confirm up high in the article that I am not a sycophant of Poland in any way, and I have not taken any payment or gift from Polish interests. On the contrary, the government officials and ex officials I approached for comment were slightly disturbed by my open admiration and suggestion that Poland should be a leader of Europe in a way that Great Britain and France once were. Indeed, they rushed to point out that Poland, despite doing everything right and getting the best results, is routinely excluded from strategic meetings deciding the future of the continent, usually held between the UK, Germany, France and Italy. They were, alas, too polite to speculate about the reasons for this exclusion.
It is too late for that. At the last census in 2021 the white British were just 36.8% of the population of London. There is no way back short of mass demigration, and no political party has the will to do it. The only sort of “nationalism” we are likely to end up with is islamic nationalism.
As a progressive internationalist Matei old cock the Polish government officials and ex officials you were talking to were…progressive internationalists just like you.
The current government of Poland is run by the EU keenies who are just as embarrassed by nationalism as you are. Polish economic success largely fired up during the previous fiercely nationalist EU sceptic government’s time. And they were pretty ur-conservative. Obviously not friendly with the Russkies cos they’re Poles.
In short Polish nationalism is pretty damn nationalist. And is a great embarrassment to the Tuskies.
There is much commendable about Poland, however, it appears it may have the lowest fertility rate in Europe. That Poland hasn’t subscribed to third world immigration like Western Europe or USA/Canada does mean at least it’s future is likely to be ‘Polish’. But with a declining population like that it is likely to impede it becoming a major power in Europe.
There is a very powerful movement (by the International Community) to destroy Poland – for example the conservative candidate only just managed to win the Presidential election, there was a tidal wave of smears directed against him – accusing him of being a pimp (and so on).
Why does the International Community do such things? They do these things because they wish to destroy the self government of national peoples – not just Poland, but every nation. This is the “Diversity and Inclusion” agenda – the destruction of self governing nations, national cultures.
And the Prime Minister of Poland, Prime Minister Tusk, should not be trusted – as Lee Moore points out, Mr Tusk was bought (for money and prestige) by the European Union long ago.
Martin is correct – the very low fertility rate in Poland, and other nations, is a terrible threat. And, yes indeed, the idea that hostile populations (arriving by mass immigration and the natural increase, births, of these populations) will pay our pensions in our old age, or preserve national cultures, is absurd – utterly absurd.
The “Social Revolution” that is destroying (culturally and biologically destroying) the Western World must be rolled back – but rolling it back runs directly against the agenda of the International Community and ideologies (such as feminism) that it promotes.
So Poland, and the rest of the Western world (including far eastern nations such as Taiwan, Japan and Korea) face a choice – roll back internationally fashionable (internationally promoted) ideologies – or die.
Paul:
I agree with you. Sadly, I see no evidence that anyone is prepared to fight back against these plans for national extinction.
White people are expected to be a minority in England by the 2060s. Richard Tice’s response to this impending disaster is to shrug and say he’ll be dead by then.
Farage is under attack by the Guardian stooges for rude words he may (or may not) have uttered as a child in the 1970s. He too shows no inclination towards demigration, but without that, Britain as we have known it is doomed.
There is surely no precedent in history for a nation to abolish itself, but that seem to be the path we are on.
JohnK
As you know, this is very much an international (a world wide) attack on Westerners – attacking cultural traditions, such as the family, as a way of undermining the very existence of Western peoples.
The President Elect of Chile is good on this – both in his work in movements against this cultural attack (yes the cultural attack has been present as far away as Chile – with undermining fertility and so on) and in his personal example – he has nine children!
The old Jewish (and then Christian) command of be “fruitful and multiple” is something that I have never followed myself – but then I have never in my life had an income that could support a family, and now even an income to support myself is gone.
People such as the President Elect of Chile have my respect – they “walk the walk”, not just “talk the talk”.
Richard Tice’s epitaph ought to be ‘Yes, I let Britain die, but at least I didn’t get called a racist!’
Martin:
That’s pretty much it. Ironically, the left would call him a racist anyway.
Human ideas are powerful. In the 17th and 18th centuries in Britain a set of ideas and circumstances created a society unique in known history. This society then attempted to promote these ideas throughout the whole world. This promotion, which was highly successful, continues by all those people of the world who now believe in these ideas.
If this promotion fails then the most likely result will be a return to a planet of medieval and tribal societies.
If it is correct that these ideas are the way for humanity to progress, then why would most people of the world not be convinced by them?
Assuming defeat is not the way to triumph.
David Roberts, the British establishment no longer believes in ideas of moral liberty and limited government. After all the state here in Britain has been expanding, even as a proportion of society, for around 150 years – since the 1870s.
The establishment do not go around citing Ralph Cudworth or Thomas Reid in philosophy, or even Harold Prichard and Sir William Ross (Prichard and Ross were teaching at Oxford within living memory – they were there when Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were also teaching at Oxford, none of these men would get an academic post at Oxford now) on moral liberty (free will – human agency) – they have, most likely never heard of Cudworth, or Reid, or Prichard or Ross and-so-on.
The philosophers the establishment like are people like Thomas Hobbes – who taught that the government could do anything it liked (that is will, its commands, were the very definition of “law” and “justice”) and that it did not matter as humans were just machines anyway, and David “euthanasia of the constitution” Hume – who argued that the moral agent (the “I”) did not even exist – that we are just streams of sensations with no moral reason (“reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions” – rape, murder and so on, with reason only playing the role of “how do I get away with this” as “you can not get an ought from an is” – so, according to Mr Hume, there is no “this IS morally wrong so I OUGHT not to do it” – and, please remember, to him there is no moral agent “I” either), and Jeremy Bentham – another philosopher who held that the moral person (the human BEING) does-not-exist, and that the state (via 13 Departments of State) could do anything it decided was for the “greatest good of the greatest number” (something with which Lenin and co would agree with).
And in law how much time to you think the modern establishment (including the British part of it) care about the legal principles of Sir Edward Coke or Sir John Holt – that the fundamental principles of “hands off” (non aggression principle) JUSTICE are above both King AND Parliament? Not-at-all – the establishment have nothing but contempt for the traditional principles of private property rights based justice – as they show every day.
As for the incomers and their children and children’s children – we do not need to speculate, we can observe. We can observe what has happened to Rhodesia over the last 45 years, or South Africa over the last 31 years – why should the nations of Western Europe have a different experience? The decline of once great American cities should also be observed – for example, would anyone name their aircraft the “Spirit of St Louis” now? Just look at what American cities used to be – and compare it to what they are now.
As for Islam – its followers are not interested in the ideas of the 17th and 18th centuries – they are interested (passionately interested) in the ideas of Mohammed – who created this religion, which is also a philosophy of law and government, and general life.
On Rhodesia – it should be remembered that the Rhodesia of the 1950s had no “Jim Crow” laws, its Liberal Party, of which Ian Smith was a member – was a real liberal party, i.e. it supported limited government. And Ian Smith first made his name, before becoming Prime Minister, for his stand AGAINST racial laws – for his stand that voting should remain strictly on a property standard basis, and that any black person who met that standard should continue to have the vote – and not on some different electoral roll.
The people who called Ian Smith a “Nazi” had never fought the Nazis, as he had, had never been burned in an crashed aircraft, as he had been, and had never carried on fighting (with Italian resistance fighters) in spite of his injuries – as he had done.
As for giving the vote to vast numbers of people (of any race) who live on communal (tribal) lands, and depend on government handouts, what that would lead to was obvious – what has happened in Rhodesia over the last 45 years could have been predicted by anyone with a functioning brain.
Paul, ideas are born of people, but once born, take on a life of their own. These British ideas have always been opposed both by instinctive human behaviour and other ideas, such as Marxism and the Philosopher King idea. The Russian state, the major proponent of these two ideas over at least the last century, is currently being emasculated. Is that not good news?
“Give South Africa to its native people” – the Hottentots and the Bushmen? I use the old words for these peoples – I mean no office by this.
The Bantu speaking peoples (who now dominate South Africa) came to most of what is now South Africa AFTER the Europeans first arrived (some four hundred years ago). The Bantu have been expanding in Africa for centuries – and they have behaved with effective ruthlessness to people they find already living in lands they expand into. They are strong and determined (and have many children – they understand the role of men and the role of women, in the struggle for survival and expansion – they are logical, sensible, in this) – they have not changed, because their methods are successful – so they have no logical reason to change.
Crossing the sea and landing in, say, Italy – is just another expansion. Why should they change attitudes that have served them well for many centuries? Logical reasoning would lead them to continue with conduct that has been so successful in the past – and is continuing to be successful in the present.
Why should they change? Why? What logical reason do they have to change their attitudes and conduct?
Why should intelligent people change behaviour that has served them well in the past, and continues to serve them well in the present?
Showing weakness, handing out benefits and public services, INVITES attack. As do judges who refuse to allow, for example, the Italian government to remove newcomers.
Although YES individuals may use their moral (moral) reason, to decide to sacrifice their lives to defend the weak – defend the weak (weak willed) against their own people.
But it would be unwise to depend on the moral sacrifice of such individuals – “no my brothers – do not rape and plunder, I will even lay down my life to try and stop you” – such individuals (heroes – people willing to lay down their own lives to defend others) DO exist (in ALL ethnic group), but it is unwise to rely on there being many of them.
You arrive in a new place and then you lay down your life to defend the people there against your own people? Yes such individuals DO exist – but how many of them are there likely to be?
People who live wealthy and comfortable lives may believe that none of the above applies to them – but if your group becomes a minority in an area, you may find it DOES apply to you – what is now yours may well be taken from you. Perhaps including your life.
David Roberts.
I have already explained that old British ideas are no longer followed in Britain – for example, the establishment do NOT believe in Freedom of Speech or the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (in both Classical Greek and Republican Roman law – a free citizen was someone with the right to keep and bear arms – this was also true in Germanic, Common, Law).
“The Russian state is currently being emasculated” – that is a bit hard to follow (although that may be MY fault – my brain is not what it was).
It is certainly true that the government in Moscow is less oppressive (vastly less oppressive) than it was under Marxism – under the Soviet Union (the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” was meant to be a world state – they murdered Russian nationalists) – but Mr Putin is much more oppressive than Nicholas the Second was.
There is far less of the Rule of Law in Russia now than there was in 1914 – but then that is true of everywhere.
The American government, and every other government, is vastly worse now than it was in 1914.
But what do you mean by “emasculated” – I should not just comment when I do not understand, I should allow you to explain what you mean.
After all you may be quite correct – I may have overlooked something of very great importance.
Old brain – and I am tired.
“. . . vastly worse”?
What, do you think you were born in the morning of the world?
And what prompted you to shoehorn America into your post?
IrishOtere49.
If you really do not know that governments, including the American government, have vastly expanded – in both size (their proportion of the economy) and their scope (their regulations), than you should know. It is true that Woodrow Wilson wanted a vast (indeed totalitarian) government – as can be seen by the book “Philip Dru: Administrator” by his friend (indeed “Other Self”) E.M. House – but such as government did NOT exist in 1914 in the United States (in 1914 it was just a dream in his corrupted “Progressive” mind).
And this most certainly includes Russia.
People waiting for Mr Putin to (for example) restore gold money and trial by jury (both of which once existed in Russia), wait in vain – he is not going to do these things.
As for the personality question – read a good biography of Nicholas II and a good biography of Mr Putin – they were very different men.
Mr Putin has his opponents murdered – all over the world.
For people who really do not know…..
Before 1914 the American government, Federal, State and local, was about a tenth of the entire economy – it is vastly bigger now.
And the index of Federal Regulations was a tiny fraction of the size it is now.
President Eisenhower was the last President to even remember America before such things as the Income Tax and the Federal Reserve system (both of which were passed in 1913).
Although even when Eisenhower was President such things as Food Stamps (a copy of the system that the gang leader Clodius used to corrupt the Roman Republic) did not exist – they were introduced (and only for a few people – not the many millions of people who get them now) in 1961.
This is not to say that America in 1914 was perfect – it was far from it.
For example, the Democrat politician, and gangster, Mr Sullivan had already passed “Gun Control” (the infamous Sullivan Act of 1911) in New York State – with the intention of disarming honest people so they could not oppose his armed thugs.
Mr Sullivan later died of syphilis – contracted from one of his own whores.