Independence DayMark Gullick
Nations who went down fighting rose again, but those who surrendered tamely were finished.–Sir Winston Churchill
We may not know to a certainty what the globalists want, but we know what they don’t want: nationalism. The goal of the Davos elites is not just the erasure of nations in a literal sense, to be replaced by global federalism, but the forbidding even of nationalistic feeling among the peasantry they feel us to be.
Nations may remain as a token, of course, and you are permitted to cheer for your national soccer team, just as long as white indigenous players are in the minority. Many observers noted that the French team which won the last soccer World Cup was essentially pan-African in racial origin. In what sense did “France” win that competition? Other than that tokenism, the nation-state is to be despised and rejected by its enemies. Michael O’Meara draws the modern battle lines accurately in an essay from the collection, Toward the White Republic:
Terre et Peuple, Blut und Boden: The notion that every people needs its own land is as old as Europe itself. In the post-modern, transnational, and global order favoured by our one-world elites such a notion, of course, is deemed obsolete, as if the quantitative monetary principles of the world market are a better way of organizing social life than traditional ones based on healthy families, organic communities, and ethnoracial identities.
Much has been made by the sneering Left of the fact that many nations are what has been called “mongrel states.” But while the tired old adage stating that “America is a nation of immigrants” is technically correct, this is a rather slippery argument. While true, it is also true that those original, nation-building immigrants were not Panamanian, Haitian, or Gambian. They were from hardier European stock possessing what we might call “bell-curve privilege.” Now they are victims of their own success as the ruling institutions of the nation they built from nothing have turned on their own history. The Left see no point to a grave unless they can spit on it.
The European Union is a clear expression of deep-rooted hatred of nationalistic opposition to what it believes to be its manifest destiny as an entity free of the troublesome nation-state. This aim is exercised by the promotion of what the late Sir Roger Scruton called oikophobia, an Ancient Greek construction meaning a hatred of one’s home. The whole premise of the EU is the dissolution of sovereign states, which the Gauleiters of Brussels deem responsible for the wars of the twentieth century rather than the more obvious reason, which was a pathetic failure to kick Germany hard when she was down and to keep kicking her until she couldn’t get back up.
On a related subject, perhaps the greatest recent image of German self-hatred was Angela Merkel, who stood on stage with other politicians of her party several years ago at some idiotic photo-shoot (as if we need to see ugly people again and again), and snatched away a small German flag being waved childishly by one of her stuffed-suit sidekicks. Her look of disgust and the shake of her head as she removed it from his hand were those of a Mother Superior inadvertently witnessing one of her nuns urinating in the public square.
Europe aside, the anti-nationalistic toxin is currently most virulent in the US, where children are routinely taught to despise the flag, history, and customs of the nation de Tocqueville saw as the greatest experiment in democracy on Earth. This national auto-erasure is even now crossing the herring-pond to the United Kingdom, where England is the specific target. While the Scots, Welsh, and Irish (although of course only Northern Ireland is a part of the Union) are encouraged to celebrate their nationhood on Burn’s Night, St. David’s Day, and St. Patrick’s Day respectively, any celebration of St. George’s Day in England is frowned on, and the English flag is often literally banned from public display. St. George’s Day also falls on Shakespeare’s birthday (the same date on which the Bard shuffled off this mortal coil), and the censorious treatment of the Swan of Avon in Britain’s schools says much about the educational elites’ opinion of nationalistic fervor. National culture, the imprimatur of the history of a people, must be sanitized by ethnic cleansing. Thus, the English Touring Opera has just fired a dozen or so white singers — some with up to 20 years’ experience — in order to make the cast more diverse.
How pleasant, then, as a citizen of the British Isles, to see my local town swathed in red, white, and blue flags, garlands, and bunting on a day of national celebration, to hear traditional music ringing through the streets, to see young girls in ethnic dress, and to feel an entirely unaggressive and affectionate patriotism in the air. There is only one problem. I am not in Britain. I am in Costa Rica, and it is La Día de la Independencia.
The red, white, and blue of the Costa Rican flag are actually the exact tones of the colours in the French flag, having been designed by the first Costa Rican president’s wife, who insisted on summoning the revolutionary fervour of La République. The actual name of this country is La República de Costa Rica — the heavy coins here confirm this — and so perhaps Signora Madriz had a spousal say in that, too.
The flag also includes an emblem to denote the region of Costa Rica in which the flag is being flown, indicating regional affection as well as love of country. Even on the 364 other days of the year, the flag is flown everywhere and with pride — and I am not referring to the faddish new, “woke” meaning of the word. The Anglophone countries and their embassies are more concerned with the rainbow monstrosity know as the “pride flag” than they are with pride in their nation’s actual flag.
Costa Rica celebrates its independence from Spain, which occurred in 1821, on September 15, and on that Wednesday, just like every other Tico town, my own sleepy Pacific-side hamlet had its celebrations. They may have been muted this year, but there was nothing last year due to uncertainty over COVID, and so it was welcome this time. Costa Ricans need no excuse to express their love for their nation, and the current and state-mandated ethnomasochism in Europe and the Anglophone countries would mystify them. Their patriotism is as natural to them as any other aspect of their lives.
Patriotism, as Dr. Johnson famously quipped, is the last refuge of the scoundrel. He meant not that patriots are scoundrels, however, but that genuine scoundrels will resort to patriotism — or rather its trappings — when it is expedient. You see this type of propagandist semiotics in Great Britain at present, with “Conservative” ministers interviewed on television making sure they have a prominent Union Flag behind them. (The British flag is only referred to as a “Union Jack” when flown at sea). The engraved “crown mark,” indicating imperial measurement rather than European metrical, has been reintroduced for British pint beer glasses. But these are focus-group-incubated sops which can be thrown to a politically unaware public via the standard delivery system known as the media, at very little cost to government. You also hear empty buzzwords from the collective political voice such as “British values” and “what makes Britain great.” This is from a quasi-autistic political class who care little about their country except the affection piglets feel for a sow’s teats. Scoundrels indeed.
Whether nationalistic pride is genetic, cultural, archetypal, linguistic, or a result of the interactive combination of all of these and more, it exists, and its existence is of great concern to the open-borders, globalist, great-reset merchants currently seeking a way to finish the job they have started: that of enslaving anyone outside of their quasi-Freemasonic cabal. Nationalism for the Bilderberg crew is a glue for which they need the solvent. How they would hate Costa Rica’s Independence Day parades.
The town is small, and it is easy to follow the parade. The first celebration I witnessed, in 2016, had thousands of participants and observers, and was policed by six or seven police officers on foot, smiling and happy to be with their kinsmen. Imagine that in London. There would be ranks of riot police warned to watch for the English flag. Again, this would baffle the locals here.
A local style of music has evolved over the generations, my province being originally tribal, as all pre-Columbian areas of the country were. There are ranks of drummers (mostly boys) providing a martial beat incongruous in a country which has had no standing army since 1948, and accompanied by mostly girls playing the lyra, best described as a vertical xylophone held in a lyre-shaped frame. It is a strange combination, with tinkerbell notelets over marching music. But Latin America is full of strange things.
As noted, this year’s celebrations were modest compared with previous years, with their gangs of papier–mâché puppet devils, horses, traditional rural dances, and late-night revelry. But to un extraño like me, the atmosphere is one of people at ease in the cultural trappings of their nation.
Costa Rica does have particular cause to be fervently nationalistic. Just as Sir Cecil Rhodes said that to be born an Englishman is to win first prize in life’s lottery, so too there is a sense that Costa Ricans appreciate their good fortune in not being, say, Nicaraguan or Guatemalan. Those caravans of refugees swarming like (non-)worker ants to the northern Mexican border are unlikely to contain many Ticos or Ticas.
Costa Rica is known colloquially as the “Switzerland of Central America” in reference to its relatively robust economy by regional standards, but bearing in mind that it only has to beat the likes of Mexico and El Salvador, this is not quite the accolade it appears to be. Nevertheless, there are many other Latinos who would like to live here. In Chilean writer Roberto Bolaño’s wonderful novel 2666 (set mostly in Mexico), a day-dreaming police officer is reprimanded by his superior: “Where are you? Off in Costa Rica?”
It is a naïve proposition, but I sense that a main difference between Latin countries and the European and Anglophone nations is that politicians here tend to be closer to the people. This is not to say that they are all ex-fishermen, stevedores, or postmen. (Certainly not the latter. Costa Rica doesn’t have postmen or postwomen, it has post offices; your mail goes there and you pick it up, which looks like a huge economic saving to me). Current Costa Rican President Carlos Alvarado Quesada, unperturbed by the fact that his surname can be translated into English as “cheesy,” won’t have dirtied or toughened his hands too much during his pre-political career as a journalist, writer of historical fiction, and business consultant. (I was delighted, incidentally, to discover that the President gained his MA at Sussex University, my own university, as mentioned in a previous episode.) But there is a sense he understands his country and empathizes with its people in a way wholly absent from the curious political class running (down) my own country. He would have a national flag in his office as a matter of course, not a matter of optics.
Costa Rica’s governmental party has the staunchly Latin American name of the Citizens Liberation Party, and we can be excused a wry smile on learning that its original election platform was to fight corruption which, on this continent, is like Britain’s King Canute famously sitting on a throne on a beach wearily commanding that the tide turn back. That said, corruption here is at the very least out in the open, while in my country you have to delve into the connections between trusted corporate allies of the government and the concomitant advantages they receive to find them, and the underbelly is just as rotten as any Latin financial chicanery.
This is a broad-brush, layman’s assessment of a country I just happen to have ended up in. I am not here because it is Costa Rica. I am here because it is not England, and it pains me to say that. I suppose I am lucky to have lived through peak England, although the rot was already starting in the 1960s. I was just too young to know it. We weren’t taught to love England when I was a boy, but we were allowed to, if we found cause. Those days are gone.
Finally, two points concerning nationalism from the perspective of an Englishman abroad. If anyone attempted to pull down the statue of a national hero here, the locals would beat them up. If the police got involved, they would help — to beat them up. The nationalism here is visceral, but not in the way of some lard-arsed and hideously tattooed English football supporter, drunk and bellowing and causing an affray in some unsuspecting European town. Simply put, it is the unobtrusive expression of a love of country. It needn’t be over-thought. But we will end on a musical note.
Costa Rica’s national anthem is typical of Latin America: a jaunty, militaristic toe-tapper with a minor-key section in the middle to make you remember to feel sad sometimes, because every nation has its cause for tears. There has been, as you would expect, a good deal of tinkering with and excision of various lyrics from national anthems across Europe which reflect any love of country, or even a hint of pro patria mori. But the lyrics of the Himno de la Republica de Costa Rica is moving for those who live in emasculated countries. Some of its words suggest that, for a nation with no army (although the cops are concomitantly tough guys, having no military to join), they might be prepared to defend their borders in a way no European nation would be permitted to:
Noble homeland, your beautiful flag
Expresses for us your life.
Under the limpid blue of your skies,
Peace reigns, white and pure.
In the tenacious battle of fruitful toil,
That brings a glow to men’s faces,
Your sons, simple farm hands,
Gained eternal renown, esteem and honour.
Hail, gentle country!
Hail, loving mother!
If anyone should attempt to besmirch your glory,
You will see your people, valiant and virile,
Exchange their rustic tools for weapons.
Hail, O homeland!
Your prodigal soil
Gives us sweet sustenance and shelter.
Under the limpid blue of your sky,
May peaceful labor continue.
I wonder if, in the future, drummer boys and girls will march to celebrate the independence of ordinary people from the scourge of globalism.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
No Brexit This Way
Not Pretending to Be Anything: Charles Bukowski
The Burial of the Blarney Stone: Ireland’s New Hate Speech Legislation
An Actor Prepares: Politics as Theater
The Korean Musical Mystery
The Union Jackal, April 2023
Ce qui est vraiment en jeu en Ukraine
Built on Slavery: The Philosophy of Epictetus
The situation in Great Britain makes me queasy. Having grown up with the BBC, listening to gentle English voices narrating nature documentaries, watching quaint puppet shows for children a la Postman Pat, visions of the charmingly dreary British countryside in Midsomer Murders and Last of the Summer Wine, and the endearing sense of humor in shows like Only Fools and Horses and Monty Python, I once made it my mission to actually move to the Isles as a teenager. This makes it doubly disturbing to see the country I once fancied so much I intended to make it my home be pushed into the hellish dystopian pit that it’s now in – a pit that seems particularly hellish even in comparison to other Western European vassal states. Nowhere in Europe is the noose pulled tighter than in the UK, and it’s a distressing sight. The cultural and racial violence inflicted on us Europeans by the snakes that pretend to govern us must stop.
Read Hitler’s War & Churchill’s War by David Irving; Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War by Patrick J. Buchanan – page 288 reads (paraphrasing) communism existence was the destruction of Western Civilization. Remember General Patton’s words that we defeated the wrong enemy. The situation THE WEST is in now is linked to UK’s decision in going to war against Germany. Germany did not want a war with UK & made numerous attempts in making that fact clear. Italy, Germany, Spain, Poland, & many other European nations hated communism. Had we in THE WEST not started & entered this “Unnecessary War”, communism would have stayed within Stalin’s border & not been able to invaded Eastern Europe because Germany & other European nations would have seen to it.
Karma is a bitch.
Irving’s works, and particularly the two mentioned, cannot be taken seriously as reliable historical analysis. He has been shown to distort his source material to advance his agenda, which is to whitewash Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich.
The Left hold that the indigenous British people must be punished for the sins of Empire. Let’s not imitate that stupid and divisive argument – it won’t get us anywhere.
“The Left hold that the indigenous British people must be punished for the sins of Empire. Let’s not imitate that stupid and divisive argument – it won’t get us anywhere.”
In general, “we’ve got it coming” is a bad response to policies that anti-Whites use to harm us. “Karma is a bitch” doesn’t help us. More White guilt won’t help us stop White genocide.
Regarding war guilt, the anti-White propaganda according to which the ancestors of every White nation were guilty oppressors every time they won a battle or a war should have no appeal for us. It invites sick guilt in the descendants of the winners. It invites vengeful malice and wallowing in self-pity in the descendants of the losers. Neither helps us advance the common interests of the White race.
We should be tired of hearing that the Arabs were victims of our wicked crusades and that the native Americans were sweet natural saints abused by the White man. Those narratives, and others like them, are not based on truth, and going along with them betrays our ancestors.
We should also be non-receptive to the national-socialist war guilt narrative, according to which Hitler was a holy and peace-loving steward of the shared interests of the White race, his armed forces were Bambi-like deer killed by the villain Man, and the non-German descendants of the deer-hunting dogs should meet their misfortunes with the recognition that we have it coming. That’s not how it was. It’s not helpful to pretend that it was like that.
We blundered in the darkness of our ignorance, and hurt each other. Sometimes ancestors that we were particularly close to in blood won; at other times we took a beating. Sometimes, such as at Lepanto in 1571, we succeeded in working together for our common good. At other times we failed.
Now we have to move on.
This is a completely bogus argument. Irving has not “been shown to distort his source material to advance his agenda.” I read Richard Evans’ brief against Irving. If I call correctly, he found two outright errors of fact. The rest of his critique consisted of passing off differences of interpretation as errors of fact. I don’t think any mainstream historian could come of better than Irving when subjected to the same level of axe-grinding scrutiny.
When the issue is Irving’s rehabilitation of Adolf Hitler, Evans is correct to insist upon the highest standards of scholarship.
Arguing that Irving’s scholarship is bad because of his intentions is a classic ad hominem.
-David Irving went to live in Germany some 12 years after the end of WWII. He became fluent in German, discovered what occurred in Dresden, thus, researched & published The Destruction Of Dresden. David Irving researched his sources from the archives & from meetings & interviewing people who were in the war. He is banned from speaking in some countries (what are we not supposed to know?). Should Patrick J. Buchanan’s work also “cannot be taken seriously as reliable historical analysis”?
-“He [Irving] has been shown to distort his source material to advance his agenda, which is to whitewash Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich.” Your proof? Btw, David Irving’s bet is still unclaimed.
-Chamberlain & Churchill’s reason(s) for this “Unnecessary War” (where upwards of 55 million European Peoples perished) had nothing to do with the British Empire as it was not threaten, indeed, Germany is on record in offering assistance should UK require it. This “Unnecessary War” resulted in Britain losing her Empire, &, for what? Germany had a legitimate right in reclaiming the Danzig & Britain supported that right.
-To understand the hole we find ourselves in is to understand the beginning of the digging.
-Speaking about digging, has anyone noticed we have 25+ million illegals, over one million illegals entered our homeland so far this year, 200,000+ illegals entered in July alone? We are en route to losing our homeland & it appears we are going to let it happen.
Chalk that up as another unnecessary hole that we are allowing to happen.
It’s off topic to debate the merits of David Irving, but:
I don’t dispute his mastery of the German language and his diligence in uncovering WWII source material
I believe his earlier work on Nazi V-Weapons and their nuclear research is both interesting and still well-regarded.
I do not agree with the vendetta and embargoes enacted against him.
But he has been proven wrong on several occasions (e.g. the ‘Hitler Diaries’, as he would admit).
A assessment of Hitler’s War and Churchill’s War, with examples, can be found in this this YT video.
Finally: I recognise that some in our movement idolise Hitler, but have they stopped to think that his regime’s barbarity towards Poles and Russians was just as monstrous as anything meted out to the Jews?
I agree with you: “Karma is a bitch” that bites, even if a long time has passed between the deed and the return of the favor. There was neither a compelling reason for the First World War to take place – and that it actually took place and was not averted can be attributed to the Entente politics -; there was no compelling reason to force Europe after the end of the First World War into the idiot-conceived settlement that was practically a single huge crisis; nor was there any reason to instigate the Second World War over attempts to remove the most crisis-ridden hot spots remaining from the “Treaty of Versailles”. Instead of doing that, another World War was preferred and the horrible, nearly hopeless position we find ourselves in now is the direct result from all the unbelievably stupid decision that were made by the people aiming for war. In the first place, this would be Churchill and the cabal surrounding and supporting him. What would have happened had no war started on September 1, 1939, or if England or France had not declared war on Germany, we don’t know. Perhaps another war would have taken place later, perhaps a European Block would have formed. What is certain is that turning Europe, the home continent of White People, into the invasion area of extra-European powers would not have occurred, nor would it have become a dependency of these extra-European powers within a few years of going to war in yet another attempt of a restauration of a pre-1870 situation.
Ref. “…that his regime’s barbarity towards Poles …”, this exposes your lack of knowledge on accurate historical events. It was Poland who continued to rebuff many reasonable offers Germany put forth. The Danzig issue was between Poland & Germany; German’s claim was legitimate & even UK supported it. Then came the UK’s “war guarantee to Poland”, which was viewed by many in Britain as “reckless”, “turned British policy upside down”, “the maddest single action this country has ever taken”, “[n]owhere in British diplomatic history is it possible to discover a more feckless and fateful act”, “a frightful gamble”, “[i]f the British army general staff approved this, said Lloyd George, they ought to be confined to a lunatic asylum”, “foolish”, there are many more. As for the French, “they thought the British pledge madness”. As for the Italians, the British guarantee to Poland, writes Luigi Villari, was “the most disastrous single diplomatic move”.
There are lots more, too many to post. Again, many others echoed the same sentiments.
Again, it was the Allies lead by Britain that caused & are responsible for the “Unnecessary” World War II, not Germany.
Danzig was a headscratcher. No mistake.
Lovely writing minus the notion that England should’ve kicked Germany when it was down and kept kicking to prevent World War II. All England (and France and America) had to do to stay out of the Second World War was not participate. Our failure to mind our own business and our genocidal kicking of Germany in World War II is directly responsible for the rape of Europe and the collapse of the West.
One other quibble — The notion that America is just a nation of immigrants isn’t technically correct. Of course many immigrants have come here since America’s founding, but the founding itself was done by White colonists-settlers-pioneers, not immigrants, and this distinction is material, as it undermines the case for some nominal, globalist-friendly civic nationalism as opposed to a patriotism based on blood and soil.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment