People are usually encouraged to feel pride in their country and its history. You cheer on your nation’s football team because you were born and live in that country. The same applies to your local football team.
Personally I find it hard to feel loyalty to a team that is unrecognisable from one year to the next. Despite this I still want my city’s team to win. Maybe it’s just the kit, or habit. Loyalty to a team of mercenaries is perhaps not quite as weird as the random in-group loyalty I felt once as a child when I was at a holiday camp. On arrival we were separated into two groups, Embassy Gold and Embassy Regal. I was in Embassy Gold and from day One I avoided anyone from Embassy Regal. Strange.
However, there is a kind of loyalty which strikes me as being more rational, that of loyalty to your nation. By nation I really mean the people, as in ‘the Cherokee Nation’. Some progressives ask, ‘Why are you against mass immigration? Do you hate immigrants?’ No, I don’t hate them but I do fear them when I see videos like this and this and this where the teachers and native Germans and Dutch are seen as punch bags. We soft westerners can’t compete with such levels of brutality. We are not good at it because it’s been largely bred out of us. We have domesticated ourselves just as we domesticated our dogs, cattle and sheep yet now our leaders have now chosen to ‘enrich’ our countries with packs of wolves. Somehow we are expected to be both obedient lapdogs and hold our own against these packs of wolves.
All I want is for Europe to stay European. I want Britain to be made up mainly of native British people, just as Nigerians want Nigeria full of Nigerians and Tibetans want their country to be full of Tibetans. I find this attitude less strange than wanting your country to be flooded with people from other cultures, races and ethnic groups. I also want pro-immigrationists to stop talking about the much-disputed economic benefits (which I don’t believe in) while ignoring the massive social costs.
Of course, it is clear why you wouldn’t want your country to be overrun by Gypsies, Muslims or blacks because these people often don’t integrate well, have higher crimes rates and are more dependent on welfare. Yet people find it much harder to understand what anyone would have against large numbers of, say, Hindus and Chinese entering their society. The answer is that though these people generally make much better immigrants than Gypsies, Muslims and blacks, they also change your country into something it wasn’t.
For example, my city looks nothing like it did when I was born. In those days the entire South Asian population of Leicester numbered a couple of hundred and native whites constituted about 97% of the city’s population. Native whites now make up about 45% of the population. That’s a big change. Yet saying so often elicits the response, “So what?”, the suggestion being that it doesn’t matter what people make up your city’s population, as long as it is someone. Even so, such things do matter to me.
Still, I know that some people can’t see anything to complain about here. Whether it will start to matter to them when the native population falls to 30%, 20%, or 5% of the population is hard to tell. All I can say for sure is that populations are usually displaced by force and that the natives generally put up some kind of resistance. In our case the native European populations seem strangely insouciant about the whole thing and even appear to be colluding in their own demise. Odd.
Progressives consider the loyalty of whites to their own ethnic groups as ‘white supremacy’ whereas black loyalty is called ‘racial solidarity’. These progressives have nothing against America’s blacks and Hispanics voting en bloc along ethnic lines, voting for anyone who promises to further their particular racial or ethnic interests and to hell with the good of America. You could say, ‘Well everyone does this that‘, but that wouldn’t be true. White progressives don’t. If they did Ukip would win the English elections and white Americans would stop supporting Affirmative Action and hiring by racial quotas, both of which disadvantage whites. Neither would thy have voted as their president (twice!) a black Community Organiser, still inexperienced in politics and who appears to believe that whites are keeping blacks down. That black people would vote for such a person is understandable but that white people do too? Again, odd.
So, when is pride in your people good and when is it bad? Does, say, a white Frenchman feel the same sense of pride when eleven Algerians and sub-Saharan Africans win the World Cup for France as a native German, whose winning team players look like him? What exactly is a supporter supposed to be cheering for here? The fact eleven random men happen to have washed up on the same piece of land as him or that the a team shares the same history, culture and genes as the supporter? It seems to me that the latter inspires ‘group feeling’ among humans while the latter does, or at least not much.