Loyalty # 2

@ KO

It is a matter of separating the important or essential from the trivial.  I would not compare "spatial concepts" and "work practices" with 'loyalty to the nation's democratic political system'.   Would you be willing to sacrifice for the survival of undemocratic/intolerant behavior patterns?  Culture can cover many aspects, and many sub-cultures can overlap in varying degrees within a nation.  But, broad adherence to a common 'civic culture' is an essential pre-requisite for a nation to survive, and disloyalty is a direct threat.  Hence, I strongly agree with your second paragraph, and I mean that it should be implemented in a variety of ways.  Obviously, at a minimum, this would require the electoral defeat of perverse cultural self-haters, such as much of the Obama-Administration (to name but one).


@ KO

I don't think that loyal and disloyal people are "sharing a culture".   The nature of the political system of a nation is a pretty basic component of its (current) culture, and certainly much more fundamental than, say, its food habits.   

Disloyalty to the nation is not an indication of "sharing its culture", but rather of REJECTING its culture.  

We agree of course that widespread disloyalty to a nation will put that nation on "the downward slope".  But, again, loyalty is a function of culture-sharing, not of race.   


@ marcfrans: Thank you for your reply. Your usage of "culture" is awfully broad, if it includes psychological phenomena like the nature and intensity of people's identification with the nation and with each other as members of the nation, and a readiness to preserve and defend the nation. Certainly those can be cultivated, but people can share many, many aspects of culture without sharing those--kinship, time, spatial concepts, food, dress, education, work practices, etc. Thus, technically, the psychology of nationhood can be included as a subset of culture, but I think separating loyalty from other aspects of shared culture puts a different focus on what a nation needs to flourish or even survive.

New members of a nation need to "marry into" the family and be like-minded with it. If they are likely to have conflicting loyalties, they should not be brought in. Old members need to "renew their vows."

Good old Communist front material

@ Atlanticist: I guess the idea is wherever you go, you are free to stake your claim to the nationality of your choice. That is wrong, making the life of nations subject to the whims of foreigners.

I will propose a modification to your and marcfrans' principle that culture (as opposed to race) is the sine qua non of nationality. Even if people share a culture, if they are not loyal, the nation is on the downward slope. Loyalty, however, can be inspired by learning, events, and leadership, so even where it appears absent, all is not lost.

Race is still relevant as raising a presumption of group affinity and group loyalty, depending on the circumstances.


Mulch and mire, our elites conspire...


My old pal, Mulch Diggums, best summed it up the other night when he asked me why the Mud Peoples of Europe are so surprised when they discover that their erstwhile heroes, Mud People themselves, turn out to have feet of clay and end up conspiring in the theft of their fellow Mud Peoples' national sovereignty. (FYI: Mulch Diggums is a kleptomaniac dwarf so he knows what he's talking about here).

I'll be honest. I really didn't have an answer for him.  

Too funny

Is he related to Muck Raker? Where is he when we need him?

Klaus interview; leaves you wanting more

This interview is interesting, but it does not really explain why Pres. Klaus caved instead of standing firm and waiting to be voted out of office rather than surrender his country to the EU. He speaks of pressure and the benefits to be received from the EU, but doesn't say anything about the decision of the constitutional court and his obligation to obey it.