Greater Love Hath No Man

The relationship of nationalism with the emotional and mental states of love and hate are complicated but also immensely misunderstood by those within the movement as well as more obviously, without the movement.

While many nationalist detractors of Christianity posit that it is a weak and submissive faith they see what they want to see much like a person may think they recognise an identifiable face in a leaf or the protruding rocks of a cliff. It appears that many of the greatest opponents of Christianity, nationalist or otherwise also seem to be the same people who know very little about that which they disparage. Reliance on a five minute YouTube video that 'debunks' Christianity tends to the usual source for their criticism. Such criticism arises from incomplete knowledge of the subject or deference to an interpretation that has undermined the faith itself. Disgracefully, much of this misunderstanding derives from religious teachers themselves. 

While Christianity is admittedly universal, that the truth contained in the scriptures is equally applicable to a Bedouin in the desert of Libya as to a stock broker in New York city this doesn't mean that Christianity is globalist. To confuse universal applicability with globalist indoctrination is like equating a numerical sentence, 4+4=8, with the demand, by diktat, that  " Chocolate ice cream is the best flavour in the world". No matter where you go, the equation cited is true, equally no matter where you go, the  dictatorial demand may not, even if coerced. To conflate universalism with globalism is to confuse objective truth like '4+4=8'  with indoctrinated subjective experience, " you must recognise chocolate to be the best ice cream flavour".

As an Irish Catholic I will make the case pertaining to Catholicism. Catholicism has always taught that there is a form of imperfect temporal happiness for individuals and a temporal common good for all distinct political communities. Grace perfects nature and it is the nature of human beings to live in communities. Drawing on Aristotelian philosophy, theologians have argued that there is a type of community that is complete, that it provides all that is necessary for the natural flourishing of human beings. While a universal common good subsists, there too is recognised a notion of "subsidiarity". This notion protects the agency or free will of people to associate, which by corollary connotes, disassociation. This autonomy to form groups aids the flourishing of the greater universal common good. These distinct communities are a manifestation of God's establishment of free will. 

The nationalism espoused by some is to usurp Christ's sovereignty with a secular humanist one whereas many Christian nationalists relate their nation's founding on the biblical exhortation  "Go forth, and make disciples of all nations." (Matthew 28:19). When Christ uttered these words He recognised and legitimised the existence of the nation. One could also argue that God willed diversity but in its truest sense by creating an abundance of diverse peoples and cultures. God, admittedly, also permits ( versus wills) evil so that through our suffering we can learn more about ourselves. It is during great national crises that unity of spirit and endeavour can be brought forth within a nation. We can be both our best and our worse in chaos and much like the measure of a father is tested when there his family is threatened, so too are nationals when the nation is subjected to peril. The telos or end purpose is to present calamity so that strength emerges in defiance of it.

Pope Saint John Paul II's  understanding of the nation is an interesting one to analyse. The Polish word for nation, naród, comes from the word ród, which means “generation,” and thus mirrors the Latinate “nation,” which comes from natus,or  “born.” John Paul relates this to the notion of patria; or fatherhood that is the root of the Latin word also mirrored in the Polish.

The concepts of land, birth, parentage and inheritance are all closely interwoven. Just as one is born to a particular father and mother, who in turn educate the next generation what they themselves have learnt through education and upbringing, so too is the connection by birth  particular land. This birth and lineal connection to ancestors communicates a similar history both through one’s parents, but also through one’s relationships with one’s fellow citizens, who are also formed by a particular place. 

Birth and upbringing are natural processes, but in the cases of both parents and country, they are invested with aspects of time and even landscape. At the same time these things are reflective of a transcendent patria, the homeland of all human beings in God’s kingdom beyond time and space. 

If Nationhood is grounded in faith then how do we preserve it? " You Christians oppose violence, ' turn the other cheek!' Christianity is weak, that is why we are in the mess we are in right now". In some respects this accusation is true, but mainly false. It is true in so far as there are nefarious or ignorant actors who will distort Christianity for their own ends, this includes members of the clergy. You might hear clergymen say during a homily " we must welcome the stranger and therefore we should embrace immigration". This is false teaching and misleads the congregation. There is nothing wrong with welcoming a stranger, we do it all the time with holiday makers and family visits but there is a huge difference between welcoming in a stranger for a brief period, a stranger who respects your home and one that tries to deceive you and demands he stays and that you alter your life according to his beliefs. 

The Doctors of the Church and the Magisterium have made it clear that self-defence is not only a right, but in some cases, a duty. The Catechism of the Catholic Church goes on to explain that the fundamental principle of morality is love and preservation of one’s self ( canon 2264). "What about all this "love thy neighbour nonsense?" comes the retort. Well, loving one’s neighbour means nothing if you don’t first love yourself in a rightly ordered way. After all, Jesus said, “Love your neighbour as yourself.” The instinct of self-preservation is based on the fact that life is a good given to us by God. We have an intrinsic and fundamental right to live. Therefore, we also have a right to defend ourselves. Moreover, the 'love' we see mentioned countless times is misunderstood by most due to the confines of the English language. The 'love' mentioned in the scripture when relating to others is properly translated from the Greek word, "agape", or will the best for. A mother for example demonstrates agape when she allows her toddler to fall and scrape his knee in order that the child can learn to walk. She wills the best for her child even if her omission to protect her child might be seen as 'unloving' in the conventional sense. Unfortunately, 'love' in today's distorted world means to submit to someone's desire, not to do what is in their best interests.

But what about defending others? Do we have a right to do that, too? Absolutely. In fact, defending the innocent is not only a right, it is a duty. It is why any true Christian will defend the most vulnerable; the unborn, the elderly, and the homeless etc.We have the ability to lay down our own life for a greater good (as Jesus and the martyrs of the Church did), but we never have the right to lay down the lives of others and as the unborn as human beings ( scientifically inconvertible) then we have no right to kill them so that another may prosper.. I can surrender my own life for a greater good; My faith and nation ( as nation is a divine gift) but I can never surrender your life for me ( self defence asides), for you ( assisted suicide) or anyone else (tyranny) ( canon 2265).

" Hang on a minute, nice evasion,  what about your scriptures, don't they tell you to turn the other cheek? you fudged on that?".  Christ was very clear in Luke (22:36-38) when he tells the apostles to “take up a sword” for self-defence. While it is true that Jesus tells St. Peter in the gardens of Gethsemane to put away his sword  (verses 50-51), this was only after St Peter had lashed out offensively and contra the will of Christ. Jesus had already told the apostles that it was God’s will that He suffer and die (see Luke 9:44; 18:32, etc.). St Peter was acting contrary to Jesus’ revealed will. Christ's actions in Gethsemane  does not negate the fact that it was Jesus Himself that told St Peter and the apostles to take up a sword in the first place . This implies the liceity of  self-defence.

The Catholic Church developed a 'just war' theory during the early years of its establishment. St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) was the first Christian writer to describe the four conditions that must be met in order for a war to be just, but the roots of just-war theory go back even to non-Christian Romans, particularly the Roman orator, Cicero.

To be more precise, the Church distinguishes between two types of justice concerning war: jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum or justice towards war, refers to four conditions described by Saint Augustine to determine whether waging war is just prior to engagement. The conditions are as follows;

1. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. There must be serious prospects of success;
4. The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

Jus in bello (justice during the war) refers to how the war is conducted once it was begun. It is possible for a country to fight a war that meets the jus ad bellum conditions for being just, and yet to fight that war unjustly—by, for example, targeting innocent people in the enemy’s country or by dropping bombs indiscriminately, resulting in the deaths of civilians (commonly known by the euphemism collateral damage). 

While nationalists are condemned in the biased media for supporting "hate", the accusation is, as is often the case with the main stream media, misleading. The far leftist-Saul Alinsky tactic  ( Rules for radicals) of 'using their own rules against them' is employed quite often by the corrupt media when it attempts to silence dissent to their agenda. "Isn't hate a sin?" they would claim. Catholic writer James V Schall might respond with this,

"Hatred is the emotional response to our recognition that some specific thing is wrong in the world. Tell me what you hate and I will tell you what you are. And if you tell me that you do not hate anything because nothing is wrong in the world, I have an even clearer picture of what you are- that is, hopelessly naïve."

It is not the mere presence of 'hatred' that is wrong but why it is present and how it is manifested. Hatred as Schall notes is a notification that something may be wrong. Anger is a response to unresolved hatred but all anger is not morally illicit. It is permissible and even laudable when accompanied by a reasonable desire to inflict justifiable punishment. Christ himself was filled with righteous anger against the vendors who had desecrated the house of God. Such anger is allowable only if it tends to punish those who deserve punishment, according to the measure of their guilt, and with the sincere intention to redress what harm may have been done or to correct the wrongdoer.

Nationalists do hate. We hate the fact that 1000 innocent babies are slaughtered every month, that they are denied their right to humanity let alone life, we hate the fact that lies and distortions were conveyed as "truth" to ensure these barbaric acts would be legalised. We hate the fact that many citizens of our country are apathetic or complicit in the destruction of their own culture and heritage. We hate the fact that those destroyer have only temporary custody of, not out rightly own that which they destroy. We hate the fact that foreigners are allowed dictate to us what it means to be Irish. We hate the fact that our tradtions, earned through trial and tribulation of our ancesters, have been mocked and disposed of by traitors. We hate the fact that our enemies are liars and deceive the gullible into accepting their own suicide. We hate the fact that our children are being sexualised by zealot degenerates. We hate the fact that persons elected to govern our land, so called in the best interests of our nation, do so for their greedy interests only. We hate the fact that NGOS are hypocrites and demand human rights while denying not only human rights but human status to the most vulnerable humans of all, the unborn. We hate the fact that NGOs seek to undermine our nation from within but resourced from without by globalist philanthropists. We hate the fact that many charities are comprised of persons who manipulate mass migration into our country but will ensure those same manipulators wont suffer the consequences of such invasion. We hate the cowardice of the clergy when we need them most. We hate real injustice to our people. These things we admittedly hate and will harness our righteous anger to repel. We don't hate someone because they are simply a different race, ethnicity, sexual preference, religion, gender or nationality. We hate when our race, our ethnicity, our morals, our people, our nation is subverted by others, within or without. We disapprove of Ghana being colonised by China, or India by the English as we do Ireland being colonised by Nigeria or Pakistan.

Christian nationalism is anything but weak. Pope Urban II initiated the crusades in 1095, not as an offensive war to gain territory but to defend Christians from Muslim aggression. The men of 1916 fought in the GPO, Boland's Mill and the Jacobs Factory motivated not just by thoughts of political independence but also stimulated by their Catholic faith to fight a just cause for freedom.

While the enemies of our nation continue with their calumnies, nationalists of all stripes and sizes, must acquaint themselves with knowledge to dispel the myths they have readily learnt and often via the same sources they despise- the mass media. Deception is a great weapon that has been used to subvert and cause submission but usually conducted externally, we must be careful, therefore, as a movement not to entertain deception conducted internally. Christianity is not a chain of daisies and a hippy's guitar, it is a vocation that summoned great courageous men of Christian faith to the battlefields of Tours ( 732 A.D) Dorylaeum ( 1097 A.D), Lepanto (1571 A.D) and Vienna (1683). 

I rarely agree with author Aldous Huxley but he may have been right on this occasion when he declared that "an unexciting truth may be eclipsed by a thrilling lie". The internet is awash with fanciful stretches of logic, not to mind the blatant truth. Many nationalists fall for these lies because they are misinformed of the truth. Ye,t these distortions often originate in the minds communists and progressives who can rely on some nationalists to spread the lies on their behalf. Nationalist hatred of evil is not blind, it is very focused and although unremitting it is not arbitrary, even if that is the lie being spread by the main stream media. To love or 'will the best for' your team, is not to desire 'ill will' for your opponent, however to beat your enemy one must 'will the best 'for them by resisting their best for themselves.

Put the pagan idols aside,

and humanist texts out the door,

and ride  forth on to victory, 

and so put Satan to the sword.

By Padraig P