top of page

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel

James Boswell, the biographer of his friend and older contemporary, Samuel Johnson tells us that Johnson made this famous pronouncement that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel on the evening of April 7, 1775. Boswell does not provide any context for how the remark arose, so we do not know for sure what was on Johnson's mind at the time.

However, Boswell assures us that Johnson was not indicting patriotism in general, only false patriotism.

According to the introductory paragraph from Wikipedia “Patriotism or national pride is the feeling of love, devotion, and sense of attachment to a homeland and alliance with other citizens who share the same sentiment. This attachment can be a combination of many different feelings relating to one's own homeland, including ethnic, cultural, political, or historical aspects. It encompasses a set of concepts closely related to nationalism.”

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language describes a scoundrel as “a villain; a rogue; a base, mean, worthless fellow; a rascal; a man without honor or virtue". Synonyms of scoundrel include; knave, rogue, cheat, swindler. The word itself seems to have first appeared in the 16th century.

Samuel Johnson, in conversation, is reported to have said on the subject when discussing an eminent person of the period “that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak for self-interest.”

Further, Johnson is reported to have added “I do not say that he is not honest; but we have no reason to conclude from his political conduct that he is honest.”

Fast forward 250 years and Johnson could well be speaking about Benjamin Netanyahu and a numerous number of his poodles. I’d also include Larry, Curly, and Moe, as well as many other of the 120 parasites that sprout platitudes but are only interested in No.1.

The above paragraphs, I link to the following text:

Yuval Noah Harari writes in his book, Homo Deus, Chapter 7, The Humanist Revolution, sub-section Look Inside, page 266: “Yet how does the voter know what to choose? Theoretically at least, the voter is supposed to consult his or her innermost feelings, and follow their lead. It is not always easy. In order to get in touch with my feelings, I need to filter out the empty propaganda slogans, the endless lies of ruthless politicians, the distracting noise created by cunning spin doctors, and the learned opinions of hired pundits. I need to ignore all this racket, and attend only to my authentic inner voice. And then my authentic inner voice whispers in my ear ‘Vote Cameron’ or ‘Vote Modi’ or ‘Vote Clinton’ or whomever, and I put a cross against that name on the ballot paper – and that’s how we know who should rule the country.”

For me, there is a correlation between Johnson’s utterances of more than 250 years ago and the thoughts of Harari regarding how we vote today in a supposed democracy.

Our vote is the MOST powerful weapon we have, and we need to always use it wisely, regretfully we do not always do so.

Giordano Bruno Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician, poet, cosmological theorist, and Hermetic occultist. He is known for his cosmological theories, which conceptually extended the then-novel Copernican model. He proposed that the stars were distant suns surrounded by their own planets, and he raised the possibility that these planets might foster life of their own, a philosophical position known as cosmic pluralism. He also insisted that the universe is infinite and could have no "center".

Giordano Bruno was executed by the Catholic Church in 1600 for heresy.

His writing, which combines both religious and secular thinking, was too much for the Catholic Church of the period, and may still be today. Just as I expect, many rabbis will today view his thoughts as going against religious teaching and beliefs.

PM’s wife says she’s been battered, experienced ‘sexual violence’ from protests. Sara Netanyahu says she fears for her life and urges all to condemn threats; women's’ group head accuses her of cheapening actual domestic violence

The last part of this paragraph is telling, Sara Netanyahu says “The security is not so tight. Don’t forget that I’m not home all the time. I’m not protected like the prime minister, who has more security. I’m not protected like Defense Minister Gantz. A few weeks ago, at one of the violent rallies, they really tried to fire torches at our home and broke the legs of a police investigator.”

The Lady must be delusional if she thinks that the house belongs to her.

Balfour Street is not her home, it’s the official residence of the Israeli prime minister. The property, surprise, surprise, belongs to the State of Israel. You live there, temporarily, until such times as moving day arrives and you have to scamper back to Caesarea.

The next paragraph of the article goes on to explain “During a riot that took place outside Netanyahu’s official residence on July 14, two men (19 and 29) beat an officer, who required subsequent treatment for a serious leg injury, police said. They were later arrested. It was unclear what incidents of torches being shot at the residence she was referring to.”

The Lady needs to understand that her husband is a public servant. He is paid by the citizens of Israel to serve to citizens of Israel, to carry out their will, not the other way around. No doubt this does not sit well with The Lady, the idea that her husband is a public servant. But such is the life of a politician. And by default, The Lady is a public figure with all the status and privilege that accompanies a public persona. Of course, the downside of being a public figure is that you are fair game to be ridiculed for your outbursts, rants, raves, and general discourse. You can’t have it both ways.

Want proof of this, see below:

Sara Netanyahu: They trample me like a cockroach. Transcripts of the investigation of the PM's wife publicized. 'Everything they say about me is a lie,' Sara Netanyahu says.

Some years ago, The Lady gave an interview, which search as I might, I can’t find. The gist of the interview as I recall was her rhetorical question as to why the Prime Minister “has to work so hard for the people of Israel when he is not appreciated” and “the people of Israel do not deserve him”.

The sooner we wave goodbye to Bibi, his wife, and the Boy Wonder, the better for Israel.

The Netanyahu family has outstayed its welcome.

Bình luận

bottom of page