Gad sir, thank you for your service ...

Gad sir, the pond needed this, needed it badly ... 

Your country needs YOU! A case for hard patriotism, We still live in a sheltered land, at least in our national imagination, but distance no longer affords us protection – we must be prepared to stand up for ourselves.

Hard patriotism cannot be solely expected of our armed forces. From left, Sgt James Mathews, Trooper James Sauter and Corporal Christopher Brennan with the Land 400 CRV Boxer. Picture: Mark Stewart

Gad sir, talk about inspirational ...

Most Australians would say they are patriotic, proud to be Australian, and proud of their nation’s history, even for all of its shortcomings. True, self-denunciation of the nation and its history is in vogue among the cultural elite that is so well described by Musa al-Gharbi in We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite (2024).
However, their long-term agenda of ending the nation’s “structural oppression” and rewriting its colonial-settler history, in the name of “social justice” will never take hold in the community at large.
If the suggested remedy for the historical harms of colonisation – the retelling of the nation’s history, and the pursuit of reparations for those harms – were to be pursued seriously, such action would be rejected by most Australians as being too radical and an unnecessary distraction from meaningfully addressing the real disadvantage that is experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.

Gad sir, thank you for your service ...

Mike Pezzullo says there are 'far more pressing matters' than the termination of his Order of Australia honour

Former home affairs boss Mike Pezzullo says being officially stripped of his Order of Australia honour is of little consequence at a time when wars are being fought and people are struggling to make ends meet.
Mr Pezzullo's appointment as an Officer of the Order of Australia was officially terminated by the governor-general in late September, with the decision published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette this week.
The notice did not give reasons for the termination.
The former secretary — who was one of Australia's most powerful public servants — was sacked in November last year after hundreds of private text messages between him and Liberal Party powerbroker Scott Briggs were leaked.
The matter was referred to the Australian Public Service Commission, which found Mr Pezzullo breached the public service code of conduct on at least 14 occasions relating to five allegations.
Those included that he used his "duty, power, status or authority to seek to gain a benefit or advantage for himself" and "failed to maintain confidentiality of sensitive government information". 
Mr Pezzullo declined to comment on the decision to strip his medal when asked during an on-camera interview and instead provided the ABC with a written statement that said losing his honour paled in comparison to what was happening elsewhere in the world.
"With wars underway around the world, and more likely to break out, possibly in the Pacific, with rising intolerance and anger in public debate, with many people struggling to make ends meet, and many other problems besides, being stripped of my official honour does not amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world," he said.
"Those who recommend and make these decisions believe presumably that it is a just and fair one.

Gad sir, the pond is all in ... let's wrestle with the issues ...

Gad sir maintain the fight ...

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton says Prime Minister Anthony Albanese must not have “any instinct” for national security amid calls for a special AFP anti-Semitism probe. “He must be shunning the advice of the national security advisers around him,” Mr Dutton said. “You are not hearing on a regular basis, or forming relationships with those closest advisers and I just do not think the prime minister has any instinct when it comes to national security.”

Gad sir, you're on a patriotic roll ...

Gad sir, show 'em the sort of stuff you're made of ...

Rather than engaging in such national self-denunciation, most Australians practise what may be termed soft patriotism, an intuitive love of country that is ingrained from early childhood for those born here or rapidly acquired by those who choose to make Australia their home, first as permanent migrants and then as new citizens.
Patriotism involves more than going to the beach on a summer’s day on January 26 to celebrate Australia’s national day. It is a love of country. It is an understanding that Australia is not an arbitrary geographical space that happens to be inhabited by randomly selected individuals who lack a connection to one another. It is a cherishing of the nation’s shared heritage, which is the legacy of settlers, pastoralists, farmers, miners, administrators, industrialists, workers and so many more.
Our institutions of democratic government were shaped by colonial-era founders who championed the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia in the second half of the 19th century. Our economy also was built on foundations laid in colonial Australia, when endowments such as wool and gold, and access to capital and product markets, led to Australia being one of the richest countries in the world on a per capita basis at Federation in 1901.
These and other foundations of the nation will need to be better taught to future generations in an era when historical understanding is in decline.
The patriot also intuitively recognises that being a member of a national political community is the best available means of exercising freedom, democracy and sovereignty.
Maurizio Viroli wrote in For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism (1995) that patriotism involves a love of the institutions and the way of life that sustains the common liberty of a national people. In a world of sovereign nation-states, we owe no higher loyalty to a global or supranational form of government, to another nation-state or to any international organisation.

Gad sir, another snap perhaps ...

Most Australians embrace the citizenship pledge, when new citizens are asked to pledge their loyalty to Australia and its people, to share our belief in democracy.

Gad sir, an inspiration to all ...

Gad sir there should be more scribblers like you at the lizard Oz ...

When the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 became law on January 26, 1949, it established for the first time the legal status of Australian citizen. At the first citizenship ceremony, held in Canberra on February 3, 1949, immigration minister Arthur Calwell asked the new citizens to respect the Australian flag, and to swear allegiance to “our concepts of government”.
Calwell explained that Australian democracy was a means for achieving national progress without the “chaotic spectacle of revolutionary disturbances ending in dictatorial minority rule”. He said faith could be placed in the “common sense and national goodwill of the Australian people”, and political differences could be resolved peaceably through the nation’s democratic processes.
Today that sentiment is captured in the Australian citizenship pledge, when new citizens are asked to pledge their loyalty to Australia and its people, to share our belief in democracy, to respect our common rights and liberties, and to uphold and obey Australian laws. Most Australians embrace this form of patriotism. To call it soft is not to diminish it. Rather, it is to suggest that such patriotism is reflexive and relatively cost-free. It is a love of a readily understood idea of Australia that does not require much explanation or ideological rationalisation.

Gad sir, hard as nails ...

Hard patriotism is the willingness to fight to the end if necessary for three treasured national possessions.

Gad sir, onwards and upwards ...

There is an altogether different, and more challenging, form of patriotism. Hard patriotism has a necessarily martial quality, as it is invariably associated with the defence of the nation. Today it is being displayed by Ukrainians and Israelis. Hard patriotism challenges us to ask of ourselves: what is to be defended, to the last if necessary, and are we prepared to pay that price?
Hard patriotism cannot be solely expected of our armed forces, although it is intrinsic to the profession of arms, which traditionally has placed a more visible emphasis on duty, honour, service and country. In the event of having to defend the nation, hard patriotism would be required of all. Sacrifice and commitment would be expected from all, subject only to age or incapacity. Hard patriots would need to be found not only in the armed forces but also across a mobilised and resolute population.
Winston Churchill’s “darkest hour” speeches of 1940 are a supreme example of hard patriotism, expressed in magnificently eloquent words. His theme was “never surrender” because he knew that surrender would mean the loss of liberty and sovereignty, and the end of the British way of life. The British people rose to the occasion, as did the empire, which for a time stood alone against Nazi Germany.

Gad sir, time to steal a little stolen valour ...

Winston Churchill’s theme was ‘never surrender’ and British people rose to the occasion.

Gad sir, spot on ...

Gad sir, time for a history lesson ...

Compare this with France. French historian Marc Bloch described in The Strange Defeat (written in 1940, and published posthumously in 1946) how the French were still a patriotic people in 1940. However, after a period of national malaise in the 1930s that had led to a loss of self-confidence, they were not prepared – strategically or morally – for the Nazi onslaught. Soft, demoralised France fell in 1940, while hard, patriotic Britain fought on. Later, Charles de Gaulle emerged as the hard Free French patriot who restored French honour.

Gad sir, completely right. Dunkirk certainly showed the pathetic frogs how to thrash the Germans, and how the cheese-eating surrender monkeys should have fought to win the war ...

Gad sir, if only the French had enough boats to take them over to old Blighty.

 Gad sir, more lessons please ...

Hard patriotism is the willingness to fight to the end if necessary for three treasured national possessions: freedom, or the liberty to live as we choose, subject only to our own laws; democracy, or our institutions of government that allow us to choose our leaders and politicians, and to check abuses of power; and sovereignty, or our capacity to control our territory and resources, and to pursue economic and social development as we see fit, free from external coercion and intimidation.
Australia has no threatening neighbours or historical enemies. If we did, hard patriotism would be intuitive and reflexive. Instead, for more than two centuries we have mentally lived in an imagined sheltered land, far from strife. No matter that the security of our sheltered land has been a function of Australia being prepared to fight distant wars (and a close one in 1942-44) against Eurasian powers, thereby assisting first the British Empire and then the US to prevail over aspiring Eurasian hegemons.
Today, we still live in a sheltered land, at least in our national imagination. In the absence of enemies at the gate, it is hard to appreciate that our way of life may one day be threatened – if not necessarily by invasion, then by other forms of strategic coercion or military attack.

Gad sir, time for a tank?

A determined and resolute government could make the case today for hard patriotism, so we were better prepared for the unlikely but credible prospect of major war. Picture: CPL Jacob Joseph

Gad sir, it's inspirational ...

Gad sir, we need you leading the country ...

Australian strategic and defence policy is not couched in the language of hard patriotism.
Even though we appear to be pursuing an implied grand strategy of working with the US and others to prevent Chinese hegemony, it is a strategy that dares not speak its name in those terms – principally so as not to disturb the foreign policy of “speaking softly” and stabilising ties with China, but also to avoid the challenge that would be inherent in building hard patriotism.
Therein lies the problem. Hard patriotism cannot be conjured into being suddenly on the eve of a military crisis or at the outbreak of a war. More so than a significant financial crisis, a public health emergency or a catastrophic natural event, a major war would throw its terrible shadow across society in ways that would require a more far-reaching mobilisation of the nation and greater sacrifices.
A determined and resolute government could make the case today for hard patriotism, so that we were better prepared for the unlikely but credible prospect of major war. This would require a different discussion between the government and the people. Such a discussion would begin with a more honest explanation of the precarious nature of our strategic circumstances.
The sheltered land of our national imagination is no more. The Eurasian axis of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea is seriously challenging the US and its allies in the struggle for mastery in Eurasia and therefore globally. Distance no longer affords us the protection that it once did, as potential adversaries field longer-range weapons and potent offensive cyber capabilities. In a more honest discussion, we have to consider the possibility of the emergence of a world where an isolated US, following military defeat or strategic withdrawal, was unwilling or unable to extend its protective shield over Australia and other allies.
In that world, US forces and facilities would not be present in Australia and its nuclear forces would not protect us. China would rule the waves of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and its military bases would be in our sea-air approaches, including probably in East Timor, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands.

Gad sir, right now we need Captain Bonespurs ...

Economist Judith Sloan chimes in on the “complicated story” around US President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed tariff plan. During a speech at the Australian Business Economist annual dinner, RBA deputy governor Andrew Hauser argued the direct impact on slated US tariffs on Australia are likely to be minimal, although the indirect impacts could be more significant. “The effect of any big tariff changes would be via China; so China is our largest trading partner by a very long way,” Ms Sloan told Sky News host Sharri Markson. “That is a sort of indirect effect but could very substantial.”

Gad sir, perfectly correct ...

Gad sir, carry on regardless...

A hegemonic China would be free to impose its will on Australia, including in relation to trade, investment, resources, energy and more besides. There would be little we could do about resisting Chinese pressure, other than to develop significantly larger armed forces and military capabilities in an effort independently to deter a military attack. This would probably have to include an independent nuclear deterrent.
Australia would come under pressure to free up its markets for Chinese investment and acquisition, to drop restrictions on technology access (for instance, regarding 7G and successor technologies), and agree to more China-favourable terms for access to our resources and energy.
We also would come under pressure to extradite people of interest to China, and to ensure that Australian media and public discourse exhibited the “correct understanding” of China and its interests. Local quisling political and business leaders would emerge who would urge their fellow Australians to “adjust” to the new reality of Chinese supremacy.
To avoid the possibility of such a future, Australia should be doing more to support the US-led deterrence of China, including being prepared to go to war if required to thwart Chinese hegemony. This would require the building of a hard Australian patriotism, the kind that is seen in frontline states that have a threatening neighbour.
In any such war, China would employ advanced methods and techniques to undermine the national will to fight, sow discord among the people, fracture the community, amplify quisling voices and generally attempt to demoralise the population. Cognitive warfare would be employed, waged over TikTok and the like, using technology-enabled propaganda and disinformation.
An early objective would be to have sections of the community question the legitimacy of any such war, or at least Australia’s participation in it. Attempts even might be made to undermine Australia’s legitimacy, perhaps by emphasising its origin as a European settler-colonial society, an outsider in greater Asia, with a shameful, racist past.

Gad sir, is it fence mending time already?

Comedian Alex Stein claims President-elect Donald Trump’s invitation to the Chinese President is a “diplomatic” attempt to “mend” US-China relations. According to CBS News, Mr Trump has invited Chinese President Xi Jinping to his presidential inauguration. “I think Donald Trump is trying to be diplomatic,” Mr Stein told Sky News host Gabriella Power. “There is bad blood between America and China, and I think if anybody can actually mend the fences, it's Donald Trump.”

Gad sir, right on...

Gad sir, consider the pond right behind you ...

Xi Jinping has made Chinese nationalism a co-equal component with Marxism in his overarching ideological framework, as explained by Kevin Rudd in On Xi Jinping: How Xi’s Marxist Nationalism is Shaping China and the World (2024). Chinese strategy mobilises national history and national identity, in competition and in conflict. Nationalism is employed to sustain a dual narrative of China re-emerging to its rightful place of international prestige and leadership, and its cultural superiority relative to the declining West. China would go into any conflict confident and self-assured, not agonising over a supposedly shameful past. National self-confidence would be crucial to success. Like France in 1940, any soft and demoralised nations would lack the will to fight such a war, calculating that yielding to the ascendant power was the more tolerable course.
Political leaders in democracies are invariably focused on the domestic priorities of their citizens. They are measured on their ability to deliver prosperity and not their ability to wage war, unlike earlier times when waging war was central to the prestige of the state. Issues of statecraft typically hold no interest for parochial citizens. In such an environment, building hard patriotism in the absence of a visible threat is almost impossible. However, leaving it to the coming of darker days would be too late.
True, Australians are likely to unite in a crisis, as was seen in the Covid pandemic and during natural disasters such as the Black Summer of 2019-20. They tend to be trusting of the institutions of government during such crises, even if there is grumbling at inconvenience. However, in those circumstances, governments tend to have more direct levers and a greater power of initiative – such as introducing urgent fiscal stimulus measures or enforcing strict public health measures.

Gad sir, an actual pledge ...

Times call for a new Australian patriotism and one way may be to ask all citizens, perhaps aged 18 to 65, to affirm annually a pledge of service.

Gad sir, consider the pond fully pledged ... that's all that's needed? Perhaps a thumb nail dipped in tar? Or should the pond draw blood and sign with a flourish? 

Gad sir, any last thoughts?

A war fought in defence of the nation would be a more challenging affair. It would require broader and deeper mobilisation, and more directive control being exercised by the federal government, as compared, for instance, with what occurred during the pandemic.
How may a balance be struck between trying to rally a sceptical people too soon, when many are unlikely to see the need, as against trying to build the hard patriotism that would be required in wartime, when it may be too late?
One way may be to ask all citizens, perhaps aged 18 to 65, to affirm annually a pledge of service, where we would all be asked to register the kind of national service that we would be willing to render in the event of a military emergency involving the defence of the nation. This would not be limited to being willing to take up arms. It would include other categories of service such as medical, construction, logistics and so on.
Establishing such a register, perhaps as a prelude to establishing an Australian national service scheme – solely for the territorial defence of the nation – would form the basis for a different discussion between the government and the people about the realities of our strategic circumstances.
Pursuing this and other initiatives, such as preparing a war book and treating national security like the national budget (through an annual, prime-time, national security statement to the nation), would better prepare the people for what are said to be the worst strategic circumstances since WWII. A harder patriotism would build steadily as the people began to appreciate the stakes and the potential sacrifices that might have to be made to protect all that we cherish about Australia.
Unfortunately, Australia is no longer a sheltered land, and the times call for a new Australian patriotism.

Gad sir, we're no longer sheltered, but knowing you're ready to serve in the Home Guard stops the pond from its attack of the vapours, and now it must be time to sign off ...

Michael Pezzullo is a former deputy secretary of the Defence Department and was secretary of the Home Affairs Department until November 2023.

Gad sir, well done, well played, the spirit of the country lives in you ...