This can also be said about the term “nationalism” which tends to have negative connotations today. And, it is true, nationalism can be a very dangerous thing. Yet, it does not have to be and even in the days when nationalism was extremely weak in Europe (for example) because people identified themselves by their faith first and foremost, there was still clearly identifiable nationalities which were distinct from each other. A Belgian, a Bavarian and an Italian may have all been part of the empire but that certainly did not mean they were all the same. Today, however, people of first world countries at least seem to be pushed more and more to think that nationalities do not exist and they are getting away with it, in part I think, because of a lack of national pride. Again, some will probably dispute that but I am talking about a deep-seated, rationale, informed national pride and not some sort of cosmetic or emotional pride that is barely skin deep. I am not talking about people who paint their faces and wave flags at football games but those who understand and appreciate who they are, where they came from and what their people to survive and prosper forever and always. There is a big difference between the two. The one is prepared to toil on, even against hopeless odds, for the sake of his country while the other is what a certain despicable revolutionary once termed, “the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot”.
A perfectly good example of this is Mexico. There is no shortage of superficial pride amongst the Mexican people. Travel anywhere in which there is a sizeable Mexican population and you will see Mexican flags everywhere, Our Lady of Guadalupe detailed on the backs of cars and a great deal of talk and show about Mexican pride. Yet, there are now more Mexicans living in the United States than in Mexico. That reveals a lack of the sort of pride I am talking about. Someone with the sort of pride I am talking about would not leave their country for greener pastures elsewhere, but would stay and work day in and day out, even enduring hardship, to make their country better, to make it the place that was so successful others would be looking longingly there as the greener pasture. The difference though, perhaps because Mexico is not a first world country, is that no one is trying to discourage real pride amongst the Mexican people. Read a history book in a school in Monclova or Saltillo and you will never find anything about Mexico fighting an unjust war (though the vast majority have been with themselves) nor will you find much about misdeeds done to other peoples. These things are not universally ignored, but they are certainly not emphasized or over dwelled upon.
This is certainly not the case when it comes to first world countries. At least not anymore. I can remember a time (and I’m not that old) when American schools tended to encourage the belief that the United States had always been right and, on the rare occasions when mistakes were made, these either worked out for the best anyway or were recognized and quickly corrected. It is not so anymore nor has it been so for quite a few years in most European countries. I recall how shocked I was when first told that in British schools children are actually taught that there country was in the wrong during the American War for Independence and that the Americans had been right. I expected American school books to teach that but had always assumed that in Britain they would teach that Britain was in the right and America in the wrong. Not so. The British seem to get the worst of it sometimes, probably because of the British Empire which was so much more successful than the competition. Yet, virtually every European country these days is being told that they should not be proud of their countries but, in fact, should be ashamed of them. There is always something to point to (truly, because peoples consist of men and women rather than angels -and even some of them were bad) and even when it can be hard to find there is always collective guilt to fall back on. I remember being quite bewildered seeing such a case made in Norway. As any student of history can recall, no Scandinavian country was ever a major colonial power, yet there are held collectively guilty for the “crimes” of others who were.
The list of specific examples, however, is endless and in most cases involves colonialism and/or imperialism. Presumably this is because of the dominance of Marxists in the education systems of the first world and Marxists tend to see everything in terms of a “land grab”. As usual, the most deadly poison is that which includes some non-lethal material to help the lethal bit go down easier. Again, every country and people has done something or some things that were wrong so those aspects are heavily emphasized. Yet, by that same token, every country and every people have done a great deal that was good and these things are seldom pointed out, at least in terms of the first world countries in question. So, to use the British example again, unsavory actions on the part of the British Empire, like the Opium War, are emphasized while positive actions, like the suppression of the Thugee in India, are downplayed or ignored. In the case of the Spanish Empire, brutality toward the Native Americans is emphasized while the eradication of human sacrifice is downplayed or ignored. There is a difference, despite how things seem today, in whitewashing history and expecting entire countries to continuously flog themselves for crimes decades and sometimes centuries in the past.
This has gone on, in places around the world, to reach farcical proportions. And, again, one cannot help but sense a Marxist worldview at work considering that in almost every case considerable amounts of wealth are being transferred; to help “make up” for past misdeeds of course. The government of the United Kingdom sends millions of pounds to Zimbabwe which is ruled by a socialist dictator with plenty of blood on his hands and who spends far more on his own recreation than on education in his country. A country, by the way, which was part of the old Rhodesia which Britain cut ties with because they refused to go along with the campaign to end racial discrimination, yet the dictator Mugabe never tires of blaming every misfortune in his country on the racist misdeeds of the old British Empire. So, a British government which did nothing wrong is paying money and being blamed for the racism of a past regime they cut ties with for being racist by a modern day dictator who actually carries out racist policies. It is simply incredible.
There are plenty of other examples, just as ridiculous. Not too long ago Italians were treated to the sight of Prime Minister Berlusconi apologizing for the colonial past of Italy to none other than the brutal dictator Muammar Gaddafi as well as paying the Libyan tyrant billions in “compensation” for the actions of the Fascist regime decades ago. Keep in mind, Gaddafi had barely been born when Italian rule in Libya ended and Berlusconi himself was a mere child at the time. Would anyone expect the new Libyan government to apologize for the actions of Gaddafi? I doubt it, and why should they when they were not responsible? Yet, an Italian prime minister is expected to apologize as though he or his government were in any way responsible for the actions of Mussolini. In 1972 Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka apologized for actions during and prior to World War II to the People’s Republic of China which has the blood of tens of millions of people on its hands. Keep in mind, this was the leader of a government that had already denounced the actions for which he was apologizing, in power in the country under a totally different national framework and totally different constitution than that which had done wrong. And yet he was apologizing to a government that was not in power at the time those things were done but which was the exact same government, dominated by the same political party, which had killed or caused the deaths of tens of millions of people. It is absurd to say the least of it.
Why is all of this being done? Perhaps because the educational system across the first world is dominated by revolutionary (usually Marxist) elites who make sure that the history everyone learns is one long litany of vicious misdeeds. Is it any wonder that these same countries are all depopulating? I’m sure there has been no study of it and I doubt there is any way such a thing could be proven but, personally, I cannot help but believe that there is something going on deep in the subconscious mind of the peoples of these countries. Having been told for decades that they are the worst peoples in the world, it seems that they have all decided (without making a conscious decision or even being aware of it) that the world would be better off without them and that they do not “deserve” to survive. It has gone beyond wallowing in self-pity to outright self-hatred and self-flagellation on a national and even semi-global scale. It is a mentality that has been pounded into the heads of whole populations over decades. It is also noteworthy that a tactic is used that the Marxists are very fond of which is the choice between two extremes; you either embrace Marxism or else you don’t care about the poor at all. You either believe that you and your people have been a plague on humanity for all time or else you are trying to whitewash history and think you’re better than everyone else and you’ve never made a mistake. That often shocks people into shameful agreement even though a mere moment of reflection would tell anyone that life is not so simple as that.
It should not be too difficult to grasp the concept of being able to resist the extremes of being a humorless, xenophobic jerk or wallowing in self-pity and negativity until your people literally no longer wish to survive. As it stands now, it does not surprise me at all that countries across the First World, from the United States to the United Kingdom to Japan have all had considerable numbers of people killed in terrorist attacks by their own people. When the educational system is dominated by a point of view that says "_____(your country) is evil and has always been evil and has been cruel to everyone in the world" it only surprises me that even more young people are not driven to hatred of their countries and a desire to see them wiped out. A simple look at the birth rates show that most no longer consider their nations worthy of survival so it's not that great a leap to think they should just be finished off more quickly. It doesn't have to be this way. A little healthy pride is not a bad thing and, while most may be beyond saving, a less extremist view should be worked toward. People should feel shame at doing wrong. People nor countries should be ashamed simply for being successful.
Just a bit of opinion from The Mad Monarchist
0 comments:
Post a Comment