 |
| Ned Kelly, the defiant Australian bushranger and outlaw |
Since nationalism has been simple-mindedly blamed for world wars one and two, or more accurately, rounds one and two of the same war, the concept has been tarnished to the point where it is almost as dirty a word as 'manhole' is to feminists. This process has been given more than a little help from you know who to whom via convoluted logic nationalism = Holocaust.
Australian nationalism has become as vexed a term as the nationalism of any other white nation even though we could not be fairly accused of starting a single war. Getting involved in other people's wars is more our style and, as the official history has it, none of those wars have been started by the sides we backed, it fortunately being the prerogative of winners to write the history. There was of course that one that was lost but we'd skedaddled long before the enemy's flag had been hoisted on the Presidential Palace. The only Australian left there was the late but legendary war cameraman, Neil Davis who bravely stood his ground to film an NVA tank crashing through the palace gates. It would become a historical record the Vietnamese communists themselves would come to treasure and are probably thankful that Neil wasn't shot then and there instead of years later in Bangkok.
But I digress. Given that our brand of nationalism hasn't led to any war (and judging by the way successive Australian governments have kow-towed to potential enemies, it will never be allowed to) why has it become so blackened? That is, why has it become so blackened apart from the obvious: self-flagellating, self-loathing PC liberalism that also looks askance at our flag, seeing even evil racism in that. (The degree of racism here largely depends on the context in which the flag is being displayed; if it is simply being flown, although this may cause offence to certain of our precious minorities, it may just scrape by. But if the flag is being worn in any way such as a cape, that is obvious, unadulterated racism and should be answerable to the iron heel of group-think.)
To answer that question, it is necessary to get a grip on this slippery chameleon known as nationalism. What does the Oxford Dictionary have to say about it? 'nationalism n. Patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts; policy of national independence ..' That doesn't seem too threatening. How about Roger Scruton's 'A Dictionary of Political Thought'? 'nationalism. 1. The sentiment and ideology of attachment to a nation and to its interests. 2. The theory that a state (perhaps every state) should be founded in a nation, and that a nation should be constituted as a state.... ' Again, fairly innocuous stuff. There is though a word of warning: 'Modern nationalism is often decried, on account, e.g., of its attempt to found political obligation in purely social [italics in original] allegiances , or its alleged irrationalism, or its opposition to universalist doctrines [italics mine], or its nascent belligerence or imperialism...' So opposition to having one's country gobbled up by the New World Order could be construed as nationalism, but why should this be seen in a negative light? But the reminder about lurking imperialism might be handy although imperialism today is monopolised by the superpowers: China's neo-imperialism in Africa and the imperialism of the US which is called 'the spreading or democracy'.
However, imperialism has never really been our style. The closest we've ever come to it is being handed a mandate over Papua, New Guinea but under the urging of a leftist prime minister blinded by his ideology from seeing that perhaps not all races are equal, we backpedalled out of that arrangement faster than a politician from a promise leaving the newly minted liberal democracy to degenerate into being just another barbaric failed state. It would probably have been cheaper to keep on running it ourselves rather than pumping foreign aid into it ad infinitum.
The fact of the matter is that we didn't do anything to demonise nationalism. It is generally believed that Hitler did it for us, that he cruelled it for everybody, everybody that is who is white. Interestingly, Germany's ally in WW2, Japan, which was just as responsible for taking nationalism over the brink into fascism, instead of being slapped with the same ban, blithely carries on being as nationalistic as its collective heart desires. Japaneseness isn't dished out like soup at a soup kitchen the way Australian citizenship is. Even Koreans whose family trees have been planted in Japan for generations just don't cut it.
Japan suffers as much with the from the so called aging population crisis as western countries. We are told that because of this phenomenon we are faced with two choices: we either import vast numbers of third worlders to support us in our old age or we die. If this is true, it seems Japan would rather die than opt for the alternative (which would probably be worse kind of death anyway)
It is this contradiction - the demonising of Germany's nationalism, but not Japan's - that gives the game away. It is only underlings, pawns and useful idiots who really believe that nationalism is evil because it inevitably and inexorably leads to war. The powers behind the scenes, the string pullers, the history shapers know better. Millions slain in wars are of least concern to them. War to them is not even intrinsically a bad thing; it is only bad when it is not in their interests. So why are they against nationalism? Simply because nationalism supports nation states and nation states have been slated for the toxic waste dump of history. The game has been on for a long time and it has been and is played by people who think not in years but centuries. World government is the Valhalla long strived for.
The League of Nations was the first serious but bungled and abortive attempt. The United Nations was a more susuccessful shot but being predicated on the US and the USSR remaining the odd bedfellows they had been once their common enemy was crushed, it was doomed to still-birth even while the ruins of Berlin were still smouldering. It however would still prove to be a useful tool now and again but the real business of nation state demolition was essentially privatised. 'Think tanks' such as the Bilderbergers, The Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, comprising the world's elite from politics, the banks, academe, mighty cooperations and the media, became the engines of globalisation, and of course globalisation when taken to its logical conclusion must equal world government.
We tend to forget that - even as our leading political lights constantly prattle on about the glories of globalisation. But we also tend to forget it is not our local leaders who at the helm of our country. At best they are branch managers taking their instruction from Global Inc. Wriggle room is all they are allowed, left to dither over inconsequential matters such as how best to extort more money from the rubes: raise income tax or GST? You may have noticed that apart from odd fits of sound and fury not much has been done about getting multinationals operating in our country to pay their fair share of tax. Why isn't the so called 'double tax' bill passed in the early fifties being looked at? This bill essentially let multinationals of the tax hook if they were paying tax in their own countries. The justification was that we needed the investment but that was before 'investment' meant an amount equal to or greater than profits leaving the country.
National governments today (in the West - worry about the rest later) act on the 'advice' of the all powerful think tanks as well as what other dark forces swirl and lurk behind the curtain. Forceful advice has been given that nation states are a ridiculous anachronism impeding 'progress'. They have to go - along with everything that holds them together - family, religion, traditional morality and of course nationalism
Here in Australia though we are allowed a small ration of nationalism once a year on Australia Day, albeit a very soft nationalism, so soft in fact that it is a sanitised, unthinking patriotism, approved and manufactured by the state. This is our once a year opportunity to wave our the flag as energetically as we like (but don't dare wear it - that would be going much too far), This is the flag, notwithstanding the tens of thousands of men who fought and died under it, that a huge effort will go into removing and replacing with another that we'll be expected to wave just as enthusiastically come the following Australia Day. Be warned though, once the Union Jack is gone that is our roots cut away and our demotion to being just another ethnic group.
Scuttle the flag and give us another one; no problem we'll wave that one while we belt out the lines of 'I am Australian: We are one, but we are many and from all the lands on Earth we come ...There it is. So that's why we are allowed our annual opportunity to let off some patriotic steam - so we can actually be celebrating our diversity while thinking we are celebrating the founding of a nation. This is clever. You have to hand it to them. It's easy to see the fix is in though. A little over thirty years ago we weren't blessed with all that much diversity. Coincidentally, we didn't really have an Australia Day either, at least what it has morphed into. It was just a day off like Labour Day or the Queens birthday. Who cared what the occasion was as long as we didn't have to go to work or school. For years we had watched the way flag-waving Yanks carried on on the fourth of July and sadly shook our heads. The thing was that we were so confident in who we were we didn't need all this bullshit.
Fortunately for us though, the pendulum of history never rests - it swings eternally. And evidence abounds that the pendulum has curently reached the zenith of its upward swing, its momentum no longer able to defy gravity - the gravity of reaction. The chaos currenty playing out in Europe, make no mistake, is a game-changer. As noted elsewhere so succinctly and graphically on the net, the frog was almost enjoying lazing in its the slowly heating saucepan of water - that is until Angela Merkel barged into the kitchen and switched the gas to full. 'WTF,' said the frog. Now Europeans with eyes to see know that their homeland is as much under threat as it would be by an invading army. It is unlikely, once the shadow of death reaches across them, they will '...go gentle into that good night.'
The rise and rise of Donald Trump in the US might be considered exhibit B for the changing of the zeitgeist. Even if he misses out on the presidency, or is assassinated before the election, whoever does win power will know that the country has changed irrevokably, that a huge swathe of the population has woken up and is not happy with what it sees.
Australian nationalists should derive hope from these developments. 'There is a time and tide ...' and this is it. It is however a heavy responsibility. We are all that can prevent the destruction of our nation by a globalising elite and the useful idiots of a the traitorous left.
No comments:
Post a Comment