You may occasionally note the category “Nationalism” attached to some of the posts here. This post addresses this concept. It has two premises which reality dictates to be true: 1)That some nations/cultures are better than others, 2) Patriotism, in a world full of deplorable and sometimes dangerous nations/cultures, is a good thing.
Liberalism rejects both of these premises, and it is pure liberalism that will be taught to your children in the institution. The premise of liberalism, as it pertains to the interactions between nations, is one based on relativism. It demands that all civilizations, cultures and nations are to be considered as equal. It impugns anyone who might suggest that the tribesman–spear in hand searching for some rodent to kill for dinner–is in any way worse than the family gathered around a dinner table with a roast and vegetables, before retiring to the living room for the evening to enjoy some entertainment on their flat-screened, high-definition, smart TV in air conditioned comfort. But it’s the flawed philosophy of relativism, and not reality, logic or plain old common sense that brings the liberal to his erroneous conclusion. In reality, this philosophy is a ditch because it takes something based on some truth, mixes it with utopian fantasies, and ends up at such an extreme that it veers hard left off the middle of the road and rams hard into the ditch of stupidity; a ditch in which those who exist there must ignore the obvious and embrace fantasy in order to remain in their delusion.
Historians will argue about the cause of the two world wars. I won’t get into these arguments other than to say that they deserve your attention. But one seemingly consistent theme that has many fingers pointing at it as the bases that brought about these horrible events is nationalism. Here is one excerpt from one of many articles that I found on the subject:
Nationalism is an extreme form of patriotism and loyalty to one’s country. Nationalists place the interests of their own country above the interests of other countries. Nationalism was prevalent in early 20th century Europe and was a significant cause of World War I. Most pre-war Europeans believed in the cultural, economic and military supremacy of their nation. Their attitudes and overconfidence were fuelled by things like jingoistic press reporting. The pages of newspapers were often packed with nationalist rhetoric and inflammatory stories or rumours about rival nations. Nationalism could also be found in other aspects of popular culture, including literature, music and theatre. Royals, politicians and diplomats did little to deflate nationalism – and some actively contributed to it with provocative remarks and rhetoric.
So from our modern perspective, we look back into early 20th century Europe and see a collection of highly patriotic and nationalistic nation/states crammed into a shrinking continent. (Shrinking in that advancement in technology had reduced travel across the breadth of the continent from weeks to days… among other things.) And it was this compression combined with nationalism, so it is believed, that ignited both World Wars.
So what is our modern conclusion? Patriotism is evil.
But we are not living in early 20th century Europe today. We are living in an age in which technology has “compressed” the entire world even more, even into a tinder box. For a German in early 20th century Germany to suggest that his nation/culture was superior to his neighbor’s over in France bears no similarity to an American today who suggests… no, he knows that his culture is better than that of the goat rancher in Afganistan. But the belief is so strong, and the devotion to the idea that love of country leads to war is so high, that otherwise intelligent people are willing to turn themselves into logical pretzels who cannot compare poverty and oppression with plenty and liberty and discern that one is better than the other. To admit such a thing would be “nationalism”, which they all are convinced, leads inevitably to war. And that’s horrible. But what is a nation or culture but a system of ideas generally held by all in it? So hoping to escape their worst nightmare, they enter into it anyway. Seeking to step back from nationalism, they back into nationalism and become devout, hardened-to-the-core, nationalist, who are willing to shed any amount of blood necessary to prove that they do, after all, have the best idea for a system of things in their anti-nationalist beliefs.
Now, I’ve said all of this to lay the groundwork for an article that would otherwise boggle the mind. A friend sent this to me:
Texas Mom Goes to Battle Against High School When Her Son Is Punished for Wearing American Flag Shirt
I’ve spent a considerable amount of space here explaining why in the good ole U S A a high school student might be punished for wearing an American flag on his shirt. As with all bad ideas they normally start out with good ideas and then they just turn stupid. To love one’s nation is the first step toward war–or so we’re supposed to believe–so it only follows then that it is evil for anyone to love one’s country enough to wear its flag on their shirt. But that’s the problem with liberalism. It’s like cancer. It takes something that makes sense, that is reasonable, and it gloms onto it and worships it until it’s evil. With all liberalism’s talk about being “up with the times”, it is living in history and has failed to innovate with the times. It cannot do a self-evaluation. It’s not willing to say that it has been wrong for a half century now. It is stuck, hardened, closed-minded. And it is this very philosophy that is the foundation upon which the education institution rests. It teaches outdated lies to your children, and in this it is dangerous.
If you read the article you will read a story of a bully principal in a diversity worshiping schoolhouse who is in the midst of punishing a student, ostensibly because he doesn’t look like all the rest of the students. But then the principal relents. The mom then gets a bad case of Stockholm Syndrom and falls in love with the out-of-control institution all over again. But she should remember, the institution will fight to its death, it will bankrupt the federal government that funds it even, to hold onto its anti-nationalism philosophy. This mom has won a battle perhaps. But she will lose the war unless she brings her child home and begins to think outside the box that her own stint in the institution put her in.