Wednesday, August 10, 2016

The Needs of a Nation and the Luxury of Charity

If you aren’t a nationalist you are actively committing traitorous subversion against your country and your fellow countrymen. In most other places in the world, the ideology is nationalism, and this means putting your own people and your own country before the the people of the world. By having open arms and putting the people of the world before your own people, you gain nothing, and can lose everything, as these people of the world are still nationalists, and still put their own country and their own people before your own.

This includes attempting to put your country below their own, the rights of their people above the rights of your people, the liberty of their people above your own, and the freedom of their people above your own. People of the developed world think that they have it so good, that they can extend their affluence to others around the world and they will be grateful, however, the people around the world all remember how the developed world became so affluent, through brutal and oppressive nationalism and imperialism. The people around the world seek to emulate these traits in order to emulate the successes of the 1st world, and it is foolish to think that these people want to emulate the “benevolence” of open arms.

These people will smile as they walk right into your open arms just to pickpocket you, rape you, or stab you to death. They do this because this is the golden rule. This is how the people of the world were treated by the first world for centuries, and of course they still remember. They will never forgive, and they will never forget. They will not rest until the glory of their people and their country has been restored through the same means that were used against them and painfully robbed them of their own power, dignity, freedom, independence, and sovereignty. These means of course are nationalism and imperialism.

Regardless of how they act, they are nationalists, because a human loves a country like his family, and is loyal to his country like their family. This is because a country truly is a person’s family, their genealogy and roots extend very deep into their homeland, their nation is their identity so much it physically defines their appearance. For them to abandon or forsake their country would be for them to forsake their own flesh and blood, their own family, and their own personage, mind, body, and spirit. This is a metaphorical form of suicide that few people would contemplate, only those driven to desperation by the misfortunes that are so cruel as to maim them enough to rob them of their own humanity.

While the USA may be the one exception in the world, in that is historically composed of immigrants, many of the immigrants have roots that run deep enough to form their own bloodline that is intertwined with their native land and country. Still, the USA is hardly different from the other 1st world countries, having ensured it’s global dominance and power through the cruel and firm hands of nationalism and imperialism, however much they may be disguised by the civility of the modernized forms of the traditional mindsets. This was because the founders of the country had reached the point of embittered severance with their oppressive homeland as displayed by the Revolutionary War, and through this fighting were able to establish their own heritage and form an national identity with which blood, soil, and country become intertwined.

Regardless of it’s unusual origins, this identity eventually proved to be strong enough to hold it’s own within the world. The nationalist agenda is simple: first, defend the country; second, empower the country. The reason people defend their allies is because it makes them stronger as a country, not because they “feel bad” for the people fighting in a war, or because they “Want to help.” As much as people may want to drum up arguments that any war was fought on moral grounds, this is nonsense, wars have all been fought because they fall in line with the nationalist agenda. America didn’t fight in WW2 because Hitler was immoral, they fought in WW2 in order to defend themselves against an obvious threat to their well being.

Even peoples that historically lacked a country like the Jews still had the same agenda, as they would simply look to defend their people and empower their people in place of a country.  This simple mentality can even be seen in organized crime and street gangs. This is because the mentality is one that respects the natural hierarchy of needs, first safety, then well being. People that attempt to defend all people in the world as equals are very foolish, because it is only due to the unfaltering feeling of safety that one feels in the developed world that people start to be delusional optimists thinking that the whole world wants to work together as one. People will work together if it leads to their own safety or well being, but reasonable people will not act solely on moral grounds when their actions do not benefit their own safety or well being.

The irony is that the humanists actively make decisions that jeopardize their safety and well being, and defend their decisions by citing moral grounds. This is an extremely foolish and childish reason to make a decision, because it is all risk and no reward, which can only be justified through fallacious logic that relies on feelings and emotions rather than actual grounds that can amount to a reward, such as increased safety, if one is in danger, or increased well being and affluence if one is already safe. As much as tragedy on a global scale is saddening, if attempting to resolve the tragedy is not in line with a country’s hierarchy of needs, then there is no logical reason for them to try to help, and this is why the USA and every other country is indifferent to the majority of the suffering and unrest in places like Africa, South America, and the Middle East, simply because their is no incentive to take action against the immorality.

This is the same reason why the businessman decides to go to work rather than help the homeless or feed all of the hungry children, it is completely impractical to attempt to do something out of moral means when there is nothing else to be gained, in this case, work offers money, which offers safety and well being, while moral actions do not. This is not to say that acting out of morality is a bad thing, but it is a much lower priority because it is obviously a luxury rather than a necessity. Only if all of the more important needs are met throughout the hierarchy of needs should any actions that are only justified through moral grounds be considered.

 Although the needs of a country are not the exact same as a human’s, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs demonstrates a very similar form of logic as nationalism, but on the personal level, rather than a national level. This would be a helpful chart to look at if one doesn’t understand the term in question.

No comments:

Post a Comment