FOS » 17 Aug 2021, 12:52 pm » wrote: ↑
Remember that arrogant assumption prior to the Bush invasion of Iraq?
It was a very common assumption held by many us citizens.
And the fact we were proven wrong, SHOULD have inspired us to re examine our assumptions about human nature and the nature of governmental power.
But it didn't. We are dumb.
It is predictable that we would have such incorrect predictions...because in the west we are sold absolutely absurd lies in our education which we never examine.
"The peasants under Christian monarchies were miserable and oppressed. They hated being peasants and the lord or king had no respect for them and just expoited them"
remember being trained to think this? But there is a massive body of literature that proves this is a lie.
You can simply read Shakespeare in fact. We writes about kings quite often..often amazingly he makes them very human. they were not evil...they also were not somehow innately superior.
How can your education explain this? It can't. You would at the very least assume that Shakespeare...who himself lived under the yoke of oppressive absolute monarchy...would view them in one extreme or the other.
And yet all the us citizens who read Shakespeare just never think about the inherent contradiction here.
Shakespeare simply respected kings. He liked the institution...yet he did not view them as actual gods (as your Hollywood education on the divine right of kings might suggest). No, kings were the fallible tool for the collective will of the people...so in fact loving the people was akin to loving the king. The king may not always do the best job, but it was assumed that he tried to do a good job.
And what did you learn about the French revolution?
Well it might be surprising that the people overall loved the king...and indeed the peasants seemed very happy with their lives.
And this love was mutual. Indeed the reason the revolution succeeded is precisely because the king ordered his army toarever shoot at the mob. You can easily confirm that this is true on Google or something...it is not controversial.
Only the very first riot was put down (because the king did not expect it)..and the revolution was later nearly defeated simply by Swiss mercenaries (because of language issues...they did not seem to understand the kings will)
the French king conceded to every demand of the mob, and did not resist being imprisoned by them.
Now obviously that begs the question...what really motivated the revolution and who were the real actors involved? That is a deep and complex question...and I don't want to delve into it here. It is enough for me to mention that it was almost the same as the bolshevik revolution in russia, with almost identical outcomes.
the truth is...our liberal education is simply wrong about human nature. What people want far more than material comfort is a purpose for their life.
and that is why the taliban defeated us. Because Islam is quite simply more inspiring than empowered hip hop American ***.
I often hear leftists say "white people don't have a culture"...that is a VERY revealing belief.
The truth is, we used to have a culture. It was stolen from us. Our indoctrination into nihilism is the only thing that maintains the current power structure, and allows our elite to exploit us far more than any king ever did.
The baathists...who were a secular pan Arabic political movement...exactly like like Arab version of the whitr nationalists in early america...wanted no part of this.