No wonder it’s so unpopular among the would-be serfs (us).
Liah Greenfield, a professor at Boston University, gives her view of how nationalism came about and how it equates with democracy. Her thoughts are worth considering because they shed a light on the events of today.
According to Greenfield, nationalism was the result of the English War of the Roses (1445 to 1485). Without going into the details of this civil war between the Houses of Lancaster and York, Greenfield’s contention is that due to the savagery and duration of the war, “both branches lost their males, and the English aristocracy was physically destroyed.” This prompted the victor, the Tudor king Henry VII, to recruit a new elite from the commoners.
This was a significant break in how feudal society was previously constructed. Before that, there were basically two distinct and separate classes of people: the aristocracy and the common people.
But the upper (“blue-blooded”) order of the military nobility and the huge lower (“red-blooded”) order of people, to which the overwhelming majority of people belonged, were in effect believed to constitute two separate species of beings. They were different as horses and chickens are different; one could no more be born a nobleman and end up – or produce – a commoner, or vice versa, than one could be born a chicken and grow to be – or produce – a horse, or vice versa. The lives of members of different orders naturally had different value; noblemen and the people were supposed to be treated differently and expected different treatment.
The governing principle of such a society was inequality, enforced by custom, religion, and the sword when necessary.
In early Tudor England, this rigidity was broken as social mobility became a visible fact. In the earlier feudal system, the word “people” was understood to be the commoners, while the word “nation” was reserved for the cultural and landed elite. But due to the upward mobility, the words “people” and “nation” blended together and soon became synonymous. Greenfield concludes that this is how nationalism brought into being the beginning of modern democracy.
Fast-forward to today. The current war on nationalism and the attempts to erase it are the workings of the elite, the new aristocracy. Since the end of WWII, the elite have taken over the United Nations and a whole host of international organizations. Their prime achievement has been the European Union. There, democracy is being continually squeezed from the people to extract ever more power for the elite. What is especially disturbing about the E.U. is that it is happening in Europe, the cradle of the West and the birthplace of democracy.
In the U.S., who are the globalists? They are our elite. According to sociological studies, the elite, both here and in Europe, are becoming more and more insular and inbred. They go to the same schools; they live in the same communities; they marry among themselves. Indeed, members of the elite see more of a kinship with the elite of other countries than they do their fellow Americans…by far.
Judging from their words and deeds, the elite already feel themselves heads-and-shoulders above the “deplorables.” In many ways, globalism looks like a path back to a feudal society. No wonder there is growing resistance to it.
— Read on www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/is_globalism_the_new_feudalism.html