POPULISM: WHAT IS SO WRONG ABOUT CARING DEEPLY FOR YOUR OWN NATION?

Who likes to be made to comply with actions that we feel are detrimental to us or those around us? Is it so odd that we revolt against this harm to us and those we love?

Most of us grew up with some affection for the nations we were born and raised in. In our youth we saw much we wished to change no doubt. The young tend to believe that radical changes are required so that the ideal we visualise can be reached with minimum delay. It is only with time that we discern the reality that for the adults and for us who become adults there are benefits to stability that tend to be overlooked by the young. However, by and large the vast majority of us identify with the country of our birth. And why not?

So we come to the subjects of populism, patriotism and nationalism. And of course in analysing these we must also look at those in the centre ground, the mainstream if you will, who tend to sit in judgement as the entitled elites to whom all but their ideas, activities, thoughts, narratives, talking points and policies are suspect.

The recent elections in Europe brought success for many who those who tend to hold the central ground (as they like to think of it) call far this, far that, populist or nationalist. If particularly strident some of these might also be given the epithet authoritarian, another term from the comfortable, entitled centre to designate those beyond the pale. These are looked upon with disapproval. The voters got it wrong in voting for them. Only those in the centre are worthy of a vote. Perhaps Russian propaganda, misinformation or fake news got to them. It couldn’t be that they simply have another way of looking at things. There WAS only one way of looking at things.

The term populist tends to be spoken with a sneer embedded within it, an attitude of disdain, almost spoken with a sigh that uneducated primitives have acted in an uneducated, primitive way one again and they have to somehow deal with these idiots by blackening their name until they learn better. The liberal centre loves itself. As seen in the USA for a great many years now there are abiding attitudes of exceptionalism, of being at the pinnacle of human organisation and capacity, supreme and incapable of being challenged. The ultimately successful winners at the end of history, now willing and able to do whatever is necessary to the lower life forms across the rest of the world who act in variously degenerate fashion compared to us.

A populist is basically the scum of the earth to such people, a no-nothing, an idiot, scoundrel, tawdry troublemaker who will mess up the project to make everything perfect in the enlightened liberal image. You see how all the pejorative terms used across the central political spectrum and their fellow elites across the mainstream media world are generated and the use made of them. Who are they to call people populists? And what are populists really anyway?

 A populist tends to be someone who wants the best for his or her country and is focused upon this goal rather than being focused on a wider project that inevitably emerges from those in what we could call central control. A populist wishes to safeguard his or her nation from negative influences many of which stem from outside influencers or influences. To the central controllers this presents a problem. These, who are often called globalists need to be able to manipulate entire swathes of nations to bend them to their own goals, and these goals can often be boiled down to buzzwords such as human rights, freedom, democracy, values and free trade. Those who have ambitions to unify and homogenise areas connected to these buzzwords have an overwhelming need to undermine those who wish to protect their own nations in respect of their sovereignty, traditions, culture and independence. Therefore their names must be blackened.

Take recently elected Robert Fico as an example. He has sworn to do what’s best for Slovakia. This is a mortal sin the the central controllers within the EU, an institution beholden in turn to the central controllers of the USA. It is absolutely not okay in their eyes for premier minister Robert Fico to be focused on his beloved Slovakia. He must be made to fall back in line with the mores of the EU superstate as demanded by Brussels and the policies that it mandates. Mr Fico does not agree (along with Viktor Orban of Hungary) that fomenting further war in Ukraine is a good thing, not for Ukraine and not either for Slovakia, nor the world in general. But this is not okay, looking after your own country or having a different way of looking at things from the mandated Brussels policy is simply unacceptable. 

Mr Fico and the man who will become president of Slovakia very soon, Mr Pelligrini both see their job as protecting the sovereign nation of Slovakia. They are adamant that Slovakia remains a nation capable of expressing the will of the people who vote governments and presidents into power based on the clearly expressed views and intentions of the candidates for those positions. All else, the normal conditions and agreements made in signing contracts to join the European Union remain in place. Nothing in that contract demands total obedience however. That is why the veto exists within the EU rules so that nations are not required to obey by demand from the centre. Note that there are powerful force which wish to eliminate this veto and allow policy change by majority instead.

Mr Fico and Mr Pelligrini were elected by popular vote. They are obviously therefore popular. They are popular, it can be assumed because the Slovak people by a voting majority liked the policies they espoused, one of the main and most prominent being that humanitarian aid to Ukraine was fine but that no further military aid should be given and that there should be an early start to peace negotiations. For the EU central controllers this is an unacceptable point of view. Despite diplomacy being seen in the past as the most optimum route to resolve conflicts those controllers, controlled in their turn by those in the USA, have decided all possible military means must be used instead. Fico and Pelligrini are expected to go against their principles and against the clear wish of a majority of Slovak voters for them to carry out the mandate for peace as campaigned upon and simply submit to those who would completely deny they are being authoritarian. Irony and hypocrisy much?