Another Word on Raising the Flag In post-modern totalitarianism, there can be no uncontrolled symbols. Jupplandia Aug 25

The whole problem with the national flag so far as progressives and Globalists are concerned is exactly the opposite one to the way they portray their problem with the visible symbols of nationhood.

What they say the issue is with the flag of St George (in England’s case) or with Old Glory in the US is that these flags are symbols of racism, xenophobia, oppression and exclusion. They say the problem is that they don’t represent modern reality and modern demographics, and that non-white people feel threatened and excluded by them.

Now this is quite clearly based on the progressive bullshit reading of history in white nations as exclusively bad, with all their success based on exploitation and conquest and all their wealth based on theft. I and many others have pointed out all the many ways in which this reading of history is infantile and false.

But here is the part that remains hidden when we go straight to a defence of our history and a marshalling of facts and realities concerning the universality of many ‘bad things’ through all cultures and the peculiar exclusivity of many ‘good things’ supplied by western culture.

What we miss is the simple point that the haters of white people, western nations, and ‘white history’ do NOT genuinely fear the symbols of the past because those symbols exclude them.

What they really fear is being genuinely included.

What they actually fear is the ability of a national flag and a powerful symbol of the past to include ethnic minorities or more recent arrivals within a love of the same culture and history, place and people being loved by whites. These old symbols are powerful agents of inclusion.

They don’t genuinely and really fear that waving these flags is done by white supremacists who hate everyone else. They fear that waving these flags undermines their control of immigrant communities and their exploitation of racial tension and difference upon which so much of their claimed fitness to rule depends.

They don’t fear ‘white hate’. They fear ethnic minority hatred of whites no longer being there and no longer being a tool they can use against the majority.

The worst thing for a progressive radical leftist or globalist is when ethnic minorities don’t hate white people and don’t get outraged by symbols that derive from a time when western nations were more racially homogenous and more white. If a black guy can connect to those symbols, if he has no outrage at the past of that nation and instead adapts to it and honours it, the progressive loses his lever of control over that minority group and that minority individual and it’s so much harder to control them. Integration, assimilation and shared love of the national symbol and all it represents directly undercuts the power base of the Globalist Progressive.

An ethnic minority who loves that flag and does not hate white people is one who DOES NOT NEED a leftist champion. He doesn’t need their patronage. He doesn’t need their bribes. He doesn’t need their flattery.

So the traditional national flag is only said to be feared as a symbol of exclusion. What’s much more terrifying is that it is 1. A symbol which isn’t controlled and predates leftist theory and 2. A symbol which can potentially link anyone into an understanding of the world in which leftist champions are redundant and leftist lies and corruption are fully exposed.

It’s not fearful because it’s about ‘white power’. The people saying that know how vanishingly rare genuine white supremacism is in the modern age. It’s fearful because it threatens every leftist narrative and totally destroys their world view if immigrants genuinely do integrate and come to love the history and symbols of a nation the same way native whites do.

In military units of mixed races that function and are led well, and in sporting teams of mixed races that function and are led well, the national flag or the club symbol is a great unifier erasing racial differences, as is the love of nation or club it symbolises. It’s hard to hate someone who will bleed beside you for the same flag, and be wrapped in the same flag if they are killed. It’s hard too, in a much more trivial way but also on a tribal in and out group level, to hate someone who bears your club name, logo, motto and loyalty with the same fierceness you do, and with the same established enemies and rivals. I’m firmly of the belief that ‘racism in football’ for instance atrophies to some extent under the pressure of a shared club loyalty becoming obvious, because those clubs have their own tribal identity and their own tribal rivalries. Accessing those tends to short-circuit the electric current of racial and ethnic difference.

Now here’s the particular irony in sport, but it has a resonance in society as a whole. Most of the big campaigns to kick racism out of sport came at least in western nations when that kind of racism was already dead and buried in most instances. The purpose these campaigns served was actually the opposite of the one declared. The battle had already been won. What the anti-racism campaign was intended to do was REVIVE the battle AFTER peace had broken out. They were designed to increase racial awareness and tension, not decrease these things. They emerged not because monkey chants were commonplace and black players were universally reviled, for instance, but because monkey chants were rare and black players were (if successful for a club) treated exactly the same as any white sporting hero.

But that reality doesn’t serve the narratives of leftist progressivism and globalism. There’s no need for leftist progressive power and control if there’s no problem there. You have to revive the problem by talking about it incessantly in such a way that you re-train ethnic minorities to be aggrieved (and need you as a champion) and alienate and demonise white people as yet another means of demoralising and destroying them so they don’t ever date to challenge your ability to do whatever you like to them.

Not all of this is conscious all the time from every participant, but it is deliberate and it is identical to racial politics as a whole. The anti racism campaign in sport like the anti racism campaign in society in general gives certain people the authority to decide what symbols are allowed, what loyalties are allowed, what emotions and identities are allowed. And then the sporting world, with that premise established, becomes a propaganda canvas on which any thought about any topic can be painted. Get them to wear those Pride armbands. Get them to kneel for BLM. Get them to salute the NHS. Get them to wave the flag of Ukraine. Get them to tell everyone to wear masks and get their booster shots.

Whatever it is, the peogressive then controls the symbols offered up in the sporting world, where millions of eyes are focused as an escape from daily drudgery.

The purpose of a Colin Kaepernick is not to fight near non-existent white supremacy and definitely not to tell the truth about racial politics, but to teach black people to hate white people so that those black people can be controlled by the leash of resentment and the poisonous gift of special treatment.

Imagine every immigrant or every immigrant descended person loving the old national flag and feeling gratitude and loyalty about being an American or a Brit or a Canadian or whatever they or their ancestors had joined (in many cases willingly, in some far enough back, unwillingly). Imagine where real integration leaves self elected champions whose whole power base is built on lies about their protection being needed.

Nobody who said they fear the raising of an old flag because that flag is racist and linked to white supremacism is telling the truth on that. Not unless the flag in question genuinely derives from very clear and indisputable evil (an actual Nazi flag) or from some very obvious modern evil (an ISIS flag). The vast majority of people in the past never looked at the flag of St George and thought ‘it’s great because it excludes black people’. It was used for centuries before that would even be any kind of logical possibility. It meant courage, and love of England, and the example of a Christian hero who legendarily slew dragons. None of which had any modern thought about ethnic minorities included in it. If it in any way included any thought on another people, it might have included hatred of the French, who were also white. And the same is true of every European national symbol that predates modern leftist idiocies, modern race politics, modern levels of historical ignorance and modern fixations and shibboleths.

How could national flags that predate most contact and interaction with other races be about excluding them? Not having been encountered much, or at all, is hardly deliberate malign exclusion. It’s ahistorical nonsense (purely hysterical, performative and manipulative) to feel excluded malignly from a history which only did not feature ‘people like you’ because none of them were in that vicinity anyway. It’s like resenting people for not knowing who you are, prior to your birth. And given that most national symbols have centuries of use attached to them, the leap to inclusion is only slightly greater on the part of recent migrants than on the part of white descendants. Both must agree to an imaginative leap of loyalty that sees themselves linked to a past that knew nothing of them.

For both the progressive leftist and the angry immigrant who is unintegrated, what offends about the old flag is not that people are trying to hate them by its use, but that people they themselves hate are asserting a worth and an independence that neither the Globalist nor the Angry Arrival controls. It is a threat to their power, not a threat to their person, which sees them offended by such symbols. And in both cases the threat is twofold. That white people start to resist their debasement, and that non-white people realise their hate has been created and controlled for purposes that have nothing to with the Left actually caring about them and everything to do with the Left using them as a useful tool to gain power and divide opposition.

Radical progressives and cynical Globalists know how powerful symbols are. Many of their political theorists and favoured ‘thinkers’ were schooled in semiotics or developed and created that branch of linguistics and literary studies (Frankfurt School, structuralists and post-structuralists, and as a specific example still around today Chomsky was a linguistics academic before he became a directly political commentator).

Total control requires control of communication, language, semiotics and specific symbols with the old (uncontrolled) ones being jettisoned and discredited and new (controlled) ones raised up and celebrated. Pride flags, foreign flags, markers of anything but an integrated connection to the older narrative, the older reality, of national loyalty. That’s why we are bombarded with new symbols and at the same time entering a period where the old ones are criminalised and suppressed.

Here, for example, is the same reality in Australia:

And here it is in the UK:

The old symbols represent reality before the totalitarian takeover of established western nations, while the new symbols represent loyalty to the Regime which can make you love a foreign flag in an instant or make you seriously deluded enough to think a newly made up flag signifying a range of sexual proclivities and fetishes means ‘I am a good and caring person’.

Either way, flags do matter.

https://jupplandia.substack.com/p/another-word-on-raising-the-flag