THEY say patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. If that’s the case, there aren’t many scoundrels in Europe.
Because there sure as hell aren’t many patriots. In a recent survey, indigenous European men were asked a simple question: Would they fight for their country?
As an aside, ‘indigenous’ can be politically inflammatory for social justice warriors, so researchers instead polled German men called Hans, for example, rather than Hiawatha — if you get my drift.
The results were overwhelmingly negative. If the choice was to fight for your culture and way of life, or surrender on the altar of political correctness, most indicated they would opt for the latter.
In fact, of the 27 European countries polled, only eight had more than 50% of respondents willing to take up arms if their lands were invaded.
Top of the list was Finland with 74%, which doesn’t surprise me. Finland is the last bastion of the Vikings, as Sweden, Norway and Denmark are somewhat ambivalent about their macho past.
But having said that, Sweden is – surprisingly – also above 50%.
However, I think that’s because many Swedes have grasped that their country’s Nordic culture is doomed.
Demographers say Sweden will be the first European country to undergo race-replacement, with ethnic Scandinavians soon to be a minority.
Surprisingly, most of the countries where people would defend their way of life are among the least affluent.
For example, in Turkey 73% said they would fight an invasion, followed by Ukraine, Russia, Kosovo, Bosnia and – biggest shock of all – the EU’s basket case, Greece.
Greece may be tottering on an economic meltdown, but they’re still proud to be Greeks.
The richer countries, where life is easier and the nanny state dominant, are the least likely to bear arms.
Bottom of the pile is Holland with 15%, even below Germany, Belgium, Italy and Spain.
Bulldog Brits are in short supply as well, with only 27% of young men willing to take up arms.
I don’t take that figure too seriously though, as I have been around enough rugby clubs to know there are plenty of Winston Churchill and Douglas Bader clones to stiffen any spine.
So what should we make of it? Social justice warriors would say this is a good thing, as the only way wars will end is for people to refuse to fight them.
Human nature
That is true, but it also wilfully ignores the baser elements of human nature.
Much as I would like a stranger to be a friend I haven’t hugged, reality tends to be a bit uglier if you try that in some of the world’s rougher neighbourhoods.
For example, I don’t think North Korea would suddenly get touchy-feely if everyone disarmed.
The sad reality is that for most of human history, life has been short, sharp and brutish.
The longest period of relative peace was Pax Romana, which lasted 206 years. Yet that was enforced by Caesar’s legions rather than social justice warriors.
When the Roman Empire collapsed, it was followed by the bloodthirsty Dark Ages.
Then we had Pax Britannica, which lasted from 1815 to 1914, ruthlessly implemented by the British Navy that ruled the waves and at the same time abolished the slave trade.
There have also been relative periods of peace since World War 2, enforced by the Cold War threat of Mutually Assured Destruction, until the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Another weird aside here is that the hipsters of my generation thought we were all going to be fried in a nuke mushroom cloud during the Cold War, even though the doomsday button was controlled by two relatively sane superpowers.
Today every psycho and his dog is trying to go nuclear, and the hipsters are cool about it.
So the ultimate irony is this: the most peaceful periods in human history have been brought about by men of war.
Even today, the most placid country is neutral Switzerland, which – again ironically – ruthlessly enforces conscription and military training. Every Swiss man over 18 is armed.
Would I fight for my country?
You bet. The freedoms my forefathers fought for are not up for negotiation.
