Scotland the Whore.

I've been thinking about national pride over the last few days and I've come to the conclusion that being proud of your country is retarded

From an early age nationalistic pride is pumped into your mind and you're forced to swallow it like a cumslut in a cheap porno movie. You're taught the anthem, shown the flag and told to salute them both. And don't think for a second that I didn't swallow it either. Oh no, I ate that shit up with a smile on my face and asked for more. I waved the flag, sung the songs and tattooed my arm to prove it.

But what's the reason? Why is it that you should be proud of the place where your parents got jiggy with it once upon a time? Well, it's because it's easier to control a population when they're divided. It's an old Roman trick called Divide and Conquer. You've no doubt heard of it. If not then read this, and for the love of God stop jerking off to porn and use the computer in front of you for what it's for... Learning.

For example; Say I ran a country, as frightening a thought as that is, and I wanted to gain better control over my subjects, what's the ideal solution? Separation. These days it's easier to use sport as a way to separate people what with Sky TV and the like, but in the old days it was easier to divide the land and create warring factions within those divided lands. If a nation is divided it is easier to keep those without power arguing amongst themselves while the upper 1% keep all the money and riches.

Another thing that's pumped into your mind when it's still soft and is sufficiently underdeveloped to blindly accept everything that it told to it, is that you should know the history of your country. But, here's the rub... It's not actual history... Oh no, whatever religion/political body/false democracy/dictator/media mogul is in charge at the present time decides what version of history you get taught.

Only personal history should be recognized as truth. All other history should be disregarded. As Mark Twain said, "All history is bunkum." And so it is. When reading history you have to bear in mind that the writer, unless he/she was physically present during the period he/she is writing about, has only previous historians opinions upon which to base his/her opinions on. Ergo; Res Ipsa loquitur. Or perhaps not. Perhaps the thing doesn't speak for itself. Maybe I'll have to draw you a diagram. But I doubt it. You're clever enough to figure it out for yourself...