Patriotism vs. Nationalism
Posted: 02 July 2008 02:19 PM   [ Ignore ]
Senior Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1580
Joined  2007-08-17

Interesting juxtapositions and especially relevant given the rabid attention some have given to flag pins, or the absence thereof, in this election cycle.

For a people to be controlled, they must first be robbed of honest discourse and open debate. Distorting language and stripping it of real and honest meaning is the first tool and the best mechanism for transforming a democracy into an authoritarian state. An informed populace is a dangerous populace.

Symbols, however, and false-definitions can provide the appearance of information without the truth of it. Ideas, substance and meaning—all things for which a symbol is simply a representation and a word simply a type of symbol—are far more difficult to control. There is nuance in individual ideas. There are shades of agreement and disagreement and a whole spectrum of understanding and believing. Such a complex system cannot be controlled, and therefore, must be reduced to only its symbol and then distorted.

Symbols and words-as-slogans can be mass produced, mass delivered, and altered from their original meaning, until the symbol becomes its own thing and the substance on which it is based is entirely lost.

A word’s usage too can be tweaked through false definitions and repetition, until it too becomes entirely the opposite of its actual meaning.

Patriotism is the word that authoritarians most like to distort and Goldberg demonstrates—once again—just how this distortion is created.

***

In fact, patriotism should be THE issue. The problem is that Goldberg and those like him have no concept of patriotism actually means. More disturbingly too, they confuse patriotism with nationalism.

Miriam-Webster defines patriotism as “love for or devotion to one’s country.” Every other dictionary I have consulted provides a similar if not exact definition.

Nowhere does the term or the idea of patriotism in general require one to believe one’s country is “great.” Nowhere does the term or the idea of patriotism in general require a ban on dissenting views, on criticism of one’s government, indeed even of one’s nation.

***

When someone is critical of their country and especially when their country strays from its course, it does not mean the person is not patriotic. It means that the person loves their country enough to want only the best for it. They want it to be greater than what it already is or they want it to be as great as it once was. But criticism of a country is not akin to being un-patriotic. Only a rabid nationalist would make such an argument and only Goldberg manages to continue to do it this badly. After all, this is the same man who authored “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning” and in all seriousness.

Nationalists, rabid right-wing advocates of symbol worship, on the other hand are entirely what Goldberg and his ilk define as patriots. It may entirely be possible that some of these boot-marching androids are simply ignorant and accept whatever canned-pro-America products they are sold. They are in essence, the perfect vessel for an authoritarian regime.

***

Believe this or else

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism ~ George Washington

Goldberg proves my point entirely when he goes on to define patriotism and actually ends up defining nationalism (while claiming to be differentiating the two):

“Definitions of patriotism proliferate, but in the American context patriotism must involve not only devotion to American texts (something that distinguishes our patriotism from European nationalism) but also an abiding belief in the inherent and enduring goodness of the American nation. We might need to change this or that policy or law, fix this or that problem, but at the end of the day the patriotic American believes that America is fundamentally good as it is.”
In other words, your government can do no wrong. You must never doubt your government or question its ways. So when my America began to openly torture people and publicly denounced the Geneva Conventions as “quaint,” I should have been waving my little Chinese made American flag while admiring the inherent goodness of my government. According to Goldberg, it is not the defense of the Constitution or the liberty it guarantees or even a simple love of country that makes us patriots. No, for Goldberg and his kind, the “true patriot” must surrender their reason and their conscience, and simply know (without knowing in any meaningful way) that their government can do no wrong.

Source.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2008 03:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Senior Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  21203
Joined  2004-10-21

My opposition to obama has nothing to do with a lapel pin.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2008 09:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Senior Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8261
Joined  2005-10-19

For a people to be controlled, they must first be robbed of honest discourse and open debate. Distorting language and stripping it of real and honest meaning is the first tool and the best mechanism for transforming a democracy into an authoritarian state. An informed populace is a dangerous populace.

You mean like we can’t criticize or debate anything Obama least we be called racist?

 Signature 

If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for . . but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. - Robert Heinlein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2008 10:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Senior Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1580
Joined  2007-08-17
roux - 03 July 2008 09:51 AM

For a people to be controlled, they must first be robbed of honest discourse and open debate. Distorting language and stripping it of real and honest meaning is the first tool and the best mechanism for transforming a democracy into an authoritarian state. An informed populace is a dangerous populace.

You mean like we can’t criticize or debate anything Obama least we be called racist?

That’s what you took from the text you quoted?  Obama is open to a wide range of criticism, with a liberal voting record in both the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate.  You, or anyone for that matter, could surely take legitimate issue with his record without asassinating his character, subtly implying he is a terrorist Muslim, or calling into question his patriotism because he chose not to wear a Chineese or Vietnameese-made, quarter-inch U.S. flag lapel pin.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2008 10:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Senior Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2080
Joined  2008-04-20
Leon Trotsky - 02 July 2008 02:19 PM

Interesting juxtapositions and especially relevant given the rabid attention some have given to flag pins, or the absence thereof, in this election cycle.

For a people to be controlled, they must first be robbed of honest discourse and open debate. Distorting language and stripping it of real and honest meaning is the first tool and the best mechanism for transforming a democracy into an authoritarian state. An informed populace is a dangerous populace.

Symbols, however, and false-definitions can provide the appearance of information without the truth of it. Ideas, substance and meaning—all things for which a symbol is simply a representation and a word simply a type of symbol—are far more difficult to control. There is nuance in individual ideas. There are shades of agreement and disagreement and a whole spectrum of understanding and believing. Such a complex system cannot be controlled, and therefore, must be reduced to only its symbol and then distorted.

Symbols and words-as-slogans can be mass produced, mass delivered, and altered from their original meaning, until the symbol becomes its own thing and the substance on which it is based is entirely lost.

A word’s usage too can be tweaked through false definitions and repetition, until it too becomes entirely the opposite of its actual meaning.

Patriotism is the word that authoritarians most like to distort and Goldberg demonstrates—once again—just how this distortion is created.

***

In fact, patriotism should be THE issue. The problem is that Goldberg and those like him have no concept of patriotism actually means. More disturbingly too, they confuse patriotism with nationalism.

Miriam-Webster defines patriotism as “love for or devotion to one’s country.” Every other dictionary I have consulted provides a similar if not exact definition.

Nowhere does the term or the idea of patriotism in general require one to believe one’s country is “great.” Nowhere does the term or the idea of patriotism in general require a ban on dissenting views, on criticism of one’s government, indeed even of one’s nation.

***

When someone is critical of their country and especially when their country strays from its course, it does not mean the person is not patriotic. It means that the person loves their country enough to want only the best for it. They want it to be greater than what it already is or they want it to be as great as it once was. But criticism of a country is not akin to being un-patriotic. Only a rabid nationalist would make such an argument and only Goldberg manages to continue to do it this badly. After all, this is the same man who authored “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning” and in all seriousness.

Nationalists, rabid right-wing advocates of symbol worship, on the other hand are entirely what Goldberg and his ilk define as patriots. It may entirely be possible that some of these boot-marching androids are simply ignorant and accept whatever canned-pro-America products they are sold. They are in essence, the perfect vessel for an authoritarian regime.

***

Believe this or else


Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism ~ George Washington

Goldberg proves my point entirely when he goes on to define patriotism and actually ends up defining nationalism (while claiming to be differentiating the two):

“Definitions of patriotism proliferate, but in the American context patriotism must involve not only devotion to American texts (something that distinguishes our patriotism from European nationalism) but also an abiding belief in the inherent and enduring goodness of the American nation. We might need to change this or that policy or law, fix this or that problem, but at the end of the day the patriotic American believes that America is fundamentally good as it is.”
In other words, your government can do no wrong. You must never doubt your government or question its ways. So when my America began to openly torture people and publicly denounced the Geneva Conventions as “quaint,” I should have been waving my little Chinese made American flag while admiring the inherent goodness of my government. According to Goldberg, it is not the defense of the Constitution or the liberty it guarantees or even a simple love of country that makes us patriots. No, for Goldberg and his kind, the “true patriot” must surrender their reason and their conscience, and simply know (without knowing in any meaningful way) that their government can do no wrong.

Source.

China has poisoned our kids toys and our pets food and yet Bush has not done anything about it, but not wearing a pin made in china is something to fight over.

 Signature 

McCain , The bad economy is just your imagination. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivroxPyG-IE&feature;=related

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2008 10:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Senior Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8261
Joined  2005-10-19
Leon Trotsky - 03 July 2008 10:09 AM

roux - 03 July 2008 09:51 AM
For a people to be controlled, they must first be robbed of honest discourse and open debate. Distorting language and stripping it of real and honest meaning is the first tool and the best mechanism for transforming a democracy into an authoritarian state. An informed populace is a dangerous populace.

You mean like we can’t criticize or debate anything Obama least we be called racist?

That’s what you took from the text you quoted?  Obama is open to a wide range of criticism, with a liberal voting record in both the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate.  You, or anyone for that matter, could surely take legitimate issue with his record without asassinating his character, subtly implying he is a terrorist Muslim, or calling into question his patriotism because he chose not to wear a Chineese or Vietnameese-made, quarter-inch U.S. flag lapel pin.

I could care less if he wears a pin, if he stands at attention during the national anthem or is a muslim. His problem is that he is pretending to be something he is not. He is a Chicago Machine politician who doesn’t want or stand for change.

He’s lied about his past and he’s lying about his plans for this country.

 Signature 

If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for . . but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. - Robert Heinlein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2008 10:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Senior Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  21203
Joined  2004-10-21

Roux, how dare you critisize the Messiah!!!!!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2008 11:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Senior Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1580
Joined  2007-08-17
roux - 03 July 2008 10:27 AM

Leon Trotsky - 03 July 2008 10:09 AM
roux - 03 July 2008 09:51 AM
For a people to be controlled, they must first be robbed of honest discourse and open debate. Distorting language and stripping it of real and honest meaning is the first tool and the best mechanism for transforming a democracy into an authoritarian state. An informed populace is a dangerous populace.

You mean like we can’t criticize or debate anything Obama least we be called racist?

That’s what you took from the text you quoted?  Obama is open to a wide range of criticism, with a liberal voting record in both the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate.  You, or anyone for that matter, could surely take legitimate issue with his record without asassinating his character, subtly implying he is a terrorist Muslim, or calling into question his patriotism because he chose not to wear a Chineese or Vietnameese-made, quarter-inch U.S. flag lapel pin.

I could care less if he wears a pin, if he stands at attention during the national anthem or is a muslim. His problem is that he is pretending to be something he is not. He is a Chicago Machine politician who doesn’t want or stand for change.

He’s lied about his past and he’s lying about his plans for this country.

What in his past or in his plans is he lying about?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2008 02:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Senior Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8261
Joined  2005-10-19
Leon Trotsky - 03 July 2008 11:37 AM

roux - 03 July 2008 10:27 AM
Leon Trotsky - 03 July 2008 10:09 AM
roux - 03 July 2008 09:51 AM
For a people to be controlled, they must first be robbed of honest discourse and open debate. Distorting language and stripping it of real and honest meaning is the first tool and the best mechanism for transforming a democracy into an authoritarian state. An informed populace is a dangerous populace.

You mean like we can’t criticize or debate anything Obama least we be called racist?

That’s what you took from the text you quoted?  Obama is open to a wide range of criticism, with a liberal voting record in both the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate.  You, or anyone for that matter, could surely take legitimate issue with his record without asassinating his character, subtly implying he is a terrorist Muslim, or calling into question his patriotism because he chose not to wear a Chineese or Vietnameese-made, quarter-inch U.S. flag lapel pin.

I could care less if he wears a pin, if he stands at attention during the national anthem or is a muslim. His problem is that he is pretending to be something he is not. He is a Chicago Machine politician who doesn’t want or stand for change.

He’s lied about his past and he’s lying about his plans for this country.

What in his past or in his plans is he lying about?

Didn’t realize his buddy Ayers was a terrorist, didn’t know his preacher was saying things, he’s pure as the driven snow, not a typical politician, etc....

So far he’s flipped on just about every issue trying to stretch his way from the far left to the middle. Deep down he’s a leftist but as long a Axelrod keeps writing his words he sounds middle of the road.

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0629df.html

 Signature 

If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for . . but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. - Robert Heinlein

Profile