Nationalism - The Political Religion

Resident Commie · Post by **Resident Commie** » 2002-07-21 06:28pm

With the resurgence of nationalism and patriotism.
Do you believe that those who embrace in this sort of "religion" are subject to the same sort of jingoist following that real "religions" often cause?

"FASCISM AS THE LAST RESULT OF NATIONALISTIC IDEOLOGY. ITS FIGHT AGAINST THE WORLD OF LIBERAL IDEAS. MUSSOLINI AS OPPONENT OF THE STATE. HIS POLITICAL CHANGE. GIOVANNI GENTILE, THE PHILOSOPHER OF FASCISM. NATIONALISM AS WILL FOR THE STATE. THE FASCIST STATE IDEA AND MODERN MONOPOLY CAPITALISM. CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC BARBARISM. THE STATE AS DESTROYER OF THE COMMUNITY. FREEDOM AS SOCIAL CEMENT. THE EDUCATION OF MODERN MASSMAN IN LEADING STRINGS. THE FIGHT AGAINST PERSONALITY, THE TOTALITARIAN STATE. NATIONALISM AS A POLITICAL REVEALED RELIGION. SUBMERSION OF CULTURE. DECLINE OR RISE? "
- Rudolf Rocker

http://rocker.anarchosyndicalism.org/polreg.htm

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-07-21 07:10pm

Resident Commie I'm glad this board has somone like you around, It would be so much more boring without ya

That said I acutal have nothing to say on this topic

Woops
Oh well prechance I'll have somthing meaningful to say after a few posts by other people

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-07-21 09:32pm

Nationalism is, by its definition, an extremist attitude, and it's not good. Patriotism is fine, but when you start thinking it's "patriotic" to lynch black people and beat Arabs to death, it becomes bad.

David · Post by **David** » 2002-07-21 11:07pm

Nationalism is a good way to keep a faltering country togather. Witness 1920's Germany and many southern former USSR countries like Yuogoslavia. Unfortunately the only way to make nationalism work is to convince the people that a certain group has wroged them and ther only way to exact vengence is to work togather.

That's my theory on how the Empire was put togather. Palpatine convinced those loyal to him that aliens and other groups had wronged them and to unite.

Resident Commie · Post by **Resident Commie** » 2002-07-22 02:08am

Thanks for the complement Mr. Bean, I was starting to think that everyone hated me.

Well to the topic, here's my take,
The problem with nationalism is that often times they suscribe to the same type of psuedoscience that creationist believe in. Specifically, they believe in without question what their respective control system has declared to be true, not bothering to look at empirical data. With creationist the media is the irrational interpretation of the bible, with the nationalist it is the blind acceptance of controled government sanctioned news.

"The Crusaders' cry, "God wills it!" would hardly raise an echo in Europe today, but there are still millions of men who are ready for anything if the nation wills it! Religious feeling has assumed political forms and the political man today confronts the natural man just as antagonistically as did the man of past centuries who was held in the grip of the church's dogmatism."

Just as people became informed and educated about the truth and just how incorrect and dogmatic creationism is. So must people be informed and educated about how incorrect and dogmatic nationalism is.

To quote Orwell and Mike (in that order):
"The nationalist not only does not dissapprove of attrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them"

"It is the doctrine of ignorance, and irrationality, and it is the responsibility of any intelligent person to oppose it."

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2002-07-22 04:50am

"Unfortunately the only way to make nationalism work is to convince the people that a certain group has wroged them and ther only way to exact vengence is to work togather.

That's my theory on how the Empire was put togather. Palpatine convinced those loyal to him that aliens and other groups had wronged them and to unite."

That's also why I think the Emperor wasn't really into that anti-alien bias himself. He simply pretended to, because the Core regions had a pro-human bias (ref. Wraith Squadron) and he wanted their support. He trained an apprentice, Maul, and seemed quite fond of him, despite his being an alien. He took Thrawn under his wing, and, while faking his exile, gave him a secret commission to conquer probably the largest single territory in the galaxy. This tells us that Palpatine had surpreme confidence in Thrawn, because with the resources at Thrawns disposal coupled with the Chiss' brilliance, he could probably have fought Palpatine to a standstill if he wanted to.

Meghel · Post by **Meghel** » 2002-07-22 08:36am

Nationalism is not a bad thing in itself; if people do not feel national pride of their country, that country will eventually desintegrate.
Nationalism is a prerequisite for a country; for without trust in the country and its institutions, it would just fall apart.

But nationalism can lead to many evils if it is used to antagonise against other nations or groups of people.

Saying; "I love my country for it is great here." is a lot different from saying "I love my country, it is the best and all other countries are inferior".

As with all things, food, drink and money, it is healthy to exercise constraint.
A little nationalism and patriotism is good for you and your country. Too much is bad for you and your country.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-07-22 11:11am

Meghel wrote:Nationalism is not a bad thing in itself; if people do not feel national pride of their country, that country will eventually desintegrate.
Nationalism is a prerequisite for a country; for without trust in the country and its institutions, it would just fall apart.

That's more patriotism than nationalism.

David · Post by **David** » 2002-07-22 12:59pm

Resident Commie wrote:Thanks for the complement Mr. Bean, I was starting to think that everyone hated me.

Well to the topic, here's my take,
The problem with nationalism is that often times they suscribe to the same type of psuedoscience that creationist believe in. Specifically, they believe in without question what their respective control system has declared to be true, not bothering to look at empirical data. With creationist the media is the irrational interpretation of the bible, with the nationalist it is the blind acceptance of controled government sanctioned news.

"The Crusaders' cry, "God wills it!" would hardly raise an echo in Europe today, but there are still millions of men who are ready for anything if the nation wills it! Religious feeling has assumed political forms and the political man today confronts the natural man just as antagonistically as did the man of past centuries who was held in the grip of the church's dogmatism."

Just as people became informed and educated about the truth and just how incorrect and dogmatic creationism is. So must people be informed and educated about how incorrect and dogmatic nationalism is.

To quote Orwell and Mike (in that order):
"The nationalist not only does not dissapprove of attrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them"

"It is the doctrine of ignorance, and irrationality, and it is the responsibility of any intelligent person to oppose it."

Did you start this thread to talk aqbout creationism or nationalism?

Resident Commie · Post by **Resident Commie** » 2002-07-22 01:54pm

Did you start this thread to talk aqbout creationism or nationalism?

Nationalism and how people who subscribe to this irrational belief are just as doomed as those who follow creationism.

Resident Commie · Post by **Resident Commie** » 2002-07-23 03:05am

Unfortunately the only way to make nationalism work is to convince the people that a certain group has wroged them and ther only way to exact vengence is to work togather.

Isn't this how the US is portraying the "terrorists" and any other anti-american country is given the dubious distinction of being in the so-called "Axis of Evil"

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2002-07-23 03:37am

"Axis of Evil" my ass. That really has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard anything called. It sounds like the name of a GI Joe episode. I'm surprised the media didn't ridicule the shit out of him for that. Just because he's popular with all the bible-thumping morons in this country (a club he happens to belong to) is no reason to leave the gloves on.

Grand Admiral Chaos · Post by **Grand Admiral Chaos** » 2002-07-23 04:22am

Exactly. I find the fact that US government imprisoned so many people after 9/11 without being charged, without a speedy trial, and the information about these people, even their names, was kept a secret. This, in itself, is a very dangerous precedent. Then when people openly critisize this sort of thing, they are practically considered to be in league with the terrorists for the very nature of their arguements is blasphemy to the people blindly following the President.

I even sat and watched a Congressman on C-SPAN a few weeks ago give a long speech about how this nation is setting the foundation to become a police state. On that note, I certainly don't see how anyone could *not* see the use of our own citizens to report "suspicious" activities as the slightest bit disturbing. No matter if it's the postal worker or Joe Blow, I find this idea to be quite scary. We're now watching our own citizens, and "suspicious" activity could encompass quite a range of things whether it really has anything to do with terrorism or not. From another news report I saw before, the FBI, I believe, recieved new powers by one of the reactionary anti-terrorism bills to monitor internet activity. (does anyone remember that, because I can't seem to recall completely) So, now we lose a more privacy. People seem to think giving up our liberty is necessary to be safe. I seriously doubt this is true. After all, when this war on terror ends, if it ends, will we get those freedoms back that we so willingly gave up?

Well, I'm half awake and about to go to bed, so I'll just leave my comments incomplete and incoherent.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2002-07-23 04:53am

Exactly. I find the fact that US government imprisoned so many people after 9/11 without being charged, without a speedy trial, and the information about these people, even their names, was kept a secret. This, in itself, is a very dangerous precedent. Then when people openly critisize this sort of thing, they are practically considered to be in league with the terrorists for the very nature of their arguements is blasphemy to the people blindly following the President.

Really? I've never heard any of this. Is there a link or something? I didn't know it had gone this far.

I even sat and watched a Congressman on C-SPAN a few weeks ago give a long speech about how this nation is setting the foundation to become a police state. On that note, I certainly don't see how anyone could *not* see the use of our own citizens to report "suspicious" activities as the slightest bit disturbing. No matter if it's the postal worker or Joe Blow, I find this idea to be quite scary. We're now watching our own citizens, and "suspicious" activity could encompass quite a range of things whether it really has anything to do with terrorism or not.

Again, haven't heard anything about this. Then again, I don't really keep up on politics. Can someone provide a link?

From another news report I saw before, the FBI, I believe, recieved new powers by one of the reactionary anti-terrorism bills to monitor internet activity. (does anyone remember that, because I can't seem to recall completely) So, now we lose a more privacy. People seem to think giving up our liberty is necessary to be safe. I seriously doubt this is true.

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said something along the lines of "Anyone who would give up a little liberty for a little safety will lose both and deserve neither"? Anyway, an open society is always vulnerable to terrorism unless it keeps its nose out of other countries' fucking business (not that I'm blaming anyone but Al-Qaeda for their attacks, but they wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the US's disgraceful stance on Israel-Palestine), and it's never been made clear that we as citizens would be any safer from those who wish to make political statements out of us after having given up rights guranteed by our Constitution, which has stood the test of time for 200+ years, to never be taken away.

After all, when this war on terror ends, if it ends, will we get those freedoms back that we so willingly gave up?

It depends. If the population allows itself to be disarmed, it will never get its freedoms back. If not, a significant public outcry will probably force a gov't with despotic tendencies to restore some freedoms for fear of revolution, and if worst comes to worst, a good ol' fashioned coup will restore those freedoms nice and quick. Not to overquote Jefferson, but I believe he said that one of the important things about the 2nd ammendment was that it enforced the constitution, because the gov't would be throwing an armed populace's rights out the window at its own peril.

EDIT: As I was reading this, I realized I sounded like a little like a right-winger talking about the 2nd amendment and armed populaces and such. I'm not. While I happen to agree in general principle with most conservatives on gun laws, I do not consider myself to be more right than left (or vice versa, for that matter).

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2002-07-23 09:12am

In America we the citizens are the nation. Of course we are going to have pride in ourselves. If I were you I'd be more worried about nationalism in the middle east, or in China...

Nick · Post by **Nick** » 2002-07-23 10:41am

USA PATRIOT Act:
Uniting and Strengthening America Act by Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism

A copy of the USA PATRIOT Act:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance ... _bill.html

Some analyses of the USA PATRIOT Act:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance ... lysis.html
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
http://www.aclu.org/congress/l110101a.html

Anyone know where to find an analysis that actually _favours_ the bill?

For mine, I find the backronym and what it aims to signify ('any patriot will support this bill') as scary as any of the rest of it. . .

As for the necessity for an armed populace - it depends. A well-developed doctrine of illegal orders in the military can serve a similar purpose. A prevalence of armed civilians is _one_ possible hedge against a military coup - but it brings with it problems of its own. Whether the existence of the hedge is worth the immediate consequences of the guns. . . tough call. (The US went one way, Australia has gone the other. We'll have to wait and see how things turn out)

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-07-23 12:13pm

Being proud of your country and it's history is a good thing (if there's something at all to be really proud of). But valueing it higher than other countries is irrational and only leads to arrogance, extreme nationalism, and, in the end, facism.
Patriotism and such is just fine but you have to be careful not to get into the extreme.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2002-07-23 03:50pm

As for the necessity for an armed populace - it depends. A well-developed doctrine of illegal orders in the military can serve a similar purpose. A prevalence of armed civilians is _one_ possible hedge against a military coup - but it brings with it problems of its own. Whether the existence of the hedge is worth the immediate consequences of the guns. . . tough call. (The US went one way, Australia has gone the other. We'll have to wait and see how things turn out)

I was actually talking about an armed populace as a hedge against a totalitarian dictatorship, where the citizens themselves would stage the coup and restore the Constitution, electing new leaders, but I can see how it would guard against a military coup as well. The obvious problem here is that the only people that are capable of staging a coup at the moment are probably the nutjob militia groups in rural States, who would probably turn around and institute some religious theocracy, but I think that's just because the gov't is fine for the most part and not trampling our liberties (at least not intentionally). If that changed, so would the makeup of militias (I would hope).

Grand Admiral Chaos · Post by **Grand Admiral Chaos** » 2002-07-23 09:52pm

The information I provided come from the TV. The news reports over the past several months on the Fox News Channel was the source of most of my information. The speech by a Representative from Texas (I forgot his name) was aired on C-SPAN live.

To be honest, I've been isolated from the TV, so I don't know if any of the names of the people detained immediately after 9/11 were ever released. So, as far as I know, they're mostly still being held without trial. I haven't found out otherwise yet.

Edit: There might be info on the 'net somewhere, but I never looked. Eh. If I'm wrong, I won't take my statements being shot down so badly.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » 2002-07-24 07:46am

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:
As for the necessity for an armed populace - it depends. A well-developed doctrine of illegal orders in the military can serve a similar purpose. A prevalence of armed civilians is _one_ possible hedge against a military coup - but it brings with it problems of its own. Whether the existence of the hedge is worth the immediate consequences of the guns. . . tough call. (The US went one way, Australia has gone the other. We'll have to wait and see how things turn out)
I was actually talking about an armed populace as a hedge against a totalitarian dictatorship, where the citizens themselves would stage the coup and restore the Constitution, electing new leaders, but I can see how it would guard against a military coup as well. The obvious problem here is that the only people that are capable of staging a coup at the moment are probably the nutjob militia groups in rural States, who would probably turn around and institute some religious theocracy, but I think that's just because the gov't is fine for the most part and not trampling our liberties (at least not intentionally). If that changed, so would the makeup of militias (I would hope).

Fair enough - I guess the point I was trying to make is, exactly how long is any dictator going to last if they don't get the _real_ military onside before trying anything?

Dubya: "There isn't going to be another election. I didn't win the last one, and I think they're a silly idea. I'm just going to stay President"

Joint Chiefs: "Ahh, we hate to disagree sir, but we think there _is_ going to be an election."

Dubya: "Ha! Just kidding! Fooled you!"

Not to mention the fact that the threat of force is necessary to cow any _other_ groups which may choose to protest (e.g. by walking off the job) an attempt to create a dictatorship.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2002-07-24 06:20pm

Most dictators already have the military firmly on their side long before they declare themselves as such. It's really not that difficult, actually. Either expand their powers or replace the military leadership with ambitious underlings and the military will follow you to the ends of the Earth. (First to say who I was paraphrasing there gets a cookie). The military is what lets them oppress the populace, after all.