Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I’ve always wondered how you can love your country and yet want to “fundamentally transform” your country.
On the other hand, I wonder how people can love their country and still see many problems.
Imagine you're a Communist and you love your country, wouldn't you want it to become a Communist state?
Imagine you had a child who was gay, you love that child, but you'd prefer they weren't gay.
You are talking about "conditional love". Are you still going to love that child after your "fundamental transformation" efforts fail? Are you going to respect that child for being gay or are you going to undermine his will and right to live as a homosexual?
On your first example, the communists loves what his country can potentially be and not necessarily continue to love the country if the "fundamental transformation" fails.
I've asked this question before and everyone skirted around it, trying to avoid it.
What percentage of your country do you have to love in order to love your country?
Do you love Democrats? Do you love the inner city ghettos? Do you love the murder rate? Do you love the rape? Do you love all of the bad things in the US?
You never, ever complain about stuff?
This is the problem with your argument. You'll complain about things, and then say you love the country. Then say others don't love the country because they complain about stuff.
I’ve always wondered how you can love your country and yet want to “fundamentally transform” your country.
On the other hand, I wonder how people can love their country and still see many problems.
Imagine you're a Communist and you love your country, wouldn't you want it to become a Communist state?
Imagine you had a child who was gay, you love that child, but you'd prefer they weren't gay.
You are talking about "conditional love". Are you still going to love that child after your "fundamental transformation" efforts fail? Are you going to respect that child for being gay or are you going to undermine his will and right to live as a homosexual?
On your first example, the communists loves what his country can potentially be and not necessarily continue to love the country if the "fundamental transformation" fails.
I've asked this question before and everyone skirted around it, trying to avoid it.
What percentage of your country do you have to love in order to love your country?
Do you love Democrats? Do you love the inner city ghettos? Do you love the murder rate? Do you love the rape? Do you love all of the bad things in the US?
You never, ever complain about stuff?
This is the problem with your argument. You'll complain about things, and then say you love the country. Then say others don't love the country because they complain about stuff.
- I love Democrats but they need be fundamentally transformed
- I love inner city ghettos which need to undergo a fundamental transformation
How sincere do I sound by putting fundamental transformation” as a condition?
If you need to ask you probably...
A- Don't love your country for whatever reason.
B- Have never been to another one to compare them.
I don't accept that asking for clarification necessarily implies any of that. I'm asking people to clearly define what they mean when they say this. It's no more than each person should ask of themselves.
I’ve always wondered how you can love your country and yet want to “fundamentally transform” your country.
On the other hand, I wonder how people can love their country and still see many problems.
Imagine you're a Communist and you love your country, wouldn't you want it to become a Communist state?
Imagine you had a child who was gay, you love that child, but you'd prefer they weren't gay.
You are talking about "conditional love". Are you still going to love that child after your "fundamental transformation" efforts fail? Are you going to respect that child for being gay or are you going to undermine his will and right to live as a homosexual?
On your first example, the communists loves what his country can potentially be and not necessarily continue to love the country if the "fundamental transformation" fails.
I've asked this question before and everyone skirted around it, trying to avoid it.
What percentage of your country do you have to love in order to love your country?
Do you love Democrats? Do you love the inner city ghettos? Do you love the murder rate? Do you love the rape? Do you love all of the bad things in the US?
You never, ever complain about stuff?
This is the problem with your argument. You'll complain about things, and then say you love the country. Then say others don't love the country because they complain about stuff.
- I love Democrats but they need be fundamentally transformed
- I love inner city ghettos which need to undergo a fundamental transformation
How sincere do I sound by putting fundamental transformation” as a condition?
Well then, if you're being insincere, you clearly don't love your country. You have to love 100% of your country or you're not a patriot.
On the other hand, I wonder how people can love their country and still see many problems.
Imagine you're a Communist and you love your country, wouldn't you want it to become a Communist state?
Imagine you had a child who was gay, you love that child, but you'd prefer they weren't gay.
You are talking about "conditional love". Are you still going to love that child after your "fundamental transformation" efforts fail? Are you going to respect that child for being gay or are you going to undermine his will and right to live as a homosexual?
On your first example, the communists loves what his country can potentially be and not necessarily continue to love the country if the "fundamental transformation" fails.
I've asked this question before and everyone skirted around it, trying to avoid it.
What percentage of your country do you have to love in order to love your country?
Do you love Democrats? Do you love the inner city ghettos? Do you love the murder rate? Do you love the rape? Do you love all of the bad things in the US?
You never, ever complain about stuff?
This is the problem with your argument. You'll complain about things, and then say you love the country. Then say others don't love the country because they complain about stuff.
- I love Democrats but they need be fundamentally transformed
- I love inner city ghettos which need to undergo a fundamental transformation
How sincere do I sound by putting fundamental transformation” as a condition?
Well then, if you're being insincere, you clearly don't love your country. You have to love 100% of your country or you're not a patriot.
Inserting “fundamental transformation” in the context of love your country definitely proves your point. “Love 100% of your country or you are not a patriot” is absolute talk as is “fundamental transformation”. Perhaps a better approach would be to say that you live the country but you believe the country can do better. Simple.
On the other hand, I wonder how people can love their country and still see many problems.
Imagine you're a Communist and you love your country, wouldn't you want it to become a Communist state?
Imagine you had a child who was gay, you love that child, but you'd prefer they weren't gay.
You are talking about "conditional love". Are you still going to love that child after your "fundamental transformation" efforts fail? Are you going to respect that child for being gay or are you going to undermine his will and right to live as a homosexual?
On your first example, the communists loves what his country can potentially be and not necessarily continue to love the country if the "fundamental transformation" fails.
This is the problem the thread was designed to point out. “Country” must mean political system, government, etc. when used in this context. It is the only thing that distinguishes this “country” definitively from any other. Culture has a more nebulous border, people vary widely, and land on one side of the border is exactly the same as on the other side.
So we’re talking about government, and government is not worthy of love. That’s why people point to flags and Constitutions, values and ideals, when you ask them what they love about their country - because these things represent wonderful imaginings of what could be, a potentiality. But what’s really there, what really exists, is a coercive, violent system of domination run by gangsters, and this they do not love.
So they say they love their country, but want to change it. They are talking about two different things, but haven’t thought it through enough to realize it. They love the ideal, the potential of what life on their land, with their people, could be; but they want to change the reality because it is far from that ideal.
And it always will be far from that ideal, until they earnestly seek to understand the natural law this “country” was founded upon; and recognize that even those (perhaps) well-meaning founding fathers went astray from this law when they established a nation in its name.
No, if you were talking about government, you'd say "do you love your government"
Country is something much more than government, in case you hadn't noticed.
Yes, but as you have noted, the other considerations about “country” are too nebulous or laden with variables or lack of exclusivity to pecisely define it. The only thing that clearly defines it is the ruling class. That is what the flag represents - the Republic. That is what the borders define - their claimed territory of authority.
That’s why when people say they love their country, they are referring to objects of imagination - values, ideals, potentialities. They associate these ideas with an obscure notion of “country”, but it’s pure dissonance. There is no logical basis for limiting any of that to this patch of land claimed as the property of a particular ruling class, or the people they unjustly burden with their fallacious authority. The connection is purposefully instilled via indoctrination; that’s the only reason why it’s there.
Isn't that the whole point of this?
People come on here and say "I love my country, I'm a patriot" but the reality is it's all obscure.
It's an emotional thing.
The right tend to use it because it doesn't pin down to one thing, they can say it, they can demand people follow it with the flag and the anthem etc, but it doesn't mean much.
You are talking about "conditional love". Are you still going to love that child after your "fundamental transformation" efforts fail? Are you going to respect that child for being gay or are you going to undermine his will and right to live as a homosexual?
On your first example, the communists loves what his country can potentially be and not necessarily continue to love the country if the "fundamental transformation" fails.
This is the problem the thread was designed to point out. “Country” must mean political system, government, etc. when used in this context. It is the only thing that distinguishes this “country” definitively from any other. Culture has a more nebulous border, people vary widely, and land on one side of the border is exactly the same as on the other side.
So we’re talking about government, and government is not worthy of love. That’s why people point to flags and Constitutions, values and ideals, when you ask them what they love about their country - because these things represent wonderful imaginings of what could be, a potentiality. But what’s really there, what really exists, is a coercive, violent system of domination run by gangsters, and this they do not love.
So they say they love their country, but want to change it. They are talking about two different things, but haven’t thought it through enough to realize it. They love the ideal, the potential of what life on their land, with their people, could be; but they want to change the reality because it is far from that ideal.
And it always will be far from that ideal, until they earnestly seek to understand the natural law this “country” was founded upon; and recognize that even those (perhaps) well-meaning founding fathers went astray from this law when they established a nation in its name.
No, if you were talking about government, you'd say "do you love your government"
Country is something much more than government, in case you hadn't noticed.
Yes, but as you have noted, the other considerations about “country” are too nebulous or laden with variables or lack of exclusivity to pecisely define it. The only thing that clearly defines it is the ruling class. That is what the flag represents - the Republic. That is what the borders define - their claimed territory of authority.
That’s why when people say they love their country, they are referring to objects of imagination - values, ideals, potentialities. They associate these ideas with an obscure notion of “country”, but it’s pure dissonance. There is no logical basis for limiting any of that to this patch of land claimed as the property of a particular ruling class, or the people they unjustly burden with their fallacious authority. The connection is purposefully instilled via indoctrination; that’s the only reason why it’s there.
Isn't that the whole point of this?
People come on here and say "I love my country, I'm a patriot" but the reality is it's all obscure.
It's an emotional thing.
The right tend to use it because it doesn't pin down to one thing, they can say it, they can demand people follow it with the flag and the anthem etc, but it doesn't mean much.
Agreed, though it's worse than just being an impotent muttering, because the acceptance of national delineation is divisive, and a key factor in generating the fear and gang mentality necessary to keep dominators in place, and their mindless underlings doing their bidding.
It's wonderful to love the land - I think America is/was beautiful. Sometimes I look over at Manhattan and wonder how gorgeous this land must have been at one time. Twisting waterways, lush forest, miles of beaches, four seasons in perfect harmony... And I also think it's great to love a culture. I love most cultures; the music, the dress, the small nuances of mannerism and modality. The problem I have is the straight line drawn across the border that describes the territory of a mafia who claims everything and everyone inside that line, and the misguided association some people feel with that band of thugs.
The gang affiliation makes people say things like "We had to bomb the Japs to end the war". Talking about "the Japs" as one unified body is erroneous to the point of insanity. Individuals in government (and their wealthy controllers) are the ones who make war. Those people are not to be lumped in with the mother doing her laundry and watching her children, when a fucking firebomb turns her family to ash. Slapping a white rectangle with a red circle on top of millions of people and calling them "the Japs" is what allows another individual to fly bomb over people's houses and let it go. That man was psychologically compromised by this perverted version of "love of country" (which always carries the connotation of loving it MORE than other countries). If he remembered that he is just a man, not an "American" gang member, and that the woman was just a woman, not a "Japanese" gang member, at that there is no logical reason to associate himself or her with the people in their respective governments, he could never bring himself to do this. Malicious mind control is at the heart of such actions.
All evil is a perversion, not a creation; so there is a good version of "love of country". That's why I wanted to spend some time looking closely at what we really mean when we say this. We need to extract the evil disease of nationalism that ravages this otherwise beautiful sentiment.
If you need to ask you probably...
A- Don't love your country for whatever reason.
B- Have never been to another one to compare them.
I don't accept that asking for clarification necessarily implies any of that. I'm asking people to clearly define what they mean when they say this. It's no more than each person should ask of themselves.
Fails to adequately address A & B.
You are talking about "conditional love". Are you still going to love that child after your "fundamental transformation" efforts fail? Are you going to respect that child for being gay or are you going to undermine his will and right to live as a homosexual?
On your first example, the communists loves what his country can potentially be and not necessarily continue to love the country if the "fundamental transformation" fails.
This is the problem the thread was designed to point out. “Country” must mean political system, government, etc. when used in this context. It is the only thing that distinguishes this “country” definitively from any other. Culture has a more nebulous border, people vary widely, and land on one side of the border is exactly the same as on the other side.
So we’re talking about government, and government is not worthy of love. That’s why people point to flags and Constitutions, values and ideals, when you ask them what they love about their country - because these things represent wonderful imaginings of what could be, a potentiality. But what’s really there, what really exists, is a coercive, violent system of domination run by gangsters, and this they do not love.
So they say they love their country, but want to change it. They are talking about two different things, but haven’t thought it through enough to realize it. They love the ideal, the potential of what life on their land, with their people, could be; but they want to change the reality because it is far from that ideal.
And it always will be far from that ideal, until they earnestly seek to understand the natural law this “country” was founded upon; and recognize that even those (perhaps) well-meaning founding fathers went astray from this law when they established a nation in its name.
No, if you were talking about government, you'd say "do you love your government"
Country is something much more than government, in case you hadn't noticed.
Yes, but as you have noted, the other considerations about “country” are too nebulous or laden with variables or lack of exclusivity to pecisely define it. The only thing that clearly defines it is the ruling class. That is what the flag represents - the Republic. That is what the borders define - their claimed territory of authority.
That’s why when people say they love their country, they are referring to objects of imagination - values, ideals, potentialities. They associate these ideas with an obscure notion of “country”, but it’s pure dissonance. There is no logical basis for limiting any of that to this patch of land claimed as the property of a particular ruling class, or the people they unjustly burden with their fallacious authority. The connection is purposefully instilled via indoctrination; that’s the only reason why it’s there.
Isn't that the whole point of this?
People come on here and say "I love my country, I'm a patriot" but the reality is it's all obscure.
It's an emotional thing.
The right tend to use it because it doesn't pin down to one thing, they can say it, they can demand people follow it with the flag and the anthem etc, but it doesn't mean much.
Agreed, though it's worse than just being an impotent muttering, because the acceptance of national delineation is divisive, and a key factor in generating the fear and gang mentality necessary to keep dominators in place, and their mindless underlings doing their bidding.
It's wonderful to love the land - I think America is/was beautiful. Sometimes I look over at Manhattan and wonder how gorgeous this land must have been at one time. Twisting waterways, lush forest, miles of beaches, four seasons in perfect harmony... And I also think it's great to love a culture. I love most cultures; the music, the dress, the small nuances of mannerism and modality. The problem I have is the straight line drawn across the border that describes the territory of a mafia who claims everything and everyone inside that line, and the misguided association some people feel with that band of thugs.
The gang affiliation makes people say things like "We had to bomb the Japs to end the war". Talking about "the Japs" as one unified body is erroneous to the point of insanity. Individuals in government (and their wealthy controllers) are the ones who make war. Those people are not to be lumped in with the mother doing her laundry and watching her children, when a fucking firebomb turns her family to ash. Slapping a white rectangle with a red circle on top of millions of people and calling them "the Japs" is what allows another individual to fly bomb over people's houses and let it go. That man was psychologically compromised by this perverted version of "love of country" (which always carries the connotation of loving it MORE than other countries). If he remembered that he is just a man, not an "American" gang member, and that the woman was just a woman, not a "Japanese" gang member, at that there is no logical reason to associate himself or her with the people in their respective governments, he could never bring himself to do this. Malicious mind control is at the heart of such actions.
All evil is a perversion, not a creation; so there is a good version of "love of country". That's why I wanted to spend some time looking closely at what we really mean when we say this. We need to extract the evil disease of nationalism that ravages this otherwise beautiful sentiment.
This is the problem the thread was designed to point out. “Country” must mean political system, government, etc. when used in this context. It is the only thing that distinguishes this “country” definitively from any other. Culture has a more nebulous border, people vary widely, and land on one side of the border is exactly the same as on the other side.
So we’re talking about government, and government is not worthy of love. That’s why people point to flags and Constitutions, values and ideals, when you ask them what they love about their country - because these things represent wonderful imaginings of what could be, a potentiality. But what’s really there, what really exists, is a coercive, violent system of domination run by gangsters, and this they do not love.
So they say they love their country, but want to change it. They are talking about two different things, but haven’t thought it through enough to realize it. They love the ideal, the potential of what life on their land, with their people, could be; but they want to change the reality because it is far from that ideal.
And it always will be far from that ideal, until they earnestly seek to understand the natural law this “country” was founded upon; and recognize that even those (perhaps) well-meaning founding fathers went astray from this law when they established a nation in its name.
No, if you were talking about government, you'd say "do you love your government"
Country is something much more than government, in case you hadn't noticed.
Yes, but as you have noted, the other considerations about “country” are too nebulous or laden with variables or lack of exclusivity to pecisely define it. The only thing that clearly defines it is the ruling class. That is what the flag represents - the Republic. That is what the borders define - their claimed territory of authority.
That’s why when people say they love their country, they are referring to objects of imagination - values, ideals, potentialities. They associate these ideas with an obscure notion of “country”, but it’s pure dissonance. There is no logical basis for limiting any of that to this patch of land claimed as the property of a particular ruling class, or the people they unjustly burden with their fallacious authority. The connection is purposefully instilled via indoctrination; that’s the only reason why it’s there.
Isn't that the whole point of this?
People come on here and say "I love my country, I'm a patriot" but the reality is it's all obscure.
It's an emotional thing.
The right tend to use it because it doesn't pin down to one thing, they can say it, they can demand people follow it with the flag and the anthem etc, but it doesn't mean much.
Agreed, though it's worse than just being an impotent muttering, because the acceptance of national delineation is divisive, and a key factor in generating the fear and gang mentality necessary to keep dominators in place, and their mindless underlings doing their bidding.
It's wonderful to love the land - I think America is/was beautiful. Sometimes I look over at Manhattan and wonder how gorgeous this land must have been at one time. Twisting waterways, lush forest, miles of beaches, four seasons in perfect harmony... And I also think it's great to love a culture. I love most cultures; the music, the dress, the small nuances of mannerism and modality. The problem I have is the straight line drawn across the border that describes the territory of a mafia who claims everything and everyone inside that line, and the misguided association some people feel with that band of thugs.
The gang affiliation makes people say things like "We had to bomb the Japs to end the war". Talking about "the Japs" as one unified body is erroneous to the point of insanity. Individuals in government (and their wealthy controllers) are the ones who make war. Those people are not to be lumped in with the mother doing her laundry and watching her children, when a fucking firebomb turns her family to ash. Slapping a white rectangle with a red circle on top of millions of people and calling them "the Japs" is what allows another individual to fly bomb over people's houses and let it go. That man was psychologically compromised by this perverted version of "love of country" (which always carries the connotation of loving it MORE than other countries). If he remembered that he is just a man, not an "American" gang member, and that the woman was just a woman, not a "Japanese" gang member, at that there is no logical reason to associate himself or her with the people in their respective governments, he could never bring himself to do this. Malicious mind control is at the heart of such actions.
All evil is a perversion, not a creation; so there is a good version of "love of country". That's why I wanted to spend some time looking closely at what we really mean when we say this. We need to extract the evil disease of nationalism that ravages this otherwise beautiful sentiment.
I can always tell when someone has read way too many encyclopedias...they love to listen to themselves speak...they take great pride in their literacy...it’s what usually defines them.
They build trivial complexity into the simplest of things...they love to create confusion to keep their thoughts thriving.
Anyone seen anyone like that here anywhere?
This is the problem the thread was designed to point out. “Country” must mean political system, government, etc. when used in this context. It is the only thing that distinguishes this “country” definitively from any other. Culture has a more nebulous border, people vary widely, and land on one side of the border is exactly the same as on the other side.
So we’re talking about government, and government is not worthy of love. That’s why people point to flags and Constitutions, values and ideals, when you ask them what they love about their country - because these things represent wonderful imaginings of what could be, a potentiality. But what’s really there, what really exists, is a coercive, violent system of domination run by gangsters, and this they do not love.
So they say they love their country, but want to change it. They are talking about two different things, but haven’t thought it through enough to realize it. They love the ideal, the potential of what life on their land, with their people, could be; but they want to change the reality because it is far from that ideal.
And it always will be far from that ideal, until they earnestly seek to understand the natural law this “country” was founded upon; and recognize that even those (perhaps) well-meaning founding fathers went astray from this law when they established a nation in its name.
No, if you were talking about government, you'd say "do you love your government"
Country is something much more than government, in case you hadn't noticed.
Yes, but as you have noted, the other considerations about “country” are too nebulous or laden with variables or lack of exclusivity to pecisely define it. The only thing that clearly defines it is the ruling class. That is what the flag represents - the Republic. That is what the borders define - their claimed territory of authority.
That’s why when people say they love their country, they are referring to objects of imagination - values, ideals, potentialities. They associate these ideas with an obscure notion of “country”, but it’s pure dissonance. There is no logical basis for limiting any of that to this patch of land claimed as the property of a particular ruling class, or the people they unjustly burden with their fallacious authority. The connection is purposefully instilled via indoctrination; that’s the only reason why it’s there.
Isn't that the whole point of this?
People come on here and say "I love my country, I'm a patriot" but the reality is it's all obscure.
It's an emotional thing.
The right tend to use it because it doesn't pin down to one thing, they can say it, they can demand people follow it with the flag and the anthem etc, but it doesn't mean much.
Agreed, though it's worse than just being an impotent muttering, because the acceptance of national delineation is divisive, and a key factor in generating the fear and gang mentality necessary to keep dominators in place, and their mindless underlings doing their bidding.
It's wonderful to love the land - I think America is/was beautiful. Sometimes I look over at Manhattan and wonder how gorgeous this land must have been at one time. Twisting waterways, lush forest, miles of beaches, four seasons in perfect harmony... And I also think it's great to love a culture. I love most cultures; the music, the dress, the small nuances of mannerism and modality. The problem I have is the straight line drawn across the border that describes the territory of a mafia who claims everything and everyone inside that line, and the misguided association some people feel with that band of thugs.
The gang affiliation makes people say things like "We had to bomb the Japs to end the war". Talking about "the Japs" as one unified body is erroneous to the point of insanity. Individuals in government (and their wealthy controllers) are the ones who make war. Those people are not to be lumped in with the mother doing her laundry and watching her children, when a fucking firebomb turns her family to ash. Slapping a white rectangle with a red circle on top of millions of people and calling them "the Japs" is what allows another individual to fly bomb over people's houses and let it go. That man was psychologically compromised by this perverted version of "love of country" (which always carries the connotation of loving it MORE than other countries). If he remembered that he is just a man, not an "American" gang member, and that the woman was just a woman, not a "Japanese" gang member, at that there is no logical reason to associate himself or her with the people in their respective governments, he could never bring himself to do this. Malicious mind control is at the heart of such actions.
All evil is a perversion, not a creation; so there is a good version of "love of country". That's why I wanted to spend some time looking closely at what we really mean when we say this. We need to extract the evil disease of nationalism that ravages this otherwise beautiful sentiment.
I can always tell when someone has read way too many encyclopedias...they love to listen to themselves speak...they take great pride in their literacy...it’s what usually defines them.
They build trivial complexity into the simplest of things...they love to create confusion to keep their thoughts thriving.
Anyone seen anyone like that here anywhere?
This is the problem the thread was designed to point out. “Country” must mean political system, government, etc. when used in this context. It is the only thing that distinguishes this “country” definitively from any other. Culture has a more nebulous border, people vary widely, and land on one side of the border is exactly the same as on the other side.
So we’re talking about government, and government is not worthy of love. That’s why people point to flags and Constitutions, values and ideals, when you ask them what they love about their country - because these things represent wonderful imaginings of what could be, a potentiality. But what’s really there, what really exists, is a coercive, violent system of domination run by gangsters, and this they do not love.
So they say they love their country, but want to change it. They are talking about two different things, but haven’t thought it through enough to realize it. They love the ideal, the potential of what life on their land, with their people, could be; but they want to change the reality because it is far from that ideal.
And it always will be far from that ideal, until they earnestly seek to understand the natural law this “country” was founded upon; and recognize that even those (perhaps) well-meaning founding fathers went astray from this law when they established a nation in its name.
No, if you were talking about government, you'd say "do you love your government"
Country is something much more than government, in case you hadn't noticed.
Yes, but as you have noted, the other considerations about “country” are too nebulous or laden with variables or lack of exclusivity to pecisely define it. The only thing that clearly defines it is the ruling class. That is what the flag represents - the Republic. That is what the borders define - their claimed territory of authority.
That’s why when people say they love their country, they are referring to objects of imagination - values, ideals, potentialities. They associate these ideas with an obscure notion of “country”, but it’s pure dissonance. There is no logical basis for limiting any of that to this patch of land claimed as the property of a particular ruling class, or the people they unjustly burden with their fallacious authority. The connection is purposefully instilled via indoctrination; that’s the only reason why it’s there.
Isn't that the whole point of this?
People come on here and say "I love my country, I'm a patriot" but the reality is it's all obscure.
It's an emotional thing.
The right tend to use it because it doesn't pin down to one thing, they can say it, they can demand people follow it with the flag and the anthem etc, but it doesn't mean much.
Agreed, though it's worse than just being an impotent muttering, because the acceptance of national delineation is divisive, and a key factor in generating the fear and gang mentality necessary to keep dominators in place, and their mindless underlings doing their bidding.
It's wonderful to love the land - I think America is/was beautiful. Sometimes I look over at Manhattan and wonder how gorgeous this land must have been at one time. Twisting waterways, lush forest, miles of beaches, four seasons in perfect harmony... And I also think it's great to love a culture. I love most cultures; the music, the dress, the small nuances of mannerism and modality. The problem I have is the straight line drawn across the border that describes the territory of a mafia who claims everything and everyone inside that line, and the misguided association some people feel with that band of thugs.
The gang affiliation makes people say things like "We had to bomb the Japs to end the war". Talking about "the Japs" as one unified body is erroneous to the point of insanity. Individuals in government (and their wealthy controllers) are the ones who make war. Those people are not to be lumped in with the mother doing her laundry and watching her children, when a fucking firebomb turns her family to ash. Slapping a white rectangle with a red circle on top of millions of people and calling them "the Japs" is what allows another individual to fly bomb over people's houses and let it go. That man was psychologically compromised by this perverted version of "love of country" (which always carries the connotation of loving it MORE than other countries). If he remembered that he is just a man, not an "American" gang member, and that the woman was just a woman, not a "Japanese" gang member, at that there is no logical reason to associate himself or her with the people in their respective governments, he could never bring himself to do this. Malicious mind control is at the heart of such actions.
All evil is a perversion, not a creation; so there is a good version of "love of country". That's why I wanted to spend some time looking closely at what we really mean when we say this. We need to extract the evil disease of nationalism that ravages this otherwise beautiful sentiment.
Yes, nationalism is often a big problem.
China is doing things a little differently. Most Chinese hate the Japanese, but love Japanese cartoons, technology and the like. It's ridiculous.
They don't know why they hate the Japanese, they just know they do. I was in Xinjiang once and some guy told me how the Japanese had done this, that and the other, I didn't tell him that the Japanese got no where near Xinjiang right in the west of the country.
There's one language in China, Chinese. I've joked with Chinese people that if you speak English in China, it's just a dialect of Chinese.
Minorities are forced to be Chinese. The attitude of the CCP is "I'm in charge and you will do as you're told."
And in a way this kind of works. Yes, they have their problems with the Uighurs especially, but at some point they'll probably just end up giving up because they can't hope to ever win unless China goes crazy.
If you look at other countries like the US where patriotism has been used to try and bring a melting pot together, it's worked to an extent, but not for black people. The Irish came and assimilated, the Italians did the same. Both were seen as outsiders and reviled, but the blacks have struggled and still do, because of the color of their skin mostly, but potentially for other reasons too. This has kept the US separate, the far right groups want this separatism.
Also you have north v. south, it's always existed and may always exist because the US hasn't done what China has done.
No, if you were talking about government, you'd say "do you love your government"
Country is something much more than government, in case you hadn't noticed.
Yes, but as you have noted, the other considerations about “country” are too nebulous or laden with variables or lack of exclusivity to pecisely define it. The only thing that clearly defines it is the ruling class. That is what the flag represents - the Republic. That is what the borders define - their claimed territory of authority.
That’s why when people say they love their country, they are referring to objects of imagination - values, ideals, potentialities. They associate these ideas with an obscure notion of “country”, but it’s pure dissonance. There is no logical basis for limiting any of that to this patch of land claimed as the property of a particular ruling class, or the people they unjustly burden with their fallacious authority. The connection is purposefully instilled via indoctrination; that’s the only reason why it’s there.
Isn't that the whole point of this?
People come on here and say "I love my country, I'm a patriot" but the reality is it's all obscure.
It's an emotional thing.
The right tend to use it because it doesn't pin down to one thing, they can say it, they can demand people follow it with the flag and the anthem etc, but it doesn't mean much.
Agreed, though it's worse than just being an impotent muttering, because the acceptance of national delineation is divisive, and a key factor in generating the fear and gang mentality necessary to keep dominators in place, and their mindless underlings doing their bidding.
It's wonderful to love the land - I think America is/was beautiful. Sometimes I look over at Manhattan and wonder how gorgeous this land must have been at one time. Twisting waterways, lush forest, miles of beaches, four seasons in perfect harmony... And I also think it's great to love a culture. I love most cultures; the music, the dress, the small nuances of mannerism and modality. The problem I have is the straight line drawn across the border that describes the territory of a mafia who claims everything and everyone inside that line, and the misguided association some people feel with that band of thugs.
The gang affiliation makes people say things like "We had to bomb the Japs to end the war". Talking about "the Japs" as one unified body is erroneous to the point of insanity. Individuals in government (and their wealthy controllers) are the ones who make war. Those people are not to be lumped in with the mother doing her laundry and watching her children, when a fucking firebomb turns her family to ash. Slapping a white rectangle with a red circle on top of millions of people and calling them "the Japs" is what allows another individual to fly bomb over people's houses and let it go. That man was psychologically compromised by this perverted version of "love of country" (which always carries the connotation of loving it MORE than other countries). If he remembered that he is just a man, not an "American" gang member, and that the woman was just a woman, not a "Japanese" gang member, at that there is no logical reason to associate himself or her with the people in their respective governments, he could never bring himself to do this. Malicious mind control is at the heart of such actions.
All evil is a perversion, not a creation; so there is a good version of "love of country". That's why I wanted to spend some time looking closely at what we really mean when we say this. We need to extract the evil disease of nationalism that ravages this otherwise beautiful sentiment.
I can always tell when someone has read way too many encyclopedias...they love to listen to themselves speak...they take great pride in their literacy...it’s what usually defines them.
They build trivial complexity into the simplest of things...they love to create confusion to keep their thoughts thriving.
Anyone seen anyone like that here anywhere?
Much easier to throw stones than to actually address the issues being raised, don'tcha think? I'm sorry you're put off by all my "book larnin'", so let me speak in words you can understand:
Freedom is good. Government is bad. If you like government, YOU are being bad. Please stop being bad.
Yes, but as you have noted, the other considerations about “country” are too nebulous or laden with variables or lack of exclusivity to pecisely define it. The only thing that clearly defines it is the ruling class. That is what the flag represents - the Republic. That is what the borders define - their claimed territory of authority.
That’s why when people say they love their country, they are referring to objects of imagination - values, ideals, potentialities. They associate these ideas with an obscure notion of “country”, but it’s pure dissonance. There is no logical basis for limiting any of that to this patch of land claimed as the property of a particular ruling class, or the people they unjustly burden with their fallacious authority. The connection is purposefully instilled via indoctrination; that’s the only reason why it’s there.
Isn't that the whole point of this?
People come on here and say "I love my country, I'm a patriot" but the reality is it's all obscure.
It's an emotional thing.
The right tend to use it because it doesn't pin down to one thing, they can say it, they can demand people follow it with the flag and the anthem etc, but it doesn't mean much.
Agreed, though it's worse than just being an impotent muttering, because the acceptance of national delineation is divisive, and a key factor in generating the fear and gang mentality necessary to keep dominators in place, and their mindless underlings doing their bidding.
It's wonderful to love the land - I think America is/was beautiful. Sometimes I look over at Manhattan and wonder how gorgeous this land must have been at one time. Twisting waterways, lush forest, miles of beaches, four seasons in perfect harmony... And I also think it's great to love a culture. I love most cultures; the music, the dress, the small nuances of mannerism and modality. The problem I have is the straight line drawn across the border that describes the territory of a mafia who claims everything and everyone inside that line, and the misguided association some people feel with that band of thugs.
The gang affiliation makes people say things like "We had to bomb the Japs to end the war". Talking about "the Japs" as one unified body is erroneous to the point of insanity. Individuals in government (and their wealthy controllers) are the ones who make war. Those people are not to be lumped in with the mother doing her laundry and watching her children, when a fucking firebomb turns her family to ash. Slapping a white rectangle with a red circle on top of millions of people and calling them "the Japs" is what allows another individual to fly bomb over people's houses and let it go. That man was psychologically compromised by this perverted version of "love of country" (which always carries the connotation of loving it MORE than other countries). If he remembered that he is just a man, not an "American" gang member, and that the woman was just a woman, not a "Japanese" gang member, at that there is no logical reason to associate himself or her with the people in their respective governments, he could never bring himself to do this. Malicious mind control is at the heart of such actions.
All evil is a perversion, not a creation; so there is a good version of "love of country". That's why I wanted to spend some time looking closely at what we really mean when we say this. We need to extract the evil disease of nationalism that ravages this otherwise beautiful sentiment.
I can always tell when someone has read way too many encyclopedias...they love to listen to themselves speak...they take great pride in their literacy...it’s what usually defines them.
They build trivial complexity into the simplest of things...they love to create confusion to keep their thoughts thriving.
Anyone seen anyone like that here anywhere?
Much easier to throw stones than to actually address the issues being raised, don'tcha think? I'm sorry you're put off by all my "book larnin'", so let me speak in words you can understand:
Freedom is good. Government is bad. If you like government, YOU are being bad. Please stop being bad.
Look I hate government, most good people do. The problem is; .GOV is a necessary evil in many ways...you know this.
When you have 330 million people crammed into tight quarters how else are good people protected from bad people? How are Conservatives protected from Liberals and Liberals from themselves?
There was a time when God and his law governed over man...for the most part people were moral, respectful and kind. They spent their days focused on doing and becoming better. Things have changed, government has grown and the further we get from God and constitutional adherence the more government will grow. This is simple shit...no trivia required.
... I love all people..., I despise all governments ....
No, if you were talking about government, you'd say "do you love your government"
Country is something much more than government, in case you hadn't noticed.
Yes, but as you have noted, the other considerations about “country” are too nebulous or laden with variables or lack of exclusivity to pecisely define it. The only thing that clearly defines it is the ruling class. That is what the flag represents - the Republic. That is what the borders define - their claimed territory of authority.
That’s why when people say they love their country, they are referring to objects of imagination - values, ideals, potentialities. They associate these ideas with an obscure notion of “country”, but it’s pure dissonance. There is no logical basis for limiting any of that to this patch of land claimed as the property of a particular ruling class, or the people they unjustly burden with their fallacious authority. The connection is purposefully instilled via indoctrination; that’s the only reason why it’s there.
Isn't that the whole point of this?
People come on here and say "I love my country, I'm a patriot" but the reality is it's all obscure.
It's an emotional thing.
The right tend to use it because it doesn't pin down to one thing, they can say it, they can demand people follow it with the flag and the anthem etc, but it doesn't mean much.
Agreed, though it's worse than just being an impotent muttering, because the acceptance of national delineation is divisive, and a key factor in generating the fear and gang mentality necessary to keep dominators in place, and their mindless underlings doing their bidding.
It's wonderful to love the land - I think America is/was beautiful. Sometimes I look over at Manhattan and wonder how gorgeous this land must have been at one time. Twisting waterways, lush forest, miles of beaches, four seasons in perfect harmony... And I also think it's great to love a culture. I love most cultures; the music, the dress, the small nuances of mannerism and modality. The problem I have is the straight line drawn across the border that describes the territory of a mafia who claims everything and everyone inside that line, and the misguided association some people feel with that band of thugs.
The gang affiliation makes people say things like "We had to bomb the Japs to end the war". Talking about "the Japs" as one unified body is erroneous to the point of insanity. Individuals in government (and their wealthy controllers) are the ones who make war. Those people are not to be lumped in with the mother doing her laundry and watching her children, when a fucking firebomb turns her family to ash. Slapping a white rectangle with a red circle on top of millions of people and calling them "the Japs" is what allows another individual to fly bomb over people's houses and let it go. That man was psychologically compromised by this perverted version of "love of country" (which always carries the connotation of loving it MORE than other countries). If he remembered that he is just a man, not an "American" gang member, and that the woman was just a woman, not a "Japanese" gang member, at that there is no logical reason to associate himself or her with the people in their respective governments, he could never bring himself to do this. Malicious mind control is at the heart of such actions.
All evil is a perversion, not a creation; so there is a good version of "love of country". That's why I wanted to spend some time looking closely at what we really mean when we say this. We need to extract the evil disease of nationalism that ravages this otherwise beautiful sentiment.
Yes, nationalism is often a big problem.
China is doing things a little differently. Most Chinese hate the Japanese, but love Japanese cartoons, technology and the like. It's ridiculous.
They don't know why they hate the Japanese, they just know they do. I was in Xinjiang once and some guy told me how the Japanese had done this, that and the other, I didn't tell him that the Japanese got no where near Xinjiang right in the west of the country.
There's one language in China, Chinese. I've joked with Chinese people that if you speak English in China, it's just a dialect of Chinese.
Minorities are forced to be Chinese. The attitude of the CCP is "I'm in charge and you will do as you're told."
And in a way this kind of works. Yes, they have their problems with the Uighurs especially, but at some point they'll probably just end up giving up because they can't hope to ever win unless China goes crazy.
If you look at other countries like the US where patriotism has been used to try and bring a melting pot together, it's worked to an extent, but not for black people. The Irish came and assimilated, the Italians did the same. Both were seen as outsiders and reviled, but the blacks have struggled and still do, because of the color of their skin mostly, but potentially for other reasons too. This has kept the US separate, the far right groups want this separatism.
Also you have north v. south, it's always existed and may always exist because the US hasn't done what China has done.
Basically there are two solutions to everything: Either get enlightened, or just chill the f*ck out. Either of those will work.
I don't like to use the term "enlightened" - it has such a pretentious connotation to the modern ear. It just takes some concerted effort to learn and understand. You're not just born able to discern clearly, not in our artificial world of obfuscation and manipulation. Our culture has no respect for philosophy, and this is largely by design. We know there's an effort to dumb-down the culture. You think power-mongers want people reading philosophy and seeing clearly the ludicrous nature of their con? Of course not.
So, instead, if people would just chill out... Ya know, sometimes the world seems to be a trough surrounded by frantic, muddy pigs. I mean jeez.., if it means that much to you, just take it; I'll eat later. And if you elbow me out until I'm at risk of starvation, I guess I'll have to shoot you or something, but it's a damn shame we all couldn't just share. I mean how many goddam cars do you need? You've only got one ass. How many houses, and suits, and utter bullshit? I'm up to speed with the American culture, but honestly, if I had shelter, a chair, a table, a bed, a candle, some books, and a reliable source of food and water, I'd be OK. I like playing video games, and having more than one shirt, but I wouldn't be willing to diminish my character and resort to injustice in order to get them. You know what I'm getting at.
What's wrong with just being cool, sharing, and having fun? No, we've got to take over the world because we're scared little babies. And that's what every voter is trying to do when they go to the polls. They're saying "I want control, because I am scared". And devils in disguise leverage this to enslave humanity. And buy boats. Boats and planes. These guys loooove their boats and planes. Ehh, whatever....
You are talking about "conditional love". Are you still going to love that child after your "fundamental transformation" efforts fail? Are you going to respect that child for being gay or are you going to undermine his will and right to live as a homosexual?
On your first example, the communists loves what his country can potentially be and not necessarily continue to love the country if the "fundamental transformation" fails.
I've asked this question before and everyone skirted around it, trying to avoid it.
What percentage of your country do you have to love in order to love your country?
Do you love Democrats? Do you love the inner city ghettos? Do you love the murder rate? Do you love the rape? Do you love all of the bad things in the US?
You never, ever complain about stuff?
This is the problem with your argument. You'll complain about things, and then say you love the country. Then say others don't love the country because they complain about stuff.
- I love Democrats but they need be fundamentally transformed
- I love inner city ghettos which need to undergo a fundamental transformation
How sincere do I sound by putting fundamental transformation” as a condition?
Well then, if you're being insincere, you clearly don't love your country. You have to love 100% of your country or you're not a patriot.
Inserting “fundamental transformation” in the context of love your country definitely proves your point. “Love 100% of your country or you are not a patriot” is absolute talk as is “fundamental transformation”. Perhaps a better approach would be to say that you live the country but you believe the country can do better. Simple.
There's a lot of things you could say.
Patriotism, love of your country, it's all subjective.
What's happening here is that people are trying to turn these expressions into something they can use to defend themselves with and attack their opponents.
If you turned it the other way around, if you imagine a dictatorship, and someone takes up arms to fight to rid the country of that dictatorship, does that mean they love their country (because they're willing to fight for it) and does it mean they don't love their country (because they don't like the political system)?
