Patriotism strikes me as being on an equal footing with God in terms of irrational thinking. And, of course, they are tightly intertwined in the American Right. 


An on-line friend sent me this (for strong stomaches only). How should I reply? She's a nice lady.

Views: 394

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

@ Brian and Will: I disagree with the way you personally define "patriotism" and "nationalism". I do not think I am better than anyone else but I am very proud of my Persian heritage and history. I wear on my neck an old "farahvar" (old symbol of Persians before Islam) and a Persian coin I made into a necklace with the old symbol before the revolution (Lion and Sword). I am proud of what Persia once was which dates back to Cyrus the Great. Saying this, I do not think that I am a better person than someone else just because I am Persian or because of Persian history but I do hold this in veneration.


In regards to patriotism, I don't think our brave young troops are simply sacrificing their lives for "Patriotism". You are mixing politics. In addition, we are not "killing" randomly in Afghanistan and Iraq and have been of service for the liberations of the Afghani and Iraqi people. I am "Patriotic" in the sense that I do believe in the causes of the U.S. and western nations due to the fact that we are facing a "battle of civilization" between those who want to acquire nuclear weapons and end the world due to their religious fanaticism. I also have a sense of "Patriotism" in the sense that western nations through western culture of secularism, western liberalization, western democracy, and human rights is superior to other non-western cultures which have not progressed into the 21st century.


I also believe strongly that we must preserve and defend our western culture vehemently at every opportunity. We must not allow political correctness, ignorance, and sadists to allow non-western influences to erode the values of western liberalization of free thought which is so very important. I also believe that in order to protect the future of America we must protect our border down south and control the flow of illegal immigration and to enforce our borders. We also need to pass laws in which the children of illegal immigrants do not automatically become U.S. citizens. It is ridiculous that we allow this as no where else in the world is it such including the entirety of Europe. I value immigration (I was born in Iran and came to the U.S. when I was 3) but legal immigration and do not believe that one should reward those who break the law in coming to our country illegally. In addition, this threatens the future of America's sovereignty as if we don't change things within the next 5-years, the U.S. will become a global Mexico-America warped into one and the influx of Mexican population into the U.S. populace along with childbearing rates is a threat to the future of our nation which includes western culture. This may be a politically incorrect thing to say but I feel that political incorrectness is also one of the biggest threats we face as a free people. The Europeans learned from their Muslim problem and changed their immigration laws accordingly; we have time to act but very limited time.

Wow. The very definition of xenophobia.
Not at all. It is pragmatism. You read should Samuel Huntington's book The Clash of Civilizations And The Remaking of World Order. He was a great political scientist (who has passed) who has accurately predicted the wranglings of the world.
Maybe the solution is to get rid of everyone who wasn't born in the good ol' U.S. of A!  If they can't be trusted to the presidential office then they can't be trusted to vote.  If they can't be trusted to vote then they can't be trusted with democracy.  If they can't be trusted with democracy then they should go back to where they came from.  It is simply pragmatism.

Samuel Huntington

In the 1980s he became a valued adviser to the South African regime, which used his ideas on political order to craft its "total strategy" to reform apartheid and suppress growing resistance. He assured South Africa's rulers that increasing the repressive power of the state (which at that time included police violence, detention without trial, and torture) can be necessary to effect reform. The reform process, he told his South African audience, often requires "duplicity, deceit, faulty assumptions and purposeful blindness." He thus gave the imprimatur of American social science to his hosts' project of "reforming" apartheid rather than eliminating it.

Pragmatism that's what it is called?

You make these claims and now I have to research his past but no doubt he is one of the most influential political scientists in our era who has influenced so many and more importantly accurately predicted the perils of the end of the 20th century along with the perils of the 21st century. You can't take that away from him or the merits of what he has written simply because of what you accuse him of in which I have to research.

I'm not taking anything away from Mr Huntington. I'm just adding to the discussion his thoughts on how to manage government based on what he feels is a needed outcome in that case South Africa. Would you call it Western Freedom?

He was also an adviser to one of your most favorite Presidents, I believe your words for Carter he was "a coward", Mr Huntington help develop Carter's policies.

I just find it interesting that your ideas of promoting Western values is by excluding Hispanics, torture (OK torture lite, wtf), removing Islam from the face of the earth if you had your way, and I will assume you support the Patriot Act to keep us safe.

I admit I don't think much of your ideas of Western Democracy.

1) It is not about excluding Hispanics, it is about having a responsible immigration policy and protecting western culture. If it was Iranians about to take over America and American culture I wouldn't want that either. To make this situation worse, it is coming south of our border.

2) I don't support torture or "torture-lite". The only thing that I have stated is that it should be an option by the commander-in-chief on a case-by-case basis and should be the LAST RESORT. It should not be systematic policy and again, the only person who should be able to make that decision is the President of the United States on a case-by-case basis (IMO). That is different than "supporting" torture.

3) I don't want to remove Islam from the face of the Earth by force. I want people to live in freedom and naturally the influence of Islam will lessen. I wouldn't mind Islam being removed off the Earth but not by bombing Mecca or killing the entire Muslim population throughout the world. I do believe in fighting Islamic extremists and terrorists.

And in regards to Samuel Huntington, I don't know much of his past in which I just glanced briefly on Wikipedia right now but as you said, it doesn't take away from his prowess as a political scientist. But that does not mean I support apartheid or other items you mentioned and I simply do not have enough information on all the facts. That said, just because I think Mr. Huntington's has an enormous reputation, background, and accuracy in his predictions and writings does not equate me to his every single held position in history.

As for the Patriot Act, it is common sense. I don't see the Brits complaining about their CCTV system which keeps them safe. Protecting our borders and our national security must be on the forefront of our national agenda. And as I have said, things that have happened in the past does not equate to U.S. policy today. The world has changed and just because the U.S. may have been involved in murky actions in the past (mind you in a world with the threat of communism) does not equate to who we are as a nation, a people, and a government. Europeans hated each other, fought with each other, and killed each other. Now they have the European Union. We had segregation in the south, now we have a black President. Times change as society progresses; we must change, progress, and adapt with our minds too!

Sassan What it get's down to is your ideas of freedom is to limit freedom of people that you don't identify with. You are willing to take away your own freedom to feel safe.

Americans will lose their freedoms to the US government not an outside force. Many will support the loss of freedom while it is being taken away, you certainly fall into this category based on your posts on this site.

Absolutely not. I value free thought and free expression. How can you even make the claim or think that my ideas are to limit the freedom of people I don't identify with?? Is it because I don't want illegal immigration and to allow illegal immigrants who illegally come to our country to have "freedom" by their illegal actions?? Is it because I don't want radical Muslims to have the "freedom" in oppressing their own people? Or the Patriot Act supposedly takes away "freedoms", but of who? Those suspected of terrorism? So, I don't want terrorists to have "freedom" to do terror? You can make a lot of claims of what you think my views are or are not but to claim that my ideas of freedom is to limit the ideas of people I don't "identify" with is preposterous. Do they not have "freedom" in the U.K.??


Jim, what I think it is, is that some people (like you) do not understand what freedom and liberty truly is and what it is like not to have freedom. Therefore, you think the "Patriot Act" is taking away "freedoms" or that being against illegal immigration is somehow against their "freedoms". I have been to Iran, lived in Iran for a considerable amount of time as of recently, and can tell you America is free and it is preposterous the type of political correctness we have in our country. Our #1 priority should be to protect our homeland and if you think my idea of freedom is to limit freedom of other people because of an issue like this, simply means you don't understand what freedom is and the issues people who are oppressed face and on a globular level we face as a civilization.

Sassan Government is given some of our freedom to provide services we as a society want. As we give the government more power it means we have to give up more freedom.

Patriot Act means the government can call you an enemy of the state, you are arrested, no lawyer, no charges, no presentation of the evidence, just jail. Would US government do this? It's doing it now.

Obama made a speech shortly after taking office and he was calling for a change in the law where the government could arrest you for crimes you may commit in the future.

The US government is willing to take your freedom.

I'm a vet, I know what it means to fight for the US. As a vet you don't have a right to your political views, I know what that means. I was sent to other areas of the world and we killed those people to give them freedom, I know what that means.


Everyday Americans are not affected; you seem to worry more for the rights of terrorists than the rights of people being safe from Islamic radicals. I just don't see how you came to the conclusion that I don't want people that disagree with my views to "not have freedom". That claim by you makes no sense whatsoever and my question to you once again: are the people in the U.K. "oppressed" and lack "freedoms"??


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service