This is a shortened version of a physic paper(s) I wrote, that I show to folk when they ask why I am so against patriotism, since I get asked it quite a bit. I dumb it down a little, these folk don't know polit, too much, always, but hopefully it won't be too babied for you.

Patriotism: A cheap alcohol

In 1987, Joseph Kony founded the Lord's Resistance Army to replace the Ugandan government with a Christian theocracy. He felt the contemporary government was too apatheist, which was against Christian, Ugandan ideology. So began a long campaign of mutilations, pillages, and all kinds of war crimes against the infidels, for the prosperity of a Christian Uganda. On the 11th of July, 1995, the worst war crime in Europe since the Second World War began in Srebrenica, ending in the death of 8,000 Bosnan Muslims at the hands of proud Orthodox Serbs, who felt like they were heroes, securing the homeland. And yet patriotisms are governmentally and socially supported, just about everywhere. Though these are extreme examples, why support patriotism at all? In lighter forms, it might not lead to genocide, but it still leads to hate crimes, irrationalism, or centrism, to various extents. I believe that all patriotisms are harmful to mankind as a whole, and advise everyone to stop their patriotic beliefs.

One prod to the nerve of nationalism, and the intellectual decencies can vanish, the past can be altered, and the plainest facts can be denied.
- George Orwell

First, patriotism is almost a brainwashing. Logic thinking disappears, with bigotry replacing it. This might not be so evident in America, but here is one example. Ask the average American if the September 11 attacks were false flag attacks. Without knowing details or having done any research, the average American will confidently and assertively deny the possibility of a false flag attack, and perhaps be offended at such a notion. Now, I am not saying that it was or was not a false flag attack, but to refuse to even think of it as possible and be offended, that is what I think is awful. Nationalism also dehumanises. In Britain, during the Second World War, Liberal News Chronicle showed a photograph of Russians being hanged by Germans, which was met with angry talk about German atrocities. A few years later, a like photograph was published, but the Russians were hanging Germans. It was hailed warmly, leading Orwell to write, “There is no crime that can not be condoned when ‘our’ side commits it.”.

Patriotism is also very much manipulated by the government, which led Lev Tolstoy to call it a form of slavery. A few polls were held in France every few decades, each asking, “According to you, what country contributed the most to Germany’s downfall in the Second World War?”. The first poll was held in May 1945, and had Russia as the most answered (57%). The most recent poll was held in 2004, and had America as the most answered (58%) . This shift is most likely related to French efforts not to glorify their greatest foe in the Cold War. Likewise, in American wartime propaganda (1941to1945), Russians were shown as strong and helpful to the Americans, but afterwards, in Cold War media, Russians became villains. The Nazi slogan "Better dead than red" was re-adopted in America and Britain. And similiarly, most everyone knows and condemns Hitler's atrocities, but far less have heard of the (albeit smaller) Mau Mau Rebellion. Just as a synopsis of it, British settlers enforced “collective punishment” against a rebellion in Kenya, which led to terrible concentration camps and war crimes; Barack Obama's grandfather died in one of the concentration camps. And you know what? Archives about the rebellion are still being withheld by the British government, and British reparations for these atrocities began only in 2013 - about 60 years afterwards. And yet, there is no disgust with Britain about such a thing. Nationalism is lowered if you know your nation's evils, and that is why the colonial African atrocities are hardly talked about, but the brave British soldiers who fought against Germany in the Second World War are glorified to no end in Britain.

If an area was ours for 500 years and yours for 50 years, it should belong to us – you are merely occupiers. If an area was yours for 500 years and ours for 50 years, it should belong to us – borders must not be changed. If an area belonged to us 500 years ago but never since then, it should belong to us – it is the cradle of our nation. If a majority of our people live there, it must belong to us – they must enjoy the right of self-determination. If a minority of our people live there, it must belong to us – they must be protected against your oppression. All of the above rules apply to us, but not to you. Our dream of greatness is historical necessity, yours is fascism.

Though not as seen in America, there are nationalists called irredentists, who insist that some lands "should" belong to their country. Many Poles today want a great part of Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine (as owned by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) to go to the Polish state, while many Romanians want all of Moldova and some bits of Ukraine (as owned before the Second World War) to go to the Romanian state. In my opinion, irredentism is like patriotism, but with more hypocrisy; see quote above, called ethnic nationalism's creed.

Patriotism fuels violence. There are great pillages and wars that come of it, like the Srebrenica massacre and the Lord’s Resistance Army, but nationalism fueling violence is not limited to war crimes. Take Jessica Lynch, one of the first soldiers in the Iraqi invasion in 2003. She was said to have fought like a hero, fighting outnumbered against hordes of Iraqi soldiers until they wounded and captured her. But she said herself that her gun jammed quickly and she promptly surrendered. Why would this false rumour be made, showing an American soldier invading a foreign country a hero who fought to the last? To keep the Americans proud to be tough Americans, and, while fighting, to give them the bushido code of pride that Japanese suicide pilots had in the Second World War.

Now, some say that patriotism does not necessarily lead to violence, and that is true; patriots can be pacific. But the greater the patriotism, the greater the supremacism, which often manifests into violence, depending on the patriotism’s magnitude. Furthermore, if someone is willing to sacrifice themselves for their nation, they are willing to kill for their nation. For me, it is hard to believe that nationalism, as a whole, does not fuel violence. If each country encourages their own nationalism, each with differing and contradicting goals, how is that not a collision course? At best, that leads to xenophobia, and at worst, that leads to genocide and war. In 2007, Daniel Fried, the American sanctions co-ordinator, while speaking to the Bosnian parliament ironically analogised patriotism to cheap alcohol: "First it makes you drunk, then it blinds you, then it kills you.".

Patriotism most certainly fuels supremacism; while violence is not necessarily begotten from nationalism, supremacism is. When Obama implied that he believed in American Exceptionalism in 2013, Rafael Correa, Ecuador’s president, criticised Obama’s outlooks, and compared it with Nazi rhetor leading up to the Second World War; how the Germans/Americans were the chosen race, and how Hitler/Obama had to secure the German/American state, like Poland/Iraq (according to Nazi media in 1939, the German invasion of Poland was defensive. A false flag attack was ordered on a German radio station by Germans in Polish uniform shortly before the invasion began). I mean, American businesses will even label themselves as American to make themselves look better - Good Morning America, American Idol, Bank of America.

Patriotism also gives a centrist bias. For example, there was a big fuss in America when there was an oil spill in Prince William Sound in 1989, and much more recently, in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Yet in America, there is no talk of the Chevron-Exxon environmental damages in the Amazon, despite the size of the oil spill being 18 times bigger than Prince William Sound and 85 times bigger than the Gulf of Mexico. But patriotic Americans are generally more interested with their country’s progress, not about foreign news. However, news stories on websites are often divided up into two parts: ‘us’ and ‘the others’. The ones who matter and are the best, and the others. Earlier, I talked about a poll asking which country contributed the most to Germany’s downfall in the Second World War. Imagine asking that to the average patriotic American, Briton, or Russian. They would have the answer before they would have rational grounding for it. What is this irrational madness?

Edited 3/14/2016 06:09:59

This leads to my next point. Patriotism promotes bigotry. For example, Barack Obama. In 2009, Obama, when asked whether he believed in American Exceptionalism, made an ambiguous comment about how each nation has their own exceptionalist philosophy. Many said he denied American Exceptionalism (although in 2013, he unambiguously affirmed he does believe in American Exceptionalism). Mike Huckabee (Republican presidential nominee in the 2016 American election) accused Obama of denying America’s heart and soul. That may have some merit, as it could be considered that being unpatriotic is denying a nation’s heart and soul, but it is phrased quite derogatorily. But Mitt Romney, in his book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, criticises Obama for, amongst other things, apologising for and criticising America’s misdeeds in the past. When it is possible to criticise somebody since s/he admits their country’s mistakes, patriotism has gone too far. But it gets even worse. While most agree that Obama is not a Muslim nor born in Kenya, some politicians say that an argument with Obama on American Exceptionalism is one test of seeing “if he is one of us”. Obama is an Hawai'i-born human, not an extraterrestrial being.

Now, to address some common counter-arguments.

Nationalism encourages hard work, and a kind of, generosity to the nation.

Even assuming this outweighs nationalism’s bad effects, why restrict the generosity to one nation? If you live in a first- or second-world country, like America, your generosity would be much better used in poorer and wartorn countries; you are better off helping a starving and hurt child in a warzone than a hungry child in a homeless shelter.

Moderate patriotism does not have the problems this paper writes about.

Moderate patriotism has those problems in moderate level. All extents of patriotism are problematic, but slight patriotism is slightly problematic. Slight patriotism slightly greatens the patriot’s xenophobia, supremacism, and centrism. Also, think about this: Most Germans in Hitler’s wartime rule supported Germany, but were very shocked to find about the secret genocides. They did not condone the genocide, but they indirectly helped in its execution, since they supported the government that was doing it.

Governments need a patriotic folk who are willing to fight for their nation, and would never lay a hand against their wonderful government. Governments are not going to shut down patriotism, they are going to encourage it. Irredentism in Russia made the taking of Crimea (~90% ethnically Russian) somewhat well-supported domestically. Nationalism in America has most folk believing that all wars America has fought were for selfless (maybe wrong, but certainly not selfish) reasons; to save other countries or folk under oppression or in crisis. So, with that all said, all I hope is that whoever reads this paper will gain a new outlook on patriotism and their country, and lessen their nationalism.
[end]

Sources:
http://www.britannica.com/biography/Joseph-Kony;
https://www.rt.com/news/correa-us-exceptionalism-dangerous-748/;
https://books.google.com/books/about/No_Apology.html?id=PDpBpo5CVB4C;
http://mittromneycentral.com/resources/books-by-mitt-romney/no-apology-the-case-for-american-greatness/;
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-05-14/news/0705140056_1_croats-bosnian-serbs-city-of-banja-luka;
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/05/kenyan-mau-mau-payout-uk-regret-abuse;
https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/poll-france-nations-contribution-nazis-defeat-2.jpg;
https://booksandbayonets.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/pertes-militaires-ww2-totales.jpg;
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat;
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Patriotism_and_Christianity

Edited 3/14/2016 06:42:19

People will try to convince you, but in our world of misinformation, endless sources, countless opinions and diverse doctrines, there are no truths except what our mind perceives as truth.

This is in and of itself a paradox. We know it true that truth is only perception, but even so how do we know that truth is truly a truth?

There is no knowledge because you can never know it to be true, and why know a lie? Why purposefully misinform and believe in falsity?

Perhaps this is why so many reject the idea of reality. It is too radical for the human mind to grasp. Either it doesn't exist or our brevity disallows us to.

Perhaps we find the answer in a taco, looking into the stars or by dissecting a sh!tpost.

^^+1
Down borders, up globalisation!

Edited 3/14/2016 06:54:46

Edited 3/14/2016 06:55:01

> physics paper

10/10 deserves Nobel

Noice

Several questions; how does one reduce their patriotism?

Is there a difference between Patriotism and Nationalism? Because some would argue that Patriotism is 'defensive' where as Nationalism is aggressive conquering patriotism.

Is patriotism ever good? For instance would it be useful in to speed up the recovery of a struggling country like Greece?

In the Belgian congo, the population was killed on such a huge scale that the population was reduced from about 20 or 30 million to 8 million. That is around 12-20 Million people killed.

In the soviet union, the super nasty commy version of the russian empire, 60 million people were murdered. This is out of a total population of around 200 muillion.

In north and south america, around 90% of the natives were killed off due to disease and brutal conquest.

A relatively mild example in light of the above atrocities: in 1915, the Ottoman empire killed more than 2.5 Million christian armenians, greeks, and assyrians for no reason other than that they suspected them of collaborating with the Christian russians, who were their enemies. This example is notable as the Turkish goverment (read "Ottoman Empire") still denies that it even happened.

You are essentially arguing that Nationalism is worse than it's counterpart, colonialism. This is just not true, and the examples you've pointed out are nothing compared to the death tolls from Colonialism.

All of the above mentioned places, The Congo, The former soviet states, All of North america & south america (with the exception of some islands and French guyana), Eastern Europe, and former Ottoman states have been freed from brutal colonial rule due to nationalist (or patriotic, call it what you will) movements. Big damn deal, Nationalism results in "boo hoo, xenophobia AND the death of EIGHT THOUSAND INNOCENT MUSLIMS BOO HOO!!!"

Edited 3/14/2016 14:37:04

First, patriotism is almost a brainwashing. Logic thinking disappears, with bigotry replacing it.

Vietnam War protesters and Iraq War protesters. I would consider both patriots in that they were willing to oppose the government in defense of their love for their fellow citizens. What is your opinion of this type of patriotism?

Also how about patriotism in the defense of nationhood? If a small country were say attacked by a larger neighbor for no other reason than for land, wealth, and international prestige is it right for the attacked country to rally the support of its people to resist with calls to nationalism or should they let themselves be conquered?

What about classism? Marx argued that ethnic divisions would be replaced by divisions based on wealth and class. In the globalist utopia that I assume you envision wouldn't class divisions just be used by leaders like ethnic divisions to start wars and engage in oppression?

If I have anymore questions I'll write them here.

In the Belgian congo, the population was killed on such a huge scale that the population was reduced from about 20 or 30 million to 8 million. That is around 12-20 Million people killed.

Why did the Belgian settlers kill? Because of king and country.

[/i]In the soviet union, the super nasty commy version of the russian empire, 60 million people were murdered. This is out of a total population of around 200 muillion.[/i]

Most starved because of bad management, different from murder. Still horrible though.

A relatively mild example in light of the above atrocities: in 1915, the Ottoman empire killed more than 2.5 Million christian armenians, greeks, and assyrians for no reason other than that they suspected them of collaborating with the Christian russians, who were their enemies. This example is notable as the Turkish goverment (read "Ottoman Empire") still denies that it even happened.

The Turks were nationalistic and seeking to hold the integrity of the Ottoman Empire together, while the Armenians were nationalistic and seeking to separate.

You are essentially arguing that Nationalism is worse than it's counterpart, colonialism. This is just not true, and the examples you've pointed out are nothing compared to the death tolls from Colonialism.

All of the above mentioned places, The Congo, The former soviet states, All of North america & south america (with the exception of some islands and French guyana), Eastern Europe, and former Ottoman states have been freed from brutal colonial rule due to nationalist (or patriotic, call it what you will) movements. Big damn deal, Nationalism results in "boo hoo, xenophobia AND the death of EIGHT THOUSAND INNOCENT MUSLIMS BOO HOO!!!"

So the deaths from WW2, WW1, The Balkan Wars, Vietnam, Korea, Sandanista-Contra war, the Afghan civil war, the American Civil war, the war on terror, Franco-Prussian war, the wars of Italian unification, all of the 1848 revolutions, the Greek revolution and the Somali Civil war only amounted to 8,000?

In 1987, Joseph Kony founded the Lord's Resistance Army to replace the Ugandan government with a Christian theocracy. He felt the contemporary government was too apatheist, which was against Christian, Ugandan ideology. So began a long campaign of mutilations, pillages, and all kinds of war crimes against the infidels, for the prosperity of a Christian Uganda. On the 11th of July, 1995, the worst war crime in Europe since the Second World War began in Srebrenica, ending in the death of 8,000 Bosnan Muslims at the hands of proud Orthodox Serbs, who felt like they were heroes, securing the homeland. And yet patriotisms are governmentally and socially supported, just about everywhere. Though these are extreme examples, why support patriotism at all?

How does this relate? It has everything to do with religion, and nothing to do with nation. Also, why show these examples (of Christians killing) rather than examples of Muslims and Christians killing?

And similiarly, most everyone knows and condemns Hitler's atrocities, but far less have heard of the (albeit smaller) Mau Mau Rebellion. Just as a synopsis of it, British settlers enforced “collective punishment” against a rebellion in Kenya, which led to terrible concentration camps and war crimes; Barack Obama's grandfather died in one of the concentration camps. And you know what? Archives about the rebellion are still being withheld by the British government, and British reparations for these atrocities began only in 2013 - about 60 years afterwards. And yet, there is no disgust with Britain about such a thing.

Why not mention the Soviet or Chinese mass death tolls? I accept criticizing Britain, but you seem to have a double standard in examples.

Edited 3/14/2016 15:19:28

I happen to agree with Жұқтыру in everything here. And It's hard for me to agree 100% with something.

I am very much favorable to a federal world government. It could even keep the actual countries as states in this new world country.

About people complaining with examples, I don't think it takes away the quality of the text. Plus Soviet and Chinese mass murders were on the name of ideology as well, but not a nationalist one, so I don't know if it fits very well on the anti-patriotic agrument. Plus, a lot of the deaths were caused because of mismanagement of the economy and stupid farm collectivisation. Not all those deaths were planned by the government.

Why did the Belgian settlers kill? Because of king and country.

The Belgian colonisation of Congo didn't had any nationalist motives. It was actually the dispute between the great powers and the speech of our king Leopold II at the conference of Berlin that gave our country the permission to colonialise the Congo.


.. And the many deads (I'm sure they are less than 8 million) are caused by the economical greed and were not killed in the name of our country as the colony was a personal domain that did not belong to the Belgian gouverment. In fact , the Congo was one great company back in its establishment- The International Congo Society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

Economical exploitation at its finest.

Edited 3/14/2016 15:55:06

world government

NONOononono

Yeah, Congo was a personal possession of Leopold for the sole purpose of personal gain.

I am very much favorable to a federal world government.

Absolutely no one is surprised at this.

how does one reduce their patriotism?

Well, just reminding yourself to do logic thinking, selfless thinking, but beyond that, I would to this "exercise" of kinds: Say "I hate [your country], since it is an awful rat country that frankly needs to get reconquered by [country that has conquered your country in the past, with bad results], since [your country] sucks so much."

Is there a difference between Patriotism and Nationalism? Because some would argue that Patriotism is 'defensive' where as Nationalism is aggressive conquering patriotism.

Well, I go by the OED meanings.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/patriotism;
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nationalism

Nationalism is basically a greater magnitude of patriotism, according to them.

Is patriotism ever good? For instance would it be useful in to speed up the recovery of a struggling country like Greece?

I don't think patriotism is ever good. And miracle recoveries are based on economic strategies, not really so much propoganda. See West Germany after the war. In total shambles, right? Nationalism practically illegalised. But with their strategy of efficiency socialism, they recovered quite quickly, by 1950, they were well-off again.

All of the above mentioned places, The Congo, The former soviet states, All of North america & south america (with the exception of some islands and French guyana), Eastern Europe, and former Ottoman states have been freed from brutal colonial rule due to nationalist (or patriotic, call it what you will) movements.

Smedley answered most of what you said for me, but I want to say that the Soviet Union did not promote Russian supremacy. Stalin's policies were not racist, but they were collective punishment - I mean, he was Georgian himself, not Russian. L. Brezhnev was Ukrainian. Most the other leaders of the Soviet Union came from Russian-mixed families.

Nationalism results in "boo hoo, xenophobia AND the death of EIGHT THOUSAND INNOCENT MUSLIMS BOO HOO!!!"

Why are you mocking this? These were 8,000 innocent Bosnans, and you just mock their awful deaths since they were Muslim? Scum.

Vietnam War protesters and Iraq War protesters. I would consider both patriots in that they were willing to oppose the government in defense of their love for their fellow citizens. What is your opinion of this type of patriotism?

Well, this is better than the kind of patriotism that supports this war. But you don't have to be a patriot to protest a war that your country fights, and you will still have the associated problems of patriotism.

Also how about patriotism in the defense of nationhood? If a small country were say attacked by a larger neighbor for no other reason than for land, wealth, and international prestige is it right for the attacked country to rally the support of its people to resist with calls to nationalism or should they let themselves be conquered?

You'll have no idea who is in the right and in the wrong. Maybe country a was doing a pre-emptive strike, since country b was developing nuclear weapons. Maybe not. You won't be sure, so I like to follow this quote.

"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime."
- Ernest Hemingway, American writer.

What about classism? Marx argued that ethnic divisions would be replaced by divisions based on wealth and class. In the globalist utopia that I assume you envision wouldn't class divisions just be used by leaders like ethnic divisions to start wars and engage in oppression?

Are you saying that there aren't classes of wealth today? And why is it such a bad thing? Also, classes don't war each other. They work for each other; they get better out of each other. A hierarchy, of kinds.

How does this relate? It has everything to do with religion, and nothing to do with nation.

Maybe you can say that for the LRA (although Kony was known to promote the Acholi folk in particular), but not the Serbs. I only emphasised Orthodox since that is a big part of their cultural identity, and really, the only thing differing them from Bosnans (Sunni) and Croatians (Catholic). Anyhow, let me compensate your troubles here with another example: the Rwandan genocide. The Belgian colonists used divide-and-rule ways and basically out of one ethnicity made two that hate each other (Tutsi and Hutu), and encouraged nationalism of these folk. Half a million folk died since it.

Also, why show these examples (of Christians killing) rather than examples of Muslims and Christians killing? Why not mention the Soviet or Chinese mass death tolls?

Since more folk already know about Islamic extremism, I wouldn't really count it as nationalism for most Islamic etremism. Also, most folk already know about what happened in Russia (and all Soviet archives have been declassified) and in China, but not so much are they taught about British horrors, which have been much longer lasting and killed more.

world government

NONOononono

I am very much favorable to a federal world government.

Absolutely no one is surprised at this.

I have to ask you guys, how much of a bad thing a world government would be? Can't be really worst then the current situation we have today.

Edited 3/14/2016 16:13:45

Why are you mocking this? These were 8,000 innocent Bosnans, and you just mock their awful deaths since they were Muslim? Scum.

I don't think he was mocking them for being Muslim; I believe he was mocking the relatively small number of dead compared to the death toll from colonialism.

classes don't war each other. They work for each other; they get better out of each other. A hierarchy, of kinds.

Throughout history, class warfare has definitely existed - just look at the Roman Republic, for instance.

I don't think he was mocking them for being Muslim; I believe he was mocking the relatively small number of dead compared to the death toll from colonialism.

Well, that was just one happening of two days. And it doesn't matter if patriotism is less worse than colonialism - it's still bad.

Throughout history, class warfare has definitely existed - just look at the Roman Republic, for instance.

Ok, I am against class-patriotism, too. I am in general just against things that divide folk - borders, and patriotism are probably some of the biggest blocks against an united mankind.