The Psychopathic Meaning of “Patriotism” to Militant Nationalists

By “militant nationalist” I’m referring to the type of person whose idea of “patriotism” is a belief that their country is better than any other country, their country is always right (with the possible exception of when a liberal is president), and anyone who believes differently and raises objections to their country’s actions during war time is unpatriotic at best, or treasonous at worst. This type of person supports every war that his or her country enters into, even in the absence of the slightest clue as to the purpose of the war. Thus, militant nationalism is very much akin to a religion* – more specifically, a fundamentalist religion. It provides the same type of unambiguous security feeling that a strict fundamentalist religion does – the feeling of belonging and the feeling that as long as one follows a rather simple set of rules one will be taken care of by one’s God/country.

Why do I choose to write an article about this subject? Two reasons: First, I believe that such people are terribly dangerous to our country and to our world. This is the type of person who supported Hitler in his genocide and his march to tyranny and war. And secondly, I believe that there are way too many people like this in our country today. Put the two of these reasons together, and what we have is a phenomenon that is leading our country and the world down the road to tyranny and widespread death and destruction.

Yes, I realize that what I’ve described here is somewhat of a stereotype, and perhaps there are not many people who fully fit that stereotype. After all, most Americans today do not approve of our invasion of Iraq, and most eventually came to disapprove of the Vietnam War as well. But a large part of the reason for that is our failure to achieve “victory” in those wars. How many Americans would have disapproved of them had we “won”? Stereotype or not, my concern is that there are way too many Americans today who at least approximate the definition I described above. And that is very dangerous.

* I am not anti-religion, though I recognize that my statement may sound that way. I believe that religion can and often does play a useful and important role in our society. I have nothing against it as long as it is not used as an excuse for war or other bad things.


It’s not what we do that counts – It’s what we say we do

Those who care about their fellow human beings and the direction of their country are willing to speak out when they notice an atrocity being committed by their country. To a militant nationalist, however, it is not the atrocity that is the problem – the much bigger problem is pointing out the atrocity. That makes their country look bad. The reaction to Richard Durbin’s 2005 Senate speech exposing torture at Guantanamo Bay makes this point perfectly:

Senator Durbin tells the U.S. Senate of Bush administration use of torture
In 2005, Senator Dick Durbin gave one of the most courageous speeches that has ever been given on the floor of the U.S. Senate: In response to an FBI agent’s eyewitness report of torture by U.S. forces at Guantanamo Bay, he quoted that report to the U.S. Senate and made a comparison between our use of torture and the use of torture by historical regimes from other countries that “had no concern for human beings”. This is what Senator Durbin said:


No exaggeration there. How could there be? Durbin was simply quoting from an FBI report. But he didn’t stop there. Instead he went on to put the matter into historical context:


That’s what really got him into trouble – what enraged the militant nationalists. Why did Durbin do that? Simple. He was trying to make a forceful argument that our country should not do such things. He was hoping that his appropriate comparison of the Bush administration’s actions to some historical evil regimes might shame our country into reversing course – as can be seen by the continuation of his speech:


The reaction to Senator Durbin’s Speech
The militant nationalists were outraged by Senator Durbin’s speech. Not outraged by our treatment of prisoners, but by the fact that Durbin dared to point it out. Here is what Karl Rove had to say about it:


In other words, what’s important to Karl Rove and his ilk is not what we do, but how we are seen. It is not the Bush administration who puts “America’s men and women in uniform in greater danger” by violating the Geneva conventions. No, it is Durbin’s fault and Al Jazeera’s fault for broadcasting what people in other countries already know but which very few Americans have much knowledge of because our “journalists” are so concerned to protect us from this knowledge.

Conservative talk radio host, Hugh Hewitt, also had some revealing things to say about the meaning of Durbin’s speech, in his book, “Painting the Map Red”. After inaccurately implying that torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay represented “criminal conduct by a handful of out-of-control GIs not acting under orders”, Hewitt goes on to characterize the Democratic Party, referring to it as “defeatist”, having a “blame America first impulse”, having “suspicion of American military power”, and most important:


Ah, good old “American exceptionalism”! He thinks that’s a good thing. In other words, he (and militant nationalists in general) believes that our country has no obligation to live in accordance with international laws that were meant to protect the human rights of all humanity and to prevent war. Why do they believe that? Because in their view we’re so special and good that there is no need for us to prove it by restraining ourselves from the atrocities that other nations are expected to restrain themselves from.


The Iraq War as an example of militant nationalism

The Iraq War in general
There has been a great deal of talk recently about whether George Bush’s surge “worked”, given that monthly American military mortality figures are now down into the 30s. Closely related to this, there has always been much talk of the need to “win” the war. Virtually absent from corporate news media discussion of the war is what it would mean for the surge to be “working” or to “win” the war.

If the surge “works” or if we “win” the war, that will never erase the fact that we’ve killed approximately a million Iraqis, made refugees out of over four million, and ruined their infrastructure. Nor will it change the fact that most Iraqis hate us (polls consistently show that over 60% of ordinary Iraqis approve of violence against U.S. troops) and that our war has contributed to the expansion of al Qaeda by fueling Muslim hatred against us – the imperial occupiers of a Muslim country that never posed any danger to us. So if we “win” the war, what will we have “won”, other than the right for U.S. corporations to operate in Iraq, access to Iraqi oil, and the right to say that we “won”?

The April 2004 battle for Fallujah
Let’s take a look at the April 2004 battle for Fallujah as an especially egregious example of militant nationalism, as related by investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill in his book, “Blackwater – The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army”. The background for this battle of Fallujah is that four mercenary soldiers who worked for Blackwater had been recently ambushed and killed by guerillas from Fallujah. That was in retaliation for U.S. soldiers shooting and killing several Iraqi civilians in Fallujah, in retaliation for peacefully demonstrating against the U.S. occupation. Scahill described the U.S. retaliation for the four slain American mercenaries in his book. I’ll begin with his description of the end results:


And the U.S.-created Iraqi security forces? As described by Anthony Shadid, in “http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22anthony+shadid%22+night+draws+near&btnG=Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail">Night Draws Near – Iraq’s People in the Shadow of America’s War:


Remember the above paragraph the next time that some politician or anyone else whines about the Iraqis not doing their part to help us. Or the next time some idiot says “When they stand up, we’ll stand down”. Iraqis who refuse to help us in our occupation of their country, or those who switch to the other side do so not because they’re “terrorists”, as George Bush calls them, but because they don’t like imperial occupiers who murder their women and children in the name of bringing them freedom and democracy.

And lastly, consider what a real journalist, Dahr Jamail, had to say about the state of journalism in our country with respect to its reporting of the battle of Fallujah:



Why are so many Americans militant nationalists?

I’m sure that one could write a book on the answer to that question, and I certainly don’t have the answer to it. But I do think it’s important to note that our “leaders” consider it very important to impart militant nationalistic thinking to the American people. Their motives may vary, but the end result is that there is great pressure put upon politicians and ordinary Americans alike to support American wars, regardless of the reasons for them. So in that respect, those Americans who have characteristics of militant nationalism are not necessarily fully to blame for their unthinking knee-jerk support for American wars. I was fortunate enough to have two liberal parents who brought me up to recognize that it’s important to think for myself rather than believe everything that I’m fed by the news media or other “authorities”. That’s one reason, I believe, why I try to be careful about judging those who weren’t fortunate in that respect.

With that in mind, a very revealing example of how politicians reject the truth about our country in favor of a cleansed and idealized version of the truth is the U.S. Senate’s rejection, in 1995, of the proposed National Standards for United States History (take a look at the table of contents), by a vote of 99-1 (The one vote against the resolution was cast because the Senator felt that the resolution wasn’t strong enough.)

The standards
The standards were produced by a policy-setting body called the National Council for History Standards (NCHS), consisting of the presidents of nine major organizations and twenty-two other nationally recognized administrators, historians, and teachers, and two taskforces of teachers in World and United States history, with substantial input from thirty-one national organizations. The document was created through an unprecedented process of open debate, multiple reviews, and the active participation of the largest organizations of history educators in the nation.

In November 1994, NCHS released its document, which was meant to provide purely voluntary guidelines for national curricula in history for grades 5-12. As explained by Gary Nash, who led the effort, these standards were meant to have one thing in common: “to provide students with a more comprehensive, challenging, and thought-provoking education in the nation's public schools.” Their signature features were said to include “a new framework for critical thinking and active learning” and “repeated references to primary documents that would allow students to read and hear authentic voices from the past”.

The controversy over the standards
One article derogatorily refers to the “multi-cultis” who it is claimed wrote the document to advance their “politically correct” and radically left point of view. Lynn Cheney aggressively criticized the document as containing “multicultural excess”, a “grim and gloomy portrayal of American history”, “a politicized history”, and a disparaging of the West. Other major critics of the document included Newt Gingrich and Republican presidential candidates Pat Buchanan and Bob Dole. Dole blamed the document on “the embarrassed to be American crowd” of “intellectual elites”. With regard to the criticisms of “grimness and gloominess”, Nash had this to say:


Nash then discusses the historians’ point of view:



The meaning of patriotism to the militant nationalists

Thus it is that for a large segment of our population, “patriotism” has come to mean defending and glorifying the actions of our country, right or wrong (because our country is always right), especially during war time.

To me and other liberals, patriotism that is worth anything is almost the opposite of that: Out of concern for our fellow citizens, and out of concern for people of other nationalities as well, we would always prefer that conflicts be handled peaceably if possible, and that war should be used rarely and only as a last resort, in order to defend ourselves or to stop genocide or similar crimes against humanity. When our country acts wrongly we feel that it is better to expose the wrong so that it may be corrected, rather than to support or acquiesce to it out of a misguided sense of “patriotism”.

If so-called “patriots” feel that the attitude I’ve described here is not patriotism, or that it exposes my “hatred of America”, my answer to that is that their version of “patriotism” is nothing but an inability to face reality and a defensive, immature militancy that will result in the destruction of the world as well as their own country if they get their way. If that’s what “patriotism” has come to in this country, we are far better off without it.

You know: "My country, right or wrong". Real American patriots (not nationalists) are more like the Carl Schurz type: "My country right or wrong; when right, to be kept right, when wrong, to be set right". Therein lies the difference.

I thoroughly enjoyed this.. Very thought provoking.

:toast:

"Patriotism and love of country does not demand endless sacrifice on the part of our troops
in a war justified by slogans."
-Zbigniew Brzezinski

"The time is fast approaching when to call a man a patriot will be the deepest insult you can
offer him. Patriotism now means advocating plunder in the interest of the privileged classes
of the particular State system into which we have happened to be born."
-Leo Tolstoy

"The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it
to sway the emotions of the masses"
-Albert Einstein

"You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no
matter who does it or says it"
-Malcom X

"...We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and
dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no
longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the
opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. "
-Woodrow Wilson

"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no
allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people."
-Theodore Roosevelt


Just some quotes we have on a page at our band site No Name Soldier which relates to your article.

K&R Peace.

Especially the one by Tolstoy.

It reminds me of the comments that I sometimes make to my wife, since 9-11, when we're driving in the car and we pass an American flag in a window or a bumper sticker or whatever. My first emotional reaction is generally one of disgust.

My wife, who is perhaps as liberal as I am, chastises me for doing that. When I explain why I feel that way, she says that that isn't what the American flag means. Of course, it's not supposed to mean what the militant nationalists take it to mean. But still, that's the first thing that comes to my mind whenever I see one these days.

Though my wife is right of course that I shouldn't just assume the worst whenever I see the flag.

Those stickers cause me to remember the bible where it says -pride comes before the downfall.

I see one of those flag lapels one someone and my knee-jerk reaction is, "brownshirt!" Dammit, I want my country back, I want my Constitution back, AND I want my flag back, too!
Excellent post, TFC. I'm bookmarking this one!

Especially the one by Tolstoy.

It reminds me of the comments that I sometimes make to my wife, since 9-11, when we're driving in the car and we pass an American flag in a window or a bumper sticker or whatever. My first emotional reaction is generally one of disgust.

My wife, who is perhaps as liberal as I am, chastises me for doing that. When I explain why I feel that way, she says that that isn't what the American flag means. Of course, it's not supposed to mean what the militant nationalists take it to mean. But still, that's the first thing that comes to my mind whenever I see one these days.

Though my wife is right of course that I shouldn't just assume the worst whenever I see the flag.

You've probably hit all the points as well as anyone could, although the length of your post is probably off-putting. The only thing I would add (and it's consistent with your points in all respects) is that I have always observed in the "nationalist militarists" you so vividly describe a fetish for a certain kind of "AMERICA", one that most of us know never really existed.

The fetish seems to be constructed by people who NEED to feel America is "Number 1", the "New Jerusalem." The "exceptionalism" of which you speak seems to me to be an expression of a messianic view that America is that "New Jerusalem." Reagan referred to America as the "City on a Hill," and made no bones about his status as the man on the white horse. ("Behold a Pale Rider.")

This worldview you describe is all very New Testament, very Evangelical Protestant and very fear-driven. Don't you think these people are acting out of a feeling of powerlessness, of needy totemizing of the old white guy with the grey beard, on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? These people need a father so much -- they will go to ANY lengths to create one. Even an ex-drunk coke-sniffing draft-dodging rich kid womanizing insider-trading fraudster like GWB.

But exists only in the mind of the militant nationalist who can believe two contradictory things and not see a problem in their logical inconsistency or flawed thought process going on there.
Cognitive dissonance anyone?

If you have read any number of my posts while I do NOT believe in "American Exceptionalism", certainly not as the Bushies use it, I will always believe that the Founding Fathers for all their faults and flaws, did create something exceptional, the Constitution and Bill of Rigts at a time when the entire planet...100% of it, was ruled by Evil Bushie Monachs and Oligarchs (they were not the direct antecendents of todays's Imperial Family, though many are indeed related by blood to Bushie Monsters of today, but they were certainly the spiritual ancenstors of our America-hating Bushie Rulers).

Again for whatever faults and flaws, to revive the idea of freeedom and Liberty after it had lain dormant for so long during the Bushie-Ruled Dark Ages, to expand on it as they did in comparison to the Romans and Greeks that our Founding Fathers built on, THAT was also "exceptional" and fully unique in the Bushie World of that time.

And what America evolved into, where everyone gets a vote (is supposed to get one, anyway) and a more direct say in the election of Senators, again with all it's faults and flaws, was exceptional, too (I say this in the 'remarkable' vane, not the Bushie vane).

I guess I am pointing out that there is a 'moderate' way to view this exceptionalism, and it doesn't involve being like Bushie or Nazi followers, unquestioning and unthinking. It doesn't involve looking away from atrocities like the Native American genocide, nor excusing them.

That's all I am saying. Beware of too deep a generalization.

Peace.

Yes, these are all manifestations of the "American exceptionalism" which seems so prevalent in this country today.

With regard to the reason for it? I wish I understood it better. Are they acting out of a feeling of powerlessness? I suppose that's part of it, but I don't think it explains the whole picture. As I note in the title to my OP, I think it's seriously psychopathic and will end up destroying the world if it continues (it's already destroyed quite a bit of it). But I wish I better understood the dynamics behind it.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3852/is_200001/ai_n8885946

The problem,that despite the best efforts of many tolerant and compassionate people has not found a solution..
http://hearttag.blogspot.com/2005/07/two-human-intelligence-levels.html

"state is a condition, a certain relationship among human beings, a mode of behavior between them; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently to wards one another." quoted by Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible.


This I wonder..There has been many attempts to relate to,act an a compassionate manner to,and teach authoritarians to stop their bad behaviors. Looks like all this effort in trying to contain them for the most part has been less than effective.
Authoritarian personality as far as I can tell appears to be a condition like mental retardation.Like retardation all the tolerance,behavior programs,punishing, pills and therapy in the world will not make a person with an IQ of 50 become 175.

If the authoritarian,narcissistic or psychopathic personalities refuse to change what can we do? Nowadays too many of these people are in powerful places and they are ruining our country,killing our planet,destroying our culture,disrupting our relationships..

They are predatory and parasitic manipulators wearing masks to hide what they are,as they cause havoc while existing among any given society.And it appears they know what they do harms,they don't care and they simply refuse to behave differently than the usual asshole way they choose treat others.Stuff like disrupting and destroying any other relational contracts had between people or communities. They break societies apart by turning it into a power trip,or an exploitation fest or worse..


So,I ask..what do we do with these personalities? I fear it is long past time that we keep on asking why, they refuse to be compassionate or tolerant of others that are different, why they refuse to keep their bullying shit to themselves,why they refuse to stop dominating,and building posse to cover for them.

Bottom line is they deliberately refuse to change how they behave,and they will fake change if it allows them to manipulate to get power or what they want.. Seems punishment does nothing,nor does "rehabilitation". Eventually we are going to have to try other things and there are not many options left..

I think eventually since all the jails and cops,rehab and tolerance does not change this personality type into a person whom pro-social people could co exist in peace with,I fear it might come down to maybe having to kill them off for survival's sake.We may have to do this,or fate will have to, so pro-social people can survive.
Fact is if humanity is gonna exist we need more pro social people getting together to make the social contracts and build good relationships and reestablish another kind of culture that nourishes pro social people and humane compassion with some sane boundaries on what kind of conduct is healthy for the community. Because these toxic personalities ,if they enter a community of any sort,they will choose to violate boundaries,manipulate relationships,dominate people,do harm to people,terrorize,abuse power and trust, and create trauma in those they target to victimize . This pattern occurs wherever these toxic personalities are,whomever they 'associate' with.

These toxic personalities are I think, cause an incredible amount of crime and suffering,considering they are not a majority of the general population. .They are the habitual bullies and criminal offenders.

The toxic person is aware and chooses to do cruel or manipulative things that should not be tolerated by any person,culture or community interested in creating a haven to build mutual trust, a respect for freedom,to express egalitarian ideals,have an appreciation of compassion,sensitivity,and integrity or cultivating happiness while getting along together.

Pro social people cannot forever be tolerant of bully personalities in our midst who consider themselves entitled to dominate,manipulate,to cause us pain,suffering, fear,or trauma just because they think they can get away with it.


Sometimes it takes the great Dust buster of fate to clear the room of bullies and bad habits. Freak cyclones helped destroy Kublai Khan's brutal Mongolian empire, for example...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E6DB1E38F930A25757C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=

I do think, however, that "killing them off" is the wrong answer. For one thing, they are in control of this country right now, and even before Bush we have probably always had many of them in control of various parts of our government. Also, I fear that if we adopt an attitude of "kill them off", that could lead us to become like them.

I think that the best approach to the problem is to do whatever we can to shine light on the problem. Anti-social, psychopathic people generally bring their behavior under control when they know that their motives and methods will be exposed if they get out of line. In the current situation, by far the best approach would be for Congress to hold extensive and public investigations into the many crimes that have been committed (including impeachment hearings). Unfortunately, there is too much of the authoritarian personality in Congress too, and too little has been done in that regard.

We need to make all the use we can of our First Amendment.

And nothing has changed them. No religion, no kindness,no therapy or punishment. Why I dunno, but either way we are locked on a planet with a bunch of people who are causing trauma to this world.



Also, I fear that if we adopt an attitude of "kill them off", that could lead us to become like them.

That is a common myth.

It is a lie. Killing or harming a bully in self defense or to defend another person who is facing abuse or a threat to their life will NOT I repeat NOT make you "catch" authoritarian psychopathy or narcissism.

You are either a toxic person or you are not one.

However being around authoritarians and the sick hierarchies they create can make good people by-stand and do nothing,or worse blame the victim to save themselves from feeling anxiety or motivate good people to not take responsibility for defending the well being of a person who is being attacked..

THE PSYCHOPATH - The Mask of Sanity

Special Research Project of the Quantum Future Group

Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.

And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools.

Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless.

You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience, that they seldom even guess at your condition.

In other words, you are completely free of internal restraints, and your unhampered liberty to do just as you please, with no pangs of conscience, is conveniently invisible to the world.

You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences will most likely remain undiscovered.

How will you live your life?

What will you do with your huge and secret advantage, and with the corresponding handicap of other people (conscience)?

The answer will depend largely on just what your desires happen to be, because people are not all the same. Even the profoundly unscrupulous are not all the same. Some people - whether they have a conscience or not - favor the ease of inertia, while others are filled with dreams and wild ambitions. Some human beings are brilliant and talented, some are dull-witted, and most, conscience or not, are somewhere in between. There are violent people and nonviolent ones, individuals who are motivated by blood lust and those who have no such appetites. <...>

Provided you are not forcibly stopped, you can do anything at all.


http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm

I hope I didn't imply that that was what I was saying.

But killing off people because they fit a psychological profile that we believe is dangerous, or because they hold political beliefs that we believe are dangerous, is something different than that. I'm not sure if that's what you were advocating or not.

I do believe that those guilty of crimes against humanity, as are many of those in the Bush administration, should be tried for their crimes and then put away if found guilty. I'm not sure if that's what you were suggesting or not.

Imagine a person with no consience they are clever and feel no guilt or love but want POWER and they'll get it in any way they can get away with it. Imagine a significant number of these people around us. Imagine they do most of the murdering raping battering that goes on,would it be self defense to force these people to stop it? What if all your attempts to stop them fail? Than what, do you play make believe and let them cycle in and out of jail until they rape or kill, lock them up again, let them out they do it again?
How long is this shit gonna happen?
Imagine these psychopaths are rich and powerful and do their murdering overseas cloaked in patriotism and bullshit are they somehow any less guilty of crimes against human beings than the psychopath rapist individual who lands in jail and rapes or kills again ... in the case of the OP, killing for militant nationalism?
Killing is self defense is ethical when a person who attacks innocent people is killed, forced to stop it..Torture is ALWAYS wrong,but simply killing a killer is not.It stops one person,who is choosing to threaten or end the lives of many.


If you see a psychopath raping a kid,Why shouldn't you kill him? You see him doing a crime kill him. If you see or hear a man beating up his wife every Friday,and you see her bruises,step up to DEFEND her next time her abuser cracks her jaw,.If necessary shoot the shit head that's abusing her.He may eventually murder her you know.And would that forcing an abuser to stop in a way that works, be just? I think it would.
http://www.akhopecenter.org/lethal.htm

Definition of Abuse: Battering is a pattern of abusive and controlling behaviors that an individual uses to gain power within an intimate or familial relationship.
Battering is a choice Abuse is a choice; the batterer chooses to be violent. Abuse in an attempt to control the relationship. Many abusers have reported that they used verbal, emotional, financial or physical violence in attempt to control their partner’s actions. Abusers state that they fear someone must control the relationship, so “it might as well be them” Abusers will state that it was their intention to control their partner and their partner’s actions, violence and abuse was the behavior that accomplished this goal.Battering is not an act of anger. Abuse does not always occur when the batterer is angry.
Battering is a choice.

And since it is a choice, isn't it time that choice had some consequences that would actually stop the behavior and stop the mind and body making these choices that lead innocent people to further trauma and death? Killing a killer is not the same thing as killing an innocent person not causing any harm.

http://www.pcsdma.org/Knowledge%20Universe.htm
http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0001/np000107.htm

By-standing conduct is a guilt of passivity. Where it turns into participation in the commission of the crime, it becomes a guilt of deeds, albeit not the same as perpetration.
Large percentages of people that witness horrid crimes by stand.
http://www.startribune.com/local/11556891.html

Sometimes justice never is done because of this unwillingness to protect victims..Because people sadly side more easily with perpetrators.The perps ask we forget and say nothing ,the victim asks we intervene and care and maybe even feel their pain too.
http://www.hal-pc.org/~rcanup/problem.html
http://www.physorg.com/news115920702.html

http://studentlife.calpoly.edu/sfr/prevention.asp
http://www.hhhh.org/maia/lies.html

I certainly agree that violent people should be punished for their crimes (after a fair trial), and that we should do what we can to prevent them from repeating their crimes (without getting into a discussion here on how long they should be locked up, etc.).

What I don't agree with is that we should kill people because we believe they are dangerous.

is not the same as witnessing a crime and fighting to stop the crime instead of being a bystander and not at least calling 911 or intervening to reinforce boundaries..against abuse.If it takes lethal force to stop a crime, so be it. The criminal chose to do the crime,the criminal can face the consequences of the choice they made even if it is a consequence that entails force and is deadly.Accountability is not always nice to endure..If I witnessed a rape you bet I'd would defend the targeted person and intervene to stop the rapist,and if the crime does not stop, I'd be willing to kill the rapist to stop the crime..

As far as witnessing a violent crime, I agree that there are circumstances where lethal force would be necessary and justified to stop it.

It was a pleasure to read such a comprehensive article on how "9/11 changed everything".

Obviously, it didn't change anything, but gave these "exceptional Americans" an excuse to push for a strong central government they can be proud of....an empire that will last a "thousand years".

This administration also spawned a phenom I call "Barstool Republicans". Those of little means who hang out after a long day of hard work and complain loudly about "too much" investigative reporting, paying the "death tax", and an end to the war.

Patriotism and ignorance together can be a dangerous combination.

Thanx again for posting.

"Too much investigative reporting". Isn't that the ultimate in hostility to independent thought!

but created by decades of subconscious manipulation by professional psychologists and others using the mass media and religion as a tool.

It was not accidental but a deliberate plan to mentally prepare us for what was about to happen.

:hi:

what are you saying?

Something like Tell_a_vision?

Seriously, "a deliberate plan" would have too many variables.




:tinfoilhat:

In 1972 I worked with a doctoral candidate in Psychology. He told me a story about his Prof who had been an inmate in a NAZI concentration camp. He noticed that there were very few guards and most of them came from the inmate population. He began to study and take notes on how the NAZIs used psychological techniques to keep the inmates under control. After the War, he tried to publish a paper on what he had witnessed but the 'Government' classified it Secret and told him he could not discuss it with anyone.

It seems the boys put those techniques to good use judging by how docile the US population has been.

:hi:

and his plan to control the media to counter anti-war sentiment during the Viet Nam war.
Here's one of his pet projects:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/groupwatch/aim.php

My tin-foil hat wasn't required on this one. There is plenty of documentation out there.

Another good one is Capital Cities Communications (CapCities/ABC) and their connection to Bill Casey, late director of the CIA.

The boys were bent on taking over Mass Media and promoting their slant on reality.

Psychopathic tendencies are highly heritable and children with psychopathic tendencies show genetic vulnerability to antisocial behaviour. Difficulties in processing fear appear to index genetic vulnerability at the cognitive level.


http://www.refer.nhs.uk/ViewRecord.asp?ID=1420



"Successful psychopaths" with an increased corpus callosum but with a symmetrical hippocampus are much less likely to get caught by the police than psychopaths that also have an asymmetrical hippocampus.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002792.html

http://chericola57.tripod.com/infinite.html

Men who think with their dicks get caught more often?

psychological manipulation since I began frequenting DU three years ago. It's something that I've always realized to some degree, I believe, but I hadn't previously appreciated how complex and pervasive it is. It's a very important and fascinating issue.

The name branding and jingoism that is all pervasive in advertising seems harmless on the surface but it cam be a dangerous tool if misused.

Even when aware, I catch myself humming those catchy tunes and using the phrases.

Us against them, white against black, 'good' versus 'evil', 'right' versus 'wrong'.

It's time the Human Race grows up and starts seeing through the bullshit.

http://www.amazon.com/Defying-Hitler-Memoir-Sebastian-Haffner/dp/0312421133/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197208607&sr=8-2

People, quite simply, never change. The only things that do change are:

a) the amount of energy available to us for our use personally and as a society

b) technological change

We are still the same monkeys that fell out of the trees one million years ago or so. Without a) and b) slavery NEVER would have been abolsihed (in fact, I am expecting it to make a comeback in the coming centuries as a) and b) both switch gears into reverse)

I think it's fair to say that the creation of the UN, with its charter to prevent war and crimes against humanity, etc., was a huge step in the right direction and indicates promise for the future. Since that kind of effort is very new to humanity, relative to the span of the human race, it has long led me to believe that there is hope for us if we can perfect an international system of law and order before we destroy ourselves.

Thanks for the book link -- I'll take a look at that.

Big difference. The nazis were nationalists, not patriots. Nationalism is based on arrogance, patriotism is based on pride.

America is far more authoritarian/militant than what most care to admit ... although the dilemma you describe is rooted in authoritarianism/pathology/authoritarian personality disorder. Such types prefer rigid uniformity, blind obedience to authority, oversimplified black and white views for inevitably varied and complex problems, and seek strict governance by strong, macho/militant "leaders."

Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest.
- Education and Citizenship speech, 5/14/1908

Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about.
- More Maxims of Mark, Johnson, 1927

...majority Patriotism is the customary Patriotism.
- "As Regards Patriotism," Europe and Elsewhere

The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice--and always has been.
- Mark Twain's Notebook

...is a word which always commemorates a robbery. There isn't a foot of land in the world which doesn't represent the ousting and re-ousting of a long line of successive "owners" who each in turn, as "patriots" with proud swelling hearts defended it against the next gang of "robbers" who came to steal it and did--and became swelling-hearted patriots in their turn.
- Mark Twain's Notebook

We teach them to take their patriotism at second-hand; to shout with the largest crowd without examining into the right or wrong of the matter--exactly as boys under monarchies are taught and have always been taught. We teach them to regard as traitors, and hold in aversion and contempt, such as do not shout with the crowd, and so here in our democracy we are cheering a thing which of all things is most foreign to it and out of place--the delivery of our political conscience into somebody else's keeping. This is patriotism on the Russian plan.
- Mark Twain, a Biography

Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people's countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of his. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood of his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man"- with his mouth.
- "The Lowest Animal"

A man can be a Christian or a patriot, but he can't legally be a Christian and a patriot--except in the usual way: one of the two with the mouth, the other with the heart. The spirit of Christianity proclaims the brotherhood of the race and the meaning of that strong word has not been left to guesswork, but made tremendously definite- the Christian must forgive his brother man all crimes he can imagine and commit, and all insults he can conceive and utter- forgive these injuries how many times?--seventy times seven--another way of saying there shall be no limit to this forgiveness. That is the spirit and the law of Christianity. Well--Patriotism has its laws. And it also is a perfectly definite one, there are not vaguenesses about it. It commands that the brother over the border shall be sharply watched and brought to book every time he does us a hurt or offends us with an insult. Word it as softly as you please, the spirit of patriotism is the spirit of the dog and wolf. The moment there is a misunderstanding about a boundary line or a hamper of fish or some other squalid matter, see patriotism rise, and hear him split the universe with is war-whoop. The spirit of patriotism being in its nature jealous and selfish, is just in man's line, it comes natural to him- he can live up to all its requirements to the letter; but the spirit of Christianity is not in its entirety possible to him.
The prayers concealed in what I have been saying is, not that patriotism should cease and not that the talk about universal brotherhood should cease, but that the incongruous firm be dissolved and each limb of it be required to transact business by itself, for the future.
- Mark Twain's Notebook

"Letters from Earth" was one of the funniest things I ever read. He's so funny because his ridiculous sounding stories are so close to reality.

A sentiment I most heartily agree with.

My feelings about patriotism were spurred by an officer giving us a lecture in boot camp about the "enemy" of the day. Fidel Castro. With much bravado he told us that we should be willing to die for our country and kill Cubans. And, one of the reasons he gave to rouse our willingness to murder was that Fidel Castro had a "dirty beard".

Even at the tender age of 17 I thought that a pretty shallow reason to kill people that I didn't know, had nothing against, and might even like.

Later, when asked to extend my enlistment (1965) so that I could "defend my country" by killing other people that I didn't know, had nothing against, and might even like, I was downright insulted that I could be thought immoral enough to do so for a slogan and piece of cloth.

As Bertrand Russell said, "It is easy to say that you will die for your country, but will you kill for your country?"

I'd like to append something here, though:

"This type of person supports every war that his or her country enters into, even in the absence of the slightest clue as to the purpose of the war."

...as long as s/he and/or his/her close relatives don't have to fight and die in said war.

especially as long as s/he doesn't have to go himself.

acquired literally as an effect of psychopaths running the country, mainstream media and much of the world. In addition, there are many other related psychological factors that I won't go into but I can suffice to say that I do not feel that all militant nationalist are themselves psychopaths, but rather, most are just misled naïve and disturbed followers of psychopaths. For arguments sake lets say, if there was a psychopath amongst a group of militant nationalists, they would be the one’s inciting the anger and rage, whipping up other people’s hatred and sense of deprivation, conversely calling it patriotism. One could say that it is a Machiavellian characteristic common and natural to the psychopath.

So what does “Patriotism” mean to the psychopath who is incapable of having feelings naturally found in normal people? Patriotism is in “effect” an emotional word and psychopaths are “effect deficit”, so the patriotism that normal people might feel cannot exist in the psychopath. Here is a 7-minute video, which scientifically shows that the brains of psychopaths do not work the same as normal people, when given “neutral words and emotional words” the psychopaths brain processes them all the same, quite differently from normal people, once again making the point they are effect deficit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaTfdKYbudk">psychopath mri - general psychology

It’s important to point out, although psychopath is unable to feel emotions like normal people they are great actors, and what you see is not what they feel. You can teach a parrot to say, “God bless America”, but that parrot will never be patriotic or believe in God.

So what does patriotism and other feelings normal people have - mean to the psychopath that does not? Until their stopped - it means weakness and gullibility in others; which they can form, manipulate, prey upon and use - against any one they dam well choose.

To answer your question, “Why are so many Americans militant nationalists?” Some one has written a book that, I’m sure you will be shocked at how well it will answer that question, and many more.

The book is http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/political_ponerology_lobaczewski.htm">Political Ponerology: A Science on The Nature of Evil adjusted for Political Purposes by Andrew M. Lobachevski

That most militant nationalists are not themselves psychopaths, but are just naive, misled followers. I would also add that they don't have much capacity for independent thought. I think that idea is correct, though. We've heard it with respect to the German people who passively followed Hitler.

And our educational system doesn't do much to guard against it these days. Rather than teaching the value of independent thought, there is way too mcuh emphasis on unthinking loyalty to our country -- what the militant nationalists define as "patriotism".

That book sounds very interesting -- sounds like it would be worth reading. I take it you would highly recommend it?

when Hitler took it over, and then under Soviet rule when the war ended. Here’s what is on the back cover, and the link I gave you has a big article with excerpts from the book, and a link to purchase. I really do believe it could be one of the most important books you will have ever read, and I know that’s a lot to say to an epidemiologist who happens to be a walking encyclopedia of world history.
Yes Dr. Dale, I highly recommend it…

I will order it and read it.