jump to navigation

Patriotism versus Nationalism, in Popular Sovereignty April 14, 2005

Posted by Matt Hurst in Uncategorized.
trackback


At one time popular sovereignty was synonymous with democracy which, as I have pointed out in the past, we do not by definition live in. Our most democratic body of government, the House of Representatives, now rendered irrelevant to the tyranny of a similarly nationalistic Executive Branch (the President), is now in lock-step with our monarch with form of feudal monarchy. After 224 years under a single constitution, we have seemingly rejected the separation of powers that sook to protect us from the tyrannical majority, which would otherwise have been protected should the aristocratically modeled Senate and Supreme Court that represented our country’s founding fathers. Congress has not needed to declare a single war for the past half century, in part because populism steers the American people and their elected representatives to support the nationalistic president – a seemingly democratic institution.
Maybe I should take a step back here to define my terms. Patriotism and nationalism are not the same thing; patriotism is inherently defensive and nationalism is predominantly aggressive. Patriotism can be defined as love of land and the traditions it encompasses, sometimes old-fashioned, and while not necessarily conservative it isn’t very liberal either. Nationalism on the other hand is more abstract; it loves the myth of a group of people, as a ideological substitute for religion, so that it can exist in a modern and populist environment – a nationalist is hardly liberal. As an example, Hitler understood the important difference between patriot and nationalist, as he pointed out in Mein Kampf, “I was a nationalist, and not a patriot”. (as an aside, Hitler owed the already impoverished German government $11,500,000 in inflation adjusted dollars for back taxes on sales of “Mein Kampf” at the time he was chancellor of that government in 1934).
Today’s nationalists have a common myth formed in the post-WWII era of prosperity and empirical power of the United States in the 1950’s. This idealistic myth is rooted in truth, but is influenced by several misconceptions of America as “God’s chosen land” that were put in self-actualization in the 1950’s by it’s politicians – best characterized by the phrase “God Bless America”. As we emerged victorious and virtually unscathed from another world war as the dominant power of democracy in the world, a myth was appropriated that it was our God given destiny to rise to power – the implications being protecting that power through dominance by any means necessary. For example, it is often assumed that the Pledge of Allegiance, an originally patriotic poem of sorts, has always contained the words “under god”. In fact, those words were put into the pledge by act of congress in the 1950s, as another means to distinguish ourselves from the “godless” communism of the Soviet Union – we became the power destined by God to dominate, or so this nationalistic addition to the pledge suggests to us.
To maintain this power endowed by our creator (but not necessarily the democratically created liberties accompanying them), we have waged war on the barbarians at the gates of the empire for the past half century. To protect the prosperity that reinforces our dominance, these foreign conflicts have drawn us in under the guise of the Wilson doctrine twisted around; instead of making the world safe for democracy we are making democracy safe for the world, specifically our concept of democracy. You see creating democracy has never been the goal of foreign war in the past 50 years, instead we have fought wars to protect our God given dominance, even if it is against a democratically elected leader. Democracy tends to make people more materialistic, and since our material wealth is imperiled by challenges to our God given power, we fight the barbarians while sacrificing our freedoms to those in power to protect us and our possessions – not defending us from invaders but solidifying the bounty that we are destined through acts of aggression towards other potential powers.
The tyrannical majority does not have to respect the minority rights in a nationalistic populist state. Our history and the political decisions drawn from that experience is dependant on how the majority are thinking, fearing, desiring, and resenting, even to the point of hatred; so if that history is misinformed through the drawing of it’s victors, anyone who challenges the presumptions of a myth is also to be mistrusted and hated. The patriots made examples of by the nationalists because they challenge the myth the populists believe in. The populist majority does not need democracy anyone – they have chosen their leader, whose nationalistic impression of a God endowed America they have endorsed. Therefore any challenge to their leader or the nationalistic values he represents is a challenge to the myth of a world God has laid to our bounty. The tyrannical majority does not care about whether the patriots or even they have rights, so long as we fulfill our God given destiny to stay in power by any means necessary, and they are willing to give up their freedoms so long as they believe that they are in control of popular sovereignty. I am here to tell you that the emperor has no clothes, but he is informed as a monarch is – a court of advisers who plan public interactions designed to impress options on them that they believe are acceptable, and his supporting masses believe these the only options as much as he does as he sits in the ivory tower.
So how does this play out? When the president leads us into war, a nationalistic notion, he gives us options we believes to be acceptable, and because of the executor’s popular sovereignty, the democratic Congress simply let’s the monarch wage it; no democratic declaration of war needed when the populists have chosen their leader to do so. Likewise the Supreme Court, in many ways a aristocratic institution, is subject to nationalistic forces standing in the way of the tyrannical majority because they protect the rights guaranteed in our democracy – they stand in the way of God itself when they protect freedoms removed in war. It is no wonder then that Pat Robertson and his followers are always so interested in packing the Supreme Court to serve his interests, because his appeal is in religious, nationalistic populism (which also serves his material gain I should add).
In short, democracy has given way to populism, which is constantly abused by the tyranny of the majority to wage war to protect our dominant power against any challenger foreign or (and only as of recently) domestic. Patriotism has given way to Nationalism, which now motivates these conflicts and gives power to the bureaucratic tyrants by sacrificing personal freedom, and possibly the democratic rights that they endow onto their tyrants. All in an effort to protect our dominance and the prosperity it entails, and because of a common myth of a nation chosen by God to lead, we have sacrificed our rights of a democratic state to tyrants who lead us into aggression to make this myth manifest. Patriots beware – the popular sovereignty created in the democratic system you love has removed the freedom you so love in the name of a myth, and in spite of voluntarily losing their own freedoms they actually believe they are in charge; nationalists are aggressive so patriots must defend that which they love.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. nilsinedeo - April 14, 2005

How come you were in the hospital? I hope you’re okay. :/

2. x_ai_x - April 15, 2005

…lame

3. skewgee - April 15, 2005

who the fuck are you?

4. x_ai_x - April 15, 2005

who are you….?

“Love you
skewgee
2005-04-15 04:52 (link) Select
Hey Russell! Just Wondering how in the HELL you gets such hot ass Macon Chicks with all that ACNE and that FAT FACE and lame ass fucking SO-Called-PERSONALLITY. your sooooo mean, at least thats what all your X’s tell me. Hope you rot in Hell, you crater-faced CUNT.

LOve,

Piss off
(Reply to this)”

5. skewgee - April 15, 2005

reply to that. fraid to say i didn’t write that, but i checked your page and the comments are under my name indeed. strange, because none of my lj friends are friends of you, so i think we have an independant culprit on the loose – a “mad commenter” if you will.
sorry to say, but it’s not my post chum – chances are it’s somebody else you know who randomly used a name that’s the same as mine. otherwise, i have no clue how that post was put under my name.

cheers

6. x_ai_x - April 15, 2005

hmm…well forgive the mix up, but im sure you can see how a retarted comment like that would upset someone

7. thinkpink178 - April 25, 2005

is “sook” a word?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: