Ask Not What You Can Do For Your Country (Part 2)

It pains me to acknowledge that there are some poor, deluded fools out there who are convinced that the nation-state is to be looked upon as some kind of friendly patriarch who benevolently watches over us all. “This country has given me everything I have”, they declare, choking back grateful tears. This is a typical side-effect of the personification of nations which takes place within the patriotic mindset, which serves to muster up a personal sympathy for the homeland.

“Britain believes this-and-that-and-the-other!”
“America has vowed that A, B and C!”
“Iran is threatening something-something!”

The way in which we describe national developments has us bizarrely speaking of countries as if they were actual people. This makes it easier to construe international events as dumbed-down melodramas between narrowly-defined personas.

This allegiance to the nation that ‘cares for you’, as if the country’s structure was devised with your particular well-being in mind, is nothing more than shameless self-flattery. The reason that government may provide their citizens with healthcare, education, security, and the like, is because that is exactly what sustains the citizenship’s subservience to the government and thus perpetuates the status quo. Education is provided not with the objective of providing children with as much knowledge as possible, but with giving them enough skills with which they can attain a job later in life. Healthcare is provided because the sick and the dead do not work. Transport is provided for more efficient time-keeping. Certain luxuries are permitted so as to keep the worker happy enough to carry on about his job. A country’s most valuable resource is its populace. Those who feel gratitude towards their country in such instances suffer from a truly debilitating case of Stockholm syndrome. Let’s analyse the situation:

You are born into a geopolitical environment, which you (obviously) have had no say in. You are immediately declared a citizen of this region; decreed forever a subject of the state. Within this habitat, predetermined, orchestrated conditions make it impossible to survive without money, and therefore, without work. It is only during the first few years of life that the powers-that-be show any leniency, charging your parents instead for your existence, as you are trained for your future life; taught enough skills to endure a lifetime of toil and servitude. Since it has been decided that all of life’s essentials - food, drink, shelter, clothing, maintaining one’s health - need to be paid for, the governing powers offer you a stark choice: work or die. Should you try to side-step this generous proposal by methods not approved by the nation, you will be deemed a criminal, and duly prosecuted and imprisoned as one. So it is, that you, and all others like you, find yourself confined to the path of the wage slave. Adding insult to injury, for being bred, domesticated and exploited like cattle from Day One, you are expected to, above anything else, grovel and be thankful to your rulers for rendering you docile and miserable.

There should be no doubt: anyone who remains convinced by this endorsement of absolute subordination is truly a proficient master in the art of doublethink.

Given the effectiveness of patriotism in invoking ferocious unthinking loyalty to one’s country amongst the masses, it is hardly surprising that it has been repeatedly brought into play whenever the prospect of military conflict arises. The notion is inextricably entwined with the “support the troops” mantra. This too needs to be scrutinised.

This position is often assumed as a means of getting a degree of approval for the military’s foreign excursions on ground wholly unrelated to the motives for conflict themselves. Those who would not have supported a war based on the motive alone are guilt-tripped into supporting it merely because the troops must then commence carrying the action out. The most cringe-worthy manifestation of this is when those of an anti-war stance, out of fear of appearing anti-patriotic, say that they can both oppose the war and support the troops. They claim that this is not a hypocritical position to take. What is the meaning of supporting someone, if not supporting their actions? The implication is innate. It should be noted, mind you, that lack of support does not necessarily mean instant vilification. The point is: if one is to decide whether or not they agree with a specific conflict, it should be a decision based on what is actually being fought over, not on the tugging of heart-strings.

Another fault within the “support the troops” argument is that, whilst soldiers have to work together as a unit, they are not in all actuality a singular unit, and different army members have different reasons for joining. You might not wish, for example, to support a soldier who had enlisted because he gets his thrills from blowing people up. There are some who enrol out of a desire to help out (although, given that the country’s main objective is only to protect national interests, this is the good Samaritan’s equivalent of gambling everything on a life-and-death lottery); some enrol out of proud family tradition; some enrol for the prospect of a good and valuable career. Undoubtedly, the largest motivating factor for men and women to enrol in the armed forces is the overwhelming sense of national duty. Thus the very ideal that sways the public into endorsing soldiers being sent off to war is the same driving force that sees them becoming soldiers in the first place. This should serve as a damning indication of the harsh inhumanity of patriotism. Individuals are seduced, recruited, worked up into a frenzy by patriotism; they are transformed into pawns, combating other pawns who fight driven by the same patriotism for their own lands; their own certainty that their nation is the one worth being sacrificed for. Patriotism inspires men to be constantly hungry for war; fiercely beating the shit out of each other over which of them sports the biggest ideological phallus.

[Big_Boss]

So are you saying that by loving my country I am, in fact, an idiot?

[MarkMono]

Seems more like your inference than his implication to be fair.

On another note I assumed the anthropomorphisation of countries as singular entities derived from the monarchy system where countries and large territories genuinely were run by individuals. Everything you've said still applies, but I just naturally assumed that was where this attitude had its origin.

These are really good articles Dario, and raise questions that far more people should be asking of themselves.

[Rhythm Junkie]

Originally Posted by Big_Boss

So are you saying that by loving my country I am, in fact, an idiot?

I think what he's saying is that you, along with millions before you and no doubt millions after you, have been duped into blind faith in what is simply a geographical accident. This doesn't make you an idiot. Millions of years of defending territory against thieves, mauraders and vagabonds being a basic survival tactic makes patriotism and nationalism a pretty powerful marketing tool I'd say. I've worded that rather clumsily but I think the basic point I was making is there.

[Warped]

Well we live in a world of selfish cunts, why should be put faith in something that offers no real rewards. I'd rather be a dick thanks.

[Dario]

Missing the point entirely. It contributes nothing of actual moral/ethical value to anyone, and as an ideal, serves no purpose other than that of perpetuating its own existence.

[AMillionScreams]

I often muse over what life might be like had I been born into some sort of remote tribe, untouched by the developed civilisations of the western world. No doubt I'd be quite happy with an interesting stick rather than a playstation and having a successful days hunting would bring me more joy and satisfaction than a night out getting lashed and scoring.

However I'm not convinced that just because you're born in a materialistic, modern culture means your free will is anymore diminished. I'm also sure I can by just as happy as jungle boy and he would also suffer from the same anxieties and depressions as anyone else on the planet might.

I suppose what I'm saying is that we're not all blind sheep, we chose to exist in the way that makes us happy. Being born into something ties you through inertia and the core values of family roots but it doesn't mean if your life sucks you can't change it, break out of the cycle etc.

Well I'm done rambling... so I'm going to burn my possessions and head for the Amazon. Peace out.

[MarkMono]

I think most of us have the fundamental certainty that we can't just go and live up a mountain and live off lichen bred into us from birth.

Not saying its impossible to break free of this social conditioning, but it looks pretty unlikely for most.

[endless psych]

Briefly on the subject of the anxieties and depressions of jungle boy it's highly likely, given the predisposition for me too drugs and pharmaceutical companies creating new illnesses in order to sell product, that folks in the material western world do suffer from more anxieties and depressions (simply because there are more for them to suffer from).

Also I would question the premise that the nation state is where blame should be apportioned for living in a capitalist society. Partiularly one so keen on advancing the cause of the free Market. Complicit certainly but are nationstates the real power brokers?

[MarkMono]

Thats relative though, surely, as happiness is.

For every crippling anxiety the Western world has bestowed upon me I have comics and computer games to compensate.

[Campestral]

isn't knowledge power? if we were all taught to the best of our abilities then we'd still probably have a hierarchy though.

isn't it the inbuilt instinct of greed that both enables us yet disestablishes us? what i mean is the guy at the bottom rank of the army is still the same guy if they reach the top of the army, the idea of fairness is how he reached that rank. i think the human world can be looked at as a whole psyche, there is always going to be a hierarchy, like when folk say to you when you're young stop talking shite with your mad ideas and then when you're older you realise you've always said that to other people too.

i am optimistic though unlike steve jones because evolution is all about want and we all want something better so the brain will become more adapt at processing confusing conflicting thoughts and in doing so develop a better way or living together.

i think you're being a bit over para because schools were made by us, if the righteous had their way then we'd still be slaves. we landed in a pretty cool place and time of evolution

[MarkMono]

That was reasonably coherent for you.

(If there was a point I must've missed it, but still, please keep trying. Your rhetoric is sometimes intriguing, but camouflaged by obtrusive tangents and a basic lack of articulacy.)

[endless psych]

I suppose (regarding jungle boy again) I was making a bit of a flippant statement about the nature (or construction I suppose the term being more then appropriate here) of psyhiatric "illness". Until truly objective means of diagnosis exist we will have more random disorders and anxieties then jungle boy.

Depending on whether we have a certain allele of a couple of genes we can cope with knowing about 170 people well (at any one time not over our lifetimes) However society is developing and our social networks are expanding quicker then our brains are evolving. This is probably universal to both jungle boy and us, but more of a problem for us. It basically implies in all but a handful of settlements we are likely to encounter or inhabit there are more people then we can cope with. Which does perhaps explain things like celebrity culture and wanting to loose oneself in entertainment.

Jungle boy probably doesn't have any anxieties related to the sheer volume of people that surround them. But might have to worry about catfish with a taste for human blood I suppose.

You know all this insomnia driven rambling and I've just realized I haven't much more then western chauvanism to show for my line of argument. Ho hum

(I'm posting it anyway as it took a fuck load of time to type on this blasted touch screen)

[Campestral]

the point was mr brightside that we not only live in a world that's progressed from monkeys or more appropriately non cognition but a world that's been developed down in hierarchy as opposed to up. so the more we learn the less we yearn. lol ok it's always good to have the greed to want more whether it be material or mental/spiritual but never forget it was our ancestors therefore us who made this place so far so la te doh

[MarkMono]

Still not getting it, I don't even know whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.

I can pick out three or maybe four disjointed points from that last post, but I can't figure for the life of me how they're supposed to relate to each other. Sorry if I'm coming off as patronising here, these are just simple, honest observations intended to help and encourage.

Originally Posted by endless psych

I suppose (regarding jungle boy again) I was making a bit of a flippant statement about the nature (or construction I suppose the term being more then appropriate here) of psyhiatric "illness". Until truly objective means of diagnosis exist we will have more random disorders and anxieties then jungle boy.

Depending on whether we have a certain allele of a couple of genes we can cope with knowing about 170 people well (at any one time not over our lifetimes) However society is developing and our social networks are expanding quicker then our brains are evolving. This is probably universal to both jungle boy and us, but more of a problem for us. It basically implies in all but a handful of settlements we are likely to encounter or inhabit there are more people then we can cope with. Which does perhaps explain things like celebrity culture and wanting to loose oneself in entertainment.

Jungle boy probably doesn't have any anxieties related to the sheer volume of people that surround them. But might have to worry about catfish with a taste for human blood I suppose.

You know all this insomnia driven rambling and I've just realized I haven't much more then western chauvanism to show for my line of argument. Ho hum

(I'm posting it anyway as it took a fuck load of time to type on this blasted touch screen)

I was thinking of the positives of western culture more as aids to relaxation than escapism. The two are not always synonymous after all.

With great anxieties come great selections of drugs and books.