Patriotism: Trash or Treasure?

Perception, I seem to detect a contradiction ... You're not an advocate of forcibly silencing dissent, but sometimes the voices of the dissenting minority may justifiably be silenced?

Indeed an interesting bit of history, Dys.

There is a little Oz comedy show called CNNNN - which lampoons CNN, of course.

With Bush in town, and all, they sent a film crew to Texas, made up an imaginary country - sounded a bit like Uzbekistan, but wasn't - and asked passers-by if they supported Bush's view that this country represented a threat to the USA, and would they support an American invasion.

Of course, there was no attempt at balance, so none of the people (except two - one of whom said that this country had only a small military) who said "no" or "I don't know" or "I haven't heard of that" were represented- but there certainly appeared to be a lot of folk who were prepared to say yes - some of them appeared quite outraged at this little country, and its behaviour.

Would this be a downside to patriotism, simply terminal stupidity, or camera nerves? (I allow for a few folk with a sharp sense of humour, too, of course!)

I would love to see the same thing done in other countries.


(edit: It was a REAL country)

The video (and an article) of/about the above mentioned "comedy show" is to be found at Chaser Non-stop News Network's website

CNNNN discovers Americans support war on Kyrgyzstan, 'wherever it may be'

LOL - I fear they would catch a lot of Ozzians with that one. Not that we invade other countries so very much...

By hell, we could show Micronesia what's what, if they made us, though!

Setanta,

I do believe we were trying to make the same point exactly. Very nice to discover that fact. I also, after I posted my last message and left for lunch, realized that I had not been clear in what I wrote because I misused the term "dichotomy," which actually means:



so that what I wrote:



constitutes a nonsensical statement. The term "false dichotomy" actually means that the dichotomy itself is false......duh, that's obvious, I mean to say that it means the terms believed to be in opposition are actually not true opposites. So it's not a real dichotomy, thus false.......now that I've taken up space with that little bit of perfectionism......

It does appear we agree about the unexamined compliance of most voters (sadly). And if only they would all listen to us. Unfortunately, I do have some sympathy for the average voter who is trying to make a living and live a life with a 9 to 5 job or worse. There is little time to examine. But of course that makes them all the more vulnerable to being led like a bunch of sheep to the slaughter. This is why the media is so important, IMO. When a story begins to be repeated enough, it builds enough momentum, enough average working Americans begin to catch on. I'm definitely hoping for that to happen now.

And about the covert use of the "if you ain't for us you're agin us," I also agree (again sadly.) Here is a quotation from Reflections of a Neoconservative (xiii), Irving Kristol (the father of neo-conservatism and a disciple of Leo Strauss):



This quotation is from an article by Danny Postel in which Postel interviews a scholarly critic of Strauss, Shadia Drury, Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neo-cons, and Iraq.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-95-1542.jsp

This is an excellent article recommend by Blatham earlier, on this thread.

The ideas of Leo Strauss and his followers, the neoconservatives are blatantly and without apology Machiavellian. Even though it's covert, the implication and the hard sell is still, "if you really love your country, you'll support your president." And they do this, not out of ignorance or naivete, but deliberately to control us, the citizens of this country and the citizens of other countries around the world. They have no shame about this desire because they see it as their right, simply because they're positive that their ideas are right, absolutely. They are unbelievably full of ****.

Perception,

I can see your concern about our national security and the moral of the troops. But I believe the example of the dissenters is the very example by which totalitarian dictators and leaders of theocracies should be threatened, and the troops encouraged. They are, after all defending our right to protest. It is the voice of descent which encourages thought and therefore creates those who are able, out of their thoughtful convictions to oppose them. But I agree, these despots are probably too full of themselves to see the real threat. They believe only in those who will agree with them blindly. Silly people. They will never win. (please excuse my optimism.)

They ARE pygmies, aren't they? (looks around nervously)

Nimh

Only when there is conclusive evidence to convince the majority that the survival of that society depends on a unified effort from all----then I believe the majority have the obligation to silence the dissenters.

So if a charismatic leader is able to convince the people that a certain minority is a danger that needs silencing...

Lola wrote:

They have no shame about this desire because they see it as their right, simply because they're positive that their ideas are right, absolutely.

But Lola isn't that the same possiblity with the intellectuals on the left?

is that a 51/49 majority, 2/3rd majority or perhaps even a supreme court majority? and by what means of silence? conclusive evidence? is that a preponderance of evidence? who makes the determination? Bush? God? Perception? A2K? or is there a national referendum held? Do a poll in readers digest? Bizarre at best but mostly just inane.
As it has been pointed out, A2K has a majority of liberals and we liberals have determined that conservatives pose a threat to our well being, we shall take a poll and pending the results come out in our favor all conservatives shall hence forth be silenced.

Even a charismatic leader should produce conclusive evidence in an elective society----that's the beauty of our system with it's checks and balances. This decision would not be made in vacuum----the evidence would be seen by all in my scenario.

Gotta go---back later

dys, And how exactly how do you propose to silence the conservatives?

Yeah, but your scenario doesn't really happen much. What frequently does happen is that someone manages to convince enough people that, say the Jews, are a danger or the Japanese or whomever and have them locked up or worse.

c.i. i would never actually want to silence any conservative just as i would never want them to silence me. (but its a fun thought)

Sometimes there is truth in humorous ideas.

Smiling at that thought. Dys.......

Someone told me a joke from Molly Ivins' book.....and I can't find it there myself since I haven't come across it yet. But she tells of a man who says, "the only problem with those Southern Baptists is that when they are baptisin, they don't hold em under the water longer." Now there's an interesting fantasy to be enjoyed.

In the words of the memorial to the Kent State massacre, we should "Inquire, Learn, Reflect."

And find some of those folks that know how to breathe the life back into those fallen student protesters.

Perhaps it would be just as appropriate to inquire, reflect and learn about the consequences of appeasing a guy like Hitler.