Emma Goldman on Patriotism

Actress Sandra Oh reads the speech given by anarchist Emma Goldman in San Francisco before the United States entered WWI. Part of a reading from Voices of a People's History of the United States given October 5, 2005 in Los Angeles California (featuring Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove.)

Oh, how prophetic! This all has come to pass.

Some excerpts from the reading: What is Patriotism? (1908),
Speech given in San Francisco, California

* What is patriotism? Is it love of one's birthplace, the place of childhood's recollections and hopes, dreams and aspirations? Is it the place where, in childlike naïveté, we would watch the passing clouds, and wonder why we, too, could not float so swiftly? The place where we would count the milliard glittering stars, terror-stricken lest each one "an eye should be," piercing the very depths of our little souls?

* "Patriotism, sir, is the last resort of scoundrels," said Dr. Samuel Johnson. Leo Tolstoy, the greatest anti-patriot of our time, defines patriotism as the principle that will justify the training of wholesale murderers; a trade that requires better equipment in the exercise of man-killing than the making of such necessities as shoes, clothing, and houses; a trade that guarantees better returns and greater glory than that of the honest workingman.

* Conceit, arrogance and egotism are the essentials of patriotism. Let me illustrate. Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot consider themselves nobler, better, grander, more intelligent than those living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others.

The inhabitants of the other spots reason in like manner, of course, with the result that from early infancy the mind of the child is provided with blood-curdling stories about the Germans, the French, the Italians, Russians, etc. When the child has reached manhood he is thoroughly saturated with the belief that he is chosen by the Lord himself to defend his country against the attack or invasion of any foreigner. It is for that purpose that we are clamoring for a greater army and navy, more battleships and ammunition.

An army and navy represent the people's toys.

* We Americans claim to be a peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens. We are ready to hang, electrocute, or lynch anyone, who, from economic necessity, will risk his own life in the attempt upon that of some industrial magnate. Yet our hearts swell with pride at the thought that America is becoming the most powerful nation on earth, and that she will eventually plant her iron foot on the necks of all other nations.

Such is the logic of patriotism.

* Thinking men and women the world over are beginning to realize that patriotism is too narrow and limited a conception to meet the necessities of our time.

* The spirit of militarism has already permeated all walks of life. Indeed, I am convinced that militarism is a greater danger here than anywhere else, because of the many bribes capitalism holds out to those whom it wishes to destroy.

* When we have undermined the patriotic lie, we shall have cleared the path for the great structure where all shall be united into a universal brotherhood — a truly free society.

cross-posted on Border Explorer

my two cents

there is much chatter from our world neighbors about america's recent election. and i know that thousands of flag waving americans and a nationalistic style speech from the president-elect is the last thing you want to hear- but please, bear with us.

I feel compelled to say a word right to the world right now- or as much of the world as I reach :) most of the world is watching right now- at least the western world is and most likely parts of the world that we have throughly screwed over the last 8 years or more. Our neighbors to the north and south are looking and, if I may be so bold to say, they are probably breathing a sigh of relief as big as ours'. Look- there is a fair amount of us who get it. We know that nationalistic jingo isn't going to cut it- and flag waving rah, rahs bring about flashbacks in the minds of many as bushco stole the country for 2 terms. We know. But we need a moment.

Many of us were afraid to admit that we were afraid. We were grimly determined to have our vote count and we desperately wanted to simply wrest control out of the hands of the neo cons in order to give ourselves some breathing room to work. Many americans voted but the number who really see what is at stake are still few. We get that too. But we have to start somewhere. Barack Obama is not a savior- in fact, many of us did not initially support him. My personal belief is that he is too right leaning for me- but he has been our best chance to create an atmosphere of change quickly. Large masses of people move slowly and americans are not known for embracing change. Obama appeals to change. He inspires people and that right there is the singularly most important thing we needed to jump start the movement.

We have an uphill climb to combat just about everything. We still have the war against neo con ideology to wage- they won't go away and there are millions of americans who subscribe to their ideology. They will continue to work against the progressives as we have seen in this election alone. There is much work to do to repair our relationships with our fellow world neighbors- and I hope that this is humbly done through diplomacy. And I know that bloggers will continue to reach out to one another and keep each other honest and informed.

But we needed-- as a country who voted for a man- from both sides of the current political spectrum- a moment. Obama has half a country of right wingers, many who abandoned their own party and crossed over- who probably feel a bit bereft right now- and they needed the moment. The moment to feel a part of something bigger than themselves or the party. We will get ourselves together- and I really feel that we will begin the fight (for that's what it will be) to become a far different country. We have been slapped in the face with reality- and that in and of itself changed the way americans look at the world. Humble pie is only the start. We pissed off most of the rest of the globe- and the rank and file americans feel this acutely. Please, bear with us and accept the apologies of those of us who get it. We'll get there but modifying generations of america is number 1- takes some time.

frank schaeffer is a real american

i came across this post from a blog buddy of mine- lisa allender. her blog- lisa allender writes- is a mix of personal and uplifting to fire and brimstone when she gets fired up. always inspiring and her heart shines through. thank you lisa.

frank schaeffer writes about barack obama

“Great presidents are made great by horrible circumstances combined with character, temperament and intelligence. Like firemen, cops, doctors or soldiers, presidents need a crisis to shine.

Obama is one of the most intelligent presidential aspirants to ever step forward in American history. The likes of his intellectual capabilities have not been surpassed in public life since the Founding Fathers put pen to paper. His personal character is also solid gold. Take heart, America: we have the leader for our times.”

Hypostasis

“We must not make a scarecrow of the law,
Setting it up to fear the birds of prey,
And let it keep one shape till custom make it
Their perch, and not their terror.”

__William Shakespeare
VIEW THE PHOTOMONTAGE +/-

(Click on photomontage to enlarge)

Kakashi

Watch the film

A Most Egregious Flip Flop or There Will Be Blood

(A Poetic Justice Photomontage)

VIEW THE ORIGINAL PIC +/-

(Click on pics to enlarge...)

Die, Warmonger! Die!

Warmonger - war·mon·ger - /ˈwɔrˌmʌŋgər, -ˌmɒŋ-/ – noun
a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war.
[Origin: 1580–90; war¹ + monger]
~
~
CAUTION: This video contains a very simplistic and dreadful message.
(If you consider patriotism to be a virtue then you should have no problem with its meaning.)

The group is "Dope"...but this isn't about a band’s name. The song is "Die Motherfucker Die" ...but this isn’t about the title of this particular song. It’s about the fact that so many, following 9-11 and prior to Afghanistan and into the occupation of Iraq, have used this song as a template for expressing their rage and fear and sorrow. It is also this template that screams "vengeance" and "revenge" toward a phantom enemy. If these citizens could, would but reflect on the meaning behind such, they might see that they are projecting an image of themselves more than of some phantasmal adversary.

The fact that so many, not a majority to be sure, but so many found and find nothing wrong with taking a simplistic song with a dreadful message and applying it to video of the war in Afghanistan and/or the occupation of Iraq and its peoples destruction is precisely what I and many of my blogging and non-blogging friends are fighting against; a blind love or devotion (patriotism, nationalism) to country
that leads to nothing but more blindness and overwhelming rage
that cannot and will not dissipate until
every last drum of oil has been stolen,
every brown skinned person is dead or maimed,
every Muslim is bowed to empire and Christianity,
and every flag replaced with Old Glory!

That is not an attainable goal. Completely unachievable, and yet it is the very goal that the US government is proving it wants and that an uninformed public can’t see for a lack of reasoning skills, gluttony and complacency. This, the objective, is the end-game, the final stand or it surely will be if we continue down the witless path of vengeance and conquering of the world. We will pay an exceedingly heavy price and will likely not be around to even know it.

The video above is most sad, despicable, and most unworthy of praise. It is the rot that has swept over this country more since 9-11 than at any other time in our history. Kill. Kill. Kill. If we do not stop saying, "Die motherfucker die" and dropping bombs and firing guns and slaughtering for oil we will soon find ourselves at the short end of a colossal, all-inclusive stick…
~
~
With that I offer an ode to our need to use Dope's "Die Motherfucker Die" or any other senseless song or rant as anthem for the United States of America's marching music for the theft of godforsaken oil from relatively defenseless countries or as anthem for our ruthless and mighty vengeance of a day that trembles on our streets and collapses upon our hearts, but will never and can never be avenged or righted. This rage, this vengeance has become us… and we it.

DIE, WARMONGER! DIE!

The ghouls have all gone home.
Hell… They were never here.
It was your own expression
Floating within your fear,
Your own miserable manifestation.

Die, warmonger! Die!
Thrash no more your hell’s plague!
Die your death away,
Annihilate your starvation
And feed your joy instead.

The apparition is not unfamiliar,
It is your face, your own
Hovering in the skies.
O! Bring your wrath down
And eradicate the lies!

Die, warmonger! Die!
Thrash no more your hell’s plague.
Die your death away, die!
Bring your finishing breath down
And crack large the sky.

© 2008 mrp/tpm

Another difficult gift...

I originally posted this on OTBM.

As I continue to invite myself and others to break down words such as "citizen", "patriotism", "our", "country", "national", "security", "war"...that's all I can think of right now...
As I encourage myself and others to critically deconstruct the language used to discuss imperialist oil wars, invasions and occupations, I thought that maybe something in this post might come in handy. Cheers.

I was thinking about the flowers I mentioned having given to Ilyria in my last post. Thinking about the fact that those flowers could have been farmed by mexicans or some other brown people denied citizenship - screeched to a halt...

Switch "citizenship" with "settler-ship", settlership - the privilege of becoming a settler on stolen northern lands...
the privilege of becoming part of a stratified labour force designed to support systems of domination that support the ongoing colonization of the land and its peoples, Native people, the privilege of --

Shmolee is frustrated at having fallen...his cries are diverting my attention...he's actually fine, just a little bit pissed...Mr. Snotty Nose. :) Okay, I have him. now, he's doing his usual - tha breast thang.

Settlership...
I'm not a citizen. I'm a settler. A settler who, regardless of whether I'm "landed" (hee, hee, hee...interesting word) or whether I have the paper that says I'm a citizen, I have settlership by virtue of squatting here along with everybody else, even those who squat and are defined as squatting "illegally", "aliens". We're all aliens, except for Native people.

When people try to "get in", when they try to find ways to be allowed to become citizens, they're actually lobbying for settlership.

Settlership...
I was saying to myself that it's not like this is somewhere like ancient Athens...but then I had to stop myself - didn't they, like have a permanent slave class a person couldn't dig themselves out of? Wasn't citizenship and all its perks only accorded to adult Athenian males and through them only indirectly to the wimmin, youth and children in good standing who were parts of an adult male's patriarchal family?

Okay, so citizenship, as it is traced from those times right through to the West/North in present day has always been for a few, always about oppression, with the privileges offered to a few completely predicated on those same privileges not being offered at all, or only being offered sparingly to many, many others.

I think with kkkanada and amerikkka, states actually not being founded on ancestral lands as was the case with Athens, Sparta or even Rome...of course these people's were all imperialist colonizers who also spread out in a really martial, virulent, oppressive version of present day urban sprawl, absorbing the lands and peoples around them in order to access more resources, power and land for settlement reserved for citizens...

kkkanada and amerikkka are states founded on the ancestral lands of other peoples, ancestral lands stolen in a situation quite like that up above where the colonizers came greedy with a mind to dominate, where they did not want to share, only wanting to reserve the right to take everything, every single resource and redistribute it in the form of "settlership" - automatic for those born white to the families of the original genocidal colonizing people (that would be those people/bloggers who habitually say stuff like: "I know I'm white, but what can I do?" or "I know I'm white but that doesn't make me a racist!")...

Settlership is also conferred sparingly to those born while sporting various shades of brown and black, whose labour is purchased at whatever ridiculously low rate (economic and class exploitation) in exchange for their full support of the settler state not for full settler rights, but only for whatever the state deems fit to offer to any given individual or grouping of people who might have to lobby, protest or rebel before accessing even a modicum of the unconditional settlership some are born into...(freed african slaves can have this, south asian indentured workers can have that, chinese rail workers can have this, black caribbean domestics can have that, mexican migrants can have this, filipino nannies can have that...).

Native people, obviously not settlers, cannot be anything but a serious and ever present threat to the validity and power of the racially and economically stratified, settler state...they can only be cast as trouble makers who must be maligned and undermined at every possible juncture.

Other black and brown people who crave even partial settlership will know not to ally with them, will know to stay away from them, shun them, forget them, or to only pay lip service to their causes. We (and I mean that there's a "me" in that "we") will choose not to support their land rights because supporting their land rights would be a clear subversion of the possibility of us constructing colonized crazy ass selves as having even a partial right to their lands, which in turn would undermine the power of the state to confer full or partial settlership on any/all of us who really just want a to have little settler babies, get high paying settler jobs, buy into the illusion of purchasing some real estate (un/settled land) and a build or decorate our little settler homesteads (houses) which stand directly over the bones of millions of dead people...while folks wring their hands over whose front yard has the most fucking curb appeal.

Okay, he's squirming a lot today. I'll have to come back and read this to see if it makes any sense...later.

Western Democracies In Trouble

It would seem that our democracies in Canada and the U.S.A. are not the only ones ailing - especially with regards to the increasing - and successful - assaults on our privacy and civil liberties ... all in the name of the false God of Security.

Indeed - things are not looking so good either in the U.K. Case in point with the following article (and I invite you good folks to rejoin me below after reading it):

**********

What do we do now?
Anthony Barnett

A leading Conservative politician in Britain and former shadow home secretary has broken ranks with the political and media establishment to launch a campaign linking government plans to extend the time suspects can be held without charge to a wider erosion of rights and liberties. In a sweeping essay, openDemocracy's founder (and OurKingdom editor) Anthony Barnett assesses what is at stake and sees this moment as a historic test of democratic commitment for liberals and radicals.

We are at a potentially historic moment in British politics. David Davis has raised the banner of Britain's liberty in the modern world and is attempting to appeal to the people to secure it. He has gone over the heads of the ruling elite, in parliament, the parties and the media, to take two great issues to the voters: the asphyxiation of our freedom, and the incapacity of our parliamentary system to defend us from it. The by-election he forced on 12 June 2008 with his resignation as Conservative member of parliament and shadow home secretary is only the start of what may need to be a much wider year-long campaign to prevent "42 days" - the length of time the government proposes to grant itself the power to hold detainees without charge in terrorism-related cases - from becoming law, and this will be only the opening round of a profound effort to establish contemporary democracy in the United Kingdom.

Across the network of paid commentators and politicians it was immediately agreed that the action of David Davis was a pointless, selfish, celebrity-seeking gesture. This, indeed, is what they want it to be, as his initiative threatens their monopoly over defining what is important. Whatever brought him personally to his moment of defiance the decision David Davis has taken is profoundly radical: what he was saying from the steps of the House of Commons is that parliament won't defend us because it is corrupted and suborned. It is. The whole of our political class tell us it isn't. They would, wouldn't they.

When he became prime minister on 27 June 2007, Gordon Brown knew there was a problem. He pledged that he would restore trust in parliament. He had done his reading, he seemed to have grasped the depth of people's disenchantment and its constitutional consequences. As a result I had some hope that he would indeed start a reform process that would release public energy and begin to revive British democracy. Instead, he has made it much worse. It is not just the stench of a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) to get through 42 days. "Is it right", Diane Abbott MP asked in a strong speech during the debate on 11 June,

"that our civil liberties should be traded in such a bazaar? Is it appropriate or right that we should trade votes at the United Nations on the basis of such political pandering?"

David Davis's views on the death penalty and low taxes are hardly appealing to progressives, liberals or the left; a Yorkshire constituency where Labour is third is not best situated for a showdown on the nature of the British state; coming at the summer solstice when parliament will soon take a holiday this is an awkward moment. But even if you think it has been done by the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, you have to decide: is this in any important way your banner too, that he has raised.

I have been surprised at the degree of jealously and small-mindedness towards his action on the left, though mainly from those in political parties. This is one of those potentially shaping moments, which never come at your own choosing, where you need to think in a generous, strategic way. In some of the discussion threads people are saying progressives cannot "allow" David Davis to walk away with the flag of liberty or the ‘issue". But who dropped the flag in the first place? The man matters, but the cause and the potential of the moment matter much more.

Here one feels the decomposition of Labour as an influential movement. Individual MPs stood firm but there was no sense of Labour being divided in a way that had wider consequence. The overwhelming majority of its ordinary membership surely oppose the measure. But they continue to leave the party quietly and privately. The underlying cataract of their disaffection is one of the forces that is driving, literally, Labour into bankruptcy. On the issue itself MPs did not feel threatened electorally by, for example,the prospect of Labour being seen as "split" over 42 days. Thus many MPs who opposed it privately, voted for it. And it was carried. It was this, the failure of the left, that put Davis into the position where he had to make his call.

It was one of those moments when someone with influence had to make a stand. In British politics they almost never do. This time Davis did. Surprises like this mix up bedfellows (his campaign was opened by Tony Benn) which makes it all the more necessary to set out clear aims: what are the outcomes we want? There seem to me to be three, achieving the first two depends on the third:

1. To stop 42 days detention without charge from becoming law

2. To reverse the creation of "the database state"

3. To ensure constitutional issues matter in the public mind and become part of popular politics

I will address them in reverse order.

To make constitutional issues popular

When the speaker of the Commons refused to allow David Davis to give his resignation speech to the House he was obliged to walk out of the palace of Westminster to deliver it in the open air. The symbolism was perfect. If you haven't, do watch it. Davis kicked down the door, walked out the bubble and announced the end of parliamentary government as we have known it:

"I had always viewed membership of this House as a noble endeavour, not least because we and our forebears have for centuries fiercely defended the fundamental freedoms of our citizens. Or we did, up until yesterday...

But in truth, 42 days is just one - perhaps the most salient example - of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms...

This cannot go on, it must be stopped. And for that reason, I feel that today it's incumbent on me to take a stand."

The groan of incredulity that swept political professionals, MPs and reporters alike was a cry of genuine pain, expressed as a condemnation of his vanity, as if they were selfless moderates all. Peter Wilby crafted an excellent summary,

"Davis was guilty of ‘flawed judgment, erratic temperament and unrestrained ego', raged the Times leader. His behaviour was ‘egregiously self-serving', his resignation statement ‘weary rhetoric'. The Guardian's Julian Glover thought Davis's decision the result of ‘some sort of extraordinary brainstorm'. The Telegraph's Iain Martin saw it as ‘monumentally wrong-headed', the Mirror's Kevin Maguire as ‘the mother of all bad political stunts', the Independent's Michael Brown as ‘truly bizarre'. And that was just in the papers that agreed with Davis, at least on being against 42-day detentions. On the pro-42 days side, the Sun's headlines were ‘Davis is a quitter', ‘Who Dares Whinges' (Davis is a former SAS man, geddit?) and ‘Crazy Davis'."

Perhaps the BBC was the worst. Committed to public-service broadcasting, its remit includes education as well as the obligation to inform and entertain. But had it educated the public about the fact that half those arrested under anti-terrorism laws are innocent? Davis was in effect challenging the failure of the media as well as parliament.


Keep reading ...

**********

It is not inherently wrong, but rather healthy, to be proud of the democratic institutions of our country - it is however pure folly to hold as an article of faith the perfection and immaculate nature of these same institutions.

Such blind patriotism, or unshakable pride, in our institutions are as damaging to our constitutions and civil rights, as citizen apathy can be - and actually is - one of the strongest eroding agents of those same cornerstones upon which our democracies are founded upon.

In fact, both attitudes - that of the blind/false patriot and the apathetic citizen - are not only unwitting enablers of those who would transform our countries into authoritarian security states, but furthermore inevitably become tacit supporters of such would-be "leaders".

And, as consequence, they play the roles of de facto accomplices in the gradual disintegration of those very democratic values and institutions for which such pride is derived from to begin with.

Not questioning the actions and decisions of those who govern through our consent constitutes the basest betrayal of those democratic principles that we so loudly proclaim to hold dear.

As I put it a while back:

We The People - this is what it has, and always has been, about. In a democracy, it is the electorate who holds all the keys and guard all the doors - provided that the citizens actually live up to their responsibility.

(...) we are the ones who have broken the "contract between citizens and their government" because, in essence, we thought somehow that our vigilance and implication were optional.

(...) We gave the keys away to the foxes and let them guard the hen house without supervision, because we would not be bothered anymore with our "burdensome" responsibilities as citizens. Hence, we are only reaping what we have sown.

Therefore, we must ever remain vigilant if we are to preserve our democratic values and institutions ... just like we will have to bear the shame of having forsaken them because of intellectual sloth, ignorance, fear, selfishness and the search for instant gratification.

As I am fond of saying: "Living in a democracy is a right and a responsibility. And yes, this responsibility requires effort. But which is better: having your back bent by the effort required to keep on living in a democratic society, or letting leave for complacency and find yourself one day with a back bent under a totalitarian regime (however benevolent it may be)?"

It is high time to remember that it is indeed we who guard all the doors and hold all the keys of our democratic values and institutions.

It is, in the end, up to us to act as the Guardians and Caretakers of our constitutions, our civil rights and our civil liberties.

It has always been up to us.


(Cross-posted from APOV)

WHAT IS PATRIOTISM (he laughs/laughs/cries)

A healthy comment run on the post Are We Still Broken? How Broken Are We? has caused me to locate three of my favorite "patriotic" videos and post them here. Enjoy.

David Cross...



Bill Hicks...



Howard Zinn...

An Empty Lapel Puzzles Empty Heads

All elections turn on trivia. This is because our corporate elites are able to frame the message with the cooperation of their media lackeys. So it was that Obama’s empty lapel became an issue. Why isn’t he wearing a flag pin?

There are certain things Americans expects from their candidates, and one of them is a crippled patriotism based on greed and exploitation as symbolized by a flag pin in the lapel. It is a patriotism of bile that appeals to the basest instincts of the nation. It is a patriotism that builds walls along its borders, joining the other wall builders of the world. (The Soviet Union started the practice in Berlin; both America and Israel have made an art form of it.)

The lapel pin signifies the patriotism of the scoundrel who uses his patriotism as cover for his efforts to undercut the freedoms that have made America so problematic to our political and corporate elite.

This is the patriotism that has given us the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. It is the patriotism that has made torture a household word and has brought out all that is ugly and vile in the American psyche.

The flag pin the scoundrel wears in his lapel is a flag soaked in the urine of tyranny and oppression. Its red stripes are the blood of the innocent women and children who have sacrificed their lives so America could flex its military muscle.

Obama’s empty lapel tells the truth, and it is time we paid attention.