Why?

Why? 

One of the things that is really great about the Internet is that it affords a common avenue and accessibility to a wealth of information and knowledge that would otherwise only be available to privileged classes.  By “privileged classes” I do not necessarily mean those who are so far up on the social totem as to be considered elitist but rather those fortunate enough to have received the benefit of “good” counseling and guidance to set them on the path of continual learning and advancement.  Not all of humankind is so encouraged and for whatever reasons be they rebellious nature’s or unconcerned and/or disinterested teachers and mentors, the mass of humanity plods along accepting whatever is plopped on their plate as being the gospel – the absolute of “what is”.  But not so no more “if” one is so inclined to seek out for themselves what they know they are lacking, and so come to a better understanding and knowledge of the truth that had been denied them and/or distorted to such a degree as to make it intellectually and spiritually indigestible. 

We live in a world that is not of our own making that is rather the product of thousands of years of creation, recreation and manipulation of those that have gone before us.  There are many who believe (and I cannot totally disclaim this) that we are recycled through this reality learning the lessons from one life to the next, cursed to relive prior experience until we eventually figure it out or “get it right”.  I reserve my right to consider or reject this notion – in my own mind the jury is not in.  But regardless of what may or may not be reincarnated the world we inhabit exists and the product of millenia of perversion for the sake of the gratification of the few.  Our religions are not immune to these perversions and manipulations.  And in the wake of their grounding and growing and domination of the minds and consciences of the masses they would influence and guide a legacy is created that enslaves what should be the  “free thinking spirits” of that which is the human species. 

I believe in a divine impetus that resides in the nature of the human.  Some don’t – that’s their own business – I don’t try to convince them of anything.  Theirs is to look inside themselves and live based on what they find there accordingly.  But there are some who realize there’s more than the crap that is dished out to us and desire to find their path to understanding what that is.  This is a journey inside – into the caverns of our minds – into the depths of our being – in the hopes of finding and realizing some “truth” – some vestige of “good” that makes sense – and transcends the ever so pervasive “bull shit” that we’re unceasingly bombarded with either through “the tube”, the media, politicians, religious zealots, viagra commercials, empty  rhetoric, economic illusions, and whatever else can twist the conscience of humanity. 

There’s not a discipline “under the sun” that is not subject to some form of “political correctness”.  Science is every bit as dogmatic as the religion it divorced itself from 400 years ago.  Within every discipline there’s a mindset or vein of thought that is the “accepted” and to diverge from these parameters sets oneself up as a target for ostracizing.  To find ones way outside of the “accepted” channels of recognition, or submission to the recognized powers that be, virtually ensures rejection and at the very least renders one subject to the contempt of the “lesser” though acknowledged hierophants. 
Gerald Massey (1828-1907) is such whose impetus to transcend the mundane accepted definitions and dogma of this era, has left us with a legacy that might be considered “the shoulders of giants” that those following can stand on.  I suppose he might be considered an enigma.  He was an English poet and self-taught Egyptologist. His parents were poor and as a child he was made to work in a silk factory and later took up straw plaiting.  He educated himself in his spare time gradually cultivating a taste for literary work.  He became a poet, publishing several works, and also published works on spiritualism and studies of Shakespeare’s sonnets.  “In regards to Egyptology, Massey first published The Book of the Beginnings, followed by The Natural Genesis. His most prolific work is Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World, published shortly before his death His work, which draws comparisons between the Judeo-Christian religion and the Egyptian religion, is largely unrecognised in the field of modern Egyptology and is not mentioned in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt or any other work of modern Egyptology.”

As I speak of Massey as an “enigma” “…although he might have been considered a Christian Socialist, was in actuality a practicing druid, presumably a neo-druid. Not only that, Massey was elected Chosen Chief of the Most Ancient Order of Druids from 1880 through 1906”. This is in stark contrast as a friend and colleague “praised him for having thrown off the constraints of religion in favor of science and philosophy for the advancement of knowledge.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Massey

Today, in our contemporary world there are many researchers who follow a path similar to that of Gerald Massey.  Much of their work is not recognized by the established academic/scientific/religious communities as it stands in such sharp contrast to what has become the accepted “dogma” of accepted truth.  Much of this “dogma” is both religiously and politically motivated.  There’s a great deal that archaeologists and researchers have been digging up, and answers to questions long held becoming realized.  But because these answers do not fit into the accepted “religious” and “political” paradigms of the powers that be and would virtually turn the academic world upside down – thus dismantling the reputations of those at the top of the pyramid.  Of course this kind of truth is not limited to the disciplines of spiritual studies and archaeology, science and the such – this is the way of the world. Those that are in control will do whatever is necessary to stay in control – and the rest be damned.  For those who are not knowledgeable in might be well to do some research on “Nikola Tesla and JP Morgan” and better understand the ways of the world.

We have a concept of the history of the world or should I say the history of “civilization” that extends back some 6000 years to generally the time of 4000 BC.  We are taught that essentially around  this period – this is where it all began.  But I don’t think there are very many of us who really buy it. And that probably is for very good reason.  The three major religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam all date the beginnings of the history of mankind to this 4000 BC timeframe.  Each of these religions has a vested interest in this “creation” perspective in order to maintain a dogmatic foundation upon which the entire premise of their “truth” exists.  We can’t buy it because resident in us – in that thing we call consciousness – it simply doesn’t square.  It Has been said “it takes one to know one”. Many of us as we mature have been shoveled a lot of “bull shit”. And most would probably not like to have themselves numbered among the “bull shit artists”, yet we have acquired a knowledge of enough of it to recognize it when it is spewed our way.  At the same time when rational and reasonable evidence and facts are presented to us our innate human ability to discern and judge can be called upon to either accept or reject whatever it is that does or does not make sense to us.  But this is not the way of “religion”.  Religion finds its power and authority in un-reasoned acceptance of less than substantiated dogma. 

There have always been arguments concerning the “objective” and “subjective” nature’s of what might be regarded as “evidence”.  I personally believe – but more than believe – “know” – there are subjective dimensions to knowledge and understanding to be realized in the human character.  As long as this “knowledge” remains a matter of my subjective experience – as regards relating it to anyone else – it doesn’t mean “diddly squat”.  I can talk about it until my face turns blue and it will mean absolutely nothing.  Until the one being communicated to actually realizes that “experience” for themselves. And what is it that allows one to experience this “inmateness”  and another not to?  Theories abound and I don’t think it is any one thing.  Natural predisposition I’m certainly sure accounts were much (some might call that divine choosing, I’m not sure I’d go that far), educational and environmental factors to no doubt come into play, being pushed to an edge where there’s seemingly no other choice, and the degree of our indoctrination and assimilation of what we have been taught as absolute.  Absolutes potentially being either  religious or scientific, in some respects content of the dogma doesn’t matter -- the fact that dogma is dogma establishes its own parameters.

Realizing that much that I had been taught and living was only so much “bull shit” my curse  has been that I cannot stop digging until I get closer to something that is more than the said bovine matter. 

Most of my peers had not lived religiously defined the lives.  Yet that is not entirely true.  The difference to a great degree is that I studied and sought to understand the intricacies of what established and defined that life.  This is something that even those within the religious community neglect or care little for.  For the most part their religion is a matter of doing what we’re told , obeying a few obvious commands and let the pastors and priests deal with the rest.  And this is exactly what most of the clergy would desire.  Of course I know there are exceptions, but as a general fact, there’s little desire to actually see spiritual growth and development accomplished in the lives of the congregation as such will naturally lead to an independence of thought and action.  And this – as far as the “religionists” is concerned – is a dangerous thing.  But the acquisition of dogma and doctrine is quite acceptable as long as it remains unquestioned.  At some point: I became dangerous.  I kid you not – in the fall of 2004 a minister actually said that to me regarding some of the essays I was producing at the time. 

That seems like a long time ago.  Since then a lot has changed – not necessarily of my choosing – but I do not know what could have been done differently.  Oh I know things could have been done differently  -- but could they have been done differently and could I still have acted with integrity regarding to the truth as it was beginning to emerge in my own understanding and being? I don’t think so.  And at least it is never been demonstrated or proved to me. 

I am beginning to understand there are many who have come before me who have wrestled  with many of the same questions and yet did not succumb to the pressures of the status quo. Regarding religion and the responsibility of those who teach it Gerald Massey expressed a truth quite eloquently answering my question “Why?”:

If the teachers of the fleshly cult could but see how their fallacies dissolve in death—how the false ideal set up in this life dislimns and fades as the terrible light of reality whitens in the next; if they could but see that mournful multitude of the helplessly deceived who staked their all upon the truth of what they had been taught and find they have lost because the teaching was false! If you could see them wander up and down on the other side of the dark river and wring their hands over their blighted hopes and broken hearts; hear the pitiful wailings for the Christ that is no more objective there than he was here—for the visionary glory that they may not grasp, the distant rainbows, never reached, that weep themselves away in tears—for the lifeboat gone to wreck on the wrong shore because of the false beacon-lights. If you could only dream how these poor souls desire to have the deception made known on this side of life—how they want to send some word of warning to their friends—how they will almost hiss at me through the mouths of mediums whenever they have the chance, as if their fierce feelings had turned into tongues of flame, praying for us to work on faster and cry louder against the established lie, for time is getting short and the helpers are few, and the atmosphere around each live soul is so deathly dense with indifference! This would be unbearable but for those calm other voices of the Gnostics who in this life walked our world lords of themselves with “inward glory crowned,” and who lived on after the Gnosis was suppressed and the ancient oracles made dumb—who live on yet, and are working with us still— who fill and inflate us at times with their influence, as if each single soul of us were a hundred thousand (“cent mille,” as his men used to call Napoleon). It is they who are joining hands with us to-day to bridge over that dark gulf betwixt two worlds which the historic and fleshly faith first excavated, and has been deepening and widening now for eighteen centuries. This is the Resurrection Day of the pre-Christian Gnosticism, as shown by the recent revival of Spiritualism, by the restoration of the Tree of Knowledge, by the elevation of Womankind, instead of the Fall of man; and we are living witnesses of the fact that
“Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again,
The eternal years of God are hers;
But Error, wounded, writhes with pain,
And dies among his worshippers!”

And again:

The same correspondent desires to know whether I would exclude the Bible from our children’s schools. Most certainly. I would have the Bible-basis superseded for all future teaching as unscientific, immoral, and false to the facts in nature. The mass of people who are Bible-taught never get free from the erroneous impressions stamped on their minds in their infancy, so that their manhood or womanhood can have no intellectual fulfilment, and millions of them only attain mentally to a sort of second childhood.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/67690444/GeraldMassey-Lectures

Patriots … so called …”by jingo!”

Patriots … so called …”by jingo!”

Confusion of Concepts: patriotism, nationalism, chauvinism, and jingoism – The American national religion

 

What is a patriot? And what is patriotism?

“Jennifer Fackler, whose husband soon will be deployed to Iraq for the fifth time, says, ‘Patriotism means sacrifice; it means I put our child to bed at night alone; it means I spend sleepless nights by the phone.’”[1]

"…those goose bumps that you get on your arms during a flag ceremony." … “patriotism is honoring "the brave men and women who represent our country in the military while expressing our right to object to this war."[2]

“Patriotism is loving your country. Patriotism is standing when the national anthem plays. Patriotism is putting your hand on your heart to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.”[3]

“…Patriotism means, to me, celebrating the freedoms we have. Shedding a tear when I hear the national anthem is sung or when I sing it myself. I supported my husband as he served in the U.S. Air Force for eight of his 11 years. Patriotism then was hanging yellow ribbons on my trees while I waited for him to come home.”[4]

“Patriotism is not something that can be described in one word, one sentence or one paragraph. It can be described in that one moment. You know what that one moment is.”[5]

“To me, true patriotism is staying faithful to our Founding Fathers' dream: that all men are created equal. That governments should have checks and balances provided by the three branches of government -- legislative, judicial and the president. That there should be no taxation without representation. That there should be a separation of church and state. Free speech and the pursuit of happiness.”[6]

“What is patriotism? For me and my family patriotism mean sacrifice; it means I put our child to bed at night alone; it means I spend sleepless nights by the phone and I wait for letters or e-mails to tell me he is OK. Our story is not unique. We are an Air Force family, and we understand the importance of the work our military does for the world. The legacy we are leaving behind for our children is that "freedom isn't free"; it has been paid for with blood, sweat and many, many tears. As my husband prepares to deploy again next month (for the fifth time), my daughter and I will be here at home serving right along side other brave spouses and their children, because a family that waits also serves.”[7]

But is this “patriotism”? “sacrifice”… “goose bumps” … “honoring the brave men and women who represent our country in the military” … “is loving your country. Patriotism is standing when the national anthem plays… putting your hand on your heart to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.” … “celebrating the freedoms we have. Shedding a tear when I hear the national anthem is sung … hanging yellow ribbons on my trees” … “It can be described in that one moment. You know what that one moment is.” … “patriotism is staying faithful to our Founding Fathers' dream” … “patriotism mean sacrifice … The legacy … that "freedom isn't free"; it has been paid for with blood, sweat and many, many tears.”

A “country” has evolved. A political state. As I am writing this I will not refer to the United States of America as a “nation”. We are not a “nation”. As a country we are a conglomeration of many nationalities and within our borders there are people of many nations. Some of which had been conquered and subjugated to the will and authority of the dominant nationalities, some of which had been historically enslaved, and still more which had been treated and tolerated as second class citizens. But we are not “one nation under god”.

The idea of the “nation-state” is a relatively new concept. The reality is in this world there are actually very few true “nation-states”. We take a look at a world map and we see the various countries as they are currently delineated and we assume that within these borders peoples of essentially the same ethnicity, background and common social history defines what these “nations” are. But the fact is that what we assume here as “nations” are political states, but they are not “nation states”. Yet the idea of “nationhood” or “national identity” is a premise that the governmental powers would wish to instill into their collective people’s. But a more accurate assessment of what is attempted is in reality “indoctrination”.

Consider Great Britain. There’s not actually one country here, but there are several. England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. Country’s within a country. Even as we consider who are the English, and I’m sure some of my English and British friends will be correcting me here, there were originally the British and the Celts who were later forced to relocate as they were invaded and conquered by the Angles and the Saxons. And eventually the Anglo-Saxons were dominated by the invading Norman’s. But each of these people’s is a nation unto themselves. As a people group there existed a “national identity” which made one different than an other. Nationality was not a matter of choice that was a matter of what you were born into, your lineage, your ethnic heritage. And though I’ve never lived in England I know for fact that now resides a large population of other national ethnic and religious heritages then that other historically “British”.

The same essential truth is repeated all over Europe, throughout Asia, South America, North America, Africa and Australia. With very little exception there does not exist a country that truly exhibits a purely “nation – state identity”. Japan comes close. North Korea may be one where this is true. There are a few very small provinces in Europe that have been able to maintain their national state identity. But the reality is not just America, but the entire world, is a giant mixing bowl of nationalities. And political boundaries, the territories governed by the current holders of power, may well define what the political state is, but are not the holders and definers of national identity.

The premise has been put forth that here in the United States America: “…true patriotism is staying faithful to our Founding Fathers' dream: that all men are created equal. That governments should have checks and balances provided by the three branches of government -- legislative, judicial and the president. That there should be no taxation without representation. That there should be a separation of church and state. Free speech and the pursuit of happiness.”

But what was “… our Founding Fathers' dream?” At the time of the American Revolution slavery was dominant in the south. And when the constitution was written a slave was only afforded the status of two thirds a human being. Not too much equal there. The checks and balances of the three branches of government were not even imagined at the time of the revolution. There was no United States Constitution that any “patriot” could swear to uphold. At most a very loose “confederation” of states was agreed to, but there really was no “united states”. There were independent states joining together for purposes of their own mutual benefit, but there was no “union” or single “national identity”. Within the colony’s there were British (including English, Scotts and Irish), Germans, French, Polish, Jews and I would imagine others of European descent, and there were the Native Americans and the Africans. There were numerous national identities within each colony. Obviously the British or “English” were most dominant and it is from English common law that most political theory emerged. But it was not all the influence of British Puritanism. Among the “gentry” Enlightenment ideas were prevailing and becoming the benchmarks of what was to be set upon.

“…patriotism is used in certain vernaculars as a synonym for nationalism; nationalism is not considered an inherent part of patriotism … During the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, the notion of patriotism continued to be separate from the notion of nationalism. Instead, patriotism was defined as devotion to humanity and beneficence. For example, providing charity, criticizing slavery, and denouncing excessive penal laws were all considered patriotic.” [8]

“The heights of popularity and patriotism are still the beaten road to power and tyranny; flattery to treachery; standing armies to arbitrary government; and the glory of God to the temporal interest of the clergy.” David Hume

"The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from the (federal) government." Thomas Paine

"Guard against the postures of pretended patriotism." George Washington

“I do not mean to exclude altogether the idea of patriotism. I know it exists, and I know it has done much in the present contest. But I will venture to assert, that a great and lasting war can never be supported on this principle alone. It must be aided by a prospect of interest, or some reward.” George Washington

“There are two visions of America. One precedes our founding fathers and finds its roots in the harshness of our puritan past. It is very suspicious of freedom, uncomfortable with diversity, hostile to science, unfriendly to reason, contemptuous of personal autonomy. It sees America as a religious nation. It views patriotism as allegiance to God. It secretly adores coercion and conformity. Despite our constitution, despite the legacy of the Enlightenment, it appeals to millions of Americans and threatens our freedom.

“The other vision finds its roots in the spirit of our founding revolution and in the leaders of this nation who embraced the age of reason. It loves freedom, encourages diversity, embraces science and affirms the dignity and rights of every individual. It sees America as a moral nation, neither completely religious nor completely secular. It defines patriotism as love of country and of the people who make it strong. It defends all citizens against unjust coercion and irrational conformity.

“This second vision is our vision. It is the vision of a free society. We must be bold enough to proclaim it and strong enough to defend it against all its enemies.” Rabbi Sherwin Wine

In the nineteenth century concepts of nationhood and patriotism began to change. This was largely due to changes that were occurring throughout Europe and North America and the growing industrialization of the world markets and economy. The earlier concepts of the nation as culturally and technically derived was progressively abandoned and a more political conception adopted as it could be imposed by the prevailing majority within various geographic regions. The nation’s as we now know them were beginning to evolve and emerge. This was primarily for the purpose of governing and controlling commerce. This was the beginning of the age of imperialism on the grand scale. Virtually all European nations would make their mark on lesser developed, resource rich and politically unstable nations. Initially America was not a part of this until the Spanish American war in 1898. Although during the westward expansion of the eighteen thirties and forties and fifties war with Mexico was initiated to annex the southwestern territories of what is now the states of new Mexico Arizona Colorado Utah Nevada and California. This time in our history was referred to as our “Manifest Destiny”.

“Manifest Destiny” is essentially a secularized national vision of the divine purpose entrusted to us the American people by God, as it was formerly understood by the Puritans as their calling of God to inhabit the new Promised Land and expel the Canaanites (Native Americans) and build the New Jerusalem, the city set on a hill. The Mormons as they moved west also held the same religious vision to “conquer and civilize”.

“Many contemporary notions of patriotism are influenced by 19th century ideas about nationalism. During the 19th century, "being patriotic" became increasingly conflated with nationalism, and even jingoism.” [9] “Jingoism noun EXTREME PATRIOTISM, chauvinism, extreme nationalism, xenophobia; hawkishness, militarism, belligerence, bellicosity.”[10] This term “jingoism” was first used in Britain around 1870 to express a pugnacious attitude towards Russia. It later found its way into the United States around the turn of the century and journalist referred to this attitude as “spread eagalism”, referring to the U.S. bald eagle spreading its wings over a 10,000 mile area of the globe. “Jingoism” refers to a line in a British drinking song in pubs during the time of the Turko-Russian war:

We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do
We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too
We've fought the Bear before, and while we're Britons true
The Russians shall not have Constantinople.

The phrase “by Jingo” actually means “by Jesus”.

Patriotism has been reduced to chauvinism. “Chauvinism is extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of a group to which one belongs, especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival group.”

“In "Imperialism, Nationalism, Chauvinism", in The Review of Politics 7.4, (October 1945), p. 457, Hannah Arendt describes the concept:

“Chauvinism is an almost natural product of the national concept insofar as it springs directly from the old idea of the "national mission." ... (A) nation's mission might be interpreted precisely as bringing its light to other, less fortunate peoples that, for whatever reason, have miraculously been left by history without a national mission. As long as this concept did not develop into the ideology of chauvinism and remained in the rather vague realm of national or even nationalistic pride, it frequently resulted in a high sense of responsibility for the welfare of backward peoples.”[11]

And the contemporary concept of patriotism in America has evolved into the new (and not so new) religious expression of American nationalism, militarism and corporate imperialism. “God”, for most practical purposes is irrelevant, as secularized polity can find the concept inhibiting , but where useful the Christian god , the Jewish god or whatever god is most convenient can and will be called upon . It’s all a matter of properly gauging the audience or constituents one is addressing at the time. God is not the center of this religion, but rather the “democratic ideals” those being led can be assured are the purpose to participate in what might otherwise be an obvious contradiction to their religious (not national) duty, not to mention reasonable minds. God, or whatever it is that may be construed as god, has become subjugated to whatever it is that has been deemed the national priority. Such a “god” as Nietzsche observed is “dead”. Or as I personally consider, “we have become dead to god”. It all amounts to the same thing.

But as long as we can hold our allusions we will continue to invoke our “deity” and wave our flags and march in our parades and bury our dead. And damn the rest we can’t see… by jingo!

Mark Twain wrote: "When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory – must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God the Father fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

“'O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle – be Thou near them! With them – in spirit – we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with hurricanes of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it – for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.'”

Is patriotism our new “racism”? A racism that we can all participate in regardless of our “race”? A racism that is not based on pigmentation or ethnicity or economic social status, but our need to find an “other” on which to cast all our sins. Our national scapegoat(s).

“How you can win the population for war: At first, the statesman will invent cheap lying, that impute the guilt of the attacked nation, and each person will be happy over this deceit, that calm the conscience. It will study it detailed and refuse to test arguments of the other opinion. So he will convince step for step even therefrom that the war is just and thank God, that he, after this process of grotesque even deceit, can sleep better.” Mark Twain

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” Hermann Goering

What is the difference between elevating "your" people or lowering their opinions of the "other" peoples? Nothing.

“It appears it has always been the fashion to degrade your neighbor. It is the herd mentality I suppose to put people into groups and tally their differences and weaknesses rather than related qualities. Human beings so love to categorize, and thus racism was born…Americans are no exception to the rule. In this time of uncertainty (when have the times ever been certain?) and true barbarism, we have alienated one country at least on the one hand, and denigrated and vilified an entire culture on the other … America has no monopoly upon these (Liberty, Justice, Freedom, etc) ideals. They are the common property of all mankind yet Americans would have you believe these words did not exist until they had the world's first and only revolution and wrote the world's first and only constitution. It might irritate them to learn that a little less than four hundred years ago the English had their own revolution against monarchy, and even more surprised to find that Americans didn't even invent Democracy … And if they catch your drift but still protest, saying that all of this may be so but the founding of America was sanctioned by the Divine and is greater than all these since it is imbued with a greater destiny, we might as well sigh and ring our hands at the hope of reasoning with fanaticism. It might be remembered that Rome two thousand years ago and even closer in time, the Soviet Union, believed as much about them selves and fabricated legendary mythologies to legitimize their claims…. At its heart, patriotism is little more than a disguised form of racism in a socially palatable form. It is politically incorrect to declare racial superiority, but the pride of Nationalism is perfectly acceptable. The former threatens the social order, the latter galvanizes it; it gives the whole society a focus for their hate, an emotion, which we are often told is wrong but only for those who are close at hand never at a distance…. It is not in the interests of governments and corporations to have people just willy-nilly expressing freedom from fear and hate, for then, what need do we have for a government to protect us, or for corporations to supply us with luxuries to entertain us in our bunkers. Better to keep us apart and in our separate boxes - divide and conquer.” [12]

So what is the nature of our “patriotism”? What are we really loyal too? Is it the system? Is it the politicians? Is it a constitution that did not exist when the word patriot was first acquisition as a banner to separate the sheep from the goats? Is it our economic ideology? And if it is an economic system why is that system not outlined in the constitution? Why is it that the economic system would be even more separated from our national trust (except as it may exert economic control over the system) then the concept of the separation of church and state? What is the difference between religious domination and economic domination? Who are the priests of this economy? Have we in fact been duped into worshiping new idols?

It needs to be understood, and with a little bit of investigation and research information can be gathered it is public domain, that most of the wars that have been fought, and I speak particularly of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries global wars were for economic gain in control, and even as “nations” presumed to remain neutral and out of the conflict, they were eventually sucked in, only to become all the more entangled and a greater part of the world reality that was evolving. As noble as the words of many of our leaders have been, their words and their sentiments were not the directing force to manage what they’d never had control of. There’s a time when noble words and sentiments as well intentioned as they are, and preferable the ideals, these become the smokescreen to blind the eyes of people’s desperate for hope. Not that their words should not be expressed or held in esteem, but to fail to deal with the underlying reality, preferring to pretend that it does not exist, or it really is the best alternative or there are no other choices – dooms the future of humanity to an ever increasing state of slavery.

We live under the illusion that we have a democratic Republic. That is only partly true. But what is closer to the truth is that we live under a corporatized Republic. Elections and representatives are ultimately bought and sold. And even as individuals may manage to remain “clean”, the system has been bought multiple times over. The sum of all the parts is such that the machine has a life of its own. And the only thing bigger than the machine itself is the financial system that feeds it and ultimately reaps from it.

In our current economic situation many would look at the Chinese and blame them. They seem to be the ones from whom our government will be borrowing the trillions to keep our economy and the system afloat, they are the ones getting all the manufacturing jobs, it would only say natural, it’s the fault of the Chinese. So we have a ready made national and ethnic group that we can vent on and if we’re lucky we can get to drop the big one. Besides defaulting on all those loans. But what we fail to see is that it’s not the Chinese, it’s not the Iraqis, the Afghans, or the Taliban, or Al-Qaida, it’s our own greed and desire for more. And because we somehow think that we deserve or can get the “more” we permit a system to flourish that is based on nothing else other than the love of money, and the power that can be realized through that.

In 44 BC Julius Caesar was assassinated. Caesar had risen to power due to his popularity with the masses. He had been a successful Roman general, conquered new territories and brought new wealth into the Republic. He survived a civil war and was eventually made dictator for life. That did not give him all power and control, but he was essentially only one step from being declared emperor. A number of senators, some would say out of jealousy, others would argue for the sake of patriotism, feared what they were sure would eventually occur and plotted to assassinate Caesar. On the Ides’ of March, March 15, ’44 BC, they assassinated Caesar in the senate chambers. There were an estimated 60 senators who may have had knowledge of the plot or were intimately involved, but it was Caesars closest associates including one Brutus, a friend, who actually carried out the deed. Over the next few years Rome was plunged into another civil war, the conspirators were killed as well as many in their armies.

Were the conspirators who plotted and assassinated Julius Caesar traitors or patriots? What decides to question? For a time Anthony and Octavian were allies as they hunted and fought the conspirators. Anthony and Cleopatra wanted to rule Rome from Egypt. Eventually Mark Anthony and Cleopatra were defeated and Octavian Caesar rose to power as the first emperor of the Roman Empire. Julius Caesar was made a god and Octavian was declared to be the divine Augustus. What makes one a traitor and another a patriot?

“Who won”.

Prior to the emergence of the Roman Empire there had been a dominant human consciousness that perceived the world reality and truth as intrinsically tied to the culture and social reality. Though it had been evolving, it’s not like it happened all at once, for the most part humans found their station in life as it related to their culture as a whole. Individual consciousness was not highly regarded. There were few “individuals”. As a matter of political and economic realities changing, social structures crumbling, the proliferation of new ideas, philosophy’s and theologies, the thinking of man began to expand and take on a new more individual character. There was less and less of the identification of who one was with what had existed relatively stable for millennia. The empire was a Great Big world. And despite what we know of the oppression of the Romans relatively peaceful and affording many the opportunity to profit through trade and commerce. Yet there were many rebellions. Jerusalem was sacked and Judea turned into a wasteland, and 900 Jewish zealots committed suicide on top of Masada.

Were the 900 Jewish zealot’s patriots or rebels? That would depend on who you ask. Today in Israel they are definitely be considered martyred patriots. But in 72 CE, they were rebels, insurrectionists.

Rome was the dominant military and economic power of the time. Though as an economic power it would seem that the United States has slipped from that position of dominance considering that we have handed everything over to the Chinese so our corporations can realize a more significant bottom line. Militarily it would seem we remain at the top of the pile. Whether we will remain there or not – I haven’t a clue. But I believe over the years American priorities and interests have been distorted and in some sense perverted by our commitment to American corporate economic domination throughout the world. I realize that it is this “domination” that had benefited most of the situations of Americans (including myself) over the years. But the question is, simply because I have benefited from it does that make it right? And should I continue to support policies of my government and American corporations when I believe there’s not a mutual benefit to be received and enjoyed by others the world over and particularly with whom we do business? Should we as Americans be committed to a lifestyle and standard of living so far above (at least by our perspective) the rest of the world’s, to the detriment of and alienation of humanity around the world in general?

Now, realizing that this is not a popular perspective, and I would rather see American military forces not only pulled out of Iraq, but as soon as feasible – out of Afghanistan, and I would look forward to diplomatic talks with the Iranians (without conditions), and I believe our relations with Israel should be reconsidered and alliances withdrawn as well as possibly trade and economic sanctions considered, and more focus should be placed on improving the situation of the Palestinians within the Gaza strip and the west bank, and probably a lot more than would not suit the “cowboy diplomacy” mentality that pervades much of our nation, and considering that I consider the capitalist system as intrinsically “faulty” if not utterly “evil” and should be dismantled and reconstructed on a worldwide scale -- Would I be considered a “patriot” or a “traitor”?

In all this I’m not saying I could or would do anything more than I am. Besides write and speak up where I can I know of little else that life has afforded to me to do. Like everyone else I’m just trying to survive as best I am able. If faced with unique and extraordinary situations I cannot say what I would do. Except act as best my conscience directs me at the time. What would that be? We’ll find out at the time.

At the beginning of this essay I quoted a lot of generally “conservative” perspectives of what patriotism meant. There were a few that I didn’t quote that besides expressing a general support for military personnel and families qualified their position with a right to dissent government and administration policies. Though I am somewhat closer to that perspective I also believe that those who choose the military, as it is currently a voluntary decision, and though some form of military would seem necessary for the foreseeable future, the choice to become a part of it is a choice to accept all that goes with that territory . It is a willingness to kill, to obey orders, to turn your mind and body over to the will of another, and that other may not act, think and function in conjunction with a good moral conscience. The decision to accept that is a decision to be held equally accountable for all those orders executed. “He’s the universal soldier and he really is to blame, his orders come from far away no more, they come from him and you and me, and brothers can’t just see, this is not the way you put an end to war”. Buffy Saint Marie

The concept of patriotism that was expressed in those first few paragraphs more than anything else, expressed a reality and manifestation of what is the American national secular religion. Though most would probably concede some faith in some contemporary religious concept of god or deity, that was not the point. And all this can be justified as natural to our human condition . The feelings, the sense of reverence and awe, the angst , that dread that you might get that one call that you hope never comes, the flag waving, the pledge, the anthems – hymns, all these are expressions of the need to justify that which you can’t explain and that to which we must attribute some divine purpose and quality lest it slip into an abyss, a void of meaninglessness.

My concern is not for “my” nation. But my concern is for humankind. My god is not that of my father’s or of my ancestors that I am aware of. But my god is that which I know in me. Does that make me faithless? Does that make the traitor? Does that earn me the scorn of fellow Americans? Is my nation our government? Its national boundaries? Or is my nation that people I live and commune with? I think it is that, and governments and ancient constitutions are as outdated and irrelevant as church dogma, doctrine and creed seventeen and 1800 years old and questionable as to the spiritual significance and to validity contained therein. Essentially, bound by documents so far removed from contemporary experience, realizing these to be only the product of human minds wrestling with their own agendas, there comes a time major renovations are in order, and it is better to consider these and work towards a more perfect “constitution” relevant to not only our countries collective vision but in conjunction with that of the world. We are not an elitist people, and we’re not an elitist “nation”. It is time we mature as a “nation” and grow out of our infantile, childish, adolescent, youthful immaturities. More often than not as an adult that means you don’t get it your way. But a mature adult can be content and satisfied with who they are. I suppose that’s my definition of patriotism.

---

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/04/patriotism.opinions.irpt/index.html

[2] http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/04/patriotism.opinions.irpt/index.html

[3] http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/04/patriotism.opinions.irpt/index.html

[4] http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/04/patriotism.opinions.irpt/index.html

[5] http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/04/patriotism.opinions.irpt/index.html

[6] http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/04/patriotism.opinions.irpt/index.html

[7] http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/04/patriotism.opinions.irpt/index.html

[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism

[10] Concise Oxford Thesaurus

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvinism

[12] http://atheism.about.com/od/politicspoliticalissues/a/problempride.htm

Bringing It All Back Home Edited 3-19-13

We in the United States of America, whether we now as individuals personally ascribe to a religious denominational “Christian” faith or not, the nature of what was and is intrinsic to the American mythology has had an enormous impact on how we think and view the world. In other words, the dominant religious framework of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries created what could be considered a unique in American mindset. And even as many have shunned the faith of former years elements of these still remain part of our American psyche.

I listened to a university lecture series “God and Mankind: Comparative Religions”. Though most might have found it boring there’s enough I garner from these that helps fill out a broader picture for me. The last lecture in this series is entitled “Bringing it all back home”. What was presented in this lecture concisely yet comprehensively put substance to many of the things that I have perceived concerning the collective American religious heritage for a long time but had perceived as a matter more of personal intimate involvement with the religious community. It was a matter of knowing the truth of something before ever having been taught it .

I admit my own understanding of the splits and varying theologies of the early American denomination’s may be a personal advantage that I have in understanding some of the assertions that the lecturer, Dr. Oden, makes concerning Puritanism in Colonial America . And if there’s question of these, I will answer questions. But what is more important is the fact that there was a religious vision that a very large number if not the majority of the early Americans had in relation to the founding of this nation. These are perspectives that we still contend with even now and on a much broader “worldwide” scale. The 2008 presidential election should be sufficient evidence of the religious influence and the apocalyptic zeal to dominate that exists not so far under the surface in American politics.

A basic premise in going to war is to understand your enemy. There are many of us who see this religious “passion” as detrimental and intrusive into our own lives and freedom. I certainly am one. Yet if we are not willing to understand what has led to and sustains this religious dynamo that would roll over us, I think the best we can expect is to lay down and get ready to be crushed. Or, make the effort, learn the truth, educate those with open minds and change a few. Bitching about it won’t get the job done.

American identity of the United States is distinctly tied to its Puritan origins. There is repeated emphasis on America and Americans as "God's elect" and the constant parallels between America and ancient Israel, creating, in effect, an American civil religion whose basic themes include:

* the "chosen" history of America
* a strong notion of covenant, with America's fate emblematic of the world's
* the idea that, in America, the ultimate sovereignty is not the people's, but God's.

American identity derived directly from the Puritan tradition:

* an anti-intellectual favoring of individualism and experience over the collective and theory
* a bias against ritual
* the strongest fundamentalist tradition in the advanced industrialized world
* a distinctly American anxiety over vocational and occupational calling not found elsewhere in the world.

Ignorance

Ignorance can exist on both sides of any issue. Propaganda is the tool of ignorance. They cumulatively become a two edged sword striking at whatever gets in their way. Reason and "any" claims to deeper spiritual (or otherwise) values are the first victims. In order to attain any  movement towards peace or reconciliation, the sword must be abandoned.

It has been argued that the best defense is a strong and aggressive offence. I believe that comes from the "George W. Bush Strategy for Peace in Our Times". Defensive posturing  is one thing, but often becomes confused by our own sub-conscious desires and will to "control". That may first be rationalized as the "freedom" to control "my" own destiny. Then collectively "our" destinies. Ultimately it manifests not as "control of personal destiny" but domination of any who are assumed to interfere with our perceived destiny. And this has nothing to do with religion or the lack of it. It is individual and collective human nature and is fueled by ignorance. And ignorance is not the sole possession of the religious. "Religion" is only a tool or excuse of the ignorant, as is secular humanist sectarianism by the equally ignorant.

Fear is a product of ignorance. Not the ignorance of facts and figures and histories , but the ignorance of who or what we are as the “human being” .  Our understanding of knowledge begins with our comprehension of what we believe of ourselves as a people.  My family, my siblings, my extended family, my tribe, our immediate social structures and values and networks , our collective mythologies and beliefs, our state, our regional geography, our national identity,   these all contribute to what it is we believe we “know” is the absolute nature of reality and the way humanity is “intended” to be realized and  understood.

 We send our kids off to institutions of higher learning in the hopes that there might be a grander understanding of the world and human possibilities instilled in them .  Sometimes this leads to an awakening in the minds of a few who are capable of recognizing the poverty of the heritage from which they came and beyond the finitude of their original traditions, and so peer into the immensity and apparent infinite potential that exists in the world and universe as a whole.  Most maintain their relations and connections to their traditions.  It would appear that “most” treat the opportunity  to grow beyond their traditions as a temporal hiatus from what has been imbued as an absolute, and are only content as they return to the more familiar and that which can be safely and easily negotiated. This really has nothing to do with a geographic situating but rather a social and cultural gravitation. Thus education and knowledge are reduced to filling the minds library with facts and figures, history that is considered mostly irrelevant, and philosophies that are little more than intellectual toys but seldom considered with serious intent as the mind of genius groping with realities lesser minds can only write off as fantasy or comprehend through “navel gazing”.  And do not presume that I treat navel gazing with any sort of contempt.  Because contained in the concept of  “navel gazing” is the notion that there exists more than what is apparent to our five natural senses. But there exists a dimension of mind or spirit that materialistic humanism fails to comprehend within the bounds of its predefined “Newtonian-Cartesian” reality.  This “reality”, though claiming the title “scientific” and denying the existence of what cannot be measured or quantified or the “divine”, except as it may be explained as the byproduct of an actual physical processes, though the word “god” is foreign to such a philosophy, this “reality” is every bit as religious and dogmatic as those that find no other explanation for truths beyond the limitations of their own minds do through “religion”. 

The “secularist” and the “religionist” are ultimately identical, because “their” shared ignorance exists not in the difference of the quantity of facts and figures or natural processes, but it exists in the lack of knowledge of knowing themselves as human beings.  Whether  this be a spiritual or a psychological depth of understanding  makes little difference. What is “spiritual” and “psychological” may in fact be the same . 

They may be interrelated .  They may be unique unto themselves .  But whichever is the case – both are realities.  Linguistics and semantics may overlap and be a confusing factor, and coming to common definitions and understandings regarding the various and separate disciplines may hinder rather than enhance the process of coming to knowledge that is universally recognized.  But as there are minds committed to the integrity of learning, and not the commitment to themselves or their traditions or their ideologies,  the evolution of the human mind will occur.  And as minds and thinking evolve and expand so does the reality we experience .  First individually – ultimately – collectively. 

But to willfully choose to think and act as a matter of preferred ignorance only renders more of the same, “religious” or “nonreligious”.  Ignorance knows no bounds.