uncharted.ca

The common people must find a way to tear the fences of the mind down and begin freeing themselves from the social prisons engineered to maintain a certain hierarchial order. The only way we will see a more egalitarian society is by finding a place, or building a place, where we can somehow shrug off hundreds of years of conditioning by hierarchial societies, and begin building it ourselves. Issues, issues, issues; we have so many issues to confront and discuss before we can actually begin! Opening the mind to new thought is difficult to say the least. I so wish we could find that place of interrelationship where we could hang all our armor and weapons outside the door and somehow find that piece of common ground which will help us overcome all our differences on certain issues in order to really see our full potential of power.

Fundamentalism is steeped in self-righteousness and I'm not just talking about christian fundamentalism and Jensen places this fundamentalism as the least detrimental. In his article, Jensen notes that fundamentalism should be described as any intellectual/political/theological position that asserts an absolute certainty in the truth and/or righteousness of a belief system. In this context, fundamentalism leads to marginalization or complete elimination of any alternative views. This overconfidence in one's beliefs is usually rooted in limited knowledge within certain preordained boundaries and has the tendency to suppress any new thoughts, ideas, and advancements in society. Therefore any form of fundamentalist belief system can usually be identified by the lack of humility among it's followers and these belief systems normally are detirmental and contrary to education, the search for truth, and a sustainable society.

Put another way: You don't have to believe that a rust-colored calf could bring about the end of the world — or that 72 black-eyed virgins await the pious Islamic suicide bomber in paradise — but there are many people who do, and are prepared to act on that belief.

Can you imagine sitting on that ship stuck between buddy boy and cm? New definition of hell!

Here, let me simply point out that because a nation-state is an abstraction (lines on a map, not a naturally occurring object), assertions of patriotism (defined as love of or loyalty to a nation-state) raise a simple question: To what we are pledging our love and loyalty? How is that abstraction made real? I conclude that all the possible answers are indefensible and that instead of pledging allegiance to a nation, we should acknowledge and celebrate our connections to real people in our lives while also declaring a commitment to universal principles, but reject offering commitment to arbitrary political units that in the modern era have been the vehicle for such barbarism and brutality.

diversity, multiculturalism, political correctness, and finally cultural suicide;

Holy Cow, Siggy, how’m I doing!?

In what respect Mull? Typing skills? Interpretation? Absolutism?

Nationalism poses a threat everywhere but should especially concern us in the United States, where the capacity for destruction in the hands of the most powerful state in the history of the world is exacerbated by a pathological hyper-patriotism that tends to suppress internal criticism and leave many unable to hear critique from outside.

Patriotism, which is so unfashionable in our time with the Liberal elite and its ‘useful idiot’ followers, is an abstraction of the ideals from which a nation and its people are formed. The very purpose of “pledging allegiance” to one’s founding principles is to ‘reaffirm,’ or ‘revisit’ belief and trust in the original purposes of one’s national heritage.

What our writer is really saying here is that ‘nationalism is a threat to Liberal elite and its ideological agenda.’ That agenda is to disarm the defenses of the US, dissolve her national boundaries, and obliterate any vestiges of her national identity. This process is decades old and much of it has been ostensibly successful. But its purpose is neither intended to be in best interests of the country, nor to benefit humanity at large, but because it fits the purposes of Liberal ideology.

How would dissolving borders and obliterating national boundries serve 'it's' purpose?

Nationalism and it's jingoistic followers are the abstraction in our time IMHO.

The life of simplicity, unless you happen to be an anarcho-primitivist, is disappearing as the people share knowledge (not just nationally but internationally).