I haven't been here for a few. I don't have plans to stay. Putting things in perspective, it has a roller coaster of thoughts, emotions, and imagination.
There are some components here that are stress relievers and others that are a source of stress. Stress and tension can have positive outcomes in some instances such as a drive to generate words or ideas that resolve discord and psychological dissonance. But sometimes I do not care to or tire of the motivation to do so. Right? There are many here who provide succor and resolve.
In a few conversations, the outcomes became exercises rather than exchanges for me. A certain person, from other another country, may insist that their input be implemented and followed on issues that are American. I consider it a presumptuous transgression for foreign entities to try and direct and make demands on direction concerning a foreign country's affairs. It is an arrogant and presumptuous violation of boundaries and sovereignty when our foreign friends decide they are going to take the political reins by proxy of influence.
I haven't read any comments or input lately and have shut down my own, sometimes dull, commentary. Recently, I was confronted with a situation that provided a context to poison the well of goodwill that we all draw from. I declined to put on the manipulative jacket or get into the box that would exclude certain comments from other areas of the planet participating in our ongoing dialogues here.
It is my opinion that it is a trespass of sorts when I am a voting member of a national entity when I have served in the military of that nation, When I have sworn an oath to that country and my rights and entitlements earned as such should be removed or disregarded, that I will be dispossessed of my rights as a sovereign member of that nation, by a particular non-American individual.
About that oath I took many years ago to defend my literally "native lands" from all enemies foreign and domestic. This does not mean I agree with all the policies and actions of that/my nation. It means that I must redirect and educate on some topics wherein parts of the nation have derailed. As a minority member of that body by birth, I have a further obligation to represent those minority interests in the interests of the nation. Though the actual count of those in my group is small, we can impact voting outcomes in our states. Foreign entities do not have this concrete power or right.
Even the least powerful groups in America usually have more power and impact than the average foreign individual.
Occasionally a foreign individual demands takes various bs forms including manipulating, verbal/written formulations, insults, and misdirection. These suggestions included attempting to manipulate the US citizens to contact LE agencies to implement their foreign ideas and agendas through Americans open to letting a foreign entity have influence via proxy. We have the label of being sheep to be herded here and there by political and influential powers. When help or input from foreign entities is desirable, there are ways this is accomplished that are approached in a productive and respectful manner.
These unofficial practices are now standard via social media wherein all manner of confusion, lies, and personal agendas of foreign powers have impacted American society. There are formal international entities whose purpose is to do just that. to influence American politics and policies in a manner that is possibly well-meaning but detrimental to sovereignty. This constitutes encroachment and has evolved into Psychological and cyber warfare.
Regardless of the generally friendly nature between us and other nations, even in personal relationships, there are boundaries that friends do not cross. To suggest or demand that direction from foreign entities and individuals be followed by the presenters can become an intrusion on those boundaries and a disregard for the sovereign nature of the US.
The individual involved has evolved from an original source. The British and its many colonial offspring. Of course, some-many share good information and are supportive.
However, most know Americans fought a war to be free of the domineering, arrogance, and those with a penchant for rhetoric that can denote the entitled, bullying nature of imperialists.
Yes, foreign entities have been vital and important allies in past troubles. Occasionally these foreign entities have supported and fought alongside this country even when this country was in the wrong. The original attitude became "Our country or race, right or wrong, we must prevail
regardless if right, wrong, immoral or unethical. This attitude leads to horrific and destructive actions which may take forever to make right if ever.
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger more complex and more violent
It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction?" Einstein
Here is the problem and solution.
The USA is a fallacy. A nation that claims to be noble, endorsing freedom (12 Us presidents were slave owners) religious, and upright is built upon Millions of Natives murdered and their lands and resources stolen. The same old story. A nation built upon slavery while in tandem as a bloodthirsty and greedy entity in thought and deed. Most of the rest below is copied and pasted I find it useful in procuring a real insight.
Fallacy: a false or mistaken idea...
an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference/
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallacy . [This notion of the reality of America, the great nation of freedom and justice being a fallacy is not a belief but is a fact documented and exercised repeatedly since its inception. Eugenics PDF]
Ma·chi·a·vel·lian | \ ˌma-kē-ə-ˈve-lē-ən , -ˈvel-yən \
Definition of Machiavellian
1: of or relating to Machiavelli or Machiavellianism
2: suggesting the principles of conduct laid down by Machiavelli
specifically: marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith
He relied on Machiavellian tactics to get elected. The Prince
Machiavelli is famous (or infamous) for teaching princes that, human nature being what it is,
if they propose to do their job well, they must be willing to break their promises, to deceive,
dissemble, and use violence, sometimes in cruel ways and on a large scale,
when political circumstances require such actions. This may or may not be relevant to the question of patriotism, depending on just what we take the point of princely rule to be. A less well-known part of Machiavelli’s teaching, however, is relevant; for he sought to impart the same lesson to politicians and common citizens of a republic.
“When the safety of one’s country wholly depends on the decision to be taken, no attention should be paid either to justice or injustice, to kindness or cruelty, or to its being praiseworthy or ignominious” (Machiavelli 1998 , 515). The paramount interests of one’s country override any moral consideration with which they might come into conflict.
This type of patriotism is extreme, but by no means extremely rare. It is adopted much too often by politicians and common citizens alike when their country’s major interests are thought to be at stake. It is encapsulated in the saying “our country, right or wrong,” at least on the simplest and most obvious construal of this saying. Not much needs to be said about the moral standing of this type of patriotism, as it amounts to rejection of morality. “Our country, right or wrong” cannot be right.
2.2.5 Ethical patriotism
A patriot of this, distinctively ethical type, would want to see justice done, rights respected,
and human solidarity at work at any time and in any place. But her patriotism would be at work in a concern that her country be guided by these moral principles and values which is more sustained and more deeply felt than her concern that these principles and values should be put into practice generally. She would consider her own moral identity as bound up with that of her country, and the moral record of the patria as hers too. Unlike a patriot of the more worldly type, she might not feel great pride in her country’s worldly merits and achievements. She would be proud of the country’s moral record when it inspires pride. But her patriotism would be expressed, above all, in a critical approach to her country and compatriots: she would feel entitled, and indeed called, to submit them to critical moral scrutiny, and to do so qua patriot...
While we have no moral reason to be patriots of the more usual, mundane kind, we do have reason to show special concern for our own country’s moral well-being. As a rule, when someone is wronged, someone else benefits from that. When a country maintains an unjust or inhumane practice, or enacts and enforces an unjust or inhumane law or policy, at least some, and sometimes many of its citizens reap benefits from it. Sometimes such a practice, legislation or policy affects people beyond the country’s borders; in such cases, the population as a whole may benefit. The responsibility for the injustice or lack of basic human solidarity lies with those who make the decisions and those who implement them. It also lies with those who give support to such decisions and their implementation. But some responsibility in this connection may also devolve on those who have no part in the making of the decisions or in their implementation, nor even provide support, but accept the benefits such a practice, law or policy generates.
A degree of complicity may also accrue to those who have no part in designing or putting into
effect immoral practices, laws or policies, do not support them or benefit from them, but do benefit in various ways from being citizens of the country. One may derive significant psychological benefit from membership in and identification with a society or polity: from the sense of belonging, support and security such membership and identification afford. If one accepts such benefits, while knowing about the immoral practices, laws or policies at issue, or having no excuse for not knowing about them, that, too, may be seen as implicating him in those wrongs. To be sure, he makes no causal contribution to those wrongdoings, has no control over their course, and does not accept benefits from them. But in accepting benefits from his association with the wrongdoers, he may be seen as underwriting those wrongs and joining the class of those properly blamed. His complicity is lesser and the blame to be laid at his door is lesser too – but he still bears some moral responsibility and deserves some moral blame on that account. He cannot say in good faith: “Those wrongs have nothing to do with me. I am in no way implicated in them.”
If this is correct, we have reason to develop and exercise a special concern for the moral identity and
integrity of our country. By doing so, we will be attending to an important aspect of our own moral identity and integrity. While patriotism of the more usual, worldly kind is neither morally required nor virtuous, but at best morally permitted, ethical patriotism can, under certain fairly common circumstances, be a moral duty (Primoratz 2006)."
Thanks for sharing your insights, arts, and opinions.
Definition of white man's burden
: a duty formerly asserted by white people to manage the affairs of nonwhite people whom they believed to be less developed.
[How is that going? Of course, they also need to manage the affairs of their own people and their savage unconscionable history as well as the present. Jesus, fascists, Oligarchs, politicians, and the Nazis look forward to helping you manage your affairs]