How stupid close-minded Americans are the real Anti-Americans

"Fundamentalism is not unique to religious people, but is instead a certain approach to the world, rooted in mistaking limited knowledge for wisdom"

"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 dissent and leave many unable to hear criticism from the outside"

I extremely agree with Jensen's bit on nationalism. American nationalism in its rooted definition is inherently contradictory. Citizens may believe that we all should support and follow this nation abstractly, as Jensen said, "when in reality it is lines on a map, not an occurring object," so that we may all connect and reinforce the strength of our home and all that it provides for us. This is a reasonable notion to positively influence our abstract love for the feet under our ground.

But if you look at the U.S. as an occurring object, you could see its occurring prevalence on what it was founded on and must survive through, which is democracy. And in a true democracy, fundamentalism would cease to exist, so it makes no sense for nationalism to be ever be based on fundamentalist ways of thinking. Democracy is for the people, by the people. Time changes and the people with it. Within a democracy, a nation must coincide with its ever changing and evolving situations. Fundamentalism fundamentally resists change, so to actually be a supporter of what America stands for more than anything, you would truly only be anti-American by being the type of  fundamentalist Jensen mentions.

Jensen Points Out Insanity

This article makes me ask myself, how will history remember us?

Every empire has met an end. None has yet to last forever. Each of the Chinese dynasties, the Romans, the Moguls, the Ottomans, Mali, the Greeks, the Germans, the Aztec, the Inca: all of them rolled back down the hill that they climbed up and into power. So there isn't much data to argue against the temporary nature of power centers in our human world.

So, assuming no total collapse of human tradition, knowledge, libraries, and such, there will still be literature composed in the 500 and thousand years to come. I wonder what the books will say about our time.

Because, some times, I imagine that the future will be substantially more refined than the present. Maybe we'll remember war then like we now remember slavery; hanging our heads and saying, "I can't believe people did that."

Maybe this will be one of our few photos in the pages of a middle school text book:

Maybe it won't take long to remember the great wall on our southern border like the great wall through Berlin: poor people on one side, rich people on the other, guarded ferociously by patriotic men with high-powered weapons.

What Jensen explains, I believe, is that people here are unaware of the big picture. It is as if they are trying to judge a painting, a big one of the whole world, and they've got their nose touching the canvas, frozen in fear of moving their head just a little ways back. This is the perspective that generates fundamentalism.

How will our nationalist fervor be remembered? I've asked myself the same question he does: what are we saluting anyway? What does the silly flag mean, and why am I required to pledge to it? In all honesty, I don't feel any more of a connection to the peoples of New York, Chicago, and Seattle than I do to those of Mexico City or Juarez. Panama City is about as close to me as New York.

The nationalist violence that we wage across the world is just gang violence on a larger scale. We have territories that we defend, gunning down trespassers if they try and come across without permission. We stake out claims and defend them, periodically going to war (for example with the Mexicans) to expand our own claim. We fight for money and resources, and have a hefty army of men and women wooed by charismatic leaders and nationalist symbols (like the flag) to take up arms and go to war with strangers who salute a different flag.

Maybe in the future people will realize that we're all just people on the land, and that these dumb countries were just made up by some people some years ago.

Oh Jensen...

Jensen is right in that people really need to utilize some critical thinking. For example, why do people complain so much about there being no plastic bags anymore or why do people not see sexism in marketing and even everyday language? But, even that shouldn’t take critical thinking, it’s just denial and unawareness. I mean heaven forbid people feel uncomfortable about looking at the deeper picture of what’s really going on. We need to question why we do things and why we’ve been doing things. Just because that’s the way it is doesn’t mean that’s the way it should be. The U.S. needs some change on many different levels like healthcare and maternity and paternity leave, but we are so tied up in a two-party system and an either/or mindset that we are so scared of change and no one wants the responsibility of being blamed for the bumps in the road. Americans say they want change…but don’t vote for it neither do our legislatures. (Gun control debate, same-sex marriage – why are these even being debated?) The Nordic countries are high on the scale of happiness and social equality because they question their norms all the time and actually use research to implement and structure policies.

I’ve always thought that capitalism, as an ideal market system, is a load of crap. The invisible hand is really the same hand attached to wealthy people who keep providing for themselves while the poor get poorer. Capitalism does not provided social services. For example, privatization of water in Latin America left many more people without water because companies could no longer make a profit and so they pulled out of the countries. I feel like our current finance system is one that punishes and is in favor of the rich, which is why I prefer Islamic Economics – risks are shared equally, zakat or wealthy tax and no interest on loans.

I agree that free markets do not create equality and that the government must be a part of the process for the people’s sake and not to serve the businesses. However, earlier Jensen criticized patriotism. I understand that patriotism is a major blindfold and results in unnecessary strict borders, but I would think governments need some patriotism at least…but maybe getting people involved in government is better.

I like Jensen’s point about the colossal amount of money being pumped in to the military and defense system. We already have a very advanced military with very powerful weapons that even if outdated technology would over-power another country’s military. Yet, we continue to fund and build war machines of obliteration instead of obliterating poverty and teen pregnancy and hunger and low-education attainment.

I am one of those slow adopters to technology. I thinks its great in that it has improved many lives in terms of health especially and bad in what it has done to the environment. I also do not like how it has restructured interpersonal communication. I think people have forgotten how to talk to strangers. I also think it’s a shame that kids spend more time with TV, ipads, video games rather than playing outside and appreciating nature (which is probably why there is less empathy for taking care of our planet). Sometimes, simple is better.

I feel like so many people are tired, bored and frustrated with how we live. It boils down to living a rehearsed life without true satisfaction and happiness.

At the same time, I’ve always wondered what it would be like to be Jensen. Journalism makes you see the world in many negative lights to a point where its unsatisfying and depressing. I’m glad the world has people like Jensen who bring up great points, but I wonder if he is ever happy.