Anti-americanism is something that becomes manifest in different places, including here ocasionally. And it's definately not something i like or consider to be a positive thing in any way.

I think that for many people here, the ideal world would be a cosmopolitan world where there are no 'bounderies' and where it doesn't matter where you're from.
Such a world is a far away place from where we are currently standing.

Most of us are inhabitants of western countries, a few exceptions here and there, and if people from countries that share as much of the same values morally and have as much in common culturally, historically and economically as westerners, cannot manage to respect eachother and get along well, i don't see how such a cosmopolitan ideal could ever be realised.

We cannot ever expect from others that they consider there own cultural identity to be of less value than ours. So that applies to the relation between the west and other civilisations, but it also applies within western civilisation itself.
An american cannot expect me to consider my dutch or european background of less value than his american background, and i cannot expect him to think less of his background than mine.

We know this people, it's a basic thing: we all have childhood memories of certain places, friends and family we care about, and so on.

So if we start blaming americans for having the opinion that america is the greatest nation, we shouldn't be hypocritical; we cannot blame them for feeling that way about the place where they live. We could blame eachother for not respecting the same believe in others.

As for american foreign policy: there is no nation in the world with a clean sheet. Large nations have a 'larger sheet' but the distribution of dirt on it would be roughly the same everywhere. America may not be the bliss to the rest of the world, many americans think it is, but it surely isn't the evil empire it's portrayed to be by others either.

foreign politic's is like the weather: there are so many hidden powers at play, that you can never realy know wich way the wind blows. That applies to every american president as much as it applies to you and me. There have been many dirty little secrets in iran, iraq, nicaragua, etc, but the truth of it is that 'getting along peacefully' is not as easy as it may seem in a world where mutual trust is not always a primal reflex.

I am not a very big fan of american foreign policy the way it has been throughout the past few decades. But i think the world would definately have been worse of if china, india or russia would have been the major superpower during the past century. China and russia have even less consideration for human rights than america or any other western nation and india is even more corrupt than china and america combined.

Most of all, i think that a devide between europe and america is likely to end in america seeking alligning with china. Both americans and europeans should consider what that means.

A world where human rights have any meaning, needs good relations between europe and america as a counterbalance for chinese dominance. If there is no strong western alliance, india will also more likely seek alliance with china than with the west, so a weakened western alliance is likely to end in a world dominated by china.

I guarantee you that this would make many of us long back to the days america was still top-dog. To give you an impression: 'love' is described in the chinese dictionary as 'the feeling one has for the chinese communist party'.

When people identify themselves by the country they happened to have been born in, they sell (very cheaply) a large portion of their soul.

People deal only with other people.

"Countries" (i.e., states) are an abstraction held together by FORCE and only force. A country exists ONLY as a collection of force, and for NOTHING else. Sure, sometimes that force is quite benign, such as FORCING people (on threat of prison) to pay taxes, which are then used for constructive and helpful projects; but countries' basic functionality is FORCE and nothing but. Without force, no country or government can accomplish any statist task.

Presently, I don't find sufficient any actions taken by any state to morally offset the force they must fundamentally apply to effect those actions. In the current world, the main function of states has been to make subservient sheep of their citizens; they've been very effective at that process and are becoming even more effective over time.

Anyone on this forum only needs to know that all modern states have outlawed the possession of psychedelics, in order to understand that states are bullies, and use their force...injudiciously, at least.

We have to declare the Earth as the common heritage of all the worlds’ people. If we fail to do that there will always be the problems.

Listen to this man

I'm anti-earth, and pro hyperspace.

I agree with this ideal as i stated. I prefer cosmopolitism above any form of nationalism or chauvinism.

But that ideal is not exactly within reach. There are parts of the world where people consider osama bin-laden a hero. I don't think there can be much solidarity, realistically speaking, between the people over there and the people here.

It could be on an individual level, if i meet a pakistani who doesn't want me dead just because i'm a westerner there could be friendship between us.

But that pakistani would likely be a cosmopolitan, like me.

At this point in history, if we want a cosmopolitan world, we need to start within the western world and other places where human rights are considered to be a legitimate concept. Because if even people who share most of the same values fail to respect eachother, the chances of respect between people of entirely different civilisations becomes seemingly impossible.

^ What you're saying still amounts to grouping or classifying people, and saying "something must be done" with certain classes of people. Whereas I say that someone has to stand up and say "NO" to that, and that those others who wish to attack certain classes are ALREADY WRONG, and there's no use adding to their error by then classifying THEM (and becoming like them in the process).

There will always be hate among people, because there will always be new people around who haven't yet figured out that "searching for things to hate" is not a productive enterprise. Those who have figured out productive approaches to life can only continue to act productively--there's no solution in reversion.

So you basically agree with me here that anti-americanism isn't productive or positive in any way.

I think btw that classifying people is innevitable if you want to establish relationships with others: you can classify in a negative way, being exclusive, but by establishing relationships and thus by being inclusive, you also classify people.

Saying that we already ARE one world communion is just beside the truth. You need to start somewhere.

And i'm sorry but i don't see how people who think bin-laden is a hero and westerners could live peacefully toghtether. How can you be inclusive towards people who want to kill you for who you are?

You need to start somewhere, and then i say: let's start to be a world communion with all the people that DON'T want to kill eachother just because of their faith, nationality, ethnicity, etc, because it's more realistic and practical.

If one day, many people in northern pakistan would no longer want to kill us, then it would be totally OK with me if they would join, but as long as they want to murder all members of the club, i don't think they should join.

I don't see how that could be seen as divisive.

I completely agree with SWIMfriend

Im a citizen of this planet and I would rather people would work for the whole and that there be no selfish-actions for a certain group based on arbitrary strict political borders. Which doesnt mean the world should be a homogeneous mass of people and everybody doing the same, because local cultures are to be respected. But it does mean understanding the natural fluid semi-permeable membrane between communities and cultures (and groups of people in general), and recognizing we are all part of the same planet and whether we like it or not our actions will affect others and their actions us, so we should try to be aware and increase benefits and sustainability and diminish suffering for all

I completely agree as well. So let's start by working toghether with all the people who would NOT be against this ideal.

I am very much for respecting cultural differences, but if not respecting certain groups of people is an inherent part of a certain culture i don't see how you could fit that culture into this global community. If you want mutual respect to be the norm, then you're by definition exclusive towards the minority of people who don't want to obey this code.

And those people do exist. I didn't invent the KKK, al-qaida, the nazi's, the settlers in gaza or the west bank, hamas, the farc, the CCP, etc.

I do think people should be more aware of the COUNTLESS bad things about governments in general, and the US government in particular. But I don't think it's useful to think that anything is SOLVED by labeling America as bad. America's POLICIES and ACTIONS have many many times been bad.



All kinds of "bad actions" are inevitable. That doesn't mean I want to start composing lists and classifications, and spend time or energy sorting through bad things. One should just avoid bad things, and allow them to drift away.



IMO it's very useful to keep in mind that people are just people, and one deals with INDIVIDUALS.



If someone tried to kill me I would kill them. If someone killed my family or friends I would certainly want to kill them. If someone did that, and then told me they intended to do MORE, I'd probably kill them or want to kill them. But that doesn't mean I have ENEMY LISTS, or think it's right or useful to classify people, and come up with "plans" for dealing for people as I classify them.



I say, let's start worrying about our own actions, and do everything we can to act in the right way. Let's not try to "cure" evil (or eliminate it). Let's let morons like George Bush believe nonsense like that.



It's divisive to have "clubs." To run the world that way. As an INDIVIDUAL, I may choose to associate more with some people than with others. But to form an ORGANIZATION to do that is only a RECIPE to create divisions between people. Why go to so much TROUBLE to divide people (as happens with the formation of "states" ). Do you know, a hundred years ago there was NO SUCH THING as a passport? Such things became formalized only around the time of WWI.

Personally, I see the world becoming more and more like a huge prison (or set of cooperating prisons) each day. And the entire thing is controlled by people with guns and the implied threat that if you don't do what you're TOLD you will be arrested, and if you resist, you will be shot. Of course, it's a comfort to many that the rules are rather OPEN and LAX, and one can do many things unmolested. But the FORM remains that you are TOLD what you can and can't do, and you are being MONITORED more closely and effectively as time goes on (through technology), and you are more and more HELPLESS (as the technologies for killing, and even non-lethal physical control grow and improve). Urges by people to ENHANCE that mentality will only make it worse, IMO.

IMO it's getting to be a time in history when things have to REALLY change. Fundamental to that will be people acquiring the understanding that it's time to just DROP a tremendous amount of the horseshit they've been up to for millenia, and just lead their lives in peace, and stop trying to classify and control others...and stop believing it's necessary to have a LEADER for everything, who tells others what to do. Those are NOT the normal, natural, productive, fulfilling conditions that people need to thrive and live meaningful and enriching lives.

As always, the REAL solution to problems is less getting OTHERS to act differently than it is for OURSELVES to do the right thing. My personal practice is to try to spend MUCH more time and effort worrying about living right action MYSELF, and practically none worrying about ways to try to control or manipulate others to act in certain ways.

You still don't see that i share your views. I just try to figure out a way how to get there.

Since the nationstates EXIST we must find a way to get around them.
That we have the internet is one thing, but if you want uninhibited freedom to go wherever you want to go, etc. it's not enough.

I think the first step should be that nationstates join a club simmilar to what the EU is currently like. Within this zone there should be total freedom to travel, to settle wherever you want, to do busines, to be politically active, maybe it should have one currency as well.

Today, even such a union of nations, wich would only be a moderate first step, is a utopia.
But if that first step isn't being taken, we will get nowhere. We'll just keep being stuck at this level.

If there would ever be such a union of nations, i think you have to be realistic that the first members of that club would likely not be yemen, somalia or pakistan. But eventually even they could join, just like more and more countries have eventually joined the EU.
The first members would likely be all of the european countries, america, canada, brazil, argentina, australia, new-zealand, turkey, japan, (south) korea, thailand, india, peru, chile, south-africa, ghana, singapore and maybe at that time other nations like egypt or russia.

This is the only way i see to get around the concept of nationstates as an inhibiting factor. The other is waiting for the big asteroid.

From what you say, I don't think I've made them clear: I am fundamentally against ALL nation states, for the simple reason that a nation state CAN only exist--only make SENSE existing--with its primary tool/function being FORCE, to make happen whatever it is the nation state wants to make happen.

But it is immoral for people to impose force on others. Again, since that is the PRIMARY FUNCTION of ANY nation/state you would like to imagine, I am against all such states in principle. A nation/state that imposed no force or threat of force at any time would be completely ineffectual (unless you wanted to call a group which ONLY took purely voluntary donations to carry out projects a "state." I wouldn't call it a state).

I'm only interested in interacting with, and could only ever respect, a person or entity which REFRAINS from imposing its will upon others through the threat of violence. No states fit that description, so there are no states I approve of in any sense. It also happens that there have been MANY instances where America has imposed violence upon its citizens and citizens of other countries. Among modern western countries over the last fifty years, America certainly has the WORST record on that issue.

And (since this thread, I assume, is an offshoot of the "justice" thread) let's remember the primary reason why bin Laden decided to attack Americans: because America brought its military into Saudi Arabia. America did that because it preferred to have one dictator (the royal family of Kuwait) rule over a small area rather than another dictator (Saddam Hussein). And why? No doubt because the first arrangement was favored by some American corporate interests. Let's do some arithmetic: Iraq invades Kuwait; dead = 200-800. America initiates a coalition and repels Iraq; over 30,000 dead. bin Laden attacks America; fewer than 3000 dead. Of the players, which entity has brought the most death and destruction to the world?

SWIMfriend stated


since you yourself declared that you dont like any counties. Why compare America to only western countries? There are countries out there with human rights abuses that are much worse than America. There is actually a pretty long list of countries that have been allot worse than America. Why exclude a country from comparison simply because they are not modern western countries? There are countries out there that are NOT modern and westernized because of the evil governments that run them.

America is far from the best when it comes to violence and human rights, however, there is NO COUNTRY ON EARTH that gives, donates, represents, and serves fellow man like America does. I have not researched it, but, I feel its safe to say that America gives more humanitarian aid, more food, more money, more human resources than the rest of the world combined to help global causes like starvation, famine, illiteracy, and disease. Shit we help allot of other countries out there at the expense of our own citizens.

IMO The USA is far from the greatest country out there, But come on, really? The worst?

There is nothing wrong with having a little pride either. I'm not proud of allot of the BS that America does, but I am a proud American.

SWIMfriend you must be a fairly proud American yourself, I noticed you list USA as your location in your user info. Most Americans who post on these board do not.

I compare to western countries because the comparison was made before. Other comparisons are apples and oranges, mostly. Furthermore, the issue of broadest interest is the effect of countries on the REST of the world--America has the most effect, more than ANY other country.

When you talk about "help" that America offers other countries...well, that means nothing to me. First, it can only HELP those others by FORCING its citizens to put up the money--please recall, if you don't pay your taxes the LEAST that will happen to you is that armed men will take away your possessions by force, they may ALSO decide to put you in a cage for quite awhile. If you try to resist them they WILL kill you: resistance is not an option when the men with guns are sent to your door.

Now, it is wonderful isn't it, that American leaders consider themselves so wise that they can justly reach into people's pockets and move the contents to other people's pockets (sarcastic there). Most people don't like to really think about that too much (they're already conditioned to see it as "just" ); but how many really think about the FACT that there's a GUN behind the action, that IN FACT, if the pocket's owner resists, he WILL be killed?

I'm confused how people can find a net amount of charity from an actor who is UNCHARITABLE to one person SO THAT he can use what is taken from that person to be charitable to ANOTHER person.

If there's a shortage of charity in the world today, perhaps it's because most people feel that "charitable contribution" is FORCED upon them.

And you're mis-characterizing what I said. I didn't say America is the "worst" country. I said that among western nations in the last fifty years it has focused the most violence on other countries. That's pretty bad. Bad enough to remark on, surely.

I take no "pride" in my country (this is especially true after Bush started torturing people, and the citizenry mostly YAWNED about it). It's just where I happened to have been born and live. I list it only to be at least somewhat forthcoming about myself while still remaining anonymous. Since it is my position that nations do no net good (and CANNOT, because everything they do MUST be underpinned by the threat of violence), I could hardly be expected to be "proud" of any of them.

Give x with one hand (and announce it loudly to the world), and take 2x away with the other (and hide it very well ) ...


and whats with this " USA gives donates represents fellow man like no other" comment?

I think youre an awesome person ice house and I really respect you because you walk the walk and make your life a living example, but that comment sounds absurd to me.

Not only is it totally subjective (how can you measure this and what base you have to compare to other countries?), but it really makes no sense. What does "USA represent fellow man" mean anyway?

You talk about other nations being "bad" and ignoring human rights, but how did these nations and their leaders get there in the first place? Answer is easy, parasitic relationship of western countries, including but not limited to USA.

frankly, I don't give a crap about 'anti-americanism' because I don't play into nationalistic bullshit.

a very wise colleague told me a couple days ago that people from islamic countries don't hate
us because of our freedom, they hate how we're hypocritical assholes.

Dude, new signature quote.

What I meant by that is, what public and private Americans do to help the rest of the world in the form of technology, education, health, aid, and philathropy. I believe that America does that on a larger more global scale than most other countries of the world.

" USA gives donates represents fellow man like no other"

I was not making a statement about the federal gcvernment. Although, take a look at almost all of the major natural disasters that have happened over the planet in past 50 years and there is always a significant humanitarian response made by the USA in the form of food, aid and logistics, you dont see that same response from most of other countries. Just to give you an example The fire department I work for sent several people to Japan to help with the tsunami and earthquake recovery. Thats just one department of hundreds nation wide that send people off at the governments expense to help. Haiti is another great example. Americans gave to that like no others.

FYI the information in the graph came from Here

Anyone care to guess who the #1 recipient of all that global aid is?

Anyone?

The Answer is Palastine.

FYI

Well benzyme, you know what they say about assholes?

They are like opinions everyone has one and they all stink.