Patriotism is an interesting concept in that it’s excepted to mean something positive to all of us and certainly seen as a morally marketable trait that can fit into any definition you want for it.+

Tolstoy, found it both stupid and immoral. It is stupid because every patriot holds his own country to be the best, which obviously negates all other countries.+
It is immoral because it enjoins us to promote our country’s interests at the expense of all other countries, employing any means, including war. It is thus at odds with the most basic rule of morality, which tells us not to do to others what we would not want them to do to us+
My sincere belief is that patriotism of a personal nature, which does not impede on personal and physical liberties of any other, is not only welcome but perhaps somewhat needed.

But isn’t adherence to a more humane code of life much better than nationalistic patriotism?+
Göring said, “people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”+
We find a strange method in the workings of patriotism or nationalism (these concepts have been used interchangeably) of how allegiance to a certain idea is considered patriotism which leaves very little wiggle room for any other ideology to be accepted as even acceptable+
For example, how do you find space for critically examining state policy both internally toward minorities and externally within the confines of patriotism? In that, wouldn’t it be just used to censor criticism?+
Look at us, eating beef is anti-national, so is screening certain documentaries, opining that caste exists or making jokes, speaking against a draconian martial law, or against a specific party line, etc.

All these ideas are considered anti-patriotic now.+
How can a society every evolve out of its current moral paradigm if any exchange of opposing ideas is banned under the guise of anti patriotism? +
On the other side, what does not make us unpatriotic though is reducing the funding on Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) by 60%, while malnourishment rates in many Indian states are at the lowest in the world. +
The frame work of patriotism doesn’t account for an overall reduction in national health spending (including tobacco-induced cancer and AIDS research); reduction in corporate tax rates; any instance of crony capitalism etc+
Our pride does not suffer a mini aneurysm with Khairlanji or Bathani Tola or Manorama Devi or Konan Poshpora or Kilvenmani or mass graves in Bastar or Shopian and Mubina Gani, and Mrs. Ahanjaobi+
Acc to National Crime Bureau at least two Dalits were assaulted each hour in India.

Just between 2006-11 in North-East, about 7,000 rape case accusations and more than 11,000 kidnapping cases accusations were made against the Indian Army isn’t anti national. +
Tagore said, Patriotism can’t be our final spiritual shelter. I will not buy glass for the price of diamonds and I will never allow patriotism to triumph over humanity as long as I live.”+
I sometimes fear that those who are defining patriotism today will end up one day describing Rabindranath Tagore as anti patriotic, if they read that is. +
We are looking toward a future of mechanical, sterile ideas and people who’re but clones of each other. And yes, a patriotic state. /End.

More from Society

Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause


I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.

I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views

I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.

I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.
I’ll address every nonsense argument and lie used to defend the suicidal gender ideology Thats in vogue today:

3:45 - “So what if you don’t have gametes?”

It’s called a birth defect. You’re still male or female.


~5:00 *nonsense trying to say the sexes of seahorses could be swapped coz male carry the eggs*

male doesn’t produce eggs, he produces the sperm. He’s still the male. If I impregnated a chick then carried the amniotic sac in a backpack ‘til the baby was done I’ll still be male🤦‍♂️

5:10 - we could say there’s 4 sexes of fruit fly cause there’s 3 producers of different sized sperm

No. They’re still producing sperm. They’re males. This is idiotic. Is this whole video like this? (Probably. 99% likely. Abandon hope.)

~6:10 - hermaphroditism and sequential hermaphroditism exists therefore....

No. Some animals being hermaphrodites, which is meaningless w/o the existence of binary sex to contrast it to, still doesn’t make gender ideology or transgenderism valid.

Intersex ≠ transgenderism 🙄

6:20 - bilateral gynandromorphism is a disorder in some species (not in humans). Has nothing to do w/ “gender” or transgenderism.

Ova-testes in humans are also a disorder, usually found in those w/ the karyotype disorders that you ppl also try to appropriate (extra X’s/Y’s).

You May Also Like