is one ever truly satisfied by a reason- i apologise, i dare not besmirch the good word- a premise rather, supported by a frail and flimsy ‘just because’? it is in this regard that a postulate may be formed by the insufficiency of such evidence, for the lack of a better term, and certainly, more than anything else, basta no es bastante bien, por siempre! there must be hard facts and a logical flow of both reasoning and argument, in order to convince the thinking individual that such a premise is truly worth considering- a is a, and it must be decided on merits alone.
subsequently, this is reflected on the concept of ‘nationalism’- an arbitrary, archaic and certainly, absurd form of collectivism. it is, in its simplest and basest form, a group of people, bonding together not for a cause measured by an objective standard or a criteria of merits, but on the silly premise of jus soli, further made worse by the infection and sepsis that is the concept of patria. on this firm bedrock (i am of course, wet and drenched with sarcasm), a foundation is consequently built- that of social constructs and norms, that of the common good and public welfare, and that of the nation itself; a being is born in this world and more importantly, in this paradigm, with not much of a choice, and is simply thrust into the group concept irrelevant of personal preference. accordingly, value judgments are borne and created, immediately condemning the individual, who within his or her rights, refuses to follow along the absurdly sentimental and the maudlin malaise: how unpatriotic! furthermore, this is complicated by a set of ‘responsibilities’ and ‘obligations’, either of symbolism and signs or substance, arising from this fundamental fault, that of shared histories and common destinies (really? i do believe i haven’t met you and thus share a history nor do i intend to in the near future and entwine my destiny with yours) forcing the individual to surrender his rights and submit to the whims of the masses. for instance, there is a duty, imposed sadly by law, to sing the national anthem or through programs of social justice (whatever that means), to help one’s fellow countrymen, regardless of whether one sincerely means such ridiculously fantastic utterances put into melody (sorry but i fear i do not intend to waste my blood nor my life to defend a piece of land or a group of people i do not even know) or participate in the idiocy of subsidies and socialist charity. accordingly, the individual who choose another path to tread and bravely walk on, is not only punished by senseless statutes (RA 8491, sections 48-50- the Philippine Flag Law and its penalties; imprisonment for being irreverent to a piece of cloth, seriously…) but also that the ‘offender’, as i mentioned in passing earlier, is branded with the scarlet letter and social stigma of being unpatriotic-a cruel and unusual punishment as it steals from the individual his human dignity.
:next up the people’s states… states of being comfortably numb.
