This is a bonus post!

I'm calling out circumstantial dross stated as fact. It's always a good way to ruin an argument, is emotion and unqualified opinion with a good dose of blatant misrepresentation. At best it's lazy, at worst it's wilfully ignorant. Maybe that's a fact! Hey! There you go.

The minority vote could certainly swing an election, but only as a component of a large slice of the majority vote. And the irony here is that it would mean that the majority that you seem to be attempting to constantly carry the flag for doesn't actually exist.

That also means that, dare I say it, you could actually be the minority... Fancy that. Following your logic, maybe you'd get more attention then! Such delicious irony.

Finally, your USA comparison is not 100% fair, we're nowhere near that. There is way more focus on minority votes in the states as they are larger and more powerful as a voting group, and the population is way more polarised and diverse. The minority vote is very small here in comparison – it is only really decisive in London – even Labour swing seats in Peterborough, reading and Bedford only have 1/5 minorities.

Oh, and I do agree on your electioneering point.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Objection.

Misrepresentation. That is not my point. It’s your take on it reframed as my point, which also has the added bonus of allowing you to bring The us vs them, L vs R tired old narrative back into it.

Also I can only speak for myself, but I would wager that many others in this country, of all different backgrounds, not just classical nationalists, harbingers of doom and those who lived though the 70s, are proud of our country and to be British. (Well possibly less at the moment but that’s off topic). It also could be argued that a lot of those people don’t use that pride as a tool of division, ownership, exclusivity or narrow it’s meaning to give ourselves purpose.

Also by your logic, intentionally or not, you are implying that only people that share your ideologies can ‘be proud of our country’. It’s not a dirty thing.

Being British, or living in this country evokes feelings of pride for many different people for many different reasons.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

This is fair if you remove some of the sentence

'The left opened this can of worms /.../ yet presented the celebration of home national culture as racist or extreme.'

You can and should be able to celebrate both without prejudice.

The problem is, there are a great deal of people who use the nationalist label to further their own extreme anti-minority and in some cases racist ideologies. This, coupled with your point about the attitudes of the left makes it even easier for nationalism to be demonised. If we have to talk about L/R yet again, it's obviously both sides that have contributed to it.

I certainly don't believe that expressing love of or pride in ones country is racist or extreme. It is evident that some people use it as a mask to hide behind while actually holding extreme ideologies, which taints the term, gives fuel to the left and simply adds to the nationalist = racist narrative.

This also goes to the heart of my original point that I dislike nationalism being taken over to represent anti-minority and ins some unfortunate cases racist views. You can be nationalist without them.

Hypocrisy – I never said the 'left' were exempt from creating division. Or that I am in any way affiliated or speaking for them, unlike some on this forum on both sides of their perceived fences. It exists on both sides, but simply pointing out an obvious fact that both sides are at it doesn't make it any less relevant to the part you have highlighted within the point I was making.

'As I say, I regard what you are referring to as shallow and very limited. A pride in a generalised almost meaningless reframing of nationalism....that ultimately no one takes seriously. '

As this bit is pretty subjective, I'd be interested in what your particular brand of patriotism/nationalism means, to help me better understand your point of view. you're talking about it but not really fleshing it out. I'd also be interested in whether you feel your explanation is a majority held view, or a minority one.

Misrepresentation? Well, the point wasn't aimed exclusively at you. Your point raised the issue for me certainly and I used words you typed out but the point is a general one.

The way it was worded effectively implied that I am one of the aforementioned 'nihilists and cultural marxists'. It also ignored the context of the original line. You're also not speaking to hundreds. You're speaking to about 3 people, with too much time on their hands. And, unsurprisingly *sigh* pulled it back to the safe world of Left vs. Right to muddy the waters which you lot do seem to love doing, rather than actually debating clearly and to the point.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Well, in a free country yes. However, it's divisive to many.

Personally I see it as fine to celebrate your 'heritage' if that's different and all of us come from multiple lines of heritage. For example many Americans do this, however they don't really celebrate a separate nationality to American.

So you think that 'a great deal of people' are racist and express that via their nationalism?

Here I think is where we see the problem. It's two fold. Firstly who is and what is a racist appears to be very fluid depending upon who defines it. Also, like I stated in the previous post, there appears to be no issues with the expression of patriotism of foreign pride in the country regardless of how divisive its influence. Isn't this an imbalance if not a hypocrisy.

Personally, I'm not seeing this 'great deal of people' problem. Unless we want a realistic discussion about what racism actually is....like most things a spectrum rather than a binary reality.

By definition the celebration of a national identity is going to be divisive to those that don't identify with it. That in my view is where most of the catcalls of racism come from.

My well trodden contention is that the socialist left's attitude of aggression towards national identity yet encouraged celebration of foreign identity has exacerbated the problems of division and we are suffering for it generations down the line far more than could have been the case.

Fair enough.

The adult who lives without hypocrisy hasn't been born yet. Purity testing is often just an exercise in self delusion.

My brand can be summed up pretty much in one word....allegiance. It's not based on skin colour or someone's past. It's based upon allegiance to and investment in the national identity. For example, those Afghan interpreters should be able to stay in the UK. I completely back the defence secretary on that. A nation should reward genuine allegiance.

I feel it's a majority view, Brexit for example was mainly an expression of national identity over economic risk. However, maybe some Pew data would be a better source point.

I've no problems with you thinking this. However, I don't know you to pinpoint you as a nihilist or cultural marxist. Not that I regard these as insult terms even if I'm opposed to both philosophies as not beneficial......especially Marxism (though both contain elements of truth to them).

No, from what I've read from you it appears you actually seem to be a person on the left with their head screwed on reasonably securely.

I don't think anyone is seriously regarding the politics section of Hol as some form of conduit for reaching significant numbers of people or changing minds.

It's venting with the occasionally nice opportunity to tackle issues seriously with those willing to examine them.

But mostly venting.

Sure, I and others like to rant about what we regard as the negative consequences of left wing politics.

I certainly blame the left for quite a lot it's true.....though the right are not free from it either. For example, at the moment....excepting economic policy....I'm not seeing much difference between the main right and left parties on social policy.

Sure, the left and right labels are catch alls....but that's fine if you are talking generally. If people want to engage is serious debates about political philosophies then obviously the definitions are going to be more specific.

Edited by Stirlingsays (03 May 2018 4.43pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I'm certainly guilty of this. It's a valid criticism. Still, I think you can have both. Discussions can be quite heated and silly or be actual serious discussion on politics. I think on a general politics forum this approach is fair enough. Political diversity of approach if you like.

I tend to treat different posters differently. Perhaps I should be more noble and above it all but while I did alright essentially I grew up on a council estate and that means you don't get to ignore what you don't like. So, I try to treat how I find. ....It's only really the snowflakes on both sides that cause the problems.

Society is essentially a collection of loosely defined groups working together and sometimes against each other.

The idea of a nationality is to have a mechanism that unifies those groups towards a common shared interest...ie the country's perceived self interests.

I'm obviously a supporter of a nationalistic inclination. However, like all ideologies it can be taken to its poles (unintended but a slightly amusing pun considering I'm living in East Anglia).

Those nationalists who only regard English or British or even European identity as racial and hence only white are certainly a group. How aggressive or problematical they are is certainly over stated in my view. Certainly there will be cases though and anyone being violent to another because of race is an idiot.

Anyway I don't agree that a person's genes has to define their nationality. However, I certainly think allegiance to a nation is very important to a country's future and the rise of globalisation and a 'no borders' mindsets is direct opposition to this.....integration into a country just can't work this way.

What airtime? I think the national broadcasters see themselves as TV versions of the Guardian. Instead you get progressive attitudes implicitly and explicitly pushed and anything opposed to it demonsied. Anything as overt as nationalism is airbrushed out of TV. Unless you regard toffs jumping about to classical music at the Proms once a year as sufficient.

Or similarly you could just vent about it on here, which would be just as valid as anything your political opponents do.

I'm a supporter of non violent competing worldviews and ideologies having their say in the marketplace of ideas. Personally I only regard myself as a zealot over the principles of secularism....which is the old classical liberalism of allowing free expression to happen (not to be confused with progressive liberalism of course) The current dominance of progressive ideas in the space of public discourse would have never arisen in a society that excluded opposition to its ideas. Rather amusingly I see many of today's progressives looking to hypocritically ban or punish expressions of political dissent.....their attitudes to free speech are limited to what they broadly agree with....they won't even recognise the contradiction.

Edited by Stirlingsays (03 May 2018 4.26pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

A ridiculous thread where a handful of old white gits assert their non-existent right to represent a 'majority' who just happen to have identical views to their own.

And if anyone's view is not identical to theirs they must be 'undermining Britain'.

Throw in the usual left-right and communist-fascist tosh from 50 years ago in relation to every subject on the planet and there you have it.

Better a minority of one able to think for yourself.

That's better........

COYP