UK far right trouble

[mexico1970]

No, I think that is multiculturalism. :-)

Which also has no need for “patriotism”.

In fact, patriotism usually inhibits multiculturalism, rather than enables it.

People who are proud of their culture are the same as patriotic or nationalistic people, they want to keep what is familiar to them relevant.

 

[SebastianBlue]

People who are proud of their culture are the same as patriotic or nationalistic people, they want to keep what is familiar to them relevant.

I don’t agree they are the same things, but I think we are no going in a bit of a circle, so we’ll have to just agree to disagree. :-)

 

[youngbob]

Here's the "Arab man" who was arrested with the knife near the vigil. Yet another far-right lie that was peddled on here by numerous posters who still aren't banned despite breaking the CoC numerous times.

 

[mexico1970]

Here's the "Arab man" who was arrested with the knife near the vigil. Yet another far-right lie that was peddled on here by numerous posters who still aren't banned despite breaking the CoC numerous times.

View attachment 127126

Should be sent down for a considerable stretch along with any other cunts who carry knives, no excuses.

 

[mackenzie]

It will be exactly the same as the last shower.

He's part of the same political class as Sunak et al.

On net zero, mass immigration, individual liberty and giving a fuck about the poorest members of society he stands shoulder to shoulder with his immediate predecessors.

I honestly think he isn't/doesnt

 

[youngbob]

Just been looking up where the bloke with the machete was arrested. Princes Street, a few hundred yards from where the vigil was. Good on the coppers for getting hold of him before he did anything, whatever he was planning to do. But trying to claim the riots elsewhere in the town have anything to do with it is a bit of a stretch. The "protests" outside the mosque were planned way earlier today and the Southport Mosque is over a mile away from where the vigil was. There's very little chance the riots were "in response" to the bloke who was arrested considering it all happened simultaneously.

This much was obvious straight away. Didn't stop the usual suspects pushing lies, did it?

 

[vmsuhail]

Just because it may have been a driver in WW2 doesn’t make patriotism beneficial. Or mean that we should embrace the concept or practice today.

Would you say the patriotism of the German or Italian soldiers was beneficial in WW2? Or the patriotism that drove Argentina to attempt to take the Falklands?

Again, patriotism is a love and devotion to an abstract political unit, most often ignoring the complexity and value of the humans residing within that political unit. It is no more necessary to combat or prevent injustice than love and devotion to religious dogma is to prevent or combat unethical behaviour. In fact, it is often the driver of injustice, because people can be convinced to do truly horrific things in the “name of their nation” (which often symbolises an ethnic affinity and/or political ideology). It has been used to justify all manner of horrific undertakings, often against people residing in the political unit that “patriots” deem not actually “belonging” to the political unit or simply not being sufficiently “patriotic”. See the “they’re not real Americans or Brits” nonsense with Jewish people in the US and UK, or with Muslims (or anyone looking Middle Eastern), especially after 9/11 (or countless other examples throughout our history, especially when it came to Indian people we brought to the UK).

Just because patriotism was used as a driver in the past doesn’t mean it should be today, especially after we have learned it is a dangerous concept and practice which has actually caused far more suffering, death, and destruction than it has ever prevented or remedied.

My comments are on what we should do moving forward, knowing what we know now. And anyone that has a passing understanding of history should know patriotism is a destructive concept and practice (which enters the realm of ideology), even for those supposedly on the “good” side.

It is a dogma, like any other.

I think the right word you're looking for is "nationalism". Patriotism doesn't entail hate of other nations or other people within the state.

 

[youngbob]

No, I think that is multiculturalism. :-)

Which also has no need for “patriotism”.

In fact, patriotism usually inhibits multiculturalism, rather than enables it, because patriotism is predicated on a “common” understanding of what the abstract political unit is meant to “represent” so that one can possess a love and devotion to that representation. And, in turn, the characteristics and beliefs people within the political unit are meant to hold are enforced.

Not in every case. Indians and Pakistanis coming together to cheer on England, the country they love and call home.

 

[ballbag]

Here's the "Arab man" who was arrested with the knife near the vigil. Yet another far-right lie that was peddled on here by numerous posters who still aren't banned despite breaking the CoC numerous times.

View attachment 127126

The three S's these days are:
Shit, sunbed, salon.

What a **** he looks.

 

[AliBobbyJ]

You don’t need patriotism to undertake anything you mentioned. People can stand up to fascism without patriotism, just as people can act ethically without being religious.

And it is important to recognise that “patriotism” was one of the main drivers of most of the wars humanity has seen over the last few centuries.

So, you are arguing that patriotism is necessary to fight patriotism.

You are prescribing a need for a love and devotion to an abstract political unit to be a “good” person (or group of people) when no such need exists.

In fact, patriotism has caused far more suffering, death, and destruction than it has ever remedied.

First, I apologize for a long-winded post away from the main thread, one which might not interest many.
I've long had a liking for George Orwell's writings on patriotism; my own feelings coincide with his and I've mentioned him in previous posts above. See parts of his essays The Lion and the Unicorn, Politics & the English Language and Notes on Nationalism, all written during the Second World War. Simplifying, he described patriotism as "good" and nationalism as "bad", with the former encompassing a love of the English countryside, literature, pubs, cricket and possibly sheepdogs (though I'm making that up) and the latter as xenophobic and aggressive. And I've taken this sentiment as gospel over the years. But just this morning I found something that questioned this comfortable view of patriotic virtue and nationalistic vice. It's an essay (2022) by someone called David Robjant "The patriotic prejudice of George Orwell." Too long and in places a bit too much for my ageing brain to summarize, but it argues that while for some English people the 2nd W.W. was a war against Fascism, thus allowing those of a liberal conscience also to celebrate their patriotism, for others (most others?) it was a war against foreigners, and thus a nationalist thing. It goes on to say that Orwell's celebration of Englishness wouldn't have sat well with the Irish, Scots, or people of India. And it includes a gently satirical refrain from the old Flanders and Swann comedy duo: "The English are moral, the English are good, And clever and modest and misunderstood." (The whole song is worth a listen if you like that sort of thing.) Anyway, if anyone fancies delving deeper into this patriot v. nationalist argument, go look up Robjant's article.

Meanwhile I hope the streets of England are kept clear of the neanderthals in the coming days and the families in Southport get some peace and privacy.