Too many immigration threads on UK P&P?

[ViolentPanda]

He's made various different claims, they seem to vary according to the time of day. He's also claimed involvement in various unlikely campaigns, some of which would make him about 100 years old. Although come to think of it...

You're very sure of yourself.

In which case I'm sure you won't mind producing these claims you say I've made?

Of course, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to produce anything, because we both know that, to put it kindly, you're being a little fibber, don't we?

 

[phildwyer]

Try again when you've grown a pair, eh phil.

No seriously Private, tell us again about the cavalry charge you led at Omdurman. You'd just got the bit when the fuzzie-wuzzies had you surrounded when you nodded off.

 

[Julie]

I think it's dwyer's mum.

Come to support her baby, because we can't have him being picked on.

Of course!

 

[phildwyer]

You're very sure of yourself.

No really Private, I want to hear about Gallipoli again. Remember, the Turks had you pinned down at Yalikavak beach, when Winston asked for volunteers? You were going to tell us more after you'd had your meds.

 

[Julie]

Hiya J.

Bear in mind that phil, believing himself omniscient, does in fact think of himself as representing *everyone*.

Even when the visual evidence says otherwise.

And he's frothing at the mouth right now. I bet his blood pressure is through the roof.

Now, now Phil - calm down.

And keep smiling

 

[becky p]

What does humility have to do with the piece you quoted?

Nothing, as far as I can see.

Should I add "makes irrelevant observations" to "makes insinuations of homosexuality", or do you have a point?

You seem devoid of humility and as for homosexuality,your sexuality is of no interest to me.Thanks all the same.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think it's dwyer's mum.

You mean he isn't a homonculus?

 

[phildwyer]

You seem devoid of humility and as for homosexuality,your sexuality is of no interest to me.

Or indeed to anyone else, I'll warrant.

 

[becky p]

You're very sure of yourself.

In which case I'm sure you won't mind producing these claims you say I've made?

Of course, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to produce anything, because we both know that, to put it kindly, you're being a little fibber, don't we?

Do you really expect my son to go through all 20,000 of your posts.
You probably do actually don't you.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You seem devoid of humility...

Well, it's hard to lve up to the example you set, you know.

and as for homosexuality,your sexuality is of no interest to me.Thanks all the same.

In which case why make pathetic snidey comments about me and another poster?

You don't appear to adhere to the high standards you demand from other posters, dearie. That makes you a hypocrite.

 

[phildwyer]

Do you really expect my son to go through all 20,000 of your posts.
You probably do actually don't you.

Don't worry Mum, Private Panda's imagined heroics are a constant source of entertainment. Now then Private, tell us again how you saved Clive's life at the battle of Plassey.

 

[phildwyer]

In which case why make pathetic snidey comments about me and another poster?

Its a brutal tactic alright, eh soldier?

 

[phildwyer]

You don't appear to adhere to the high standards you demand from other posters, dearie. That makes you a hypocrite.

"Dearie?" That makes you a sexist, Private. We'll have none of your barrack-room banter here.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Do you really expect my son to go through all 20,000 of your posts.
You probably do actually don't you.

That's why I recommended he use the search engine.

You know, that thing where you enter a keyword and a poster's name?

I can see why you're fixated on humility now. You've got so much to be humble about.

 

[phildwyer]

That's why I recommended he use the search engine.

But surely there's no need for that now you're here in person, Private. I mean, you wouldn't *lie* to us, now would you? Right, please get on with the story. You'd just entered Pompey's tent on the night before Pharsalia...

 

[Lock&Light]

Splitting hairs Phil? Not like you ...

I'm sorry to see that you are still being so light-weight, Jul.

 

[Lock&Light]

Are you a returning banned poster? For someone who has seemingly been here for 5 minutes, you're very bloody bold.

I could have sworn I just heard Dubversion make an utterance.

 

[Sweaty Betty]

Hang on, are you serious thats dwyers mum?....how surreal...

 

[phildwyer]

Hang on, are you serious thats dwyers mum?....how surreal...

Nah, just kidding. Violent Panda's my Mum really.

 

[Sweaty Betty]

Nah, just kidding. Violent Panda's my Mum really.

How cosy that must be for you both

 

[ViolentPanda]

But surely there's no need for that now you're here in person, Private. I mean, you wouldn't *lie* to us, now would you? Right, please get on with the story. You'd just entered Pompey's tent on the night before Pharsalia...

So I'll take this as an admission of your trollery and utter inability to support the claims you made, shall I?

 

[ViolentPanda]

How cosy that must be for you both

If old sweaty-palms were any offspring of mine I'd have disowned him long ago.

 

[nino_savatte]

Not nitpicking, I just wasn't sure if it was a mistake on your part. If you said "it doesn't form itself out of something" it would have supported what you said better. I'm just baffled as to what you were arguing now.



We're getting somewhere here, but first I would point out that what you say seems to be circular - the nation is created by the nation state. So why is the nation state national? How come there are multinational states like the UK?

But leaving that aside I think you are correct to identify national myths, notions of eternal nations, core national values and other types of unchanging national identities etc etc. This type of nationalism is false ideology. But the fact that nations are not god given entities with key identifiable characteristics does not mean they do not have an historical existance. You have the same idea of what nations are as nationalists of this sort do, you add that nations do not exist. I prefer to say that nationalists of this sort are just talking bollocks.



Yes...



But how can nationalism have any flaws if nations do not exist. It would be like the belief in the tooth fairy. Daft but harmless. How did nation-states come about? You don't get tooth-fairy states.



Did I really say you are engaging in simplistic anti-nationalism? My apologies if I did. You are merely declaring yourself in favour of simplistic anti-nationalism - you call this "internationalism". You have yet to identify what nationalism is, so you have yet coherently explain what you but it defently sounds simplistic. How do you apply your internationalist principles in practice? Why do two different nationalist organisations such as the BNP and SSP have nothing in common? Why do you take such different attitudes to them if they are both nationalist?

In short I have no reason to think that your stated beliefs are your real beliefs. Your real beliefs are much more complex and nuanced. In reality you are not a simplistic anti-nationalist even if you like to think you are.



Yes, of course. I would like to see nations wither away one day, but I don't see how simplistic anti-nationalism would achieve this.

Mind you, I doubt anyone here sees nationalism as flawless...

You keep repeating this mantra of "simplistic anti-nationalism". You also keep mentioning the BNP and and the SSP together in the same sentence as if the two are somehow related. Perhaps you really mean the SNP? The SSP is a Trotskyite party, whereas the SNP is a nationalist party formed from two ideologically disparate parties: The National Party and the Scottish Party. Oh and you did accuse me of "simplistic anti-nationalism". Perhaps you should have a reread of your posts - non?

But how can nationalism have any flaws if nations do not exist. It would be like the belief in the tooth fairy. Daft but harmless. How did nation-states come about? You don't get tooth-fairy states.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but I think I answered your question. Though you seem rather too keen on pushing this nonsense about "simplistic anti-nationalism". I asked you to tell me where this "simplicity" exists in my posts but thus far, you have failed to identify it.

In short I have no reason to think that your stated beliefs are your real beliefs. Your real beliefs are much more complex and nuanced. In reality you are not a simplistic anti-nationalist even if you like to think you are.

I suppose I should be grateful for this backhanded compliment. I'm not.

If you said "it doesn't form itself out of something" it would have supported what you said better.

Nonsense, what I said works just as well, if not better. It was grammatically correct. Though I suspect that you were trying to score a cheap grammatical point.

 

[nino_savatte]

Fair enough, but this would tend to make nation states more real and less like ideological constructs than [other] organisations. Territory is a physical property after all. Wealth has economic reality. Military domination is a social reality.

[/QUOTE]

I think you're reading something else, not my posts.

By the way I appreciate that I am taking the easy option arguing that nation states are real rather than arguing nations are real. Possibly a bit cowardly - but it suffices for my purposes. Feel free to claim that nation states are real but nations aren't and then watch me try to get out of that one!

Neither thing is real. People are more inclined to identify with their locale than a nation-state. A national identity tends to be projected onto people by the state. It is the state who declares what constitutes the national identity, not the citizens.

 

[Knotted]

You keep repeating this mantra of "simplistic anti-nationalism". You also keep mentioning the BNP and and the SSP together in the same sentence as if the two are somehow related. Perhaps you really mean the SNP? The SSP is a Trotskyite party, whereas the SNP is a nationalist party formed from two ideologically disparate parties: The National Party and the Scottish Party. Oh and you did accuse me of "simplistic anti-nationalism". Perhaps you should have a reread of your posts - non?

OK then, I didn't accuse you of simplistic anti-nationalism. I said you needed more sophisticated ideas than simplistic anti-nationalism. I did not say that you applied your ideas. You cannot apply your ideas with respect to the SSP & the BNP. So I do not accuse you of anything logical.

By the why the SSP is not "Trotskyite". It is nationalist. I do not see the BNP and SSP as related, even ideologically. This was my point, I'll explain at greater if necessary.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but I think I answered your question. Though you seem rather too keen on pushing this nonsense about "simplistic anti-nationalism". I asked you to tell me where this "simplicity" exists in my posts but thus far, you have failed to identify it.

Oh, that's very easy. Your OP was anti-nationalist. It was also very simplistic.

I suppose I should be grateful for this backhanded compliment. I'm not.

Nonsense, what I said works just as well, if not better. It was grammatically correct. Though I suspect that you were trying to score a cheap grammatical point.

Believe that if you must. What you said was grammatically correct. Thankyou for clarifying what you meant.

 

[Knotted]

I think you're reading something else, not my posts.
[/QUOTE]

I think you're ignoring the posts that I am replying to when you reply to me. Read the post I was responding to, then read my post, then read your post and then you will see what I mean.

Neither thing is real. People are more inclined to identify with their locale than a nation-state. A national identity tends to be projected onto people by the state. It is the state who declares what constitutes the national identity, not the citizens.

What, the nation state isn't real? So we don't have borders controls, police, the army, all this is imaginary?

 

[nino_savatte]

I think you're reading something else, not my posts.

I think you're ignoring the posts that I am replying to when you reply to me. Read the post I was responding to, then read my post, then read your post and then you will see what I mean.



What, the nation state isn't real? So we don't have borders controls, police, the army, all this is imaginary?

[/QUOTE]

I haven't ignored anything, amigo. You've decided to misread and misprepresent what I've written. Presumably you think this is all very funny.

I said the nation-state is a construct, I never said it wasn't real in the physical sense.

I look forward to more of your replies. They ought to be equally as entertaining as this one was.

 

[nino_savatte]

OK then, I didn't accuse you of simplistic anti-nationalism. I said you needed more sophisticated ideas than simplistic anti-nationalism. I did not say that you applied your ideas. You cannot apply your ideas with respect to the SSP & the BNP. So I do not accuse you of anything logical.

By the why the SSP is not "Trotskyite". It is nationalist. I do not see the BNP and SSP as related, even ideologically. This was my point, I'll explain at greater if necessary.



Oh, that's very easy. Your OP was anti-nationalist. It was also very simplistic.





Believe that if you must. What you said was grammatically correct. Thankyou for clarifying what you meant.

The SSP is not a nationalist party. They are a socialist (trotskyite) party that campaigns for Scottish independence. I think there is a distinction between nationalism and a desire for independence. Though I fail to see the connection between an overtly neo-Nazi party and a socialist party.

Your OP was anti-nationalist.

Do you find that offensive? Are you a nationalist? I don't think it was particularly "anti-nationalist".

I said you needed more sophisticated ideas than simplistic anti-nationalism.

You like repeating yourself. You seem to be the only one who thinks this way.

Here it is again

Oh, that's very easy. Your OP was anti-nationalist. It was also very simplistic.

More repetition. Do you work in the PR industry? This appears to be the sum total of your argument.

 

[nino_savatte]

Recently there have been a rash of immigration threads on UK P&P and one suspects that the motivation behind starting such threads isn't done entirely for reasons of proper discussion. Some of those starting such threads claim that they are not "anti-immigrant" but are against the idea of so-called" economic migration". However when one unpacks what the thread-starter has posted, it becomes clear that they have some rather quaint ideas regarding capitalism, borders, nation-states and migration that verges on the xenophobic. Some posters will claim that they are "internationalists" but will maintain that "economic migration" is wrong and that tighter controls should be imposed at borders and people should be prevented from emigrating, but they offer no solutions to the 'problem'.

For me, there appears to be two types of internationalism: there is one version that works to preserve the concept of the nation-state and, rather than working for the abolition of states and borders, works within a capitalistic framework and stresses "co-operation" between nation-states. There is another form, to which I would subscribe, that maintains that the nation-state is part of the problem and borders need to come down for the sake of world peace and freedom. The former embraces the classic liberal notion of "free trade", while the latter embraces "fair trade".

Those who call for greater "border controls" while calling themselves "socialists" ignore the bigger picture: namely the way in which a country's markets can be dominated by a larger global power in the name of "free trade". Economic migration is caused by the effect of neo-liberal economic policies that have been imposed on that country by the US. To blame immigrants for the economic malaise of a particular nation-state is nothing more or less than scapegoating.

I see no simplistic anti-nationalism here. Funny how Knotted continues to miss some of the other points I made. I wonder why?

 

[ViolentPanda]

What, the nation state isn't real? So we don't have borders controls, police, the army, all this is imaginary?

The things you mention are physical manifestations of "the state", i.e. the apparatus by which a nation is ruled/governed, they don't constitute evidence for the existence of the "nation-state" in the way you appear to be implying.

IMHO you're taking the concepts of "nation" and "state", and viewing the concept of "nation-state" merely as a fusion of the two preceding concepts, which it isn't.
Or, at least, that isn't all it is. It's also about the fusion of cultural, linguistic and ethno-religious identities into a (sometimes more, sometimes less) functional whole, in other words it's an ideological operation that attempts to fuse the parts into a totality that is an "imagined community" (TM Benedict Anderson) of people who share a common bond or set of bonds.

Anderson explains it a lot better than I can.