It interests me that territory and safe borders are pretty meaningless in the face of this pandemic and climate collapse. I would say that to a certain extent (and it is not the whole answer) empathy is a more basic ingredient for a stable society than patriotism or nationalism.
Sputnik and RT are government controlled. New York Times isn't. Editorial bias of privately own media is not state-controlled propaganda.
The pandemic was managed from the beginning in the worst possible way in Europe, it's true. That doesn't mean territory and safe borders are meaningless, it only means that European decision makers are idiots. Empathy is important, but not nearly as important as safety. One can't afford to be empathic if one has to constantly watch own back for enemies.
Don't equate patriotism with nationalism. Patriotism is a love of home and country, and one's willingness to fight to preserve one's own standards and values when under attack. Nationalism in contrast is 'supremacism'. They believe that their own ethnicity and standards are superior to that of others, and therefore should be imposed on others - either that, or others should be under their control. Even though Islam is considered a faith and not a 'nationalist state', it is also supremacist, in that it is a preservation of their own medieval Arab culture which to them was perfection. That wouldn't matter if imposing it on others wasn't part of their faith. By the same token, liberalism is also supremacism, since they see their own cultural liberal views as being superior and therefore they too should be imposed on others. Anyway, nothing should ever be imposed on others. The smaller a government the more freedoms people have. I say we return to City/States, Principalities and Kingdoms. GREETINGS! At least I had nothing to gain, not money or elusive fame, can those in charge now say the same? My problem was I feared my head that I might lose it and be dead and gave away my rights instead. And this is why you foolish folk are looked upon now as a joke controlled by every criminal bloke who can buy the media - Jeannette
All the MSM are owned by 6 corporations, (thanks to Bill Clinton), and these corporations are the major supporters and donors of our elected officials. So tell me what's worse, having the media controlled by the government, or the government controlled by the media and the owners of the corporations? Journalists and newspapers are supposed to present their own views and slant on things, but that's not what we're seeing. What we're seeing is that every MSM will print the exact same story in exactly the same way. They will put in the same parts, and they will leave out the same parts, so instead of journalists what we have are stenographers. Journalism doesn't exist in most of the Western world, with the exception of small town and foreign newspapers and the internet. Alternative views are allowed on the internet somewhat because the audience is limited. But even there, I keep reading complaints of censorship, and how some people had to switch to other platforms such as Patreon, Vimeo etc., to present their views.
Thank you for this post and the distinction you draw. When soldiers are drafted as has happened they seem obliged to buy into what others call the manifestations of patriotism even if they don't want to. I might be inclined to fight against something but not for what others describe as my country.
, Religious faith solves that problem somewhat, depending of course on the extent of one's faith. If a person believe that their welfare is not always chance, but is in the hands of another it does gives a sense of peace. Anyway, these are my feelings.
Like the Trump slogan. Only problem for both America or Britain is which point in the past is 'again' supposed to be referring to.
Well you mention 'welfare' and I note that takes you back to 1833 which was before the Poor Laws happened in 1834. Do you mean then to make Britain great again is to revert to the mores of 1833? The first purpose built Mosque was in 1889. One of the first notable UK political liberals was Charles James Fox who died in 1806, so Liberal ideas were knocking around the intelligentsia before then, almost certainly as far back as the 1750's. So are you able to be more precise as to when again is supposed to refer to?
Today's neoliberals are just a mimic to classical liberals. Let's start with the Round table and king Arthur, shall we?
You seem to have an internalised concept as to when 'again' is supposed to refer to. There is a chance that you alone hold that concept. Those others who want to 'Make America Great Again' seem to have similarly got an internalised notion as to when America was supposed to be great, prior to some vague decline. For example do Americans mean the time America was embroiled in war in Vietnam as their greatest point in the past? Or for the British when they codified the slave trade? The call to make anywhere great again (Egypt would be an interesting consideration) is really a call to invent any imagined fantasy a person wants to indulge in.
I think most British would suggest June 18th 1944! What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, “This was their finest hour.” I actually think that is typically british.
My opinion of what would make America great again, differs from Trump's. He sees it in materialism and the amount of power we can exert. To me that matters only if it's commensurate to our integrity and compassion - something we lost 60 years ago to be exact. Before that we were the 'America, America' of Elias Kazan.
In 1940 a husband couldn't be prosecuted for raping their wife in the UK. Not the golden age for everybody. The slogan 'Make (anywhere) Great Again' is jingoistic for those who are lazy in their thinking, it also suggests jam tomorrow which experience suggests is never delivered. I don't understand why politicians are not in the business of dealing with the here and now, the only actual reality.
I'm glad they've reversed their decision, the backlash gathers pace. I think if they had gone along with it many (myself included) would have gathered outside the Albert Hall and sung the songs at the top of our voices.
That is an interesting take on the people of your home. There was nothing jingoistic in not surrendering in 1940, it was a country very aware of the horror it was about to suffer. And the peoples struggle paid off with plenty of jam. Without the people of your home, Hitler would of been able to fight the remainder of the war on a single front. The Jews of Europe would of perished completely. Russia would not of received the vital war aid it needed. The US would of had nowhere from which to launch D Day. Surely that is enough Jam for anyone, but if it is not, then that generation set up the NHS which has supported you from the cradle to your eventual grave. So do not knock those British people who suffered terribly so that you can speak freely and never had to wear a Hitler Youth uniform. I am not very patriotic but I know very well what I owe to that generation and Britains finest hour!
Indeed. My father fought and suffered in the 'forgotten army' in Burma. I would have joined the fight against fascism had I been alive, but I would have been fighting against something, not for something. Incidentally I said the slogan is jingoistic, not what is called the Battle of Britain. On a point of accuracy it wasn't the USA alone who launched D day, it was a coalition of forces of which the USA was a significant part.
So the United Kingdom says it will break international law over what it signed up to over brexit. Just another untrustworthy country
It was amazing watching a government minister saying the UK would break the law! Even more important is the fact the Good Friday peace agreement is likely to be compromised and the IRA do care about nationalism.
