Pat Condell , what a cracking bloke , tells it how it is . Public enemy number one for the snowflakes , gets called racist etc etc and all he does is say what most of us think . He researches before he speaks , and the snowflakes hate it when he can back up his statements with fact .
rigsby:
Pat Condell , what a cracking bloke , tells it how it is . Public enemy number one for the snowflakes , gets called racist etc etc and all he does is say what most of us think
+1
He made some very valid points there.
discoman:
He made some very valid points there.
I couldn’t really see what points he was making clearly.
It hardly makes someone a “fascist” to support democracy. As for “democratic sovereignty”, what he means is national sovereignty, and I’ve already discussed the contradictions of that at painful length with Carryfast - about what happens when you come up against other nations with their national sovereignty. If you can’t see those contradictions, then the fault is in your own reasoning, not with other people’s unwillingness to tolerate them.
Next, with wanting a “secular society”, how does that make one an “islamophobe”? The vast majority of people nowadays (in Britain, anyway) reject the idea that we should be governed by any supernatural narrative. Almost anyone on the left of politics rejects the tenets of religion outright. I’ve never felt in any way that this view is under attack, and progress is being made steadily in our favour - even in Ireland, where as little as 30 years ago people were talking about the place as being “priest-ridden”, it’s collapsed in barely a generation (mainly because some of the underlying stimulants have been addressed).
On “correct pronouns”, one occasionally comes across a single-issue extremist on language use, but they’re notable by their extreme rarity.
I also think very few people are against “free speech” or discussion of ideas in good faith. Normally what they are against, is what is being said - often public declarations (not personal discussions) that consist of blatant lies, but sometimes merely resurrecting faulty reasoning. It’s like how the right-wing rags have wheeled out “free speech” as an excuse for them having published the utterly mendacious Corbyn smears, when in fact free speech is not what people are recoiling against, it is the idea that a gaggle of wealthy newspaper barons can buy a public platform to spread their outright lies.
The points he makes about “the law protecting feelings”, the fact is that feelings do count. But there is no law that merely protects feelings - there is no conviction in the law reports, no records in any police custody suite, of a person being charged with “hurting feelings”. Protections against hate speech, for example, are not there to protect feelings, but to protect people from the incitement of violence against them, and protect the rights of people to enjoy many aspects of their lawful liberal rights. So too with libel laws, there is always the defence of truth.
The final laugh is that he complains about “buzzwords”, and then coins his own meaningless new phrase - “progressive utopia”. 
The problem with guys like this is that I’ve actually sat here and heard him out, and all I can conclude is that there isn’t much rational argument going on, even though he says he wants a rational argument to be heard. It’s just rehearsing a series of vacuous generalities, whose real function is to act as dog-whistles, whose purpose is to avoid being open about the detail of what they mean and the premises on which they rest.
Rjan:
discoman:
He made some very valid points there.I couldn’t really see what points he was making clearly.
It hardly makes someone a “fascist” to support democracy. As for “democratic sovereignty”, what he means is national sovereignty, and I’ve already discussed the contradictions of that at painful length with Carryfast - about what happens when you come up against other nations with their national sovereignty. If you can’t see those contradictions, then the fault is in your own reasoning, not with other people’s unwillingness to tolerate them.
Next, with wanting a “secular society”, how does that make one an “islamophobe”? The vast majority of people nowadays (in Britain, anyway) reject the idea that we should be governed by any supernatural narrative. Almost anyone on the left of politics rejects the tenets of religion outright. I’ve never felt in any way that this view is under attack, and progress is being made steadily in our favour - even in Ireland, where as little as 30 years ago people were talking about the place as being “priest-ridden”, it’s collapsed in barely a generation (mainly because some of the underlying stimulants have been addressed).
On “correct pronouns”, one occasionally comes across a single-issue extremist on language use, but they’re notable by their extreme rarity.
I also think very few people are against “free speech” or discussion of ideas in good faith. Normally what they are against, is what is being said - often public declarations (not personal discussions) that consist of blatant lies, but sometimes merely resurrecting faulty reasoning. It’s like how the right-wing rags have wheeled out “free speech” as an excuse for them having published the utterly mendacious Corbyn smears, when in fact free speech is not what people are recoiling against, it is the idea that a gaggle of wealthy newspaper barons can buy a public platform to spread their outright lies.
The points he makes about “the law protecting feelings”, the fact is that feelings do count. But there is no law that merely protects feelings - there is no conviction in the law reports, no records in any police custody suite, of a person being charged with “hurting feelings”. Protections against hate speech, for example, are not there to protect feelings, but to protect people from the incitement of violence against them, and protect the rights of people to enjoy many aspects of their lawful liberal rights. So too with libel laws, there is always the defence of truth.
The final laugh is that he complains about “buzzwords”, and then coins his own meaningless new phrase - “progressive utopia”.
The problem with guys like this is that I’ve actually sat here and heard him out, and all I can conclude is that there isn’t much rational argument going on, even though he says he wants a rational argument to be heard. It’s just rehearsing a series of vacuous generalities, whose real function is to act as dog-whistles, whose purpose is to avoid being open about the detail of what they mean and the premises on which they rest.
Yes we discussed the difference between national sovereign democracy v centralised anti nation state socialism and as expected you clearly nailed your colours to the same mast as Lenin/Stalin/Hitler/Mao in that regard.
IE as I’ve said elsewhere Michael Collins was a Nationalist,just like the Polish regime that stood up against the Socialist alliance of Stalin and Hitler was.While you can only be ideologically on the same side as Stalin and Hitler regarding Poland’s right to self determination v Soviet and ■■■■ takeover in 1939.Or for that matter for Chinese Communist expansionist takeover of Tibet.
While having once been part of it myself I know that the MO of Socialism is to infiltrate and indoctrinate and take advantage of and corrupt democracy for its own undemocratic totalitarian anti nation state ends.Which is why Corbyn is taking advantage of the ‘Labour’ vote rather than stand where he belongs with the Socialist Labour Party.With the Socialist idea of ‘nation’ just being the assimilation of its own collective ideology without national borders and no one has the right to resist and say no thanks v the collective.
IE think of Socialists as a brighter version of the zb Borg.Who’ll lie and cheat their way into power whether it’s Hitler claiming to be a Nationalist.Or Socialists like Stalin and Corbyn calling Nationalists Nazis.Or the SNP claiming to be Nationalists when they are clearly just another bunch of pro EUSSR Socialists.Or Socialists claiming that only they have the Atheistic given right to represent the working class.With ■■■■ Germany and Bolshevik Soviet Union and Communist China,including the takeover of Tibet,being the result.Evil zb’s and hopefully that great video is the first sign that people are beginning to realise that there is no longer any place for so called bs centre politics.It’s now the clearly defined Nationalist v Socialist argument which Europe has needed for so long.With the only argument that the lying Socialists have is to close down free speech by calling Nationalists Nazis and Fascists.When the term Fascist actually describes all the Socialist factions whether Bolsheviks or Nazis or Chinese Communists although the lying zb’s will obviously never admit it. 
Carryfast:
Yes we discussed the difference between national sovereign democracy v centralised anti nation state socialism and as expected you clearly nailed your colours to the same mast as Lenin/Stalin/Hitler/Mao in that regard.
Here comes the word-salad of names again!
The fact that these were all nation-building leaders, with varying long-term success, seems to be lost on you!
What you call my “centralised anti nation state socialism” would be better described as simply “unified democracy”. Your idea of “national sovereign democracy” fell apart at the seams. You had no answer for how you resolve the democratic will of multiple nations over matters of shared but competing interests, if not through some sort of unified democratic institutions.
Your respect for national democracy even fell apart, once you started railing against the right of MPs in other British constituencies to have influence over matters in your constituency, for the purposes of governance in the national interest. Every time there is any sort of difference of democratic opinion which has some sort of geographic element, your argument was that there should be further fission of democratic institutions, or vetoes on every issue which ensure that the national government can only make a decision with the support of every constituency (not merely an overwhelming majority of them).
You never did give a credible answer to how you’d solve the problem of the majority of other MPs simply embargoing your constituency’s economy if they didn’t like the decision you’d made - which would be virtually fatal if your constituency was landlocked. You’d be reduced to, what is by modern standards, rural penury. And when I say embargo, I simply mean that they’d use their constituency sovereignty to deny you passage over their areas and deny you the ability to sell your goods and services in their local markets, but without impinging on any of your internal affairs. Basically, what the EU is threatening Britain with, if Britain crashes out of the EU.
And also of course, you had no answer for how you’d deal with the situation where one of your neighbouring constituencies decided to build a gasworks or a chemical dump whose noxious byproducts would, in one way or another, worm their way into your constituency. We examined this when we were talking about whether a neighbourhood would have the right to control noise pollution from you blasting out music in the middle of the night, and you insisted (bizarrely) that it was none of their business and they would have no right of control over your conduct on your own property.
While having once been part of it myself I know that the MO of Socialism is to infiltrate and indoctrinate and take advantage of and corrupt democracy for its own undemocratic totalitarian anti nation state ends.Which is why Corbyn is taking advantage of the ‘Labour’ vote rather than stand where he belongs with the Socialist Labour Party.With the Socialist idea of ‘nation’ just being the assimilation of its own collective ideology without national borders and no one has the right to resist and say no thanks v the collective.
But how the rights of individuals are balanced against the collective (which is really just another way of talking about other people’s rights and interests) is a matter for democracy! If you want to live as an individual free of any constraints whatever imposed by other people (even by democratic process), then you have to forfeit the benefits of living in a society and live off the fruits of what you alone can produce in the wild natural environment. And then, being an atomised individual living on his own in the wild, you are vulnerable to all sorts of disaster, predation, and not being hermaphroditic it will not form a basis for perpetuating humanity. And by all accounts of individuals who have lived like that, you will go mad long before you go down for the dirt nap.
IE think of Socialists as a brighter version of the zb Borg.Who’ll lie and cheat their way into power whether it’s Hitler claiming to be a Nationalist.Or Socialists like Stalin and Corbyn calling Nationalists Nazis.Or the SNP claiming to be Nationalists when they are clearly just another bunch of pro EUSSR Socialists.Or Socialists claiming that only they have the Atheistic given right to represent the working class.With ■■■■ Germany and Bolshevik Soviet Union and Communist China,including the takeover of Tibet,being the result.Evil zb’s and hopefully that great video is the first sign that people are beginning to realise that there is no longer any place for so called bs centre politics.It’s now the clearly defined Nationalist v Socialist argument which Europe has needed for so long.With the only argument that the lying Socialists have is to close down free speech by calling Nationalists Nazis and Fascists.When the term Fascist actually describes all the Socialist factions whether Bolsheviks or Nazis or Chinese Communists although the lying zb’s will obviously never admit it.
I really don’t think you are a ■■■■ at first presentation. But I think you’d become one, because you won’t take your current views to their logical conclusion - the pain and suffering you encounter down that road will turn you around, and you’ll then accept some collective control, but it will be just enough as necessary to wage war against your neighbours as an expression of your fundamental misanthropy and hostility to all other people, and as an expression of outrage against the conditions your own ideas have inflicted on yourself. And once your neighbours are vanquished (if you are not), you’ll divide again and turn against those you first reluctantly came into union with, whose control over you is now once again a tyranny without justification.
Meanwhile, those who are able to come together and stay together in mutual and satisfactory unity, accepting as they must the compromises of living and working together in a society, will simply supersede you and those who are like-minded.
Rjan:
Carryfast:
Yes we discussed the difference between national sovereign democracy v centralised anti nation state socialism and as expected you clearly nailed your colours to the same mast as Lenin/Stalin/Hitler/Mao in that regard.Here comes the word-salad of names again!
The fact that these were all nation-building leaders, with varying long-term success, seems to be lost on you!
What you call my “centralised anti nation state socialism” would be better described as simply “unified democracy”. Your idea of “national sovereign democracy” fell apart at the seams. You had no answer for how you resolve the democratic will of multiple nations over matters of shared but competing interests, if not through some sort of unified democratic institutions.
Your respect for national democracy even fell apart, once you started railing against the right of MPs in other British constituencies to have influence over matters in your constituency, for the purposes of governance in the national interest. Every time there is any sort of difference of democratic opinion which has some sort of geographic element, your argument was that there should be further fission of democratic institutions, or vetoes on every issue which ensure that the national government can only make a decision with the support of every constituency (not merely an overwhelming majority of them).
You never did give a credible answer to how you’d solve the problem of the majority of other MPs simply embargoing your constituency’s economy if they didn’t like the decision you’d made - which would be virtually fatal if your constituency was landlocked. You’d be reduced to, what is by modern standards, rural penury. And when I say embargo, I simply mean that they’d use their constituency sovereignty to deny you passage over their areas and deny you the ability to sell your goods and services in their local markets, but without impinging on any of your internal affairs. Basically, what the EU is threatening Britain with, if Britain crashes out of the EU.
And also of course, you had no answer for how you’d deal with the situation where one of your neighbouring constituencies decided to build a gasworks or a chemical dump whose noxious byproducts would, in one way or another, worm their way into your constituency. We examined this when we were talking about whether a neighbourhood would have the right to control noise pollution from you blasting out music in the middle of the night, and you insisted (bizarrely) that it was none of their business and they would have no right of control over your conduct on your own property.
While having once been part of it myself I know that the MO of Socialism is to infiltrate and indoctrinate and take advantage of and corrupt democracy for its own undemocratic totalitarian anti nation state ends.Which is why Corbyn is taking advantage of the ‘Labour’ vote rather than stand where he belongs with the Socialist Labour Party.With the Socialist idea of ‘nation’ just being the assimilation of its own collective ideology without national borders and no one has the right to resist and say no thanks v the collective.
But how the rights of individuals are balanced against the collective (which is really just another way of talking about other people’s rights and interests) is a matter for democracy! If you want to live as an individual free of any constraints whatever imposed by other people (even by democratic process), then you have to forfeit the benefits of living in a society and live off the fruits of what you alone can produce in the wild natural environment. And then, being an atomised individual living on his own in the wild, you are vulnerable to all sorts of disaster, predation, and not being hermaphroditic it will not form a basis for perpetuating humanity. And by all accounts of individuals who have lived like that, you will go mad long before you go down for the dirt nap.
IE think of Socialists as a brighter version of the zb Borg.Who’ll lie and cheat their way into power whether it’s Hitler claiming to be a Nationalist.Or Socialists like Stalin and Corbyn calling Nationalists Nazis.Or the SNP claiming to be Nationalists when they are clearly just another bunch of pro EUSSR Socialists.Or Socialists claiming that only they have the Atheistic given right to represent the working class.With ■■■■ Germany and Bolshevik Soviet Union and Communist China,including the takeover of Tibet,being the result.Evil zb’s and hopefully that great video is the first sign that people are beginning to realise that there is no longer any place for so called bs centre politics.It’s now the clearly defined Nationalist v Socialist argument which Europe has needed for so long.With the only argument that the lying Socialists have is to close down free speech by calling Nationalists Nazis and Fascists.When the term Fascist actually describes all the Socialist factions whether Bolsheviks or Nazis or Chinese Communists although the lying zb’s will obviously never admit it.
I really don’t think you are a ■■■■ at first presentation. But I think you’d become one, because you won’t take your current views to their logical conclusion - the pain and suffering you encounter down that road will turn you around, and you’ll then accept some collective control, but it will be just enough as necessary to wage war against your neighbours as an expression of your fundamental misanthropy and hostility to all other people, and as an expression of outrage against the conditions your own ideas have inflicted on yourself. And once your neighbours are vanquished (if you are not), you’ll divide again and turn against those you first reluctantly came into union with, whose control over you is now once again a tyranny without justification.
Meanwhile, those who are able to come together and stay together in mutual and satisfactory unity, accepting as they must the compromises of living and working together in a society, will simply supersede you and those who are like-minded.
I’m sure that the average indoctrinated committed ■■■■ or Bolshevik or red Chinese invader would have said exactly that to justify their respective invasions of other people’s countries and as they tried to impose their respective ideas of the collective across established national borders.While it’s obvious that you actually mean ‘‘those who must come together’’ not ‘‘those who are able’’ ( choose ) to join the collective.While the idea of Socialism being democratic is again a laughable contradiction bearing in mind that there is obviously no room for dissent or disagreement with the ‘collective’ by definition following a fixed ideology.
Which leaves the simple question do you agree with the idea of the defence of Polish and Tibetan National borders,self determination and National sovereignty v the respective invading Soviet/■■■■ and red Chinese collectives or not ?.
While assuming you do then that makes you Nationalist by definition.While assuming you don’t as I said Socialist = evil regardless of which specific brand of Socialism it tries to dress itself up as with ■■■■ definitely being a brand of Socialism.While whichever your answer you can forget trying to play the Nationalist = ■■■■ card when its clear that Socialist = anti Nation state,despotic,expansionist Borg like dictatorship and assimilation regardless of whether its the Bolshevik,■■■■ or Chinese versions of it and as such by definition aggressors.While Nationalists generally just want to run their own countries peacefully without foreign interference whether it was Michael Collins or the Dalai Lama.Also might as well ask the question what’s your position on Taiwan national sovereignty v the Chinese claim over it ?.I’d guess you’ll be as keen to answer that as the outstanding question related to why doesn’t Corbyn seem keen on standing where he belongs in the Socialist Labour Party and endorsing Hoey as leader of the Labour Party ?.
As for your local democracy question.It’s so much better to make your own country a net importer of foreign energy while putting your own country’s workers on the dole.While letting the MP for Grantham have more say in that than all the combined MP’s in mining areas who,unlike her,( were ) democratically accountable to those mining communities.
Carryfast:
I’m sure that the average indoctrinated committed ■■■■ or Bolshevik or red Chinese invader would have said exactly that to justify their respective invasions of other people’s countries and as they tried to impose their respective ideas of the collective across established national borders.
But nobody forced us to join the EU, and nobody is stopping us leaving. The ructions have arisen simply because the Tories want to retain all the bits of being in collective union that it likes, but is not willing to tolerate any of the quid-pro-quos (including the fact, for example, that you can’t beggar your neighbours by undercutting common market standards - because they reserve the right to respond to your undercutting with tariffs on access to their marketplace).
All of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, were nationalist leaders. The fact that they conquered other countries to better their own nations, was simply an expression of their sovereignty.
I take your point that you distinguish your brand of nationalism by insisting on mutual respect and no forceful takeovers of other existing nations, but I’ve addressed the various inherent contradictions of that position time and again. Hitler swept through Europe because to make his own capitalist nation work, and to enable it to stand up to the competitor nations around it, Germany had to conquer other nations for cheap labour, cheap resources, and more land.
While it’s obvious that you actually mean ‘‘those who must come together’’ not ‘‘those who are able’’ ( choose ) to join the collective.
But you can’t be a part of a collective in an a la carte fashion - including being selective about when you wish to be a part. An aspect of being a part of a collective is that others will make some sort of compromises or sacrifices to you today, on the basis that you will be expected to make compromises or sacrifices tomorrow, but with everyone being given a fair deal overall.
If you reap the benefits of those compromises, and then decide to leave the next day when you are expected to make compromises, then naturally enough everyone else who made compromises for your sake, but who are not now going to receive anything back, is going to insist that all the benefits you gained are disgorged from you on the way out.
That’s not to say I support exploitative collectives. I’d be quite happy to support dissidents who resist an oppressive collective. But the EU is not such a collective - it’s a complete myth invented by right-wing rags, whose real agenda is to resist fair collectives, because fairness means that the poor will be united in stamping out the exploitative rich.
Whereas if the rich can persuade the poor that any unity amongst workers is oppressive, so much the better for the rich being able to divide and rule them.
While the idea of Socialism being democratic is again a laughable contradiction bearing in mind that there is obviously no room for dissent or disagreement with the ‘collective’ by definition following a fixed ideology.
I disagree. No one would call me an authoritarian or a slavish ideologue. I’m always a stone in the shoe of authority, because the authorities we have are typically exploitative.
None of my arguments against you have consisted of denigrating you for deviating from a fixed ideology. I haven’t invoked any ideology in my support. I’ve merely pointed out the grievous contradictions in your own views and your ridiculous misreading of history (I might call it a mendacious misreading, but I honestly think you can’t tell fact from your own fiction).
Which leaves the simple question do you agree with the idea of the defence of Polish and Tibetan National borders,self determination and National sovereignty v the respective invading Soviet/■■■■ and red Chinese collectives or not ?.
But I can easily take the sides of the Polish and the Tibetans, because as far as I’m concerned the USSR and China are nationalist states with no democracy and no liberal tradition.
But they are not the only ones, and even European nations have governed other places in the world in an authoritarian fashion. The Belgian’s King Leopold caused almost as many deaths in the Congo as Stalin caused in the USSR. Per head, Leopold caused far more. And the difference is that the Russians had superpower status to show for it all.
Like I say, I acknowledge they’re not nationalist in your sense of respecting each other’s borders, but no nations do that in practice, because raises all the contradictions which I’ve already laid out at length. A unified democracy is the only solution to the problems posed by a globalised economy.
And I’m not even just dismissing your nationalism out of hand as “inherently evil”. I’ve gone through your views in adequate detail to show where the contradictions arise.
While assuming you do then that makes you Nationalist by definition.While assuming you don’t as I said Socialist = evil regardless of which specific brand of Socialism it tries to dress itself up as with ■■■■ definitely being a brand of Socialism.While whichever your answer you can forget trying to play the Nationalist = ■■■■ card when its clear that Socialist = anti Nation state,despotic,expansionist Borg like dictatorship and assimilation regardless of whether its the Bolshevik,■■■■ or Chinese versions of it and as such by definition aggressors.While Nationalists generally just want to run their own countries peacefully without foreign interference whether it was Michael Collins or the Dalai Lama.Also might as well ask the question what’s your position on Taiwan national sovereignty v the Chinese claim over it ?.I’d guess you’ll be as keen to answer that as the outstanding question related to why doesn’t Corbyn seem keen on standing where he belongs in the Socialist Labour Party and endorsing Hoey as leader of the Labour Party ?.
As for your local democracy question.It’s so much better to make your own country a net importer of foreign energy while putting your own country’s workers on the dole.While letting the MP for Grantham have more say in that than all the combined MP’s in mining areas who,unlike her,( were ) democratically accountable to those mining communities.
But the miners wanted to sell their coal in Grantham - and everywhere else for that matter. That’s why the MP for Grantham gets a say. Your position simply doesn’t make sense, if you think that the Yorkshire mines were only serving Yorkshire, and that if every other constituency simply vetoed their exports, then the Yorkshire mines would have still had a healthy economy employing countless miners on top-whack pay.
The Nottingham miners were successfully played off against the Yorkshire miners, precisely because they were thinking in terms of their narrow local interests rather than the interests of miners as a whole, whereas their huge gains in pay in the 1960s were achieved by all miners standing together as one against the National Coal Board.
What makes you think they would ever have achieved the gains, or that they wouldn’t have been successfully played off, if they were all habituated to thinking locally from the outset? They would never have fought together for good pay in the first place, because they’d have been too divided to resist the various consumer constituencies who were determined to play them off for the local benefit of the consumer constituencies. And of course, the only winners would have been the rich in each local constituency.
As I explained to you, during industrialisation, it was the national state and the supremacy of Parliament’s will that had to be used to smash local interests so that we could get things like canals and railways built across the country without every individual landowner or local politician in every rotten borough having a veto on things that have benefit for the collective economic interest. True, Parliament was not at that time doing it for the interests of workers, but in the interests of the profit of the capitalist class. But that was a time when democracy was only for the rich.
After the second world war when governments were voted in democratically, and huge nationalisation and infrastructure programs were being embarked upon, those things were being done for the interests of ordinary people, with their consent, and you couldn’t have some Mrs Brigstone-Watts who owns a thousand acres somewhere vetoing the will of the country and refusing to have an electricity pylon on her land, or a motorway, or a council estate, or a hospital, because it has been decided democratically that those things have to be built in the common interest. And any interest Mrs Brigstone-Watts has in her pristine view of the horizon from her country pile, do not balance fairly against the interests of people with nowhere to live, or whose jobs depend on national infrastructure, and so on.
Rjan:
But nobody forced us to join the EU, and nobody is stopping us leaving. The ructions have arisen simply because the Tories want to retain all the bits of being in collective union that it likes, but is not willing to tolerate any of the quid-pro-quos (including the fact, for example, that you can’t beggar your neighbours by undercutting common market standards - because they reserve the right to respond to your undercutting with tariffs on access to their marketplace).All of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, were nationalist leaders. The fact that they conquered other countries to better their own nations, was simply an expression of their sovereignty.
I take your point that you distinguish your brand of nationalism by insisting on mutual respect and no forceful takeovers of other existing nations, but I’ve addressed the various inherent contradictions of that position time and again. Hitler swept through Europe because to make his own capitalist nation work, and to enable it to stand up to the competitor nations around it, Germany had to conquer other nations for cheap labour, cheap resources, and more land.
But you can’t be a part of a collective in an a la carte fashion - including being selective about when you wish to be a part. An aspect of being a part of a collective is that others will make some sort of compromises or sacrifices to you today, on the basis that you will be expected to make compromises or sacrifices tomorrow, but with everyone being given a fair deal overall.
If you reap the benefits of those compromises, and then decide to leave the next day when you are expected to make compromises, then naturally enough everyone else who made compromises for your sake, but who are not now going to receive anything back, is going to insist that all the benefits you gained are disgorged from you on the way out.
That’s not to say I support exploitative collectives. I’d be quite happy to support dissidents who resist an oppressive collective. But the EU is not such a collective - it’s a complete myth invented by right-wing rags, whose real agenda is to resist fair collectives, because fairness means that the poor will be united in stamping out the exploitative rich.
Whereas if the rich can persuade the poor that any unity amongst workers is oppressive, so much the better for the rich being able to divide and rule them.
I disagree. No one would call me an authoritarian or a slavish ideologue. I’m always a stone in the shoe of authority, because the authorities we have are typically exploitative.
None of my arguments against you have consisted of denigrating you for deviating from a fixed ideology. I haven’t invoked any ideology in my support. I’ve merely pointed out the grievous contradictions in your own views and your ridiculous misreading of history (I might call it a mendacious misreading, but I honestly think you can’t tell fact from your own fiction).
But I can easily take the sides of the Polish and the Tibetans, because as far as I’m concerned the USSR and China are nationalist states with no democracy and no liberal tradition.
But they are not the only ones, and even European nations have governed other places in the world in an authoritarian fashion. The Belgian’s King Leopold caused almost as many deaths in the Congo as Stalin caused in the USSR. Per head, Leopold caused far more. And the difference is that the Russians had superpower status to show for it all.
Like I say, I acknowledge they’re not nationalist in your sense of respecting each other’s borders, but no nations do that in practice, because raises all the contradictions which I’ve already laid out at length. A unified democracy is the only solution to the problems posed by a globalised economy.
And I’m not even just dismissing your nationalism out of hand as “inherently evil”. I’ve gone through your views in adequate detail to show where the contradictions arise.
After the second world war when governments were voted in democratically, and huge nationalisation and infrastructure programs were being embarked upon, those things were being done for the interests of ordinary people, with their consent, and you couldn’t have some Mrs Brigstone-Watts who owns a thousand acres somewhere vetoing the will of the country and refusing to have an electricity pylon on her land, or a motorway, or a council estate, or a hospital, because it has been decided democratically that those things have to be built in the common interest. And any interest Mrs Brigstone-Watts has in her pristine view of the horizon from her country pile, do not balance fairly against the interests of people with nowhere to live, or whose jobs depend on national infrastructure, and so on.
Blimey let’s get this right you think that Stalin,Mao and Hitler were all Nationalists. 
Not the logical conclusion of your Socialist ideology in the form of ■■■■■■■■■■ by the Socialist collective over the sovereignty of the seperate nation state.Then you say that I can’t tell fact from fiction.
Then you’re saying that you’re actually on the side of Nationalism in the form of Polish and Tibetan resistance to Soviet,Communist and ■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■.Then you contradict yourself by saying that we should all meet the problem of globalism with anti nation state Socialist collectivism rather than Nationalism.You know the same Nationalism which stands against Socialist collectivism bearing in mind that the ‘globalism’ in question effectively means an unholy alliance of exploitative Chinese Communism,European Elitism/Socialism and US Federalism.
As for your bs development analogy.No we’ve seen what that actually means.In the form of wiping out the countryside of the South East to house Londoners and immigrant communities in the surrounding counties and to corrupt and gerrymander the voting system along the lines of class war.While much of the rest of the country remains an under developed wilderness.As I’ve said Mrs Bridgestone Watts and the average working class born and bred home counties resident all being united against that agenda.On the basis if Kahn’s supporters want to live in London then stay there.If not then it’s time to build some new towns in the under developed areas of Northern and Western Britain.But that obviously doesn’t suit your agenda of a Socialist republic built in and around London ruled by tin pot politburo dictators like Kahn.Also bearing in mind that much of that environmental and demographic vandalism was actually carried out by the Conservatives including the creation of the GLC and its stinking forced high rise and high density developments in those surrounding counties and especially Surrey.I should know having spent a lifetime among it and running from it.
In which case no,being a subservient state of your EUSSR or a zb council house or living in and among the equally zb council estates of an even Greater London,built in the countryside and previous market towns of the home counties,isn’t the working class dream.Just as Soviet Russia or ■■■■ Germany didn’t turn out the way it was sold to working class Russians and Germans by evil definitely Socialist zb’s like Lenin and Stalin and Hitler.
Also note that you again don’t seem to want to answer the question why doesn’t Corbyn want to stand for the Socialist Labour Party where he belongs and why don’t you seem as keen on Hoey’s vision for Labour.Which can only be described as the Protectionist and Nationalist Labour policy that we need.Not Corbyn’s obsolete unfit for purpose Socialism including it’s obvious agenda of subjecting us to the rule of the EUSSR just as Tibet is ruled by the Chinese Communist Party.
discoman:
He made some very valid points there.
Stanley Knife:
…
Can anyone tell me what they are on about in less than 30 words? Life’s too short to read this diatribe, the dog wants a walk
Wheel Nut:
Can anyone tell me what they are on about in less than 30 words? Life’s too short to read this diatribe, the dog wants a walk
The imposition of the Politburo and collective v the rights of the free thinking individual and self determination of the nation state.Rjan would obviously say resistance is futile. 
Carryfast:
Wheel Nut:
Can anyone tell me what they are on about in less than 30 words? Life’s too short to read this diatribe, the dog wants a walkThe imposition of the Politburo and collective v the rights of the free thinking individual and self determination of the nation state.Rjan would obviously say resistance is futile.
Rjan would say resistance is a virtue against capitalist roadsters like yourself. 
One pound one vote, that is the system of “individualism” you wish to preserve.
Rjan:
Stanley Knife:
…
^^^
This old bollox still…you should be ashamed of yourself.
TiredAndEmotional:
Rjan:
[…]^^^
This old bollox still…you should be ashamed of yourself.
I’m an equal opportunities satirist though. I’m as happy to laugh at the People’s Front of Judea, and also to engage in serious discussion.