https://t.co/TmpHoTzP6J The first two witnesses of The Moral Maze to discuss nationalism are brown and Scottish: a Muslim and a Sikh.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 23, 2017
Simon Winder, historian, the third witness on the Moral Maze discussion on the Morality of Nationalism, is not a nationalist either. https://t.co/QaYqNZGtEe— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 23, 2017
Why does David Conway, fourth witness on The Moral Maze discussion of Nationalism, sound like a woman? https://t.co/iQtReMDfAh— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 23, 2017
I have just discovered @misterhsk, second witness of The Moral Maze on the Morality of Nationalism and SNP member, has blocked me. https://t.co/QaYqNZGtEe— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 23, 2017
Why did @misterhsk block me? I have only sent him this tweet at https://t.co/PRXaOdf0Em https://t.co/QbObGekXgu— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 23, 2017
.@sophgaston, fifth witness of The Moral Maze debate on the morality of nationalism is not a nationalist either. https://t.co/QaYqNZGtEe— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 23, 2017
How odd that David Conway of @Civitas_UK the only witness who stood up for nationalism, sounded like a woman. https://t.co/QaYqNZGtEe— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 23, 2017
Another rigged debate on nationalism by the fake news BBC. The only nationalist they invited was David Conway who sounded like a woman. https://t.co/FhfNxYPX2t— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 23, 2017
Why did the fake news rigged debate BBC choose David Conway of @Civitas_UK to represent nationalism? Because he sounded like a woman? https://t.co/xERFS1jc7F— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 23, 2017
How I would have answered the questions David Conway was asked
Is nationalism, justified, desirable because we simply cannot identify with shared mutual responsibilities which make sacrifices for the world at large?
Charity begins at home. The nation is the most powerful group we can join that is small enough to care but big enough to matter. God if He exists divided us into nations the way schools divide pupils into houses, to promote competition for the advancement of civilisation.
Economic integration, democracy, national self-determination. Out of this we can have two, but we can't have three. Do you think that's true?
What do you mean by economic integration? If you are nationalist, you would of course choose national self-determination.Why would I choose this? I refer you to my previous answer. The only antidote to globalisation is nationalism, obviously. Globalisation is about running the world as if it were under one government. This means running the world under the principles of transnational progressivism which means uncontrolled and unlimited immigration under the principles of neoconservatism and neoliberalism.
Do you think there is a fundamental tension between nationalism and multiculturalism?
Not really, if there is a morally defensible dominant culture. Nationalists accept the necessity of a dominant culture, which understandably makes minorities nervous. They must however remember that they are a minority and if they don't like it under the dominant culture, they will have to find alternative arrangements. The question that falls to be asked is what our dominant culture is and whether it is morally defensible. Then the next question to be asked is what is morally defensible. Obviously, any dominant culture that does not protect the marriage and the family is not morally defensible.
Everything about feminism undermines marriage and the patriarchy.
All advanced civilisations are patriarchies, and all declining and primitive societies are matriarchies.
It is the Abrahamic faiths which promote patriarchal moral values and therefore the only values that are morally defensible are in fact patriarchal moral values.
What is the purpose of morality?
The promotion of group solidarity to promote the strength and cohesion of the group.
How do you know when there is group solidarity and social cohesion?
When the laws of God are obeyed, in particular the laws contained in the Ten Commandments, thereby creating greater co-operation to facilitate imperial expansion.
How can you tell if the laws of God are being obeyed?
When you have a low crime rate in a society where most of its members are not bastards, divorced, Slut Single Mothers or Morally Compromised Slut Fuckers incapable of uncompromisingly supporting marriage.
How can you make your society more socially cohesive?
By imposing a one-party theocracy, obviously.