Translate

Showing posts with label national identity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label national identity. Show all posts

Friday, 22 February 2019

The badges of identity

1) Race
2) Gender
3) Age
4) Class
5) Religion
6) Language
7) Sexuality
8) Marital status
9) Nationality
10) Place of birth
11) Place of residence
13) Political affiliation
14) Occupation
at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, 13 June 2018

National identity and National Consciousness

National identity is forged in the furnace of war and revolution. How else does one form of national identity replace another? Religion and political ideology (and change thereof as well as the culture produced by religion and politics) is the only source of national self-consciousness.

What is self-consciousness in the philosophical sense? When we realise we are different to other people and know for a fact that our interests are different to theirs. We know we are different to other people when we do things differently to other people for special reasons of our own. Jews are a good example of a people with a very developed by sense of group identity.

Democracy, liberalism and feminism are the sacred cows of the West. The consequence of this unholy trinity is that it leads to matriarchy, and a matriarchy is a primitive, declining and extinct society, or one that is about to become extinct. All the five world religions anyone has ever heard of is about protecting the patriarchy and promoting marriage and family values. Once your government stops doing that, you will become a matriarchy.

White men no longer wishing to live in a matriarchy saying they are tired of suffering the consequences of uncontrolled immigration seems a perfectly respectable political aspiration to me.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, 6 November 2014

Claire Khaw on Englishness and how the English should adopt her virtues


at 2 comments:
Labels: , ,

Sunday, 28 February 2010

Birth and Belonging: Personal, National and Ethnic Identity

http://www.wellcomecollection.org/whats-on/events/china-birth-and-belonging.aspx

A fascinating symposium demonstrating that the Chinese are also whingeing about not knowing what they are and what they are supposed to be.

Obviously, the Chinese are not what they were, ie in pigtails, concubines, bound feet etc.

But what are they now? Is it a race thing or nation thing?

In Taiwan they have a better idea of ancient Chinese traditions.

On the mainland they are modern individual barbarians: godless, consumerist, mostly without relations, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, little emperors who will probably euthanase their parents if they hang around too long.

(The Chinese were once known for their filial piety.)

Identity, at any rate, is something that can be

  1. performed
  2. claimed
  3. fought over
Identity is what those with a weak sense of identity seek to establish. The lack of it is most painful at adolescence, impelling some to become suicide bombers as an assertion of an identity they have chosen to embrace.

Let us therefore universalise this pain in a world with an embarrassment of riches as to the kinds of identities we could embrace.

The factors affecting identity are:

  1. birthplace
  2. race
  3. nationality
  4. religion
  5. family
  6. politics
  7. culture
  8. language
  9. gender
  10. sexual orientation
  11. talent
  12. reputation
  13. occupation
  14. associates
  15. current place of residence
  16. where our heart is
  17. class
I could go on and on, but ultimately, we all have multiple identities.

Our identity depends on who is asking, why they want to know, where we are and the social context in which the question is being asked.

They are shifting all the time.

What a shame that members of BNP - for whom such a symposium would be so enlightening, would never dream of attending such an event.

That is because they are working class and lower middle class, who are conservative people who would unhesitatingly say things "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like."

They are unimaginative people who like being with their own kind even as they are unkind to their own kind.

They are right, up to a point, that a mono-racial nation is visually comforting, but forget that people of the same race will soon find differences to kill each other over. History is littered with endless examples.

There was an exercise in which someone would be asked to copy from a picture, another would copy from that person's drawing and yet another would do the same etc.

This exercise made me think of Chinese whispers and out of control cancer cells dividing, not stopping, not doing what they are supposed to do.

The result could be more interesting, perhaps, if the artist, Yuen Fong Ling, had made a participant draw a self-portrait of himself and had someone else copy the result etc.

It was one of the many demonstrations about how deracinated and inauthentic the British and overseas Chinese are.

The concept of Chinese identity is paradoxically stronger in a non-Chinese, even if mistaken. It is after all the non-Chinese, who say very confidently that the Chinese are this, that or the other.

The Taiwanese think they are the real thing because they have been protected from the unChinese characteristics of Communism, while the mainlanders think they are The Real Thing, whatever they have turned into.

Even now we no don't really know what we are, what we could become or what we ought to be.

Perhaps too much choice is confusing, unsettling and upsetting.

This partly explains why Muslim youth who blow themselves up do what they do. They live on as Islamist terrorists, which was the identity they actively embraced and must have known would establish their post mortem reputation. They lived and died with this certainty.

Our identity is what we really are, what we want to be, and how others see us. Only if they are in harmony will we be happy in our skins.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, 20 March 2009

National Identity and Organised Crime

I have recently concluded that the world is really made up of gangster states who later take on higher ideals, when they have made their pile and feel they can afford to be holier than thou.

Those who remember the British Empire cannot come to terms with the national decline that has taken place since WW2. This actually includes the many immigrants who now wistfully wish they could return to their homelands, now more prosperous than the UK.

And how did Britain "make its pile"? Through being a rogue nation of pirates and warriors demanding protection money from weaker states and generally helping themselves to other people's stuff. I am sure the Spaniards of Elizabethan times would not disagree! Nor the Chinese who were peddled opium to keep them weakened and apathetic to their exploitation.

Perhaps we should at least now admit that and henceforth resolve to be more effective organised criminals?

For the sake of their own survival, the British must again cultivate characteristics that any hypothetical gangster would approve of. I propose that my trinity of

robust/rational/resourceful

which no one has bettered so far, should be adopted, unless a better trinity is proposed.
at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Friday, 13 March 2009

Anjem Choudary rejects "fish and chips" of British culture

... the one who taunted the British soldiers who died by friendly fire in Iraq can be found at

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025148.php

A good speaker and a lawyer, he has qualities that would suggest that a career in stand-up might not be a bad career move.

Comment by Jeff Marshall, BNP on the clip:

A very interesting speaker - good on the follies of multiculturalism, though I must say I am getting a bit tired of hearing Pakis define core British values as ´fish and chips´.

Core British values have traditionally included tolerance and allowing people like that to live here peacefully in the first place. When they abuse this tolerance they forfeit the right to live here peacefully. But this obvious fact does not seem to occur to them.

He openly admits that Sharia Law entails cutting off the hand of the thief and stoning the adulterer. The Archbishop of Canterbury and similar idiots should take note.

My response to Jeff Marshall's comments:

British values cannot be just tolerance. Who would want to be part of this tolerance? It is just like saying "We are people who will always turn the other cheek if you slap us." Choudary says no thanks, and so do I!

As for what he says about sharia law, there are many schools of sharia. (I have already pointed out that there is a verse after that which specifies the punishment for stealing, which says "If the thief expresses remorse, forgive him", which is often ignored in the eagerness to punish. Stoning for adultery can only be found in the Old Testament, which some Muslims prefer because it is more satisfyingly punitive. The Koran clearly states that 100 lashes is to be the punishment for adultery. Methinks Choudary does not know his Koran.)

I think there are many people like him, completely fed up with the anodyne, self-destructive self-abnegation that British values represent that they embrace either Islam or British nationalism. I can see angry young people thinking they can't stand it any more, preferring to blow themselves up rather than allow themselves to be a part of all this fish and chippery that you cannot define or articulate in a way that a sane and questioning person would find appealing.

YOU define British culture then, Jeff, and Choudary is right, you cannot find the words except to talk about tolerance. Tolerance of what, a Muslim would ask.

Tolerance of promiscuity? Drunkenness? Gambling? Fiona McKeown-type single parenting, bastardy and decline? Low standards of behaviour in public and private?

Tolerance of stupidity, unproductiveness, self-pity and apathy? Tolerance of being run by unelected Eurocrats?

NO. THANK. YOU.

Choudary was jack the lad when at university. I knew a Muslim who was a self-confessed slag and slapper and became so disgusted with herself that she now embraces the dress code of a nun. These are signs of psychosis and it is quite important, I would have thought, to articulate British values as we would wish them to be.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23367406-details/The+unholy+past+of+the+Muslim+cleric+demanding+the+Pope

Brown's trinity of tolerance/responsibility/co-operation makes me want to vomit.

Griffin could come up with nothing better than tolerance/humour/freedom, which is just not good enough.

Those words to describe the British cannot be nouns.

They must be ADJECTIVES so people have something to do and BE.

I propose RATIONAL, ROBUST, RESOURCEFUL as well as having the other 3 Rs that state schools do not teach.

The Muslims can say they want to be Islamic, but what vision do the BNP have for this country other than to be White, and rid of the Muslims?

at 2 comments:
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...