When will the BBC be held accountable for their lack of patriotism

[longfingernails]

Why does this far-left propoganda group continually try to do Britain down?

Why can't they have more presenters who think like the majority of Brits - people who believe that Britain is truly great - indeed, the best country in the world.

People who believe in our institutions, who love the monarchy, who revere the military, who speak in hushed awe about the majesty of our traditions. Presenters who are over-awed by the silent beauty of our countryside, and the glory of our heritage and history. Why do they always use their sneering, supercilious, Guardianista attitude - this constant insinuation that Britain should always be taking the blame and apologising. Coincidentally, it seems to stem from the same sort of sneering middle-classery that is prevalent on MN...

The most recent, shameful episode is the Beeb trying their best to spoil the England 2018 bid. Now I have no time at all for football - I can't stand it - but I fully recognise how important it is for our economy, and also for our national psyche.

The sooner the BBC withers and dies the better. Sadly, it has gotten away with a miniscule 16% cut in the TV tax over 6 years. They will continue their ramblings for the foreseeable future.

Do you have some alternative and reliable source of information on The People's Paradise of North Korea in order to conclusively dispel the alleged lies we are regaled with by the straight-faced journalists on TV news? Because if you do, I'm sure the CIA and MI5 and even the Chinese and Russians would really like to sit you down and debrief you.

Doubtless some of our politicians also think they are descended from the Gods. But us proles, way down below their lofty heights, don't think so. Tony Blair and George Bush believed that God told them to do it. All countries believe that God is with them. Joan of Arc was the same.

I would be surprised if our top generals in Sandhurst, who study German military tactics, think that German generals and soldiers were not patriotic. But you know more about the military than me, with your family connections to the military, so maybe you are right.

I have no evidence-based knowledge about North Korea, unlike you. As you say, the only history I know is the Tudors and Stuarts, and even that I have forgotten and I didn't always pay attention in class. I just apply common sense, but of course, that could be faulty. Apparently, the Dear Leader is a big James Bond fan and watches old movies regularly, doubtless whilst cackling and stroking a cat. Apparently, his eldest son is a Mickey Mouse fan, and entered Japan on a false passport, desperate to get to Tokyo Disneyland.

Here's some information about them from the Independent newspaper. I find it hard to believe. But then I also believe that there is such a thing as patriotism, because I feel it, and see that others feel it to, even though the evidence-based research says that it is all hogwash.

'Mr Kim's eldest son, Kim Jong Nam, 37, often considered his heir apparent, seems to be continuing the family tradition of generating bizarre stories for the international press. As an eight-year-old, Jong Nam reportedly ordered the kidnap of a South Korean comedian whom he grew to like while watching TV.

He may have been copying his father, who ordered the 1978 kidnapping of one of South Korea's most famous film stars, Choe Eun Hee. She was forced to make propaganda films with her movie-producer husband, Shin Sang Ok, until they escaped nine years later. "He likes horror and sex movies, and James Bond," Ms Choe later told the world.

A huge Mickey Mouse fan, Jong Nam caused a major diplomatic flap in 2002 when he was caught trying to enter Japan on a false passport, apparently on his way to Tokyo Disneyland. Mr Kim's second son, Jong Chol, also a possible successor, admires the music of Eric Clapton. Japan's Fuji TV secretly filmed him at a Clapton gig in Germany in 2006.'

Setting aside for a minute the obvious wind-up nature of the OP, I have absolutely no idea what you are arguing, Claig.

Is patriotism good or bad (or does it depend on which country you live in?)
Whats the difference being being patriotic and promoting propaganda?
How is this relevant to the BBC?

Race pretty damn difficult (if not impossible) to pin down. Compared with other great apes, homo sapiens are remarkably homogenous genetically and there is really no biological justification in splitting the race into any more sub-sets than homo sapiens. In fact 85% of human genetic variation occurs within populations (what many would call race) rather than between populations, with teh largest genetic variation occuring on the African continent (presumably because of the origin of our species there and therefore has had longer on that continent to develop variations). What most would call "race" is actually appearance and even then we are pretty inconsistant because for example what we call "caucasian" covers the weirdest mix of people with a wide genetic and appearance variation.

Just saying... as you all were.

Kewcumber, I'm not arguing about the OP. I disagree with most of the OP, except for the fact that I think that the BBC does have a left wing slant.

The discussion went in lots of different directions, and moved to patriotism in general and then to nationality and genetics.

'Is patriotism good or bad (or does it depend on which country you live in?)'

I think it is a natural human feeling and intended by nature, so I think it is good. Every country is patriotic and that is good. The Japanese soldiers were patriotic and that is natural.

'Whats the difference being being patriotic and promoting propaganda?'

Patriotism is a natural human feeling, whereas promoting propaganda isn't. Promoting propaganda is about gaining advantage politically and is different to feeling love for one's country.

'How is this relevant to the BBC?'
It's not. The discussion moved on from the BBC.

I agree with what you say about race. All I was saying is that there are differences in appearance between races which are due to different genes. Yes they are inconsistent and we are a mix of many genes, and we share most genes in common.

Patrotism is bad if you're English or American, but otherwise it's not considered a bad thing at all. If you're English or American, it's considered to be akin to bigotry or ignorance, but for anyone else, it's entirely natural or an indulged whim.

I'm with Kewcumber here art whatever it is that you're arguing Claig.

Patriotism could not possibly be a naturally occurring feeling or instinct because it would therefore predate the invention of the nation state.

You have clearly not looked too deeply at the question of the difference between swallowing a propagandist line and feeling 'patriotic'.

Claig, did you do any science at all in school?

*wrt

'I'm with Kewcumber here art whatever it is that you're arguing Claig.'
just plain, common sense

'Patriotism could not possibly be a naturally occurring feeling or instinct because it would therefore predate the invention of the nation state.'
patriotism is just love and predates nation. It is like love of family and is an extension of it, just like love of clan and tribe and region and love of home. In fact, patriotism is love of self as opposed to self-hatred. that's why patriotism is natural and predates nation, just as the love in love of family predates the nuclear family.

'You have clearly not looked too deeply at the question of the difference between swallowing a propagandist line and feeling 'patriotic'.
no need to look deeply, because it is obvious. Patriotic Irish people and the Irish her, Michael Collins, weren't swallowing a propaganda line. People who aren't patriotic may have swallowed a Marxist propaganda line.

'Claig, did you do any science at all in school?'
yes, a bit too much for my liking. It didn't extend to the type of "climate science" carried out at the University of East Anglia, but my schooldays were in the time of high standards.

the Irish hero, Michael Collins

Do you think that the patriotic words in the Scottish National Anthem, 'Flower of Scotland', are propaganda lines. Don't you understand the feeling behind those words? Do those words leave you cold? Don't you understand the sentiment of the person who wrote those words? The sentiment is patriotism and it is human and it is feeling.
The feeling is love and it is what separates living beings from stones.

Claig - why does something being natural make it good? The whole point of the culture and society thing is to allow us to transcend our natures.

Because nature was created by God, and God is good. Chairman Mao's society transcended human nature and it was bad.

and Chairman Mao's society of course was Godless, since communists like him outlaw religion. Mao was a representation of the transcendence of man over God and nature. His system was unnatural and bad, and that is why it had to fail and eventually China will be free, because that is what the human spirit works towards. That is natural, that is good.

why oh why?

Mao's failure might also have had something to do with the fact that he was a bit horrid to an awful lot of people.

So stealing, infidelity, rape and murder are all good? All these things are natural.

Mao was horrid to people because he believed in a horrid philosophy which was against nature and against God. He thought he was superior to the people he ruled over. He killed millions to create his vision of what was worthwhile.

'So stealing, infidelity, rape and murder are all good? All these things are natural.'

They are not natural. They are like Mao, they are evil and they happen less than love, respect, help and friendship, except in a society like Mao's.

Claig - plesase can you reference some research showing the humans races natural tendancy to goodness in the absence of cultural or societal restraint.

Because otherwise you seem to be saying, "It's nice to be nice. Aren't people nice? Yes they are. Lovely."

You're basically using the contents of your head as evidence again.

claig - are you quite mad?

against nature and against God

Nature is amoral.

And

Could you explain what God wanted? I have always found there to be quite contradictory interpretations. Which do you hold to be true and why?

Do you believe in evidence-based research, like the evidence-based research on "climate science", carried out at the University of East Anglia. Sometimes evidence-based research is just politically-based research.

I am sure that Mao had a lot of evidence-based researchers supporting his evil system.

There is good and evil in nature, and it is a battle, but eventually good defeats evil and Mao's system crumbles.

An example of the natural tendency to goodness is :

if a man is run over by a bus in the street, people rush to help him and save him. It is a natural instinct, there is no time for thought. People don't rush to rob his pockets, except, possibly, Maoists.

Society does not enable us to transcend nature. Or society would be an unnatural thing. To create a society maximizing benefit to society is natural, or it wouldn't happen. Society didn't happen by magic, or by an outside force. We create them. It is in our nature.

Nature is not amoral. A mother's love for her child is natural and instinctive and is not amoral. People naturally help those in need, they don't go around stabbing everyone in the back, unless they are Stalin.

A mother's love for her child is natural and instinctive

It's biological.

Claig, I hate to rain on your humans are love parade, but pickpocketing, looting and thieving is one of the biggest headaches for emergency staff at disaster incidents like the tube bombings, Madrid train bomb etc etc ad infinitum

Or had they perhaps all read the Thoughts of Chairman Mao?