You would have undoubtedly come across a certain fallacy on social media or just in daily life when arguing with the Left, or perhaps even normies. It is a fallacy where an opponent criticises the legitimacy of any assertion you make about reality, on the bases that assumes universality (absolutism) when that has not actually been established as the case.
To elaborate, a good example of this would be on a BBC debate show from 2013, entitled ‘Free Speech’, where Tommy Robinson clashes with a panel of Leftists, including rapper, Akala (time stamp 3:26). During this exchange, Robinson incessantly asks the panel what he said that was racist whilst they, in turn, avoid addressing the point until it was too much in the foreground to ignore any further. At this juncture, pseudo-intellectual comedian Grannie Maguire intervenes, and in the absence of a valid argument, takes refuge in this fallacy by telling Tommy that he is being racist because he is saying it is “All Muslims”.
This is an instance of what I’m pretentiously coining here as the ‘Fallacy of Absolutes’ (in a broader sense, it is just a variant of a ‘Strawman’). It is fallacious in the sense that it presumes that it is possible to have a conversation without generalising. In other words, when we use concepts, they are covering a plethora of variables not to mention a spectrum of differences in degree so there will always be a trace of generality. Moreover, even when talking about an individual you know really well, not an entire demographic, there may be a degree of generality. For instance, I can say with confidence that my mother does not like cheese – but actually she likes a bit of brie at Christmas. Nevertheless, I can at least say absolutely that she has grey hair, but again I am generalising because for most of her life it wasn’t grey.
Now, as intellectually interesting as this may be you might be asking yourself what does this have to do with nationalism? Well, I would say that this fallacy, although politically neutral, is almost used exclusively by the Left or the mainstream and in particular when confronted with reality that goes against a politically correct narrative. When someone points out to you that you are generalising, it is often an indicator that they don’t have a valid response to your argument. It is never said with any conviction, unless disingenuously, and betrayed by the wince they would make if you used the fallacy against them, because nobody actually means ‘all’. What, are you trying to tell me that not all Muslims are terrorists including the old and the infants too? I sometimes point out the absurdity of this rebuttal but if the opponent is arguing in bad faith, which is pretty much the majority of the time, when cornered, they will play dumb because when addressing anyone that doesn’t go along with their Cultural Marxist position, where racist is a proxy for nonconformist White person, the argument doesn’t matter.
I actually felt empathy for Tommy in that BBC debate, because it really was a point of personal integrity for him not to be labelled a racist. He wanted validation citing his actual Muslim friends but in return received scorn and open contempt, even to the extent that death threats towards him were justified by one of the panellists to the glee of the audience. You see the point is it doesn’t matter that Tommy isn’t a real nationalist, or a shill for a certain group, because ironically, he fits their definition of a racist. There is no distinction between Civic or Ethno-Nationalism as far as they are concerned. You either conform to their world view or you are a heretic, a witch, a racist.
The real tragedy is that Civic Nationalists denounce Ethno-Nationalism arguably more furiously than they do the Far Left, who would see violence acted out upon them with the tacit support of much of the State, mainstream media and even liberal society. UKIP prided themselves on how they were the only party that would not admit ex BNP members into their organisation for all the good it did them, as all of Gerard Baton’s election interviews consisted of him being on the back foot justifying the party’s affiliation with Tommy and the other celebrity Civic Nationalist Carl Benjamin; or, to use a more current example, the Dover protests, where the so called Little Veteran prohibited the inclusion of Ethno-Nationalists, not that the mainstream media reported upon that, because again, it does not matter.
For any wavering Civic Nationalist who happens upon reading this article, I urge you to contemplate whether there is only one true alternative to cultural homogenisation. Put another way, you can’t push back against the Left from the centre, because the Left occupy the centre; and it isn’t liberal. Its pillars are diversity and inclusion and its moral edict is equality. Hence, when the Left debate you, they are not interested in how much you denounce the Far Right, or in how liberal you say you are – instead they are going measure you by their own moral foundation which you have pretty much conceded to from the offset whether your present to that or not, and if you resist your persona non grata.