/pen/ - A Place to Create and Critique

An ongoing discussion between many football fans is the place of `out of towners’ (OOTs). Usually, if a home crowd has been disappointing, the immediate refrain from some fans is to blame foreigners who have heard, read or been told about their club and who have then turned up to watch but allegedly fail to understand some inherent facet of support. The parallel of this discussion with the broader discussion of migration was quite clear to me.

Going back to football, take Liverpool. Anyone can read the lyrics of You‘ll Never Walk Alone and sing it at the start (but still screw up the final chorus). If you ever listen to Liverpool fans however, you will hear it sung again during injury time (even if they’re being thrashed by some poncy Londoners), which is something that you‘ll likely only pick up by being there, if by some fluke everyone there had not been there before in any given match, they would not know to do it. Invariably, away fans tend to be comprised of the more hard core support of a football team. The idea being that only personal experience and directly being part of that culture produces people who understand and can continue that culture, and only the most hard core support goes the extra mile for the club.

I believe that there are two perspectives to take, that of the individual, in this case the fan, and the authority, in this case the club. I’ll begin by discussing fans.

Can a non Liverpudlian understand or care as much as or more than someone who lives in the shadow of Anfield? Is there a replacement for being there day in, day out?

It is immediately clear that the distinction `OOT’ and `local’ is not quite enough. Who is higher up the chain, one who is born local but moves away, or one who isn’t local and moves in? This reveals the underlying problem, as an individual it is not really our place to say one is or isn’t enough of a fan to be a `true’ fan. It isn’t as easy as where are you from, God knows many of Liverpool’s greatest figures have been Scottish. So it is something more intangible, an idea. At the very least, one can postulate that being surrounded by other football fans is a good way to learn how to become a good fan.

Your place of birth and current location are worth less than your attitude. Its difficult to say when someone is being a fan but often it is fairly easy to say when someone isn’t being a good fan. Piers Morgan is, on top of being just a general slimy git, one of the foremost examples of a bad fan. In general if you spend more time moaning at every poor result or moment than supporting and willing them to succeed, you’ll probably get someone else moaning at you eventually, rightly or wrongly.

Its about having the spirit to keep on singing even when it’s all going to hell, rather than leaving in a huff as soon as it gets tough. As Shankly said, if you can’t support us when we lose, don’t support us when we win.

What you take in on a cultural level is key, as if an individual, regardless of ethnicity or background or religion or whatever, finds themselves in such an environment they will become relatively indistinguishable from the rest of the culture. If a large number of OOT’s do not get inducted into such a culture, how is the culture affected? Will they learn to be `good fans’?

Is what matters whether that they are OOTs, but instead whether or note they `get’ what it means to be a fan. Are they just a bunch of glory hunters who are conspicuous with their absence when things aren’t so good, e.g., the `home counties manc’?

However, if we start to proclaim that there is a certain `correct’ behaviour, are we claiming, as an individual, that we are gatekeepers of what it means to be a fan? Is that not ignorant? Does that not entirely conflict with the idea of a community of people accepting of each other? How does a few individuals opinion become collective consensus?

This is the conundrum - if we police ourselves too stringently, we become a group of zealots constantly checking each other’s fandom. But can we afford to not police at all?

Now, consider the place of the `authority’, the club hierarchy itself. It is said that in the poor areas of Liverpool which once supplied the club with many working class supporters, turnout is down due to higher ticket prices. Who is acting entitled? The locals, the descendents of those who were predominately the supporters in days gone by who can expect a discount for their familial loyalty, or the club, who has every right to run the organisation with the cutthroat values of a major business?

From that deliberately loaded question, I ask this - lets say the club wants to encourage a certain type of fan into the ground on match days. There are only 44,000 fans that can fit on a match day. Under a first come first served basis, one assumes that there is a fair spread that reflects fairly the composition of the fan base. There is a large Irish and Norwegian presence in the fan base, but by the advantage of actually being more likely to be a fan, one still has the traditional local culture which the OOT’s can take in and be a part of themselves.

Would it be fair on locals if they passed a rule making it easier for OOT’s to get tickets?

As an alternative situation, if they decided that they mainly wanted richer fans, who spend more at the club shop or maybe buy box seats, and they raise prices to do this, what becomes of the poorer fans?

Where would they go? Everton?

At the very least, one would hope that a meritocratic, first come first served system should ensure locals can go to their local club. Not to mention that increasingly there are other events big clubs tend to hold. However with the rise of online buying, this may change, and not for the benefit of the locals. Can a relatively small city win against the rest of the world? Even if a local is 1000 times more likely to be a fan than an OOT, the number of non-local fans will outnumber locals by at least 5-1. Hence does a policy that encourages non locals unfairly disadvantage locals? Even more troublingly, does a policy that does not favour locals unfairly disadvantage them?

Also, consider that the OOTs that turn up would at that moment not be supporting their local clubs, which leaves those clubs weaker than perhaps they could be. What if the entirety of the Irish (North and South) population who regularly make the pilgrimage across the Irish Sea decided to instead support their local club. Where might football in those two leagues be after a few years of higher gates and income? Of course one has no right as an individual to tell people what to do or pour scorn on them, but the macro-economic effects are difficult to dismiss.

Not that the Irish don’t believe they are all scouse anyway.

(Remember - Mexicans want to be Americans, Americans want to be Irish, the Irish want to be scouse and the scouse want to move out and tell the world how scouse they are).

Another thing to consider is playing staff. Liverpool has a number of British born players and precisely one scouser who can still get in the first team, Gerrard, who’ll be on his way himself shortly. What to make of this? Well, its inevitable that to compete globally, the greater Merseyside area (a few million) can’t compete with the rest of the 7 billion in the world, whatever it would like to think. It would be the pragmatic choice for Liverpool FC to simply buy up whoever is best and take no heed of having a youth system, in terms of success that’s the financially efficient way.

However, Liverpool FC has a responsibility to its city, one it follows through with very well. The club does try and develop local talent the best it can, even if they will never be one of their top players. The first team players even take time out once a year to visit the local children‘s hospital. A non-local club will not and cannot put the same attention to the next generation of scouse footballers. After all, if Liverpool FC does not support Liverpool, the city and its people, who supports Liverpool? Everton? (hold on, I made that joke before).

I put forward the same question in respect to nations. I believe (being fairly left wing) that the nations purpose is largely in redistribution. Not merely in terms of things like the health service and benefits, but in terms of law as well. Each person allows themselves to, regardless of their own situation, adhere to laws which prevent a situation where the strong take from the weak without consideration, whatever we define by strong (e.g., wealth, physical strength, etc). It is a governmental structure that should, theoretically, prevent big business from, for example, price fixing or heavy lobbying of government ministers. Theoretically. But the key is that for many adherence to the law to at least some extent represents an abandonment or sacrifice of potential power for the greater good, I.e., redistribution.

I want to discuss the effect of migration on this process of redistribution. Which will inevitably mean one abandons the assumptions one has about its value, whatever they may be^[1]. To begin with, it is clear that as individuals, citizens of Britain, in this case, we cannot go around trying to be `more British’ then the next guy. Being proud of who you are and descending into a perpetual conflict of jingoistic patriotism are very different things. On the individual scale, things are little different to the football case, I.e., show and be proud of what makes you a Brit but don’t descend into gate keeping. Those who act un-British will ultimately show themselves in time.

The other point also remains though. If we accept that large numbers of OOTs who don’t take the time to drink in the club culture will attest the growth of the original fan culture, can the same be said for international immigration, whatever the country?

Now, I will discuss in terms of the authority, the nation and its government. I split this into an economic argument and a cultural one, starting with the economic.^[2]

Firstly, there is a clear wage compression. As an example consider `itinerate’ workers from poorer places in the EU, they come here, work and take the money home to their family. Absolutely fine, its very difficult to blame someone who wants to do this. However, since the cost of living is far lower in (for example) Eastern Europe that Britain, they require a far lower wage to raise a family than a British national wishing to start a family in Britain. We have effectively undercut the ability of the next generation of Britons, regardless of ethnicity, the chance to set the roots and build the families in this country that not only the older generations took for granted but are ultimately the building blocks of the society itself.

Is the argument, `Well, we can import highly educated people to fill job spaces’ (particularly in the NHS) a solution to the relative lack of home grown training? Would we necessarily have this problem, without such migration levels increasing the demand?

If a policy prevents this process of redistribution from actually occurring or even a discussion on how this redistribution can occur, then what is created but a two tier class system, the working or middle class whose wages and job opportunities are stretched by an arguably untenable (and self-inflicted, I will remind Labour voters) economic situation and a richer, privately educated class. Is that the sacrifice of a modern nation? Does it not simply make the powerful class unassailable, as the poor of this nation, regardless of background, are in less and less state to hold it to account?

In brief - I claim Britain’s policies obstruct its ability to carry out one of its foremost purposes - redistribution. If Britain cannot sustain the British, who will sustain the British?

Is this not a mirror of the situation with clubs - pricing out locals for greater profits - can they act in such a business like manner? Placing the higher ups in an even more powerful position, as wages are compressed and the profits of big business and multinationals soar, and to hell with the worker. How does a state show its loyalty to the children of those workers who supported it with their taxes in the past?

In the football case Anfield took 44,000 a match. What is the total per year that a country can take? Can you even give a number? Can you really suggest it is infinite? If the club is ignoring the hard core for a richer, more fair-weather type of fan, can that hard core centre still hold the owners to account?

One can make many arguments of various palatability involving the legitimacy of those who live in a country, regardless of ethnicity or background, being British. I will not and instead I defer to the reader’s personal reflection, whatever that may be^[3]. The question is, however, can a nation exist to help those in its borders if it makes no distinction whatsoever between `citizens‘ and `migrants’? What’s the limit to immigration?

I’ve considered the economic side, now I will consider the cultural aspects of the debate. Let me refer roughly to the medieval philosopher Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s view on how ideas develop:

One begins with a thesis, and idea of how things are done. Eventually, people bring a new idea that is in opposition to this view, the anti-thesis. It doesn’t have to be a precise `opposite’ to the thesis, just a challenging idea or ideas. Eventually someone (usually without emotional investment in either the thesis or anti-thesis) will take the ideas from both that are most successful and form the synthesis. Thus, ideas progress and advance via challenge and mixture.

It is clear to me that a free movement of peoples provides the impetus of an eventual synthesis and development of the culture for the general good. But with such high level of migration, this process is arrested. The thesis and anti-thesis cannot learn from each other because many of those migrants who provide the anti-thesis are unwilling to take on board much of the new culture, which is no good for anyone, migrants included. And, with such high numbers and hopelessly liberal policies protecting not merely moderate views but such extreme migrant views as Sharia law and the `Baridari‘^[4] system, there is little need. Why come to live in Britain when you can just bring Pakistan with you?^[5] Why should the government support local communities when we can import them for a fraction of the price?

Then this antagonism is naturally reciprocated by, at first, the more intolerant members of the `native’^[6] thesis. However, 20 years after Blair’s landslide, only now that the dust has settled do we see clearly the damage that has been done to the fabric of society by the falling rocks of progress.

Combine this with another simple economic fact, that if we want the wealth of this nation to attest to the decades or even centuries of poverty and economic depression that many `native’ people have, we cannot simply use that wealth to expand a luckless underclass, excluded from the political and economic power of the state and no more empowered to improve their own lot, no matter how heartless and bitter it is to exclude foreigners from that. But if we do not, what nation have they to come to? Also, would it not be better we help their nations directly without effectively enforcing a mirrored brain drain on their economies?^[7]

It is a sad reflection. Ultimately, I, and I’m sure many others agree, that a rich nation such as the UK has a global responsibility to provide for poorer nations that will hopefully improve the world in general. That is why I’m in favour of higher foreign aid (as long as it is not spent on helicopters), not less as Farage would have it. But sadly who else is serious about immigration, do you believe that Milliband would follow through with the lip service he has give it? Could he get any restriction passed over a majority labour government? Would he even risk a split in his own party? Also, Cameron has already broken a cast-iron guarantee from before 2010.

What you need to think about is this: Can you really claim that it is greedy, bigoted or even fascist to say, actually, maybe we should perhaps help ourselves, at some point? If we feel part of an economic and cultural rut, why vote in those who would perpetuate this? Who will change this consensus, will either of the `big two’, increasingly two sides of the same coin, change anything? What future do we want?

[1] Yes, I’m discussing immigration, the great idol of the post Blair consensus. Just understand that I’m not willing to proclaim a sacred cow before I have seen for myself why it is sacred. Is migration so sacred? Have you ever really thought about it, no matter how you may feel about it? Can you live off feelings while rejecting the truth? Isn’t a rejection of reality why many of us mock the religious?

[2] As much as I would love to see the re-nationalisation of some major industries and big tax evaders like Vodafone being clamped down on heavily prior to punishing poor migrants, since the only major `left wing’ voice abhors these values, I merely revert to a pragmatic and currently realistic view of things.

[3] After all, this is fairly subjective. If you tell me being British is about tolerance and acting in good faith, honesty and respect, then Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair are the least British people in history.

[4] In Bradford, maybe other areas in Britain as well, community leaders among the Pakistani migrants formed a mass `block vote’, where a few men held thousands of votes, called the Baridari system. Such a patriarchal system loaned from the more conservative Islamic parts of the third world naturally clashes with our relatively progressive British democracy.

[5] Not to say all Pakistanis are of this mindset, the very fact I need to point this out is an indicator of the insidiousness of the debate itself. That just makes the debate all the more important, in my view.

[6] I do dislike the word. One of the problems with these kinds of discussions is it naturally brings into the mind of the reader a `them’ and `us’ mentality. But legally speaking, can laws satisfy the needs of `native’ British while also supporting migrants, potentially anyone and everyone else in the entire world?

[7] I’m in favour on spending less on guns and more on aid, for what its worth. I’m sure this view is not shared by everyone.

I very much enjoyed reading it.

Clocking in at 3000 words though will see most Leftists/"Normies" overlook it unfortunately.

Did you have an intended format?

>>347

I'd integrate these into the main body. I'd imagine they'd be hyperlinked in a blog but never underestimate the laziness of people.

>>349

>I very much enjoyed reading it

Thanks for reading.

>Clocking in at 3000 words though will see most Leftists/"Normies" overlook it unfortunately

I know its a bit long but I felt most who wouldn't read it all can't be reasoned with yet anyway

>Did you have an intended format?

Do you mean what website I'll put it on? I dont know, I'll probably post it on medium and tweet it at e-celebs until one bites, but if you have a better choice I'll take it.

If you mean in terms of visuals I'll just use what that platform has automatically

>I'd integrate these into the main body. I'd imagine they'd be hyperlinked in a blog but never underestimate the laziness of people

Yeah, I might rewrite some of those bits into the text, I'll only keep the Baridari definition as a note

>>350

I was just curious about the format.

It'll be interesting to see who bites.

Have you got any primary ideas of who you'll tweet it to initially?

>>351

the likes of sargon of akkad or veeh and possibly total biscuit, then some of the other, smaller e-celebs who tend to orbit around them

>>352

Nice.

Be sure to update Brit/pol/ with this as I'm pretty forgetful.

Hope it takes off.

finished article can now be found here:

https://medium.com/@DillionSy/oots-and-the-main-duties-of-nations-63ebdc06b21

>>354

Looks good.

Had any takers?

You write quite eloquently and it flows well. I feel your points are quite solid, and even as a non-Briton I could pick up most of what you were saying.

>>354

There's a spelling error in the article, towards the beginning. "whether or note"

It is a pretty good article, though