I’m going to assume Goodhart considered Brown’s remark ‘clumsy and cynical’ because he assumed “British” was Brown’s code for “white british” even without saying so. It’s remarkable how cynical and racist progressives are. I rather assume Brown, progressive as he was himself, assumed “British” to mean British citizens of all races. Anyone who subscribes to anything resembling Sailer’s ‘citizenist’ formulation would mean the same. So would I have until the day before yesterday, but I feel the left closing that political space.

I find it particularly interesting that nationalism, even where “civic” in form [our own unlamented Michael Ignatieff long ago coined the terms 'ethnic nationalism' and 'civic nationalism' to describe a contrast similar to Sailer's, albeit coming from the other direction] and explicitly and implicitly non-racial, is now considered racist. Or indistinguishable from racism. This strikes me as an excessively simpleminded variation on progressive internationalism.

Have they considered that:

1) a British or American nationalism that is civic in form, as these currently more or less are, encompasses citizens of many races.
2) they may still have elements of required ‘national’ culture, but these are open to all and increasingly incorporate new imported elements.
3) they are not actually racist in the sense of making required distinctions among races, let alone privileging any.
4) Just as British citizens include most races by now, so the population of the world outside Britain includes white people, who are not being privileged by a British-nationalist policy.
5) Global white solidarity would also be internationalist, not nationalist. Also quite multicultural.