I am for Nationalism, Multi-culturism has done nothing but give us new food, clothes and more crime. It has been prooven that Multi-culturism has a correlation with crime. If you move to a country, you have to become a citizen of that country. Not a citizen of another country living in that country. People who move to another country should be forced to integrate into the culture of that country.
rockerbikie wrote:I am for Nationalism, Multi-culturism has done nothing but give us new food, clothes and more crime. It has been prooven that Multi-culturism has a correlation with crime. If you move to a country, you have to become a citizen of that country. Not a citizen of another country living in that country. People who move to another country should be forced to integrate into the culture of that country.
corpsesarefun wrote:The UK right wing nationalist party tends to be ridiculed and ignored, though do we really count as europe?
DoD you give up the pound for euros? No. Then you're European just not idiots.
I don't know why this is focused on "right wing" nationalists. I was under the impression that nationalism was free from partisan politics.
Then I saw the story was from the guardian and headed by a picture of that Norwegian mass murderer. Let's call this overenthusiastic journalism. Although I have no doubt that right wingers, islamophobes, and nationalists are on the rise. I would guess that left wing and centrist nationalism is or will be on the rise too as stable countries like say, Germany, see the potential for other EU nations like Italy's economy drag them under too. Who knows how far This upswell of nationalism will spread, the EU isn't all bad, but it could still be the victim.
rockerbikie wrote:I am for Nationalism, Multi-culturism has done nothing but give us new food, clothes and more crime. It has been prooven that Multi-culturism has a correlation with crime. If you move to a country, you have to become a citizen of that country. Not a citizen of another country living in that country. People who move to another country should be forced to integrate into the culture of that country.
Multiculturalism stopped your tendency to cull half of your own male population once every 40 years.
rockerbikie wrote:I am for Nationalism, Multi-culturism has done nothing but give us new food, clothes and more crime. It has been prooven that Multi-culturism has a correlation with crime. If you move to a country, you have to become a citizen of that country. Not a citizen of another country living in that country. People who move to another country should be forced to integrate into the culture of that country.
That's pretty much what happens to people in the UK...
I can't speak for other countries however...
As for Right Wing parties...
The British right wing parties are openly mocked and ridiculed so... yeah.
For this reason alone, I think we should be extremely strict on immigration. There is also the fact that I am selfish, and I would rather my life be good, and my kids lives be good, then worry about starving people I don't know, in gak hole nations that I will never visit.
Our quality of life has gotten worse over the recent years, of course people are getting more right wing!
The sole reason I didn't move to California is because of that. The weather is better, but the more people there are in a place, the more it sucks, lines for everything, crowds everywhere, gridlocked traffic.
I like York because the traffic is acceptable, the lines are acceptable, there aren't that many people here. However if in ten years time the population has doubled, it will suck.
Its not a hard equation, but people like to "um and ah" and "perhaps this way?" about it because they don't want to accept what is essentially a very simple equation.
I wont even start on the fact that we import some of the very very worst people. Illiterate, uneducated, and (in the case of Iraq) actual criminals, some of the worst people in that nation moved to Europe after we invaded them.
Its simple, and Im sorry if you find it hard to deal with because your left leaning, but answer me this. If you already have crowded schools, hospitals, roads and stores, is your life going to be better or worse if 10,000 Somalian refugees move in to the local area?
For this reason alone, I think we should be extremely strict on immigration. There is also the fact that I am selfish, and I would rather my life be good, and my kids lives be good, then worry about starving people I don't know, in gak hole nations that I will never visit.
Then you should pay more attention to your birth rates and look up what happens to an economy with severe age demographic issues. Your kids need immigration, otherwise they'll be too busy paying for your old ass to ever generate wealth for themselves.
I wont even start on the fact that we import some of the very very worst people. Illiterate, uneducated, and (in the case of Iraq) actual criminals, some of the worst people in that nation moved to Europe after we invaded them.
They could say the reverse!
Its simple, and Im sorry if you find it hard to deal with because your left leaning, but answer me this. If you already have crowded schools, hospitals, roads and stores, is your life going to be better or worse if 10,000 Somalian refugees move in to the local area?
rockerbikie wrote:I am for Nationalism, Multi-culturism has done nothing but give us new food, clothes and more crime. It has been prooven that Multi-culturism has a correlation with crime. If you move to a country, you have to become a citizen of that country. Not a citizen of another country living in that country. People who move to another country should be forced to integrate into the culture of that country.
Multiculturalism stopped your tendency to cull half of your own male population once every 40 years.
People will fight no mater what we do. It's in our nature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
The more crowded a country gets, the worse it is.
For this reason alone, I think we should be extremely strict on immigration. There is also the fact that I am selfish, and I would rather my life be good, and my kids lives be good, then worry about starving people I don't know, in gak hole nations that I will never visit.
Then you should pay more attention to your birth rates and look up what happens to an economy with severe age demographic issues. Your kids need immigration, otherwise they'll be too busy paying for your old ass to ever generate wealth for themselves.
I wont even start on the fact that we import some of the very very worst people. Illiterate, uneducated, and (in the case of Iraq) actual criminals, some of the worst people in that nation moved to Europe after we invaded them.
They could say the reverse!
Its simple, and Im sorry if you find it hard to deal with because your left leaning, but answer me this. If you already have crowded schools, hospitals, roads and stores, is your life going to be better or worse if 10,000 Somalian refugees move in to the local area?
That writing must be tiny. This issue is only simple if you don't pay much attention to how economies work.
Immigrants take all the jobs because they are willing to work for lower rates. They create poverty, crime and other problems. In Australia, guess who makes and sells drugs? Iraqis, Lebanese and Vietnamese. We should look after our citizens before importing some that will only make trouble.
rockerbikie wrote:I am for Nationalism, Multi-culturism has done nothing but give us new food, clothes and more crime. It has been prooven that Multi-culturism has a correlation with crime. If you move to a country, you have to become a citizen of that country. Not a citizen of another country living in that country. People who move to another country should be forced to integrate into the culture of that country.
Multiculturalism stopped your tendency to cull half of your own male population once every 40 years.
People will fight no mater what we do. It's in our nature.
Other regions seem to manage to avoid starting things known as world wars though. Europe+nationalism=nationalist conflict within europe. It's not like europes crime rates have skyrocketed since multiculturalism became the value of the age post WW2. History just doesn't prove that right. White dudes are just as good at stabbing and stealing as brown ones.
Immigrants take all the jobs because they are willing to work for lower rates. They create poverty, crime and other problems. In Australia, guess who makes and sells drugs? Iraqis, Lebanese and Vietnamese. We should look after our citizens before importing some that will only make trouble.
rockerbikie wrote:I am for Nationalism, Multi-culturism has done nothing but give us new food, clothes and more crime. It has been prooven that Multi-culturism has a correlation with crime. If you move to a country, you have to become a citizen of that country. Not a citizen of another country living in that country. People who move to another country should be forced to integrate into the culture of that country.
Multiculturalism stopped your tendency to cull half of your own male population once every 40 years.
People will fight no mater what we do. It's in our nature.
Other regions seem to manage to avoid starting things known as world wars though. Europe+nationalism=nationalist conflict within europe. It's not like europes crime rates have skyrocketed since multiculturalism became the value of the age post WW2. History just doesn't prove that right. White dudes are just as good at stabbing and stealing as brown ones.
Immigrants take all the jobs because they are willing to work for lower rates. They create poverty, crime and other problems. In Australia, guess who makes and sells drugs? Iraqis, Lebanese and Vietnamese. We should look after our citizens before importing some that will only make trouble.
You didn't read the link did you? Shock.
I don't read Capitalist leftist Propaganda Article created to control white people so they will eventually become enslaved like they used to be in the Barbary States. Also, the Vietnam War was fought over Nationalism, also South Africa, The Boer War, the Zulu War and the Korea War.
On a recent interview political leaders Nick Griffin said he was 'Dreaming of a White-superiority Christmas' while David Cameron wanted a 'Multi-diverse mixed ethnic jamboree at this time of middle class jubilation at this peroid containing but not exclusively segregated to; Yule/Christmas/Pagan Tree day/Solstice/Dwali/Ramadan' In stark contrast Nick Clegg is said to want 'a new PR manager...'
rockerbikie wrote:I am for Nationalism, Multi-culturism has done nothing but give us new food, clothes and more crime. It has been prooven that Multi-culturism has a correlation with crime. If you move to a country, you have to become a citizen of that country. Not a citizen of another country living in that country. People who move to another country should be forced to integrate into the culture of that country.
Multiculturalism stopped your tendency to cull half of your own male population once every 40 years.
People will fight no mater what we do. It's in our nature.
Other regions seem to manage to avoid starting things known as world wars though. Europe+nationalism=nationalist conflict within europe. It's not like europes crime rates have skyrocketed since multiculturalism became the value of the age post WW2. History just doesn't prove that right. White dudes are just as good at stabbing and stealing as brown ones.
Immigrants take all the jobs because they are willing to work for lower rates. They create poverty, crime and other problems. In Australia, guess who makes and sells drugs? Iraqis, Lebanese and Vietnamese. We should look after our citizens before importing some that will only make trouble.
You didn't read the link did you? Shock.
I don't read Capitalist leftist Propaganda Article created to control white people so they will eventually become enslaved like they used to be in the Barbary States. Also, the Vietnam War was fought over Nationalism, also South Africa, The Boer War, the Zulu War and the Korea War.
Europes demographic crisis isn't a leftist propaganda piece. It's been known for 20 years, some of your states are in the middle of it. Italy is one of the big ones, look at how well that's going. If you're so incapable of learning how the world works because you're worried you might get pinko eye then you're going to be useless in political discourse.
Also, if you can compare Vietnam to world war two then you have some pretty severe issues with your history knowledge (vietnam being a civil war between nationalist and communist factions funded and fought by two empires) and not a 60 country wide megabattle).
ShumaGorath wrote: Then you should pay more attention to your birth rates and look up what happens to an economy with severe age demographic issues. Your kids need immigration, otherwise they'll be too busy paying for your old ass to ever generate wealth for themselves.
I am well aware of the issues that Japan is currently facing, what your saying isnt incorrect, but you need a happy medium, and as it stands we are importing far too many illiterate peasants from the arse end of the world.
rockerbikie wrote:I am for Nationalism, Multi-culturism has done nothing but give us new food, clothes and more crime. It has been prooven that Multi-culturism has a correlation with crime. If you move to a country, you have to become a citizen of that country. Not a citizen of another country living in that country. People who move to another country should be forced to integrate into the culture of that country.
Multiculturalism stopped your tendency to cull half of your own male population once every 40 years.
People will fight no mater what we do. It's in our nature.
Other regions seem to manage to avoid starting things known as world wars though. Europe+nationalism=nationalist conflict within europe. It's not like europes crime rates have skyrocketed since multiculturalism became the value of the age post WW2. History just doesn't prove that right. White dudes are just as good at stabbing and stealing as brown ones.
Immigrants take all the jobs because they are willing to work for lower rates. They create poverty, crime and other problems. In Australia, guess who makes and sells drugs? Iraqis, Lebanese and Vietnamese. We should look after our citizens before importing some that will only make trouble.
You didn't read the link did you? Shock.
I don't read Capitalist leftist Propaganda Article created to control white people so they will eventually become enslaved like they used to be in the Barbary States. Also, the Vietnam War was fought over Nationalism, also South Africa, The Boer War, the Zulu War and the Korea War.
Europes demographic crisis isn't a leftist propaganda piece. It's been known for 20 years, some of your states are in the middle of it. Italy is one of the big ones, look at how well that's going. If you're so incapable of learning how the world works because you're worried you might get pinko eye then you're going to be useless in political discourse.
Also, if you can compare Vietnam to world war two then you have some pretty severe issues with your history knowledge (vietnam being a civil war between nationalist and communist factions funded and fought by two empires) and not a 60 country wide megabattle).
I'm not incapable of how the world works. War is War doesn't matter how big it is. Peace is futile, peace is utter stupid in some circumstances(Iraq War). I am a Nationalist Communist, I believe that everyone should get equal wages and everyone should keep to their own kind. I dispise the idea of cross breeding because it will cause little genetic variation and it will lead to the extinction of man kind. People need to look at why people are different from an Evolution point of view, then you will realise why Multi-culturism is flawed. Do you know why there is a population crisis in European countries? Due to capitalism, people don't have enough time to look after kids, also we have condoms.
rockerbikie wrote:
I don't read Capitalist leftist Propaganda Article produced by the Zionist Conspiracy created to control white people so they will eventually become enslaved like they used to be in the Barbary States. Also, the Vietnam War was fought over Nationalism, also South Africa, The Boer War, the Zulu War and the Korea War.
You're a fun one I can tell. I helped in the quote.
ShumaGorath wrote: Then you should pay more attention to your birth rates and look up what happens to an economy with severe age demographic issues. Your kids need immigration, otherwise they'll be too busy paying for your old ass to ever generate wealth for themselves.
I am well aware of the issues that Japan is currently facing, what your saying isnt incorrect, but you need a happy medium, and as it stands we are importing far too many illiterate peasants from the arse end of the world.
I liked the crack about the Iraqi's though..
Then find that happy medium, stop whining about part of the solution. If you want the best and brightest of foreign nations make yourself an attractive package with schooling and aid packages that encourage them to integrate rather then form sects or turn to crime. The U.S. manged and still manages it, the UK isn't exactly having a hard time of it. Your recession isn't caused by the brownies, it's caused by the whities. The pitch colored minions of set are going to keep you afloat in 2030 when the odinsons are all greybeards.
rockerbikie wrote:
I don't read Capitalist leftist Propaganda Article produced by the True Nationalist Conspiracy created to control white people so they will eventually become enslaved like they used to be in the Barbary States. Also, the Vietnam War was fought over Nationalism, also South Africa, The Boer War, the Zulu War and the Korea War.
You're a fun one I can tell. I helped in the quote.
rockerbikie wrote:
I don't read Capitalist leftist Propaganda Article produced by the True Nationalist Conspiracy created to control white people so they will eventually become enslaved like they used to be in the Barbary States. Also, the Vietnam War was fought over Nationalism, also South Africa, The Boer War, the Zulu War and the Korea War.
You're a fun one I can tell. I helped in the quote.
rockerbikie wrote:
I don't read Capitalist leftist Propaganda Article produced by the True Nationalist Conspiracy created to control white people so they will eventually become enslaved like they used to be in the Barbary States. Also, the Vietnam War was fought over Nationalism, also South Africa, The Boer War, the Zulu War and the Korea War.
You're a fun one I can tell. I helped in the quote.
I fixed it for you.
Are you real?
Nah. I am Demon
Spoiler:
Of course I am real unless you are really tripping out on something good. If so, can I have some? Now respond to my last response.
rockerbikie wrote: I am a Nationalist Communist, I believe that everyone should get equal wages and everyone should keep to their own kind. I dispise the idea of cross breeding because it will cause little genetic variation and it will lead to the extinction of man kind.
Rockerbikie, you need to go read some more about evolution. Because your current understanding is very poor and is leading you to make crazy arguments.
As for nationalism on the rise, absolutely, as is the right.
Also, Brits, you are Europeans. You live in Europe, making you Europeans. Unless you want to attach some rockets to this fair isle and strike for the atlantic...
rockerbikie wrote: I am a Nationalist Communist, I believe that everyone should get equal wages and everyone should keep to their own kind. I dispise the idea of cross breeding because it will cause little genetic variation and it will lead to the extinction of man kind.
rockerbikie wrote:I'm not incapable of how the world works. War is War doesn't matter how big it is. Peace is futile, peace is utter stupid in some circumstances(Iraq War). I am a Nationalist Communist, I believe that everyone should get equal wages and everyone should keep to their own kind. I dispise the idea of cross breeding because it will cause little genetic variation and it will lead to the extinction of man kind. People need to look at why people are different from an Evolution point of view, then you will realise why Multi-culturism is flawed. Do you know why there is a population crisis in European countries? Due to capitalism, people don't have enough time to look after kids, also we have condoms.
You know, you almost took me in for a minute there. I almost believed you were serious.
Because you are joking/trolling for a laugh, right? Right?!
rockerbikie wrote:I'm not incapable of how the world works. War is War doesn't matter how big it is. Peace is futile, peace is utter stupid in some circumstances(Iraq War). I am a Nationalist Communist, I believe that everyone should get equal wages and everyone should keep to their own kind. I dispise the idea of cross breeding because it will cause little genetic variation and it will lead to the extinction of man kind. People need to look at why people are different from an Evolution point of view, then you will realise why Multi-culturism is flawed. Do you know why there is a population crisis in European countries? Due to capitalism, people don't have enough time to look after kids, also we have condoms.
You know, you almost took me in for a minute there. I almost believed you were serious.
Because you are joking/trolling for a laugh, right? Right?!
No... You do not realise that my avatar is a profile picture of Varg Vikerness, a far-right political activist.
corpsesarefun wrote:The UK right wing nationalist party tends to be ridiculed and ignored, though do we really count as europe?
DoD you give up the pound for euros? No. Then you're European just not idiots.
I don't know why this is focused on "right wing" nationalists. I was under the impression that nationalism was free from partisan politics.
Then I saw the story was from the guardian and headed by a picture of that Norwegian mass murderer. Let's call this overenthusiastic journalism. Although I have no doubt that right wingers, islamophobes, and nationalists are on the rise. I would guess that left wing and centrist nationalism is or will be on the rise too as stable countries like say, Germany, see the potential for other EU nations like Italy's economy drag them under too. Who knows how far This upswell of nationalism will spread, the EU isn't all bad, but it could still be the victim.
From the historic viewpoint nationalism is inherently right wing and conservative.
Traditionally socialism and communism embrace other nations and see the differences between them as much less important than the class struggle against the the oppressive capitalist overlords.
corpsesarefun wrote:The UK right wing nationalist party tends to be ridiculed and ignored, though do we really count as europe?
DoD you give up the pound for euros? No. Then you're European just not idiots.
I don't know why this is focused on "right wing" nationalists. I was under the impression that nationalism was free from partisan politics.
Then I saw the story was from the guardian and headed by a picture of that Norwegian mass murderer. Let's call this overenthusiastic journalism. Although I have no doubt that right wingers, islamophobes, and nationalists are on the rise. I would guess that left wing and centrist nationalism is or will be on the rise too as stable countries like say, Germany, see the potential for other EU nations like Italy's economy drag them under too. Who knows how far This upswell of nationalism will spread, the EU isn't all bad, but it could still be the victim.
From the historic viewpoint nationalism is inherently right wing and conservative.
Traditionally socialism and communism embrace other nations and see the differences between them as much less important than the class struggle against the the oppressive capitalist overlords.
How does that jive with with Soviet communism during and post WWII? (and now?)
I can understand that different ethnic grounds have a tendency to be better suited for different environments, northern Europeans tend to be stouter and more tolerant to dairy products than say Africans or folks from the Mediterranean but an Italian woman having a kid with a Swedish bloke doesn't somehow cancel this out to make some kind of rubbish half and half child. That just isn't how anything works.
rockerbikie wrote:No... You do not realise that my avatar is a profile picture of Varg Vikerness, a far-right political activist.
Sir, in that case, I am genuinely......flabbergasted. With a dash of being gobsmacked.
As a scholar in the field of war, with a good dose of general education, common sense, and world knowledge, I find it difficult to understand why viewpoints such as your still exist. I won't bother trying to convince you why you're wrong through academic discourse, as people with such views are usually rarely amenable to logic.
rockerbikie wrote:No... You do not realise that my avatar is a profile picture of Varg Vikerness, a far-right political activist.
Sir, in that case, I am genuinely......flabbergasted. With a dash of being gobsmacked.
As a scholar in the field of war, with a good dose of general education, common sense, and world knowledge, I find it difficult to understand why viewpoints such as your still exist. I won't bother trying to convince you why you're wrong through academic discourse, as people with such views are usually rarely amenable to logic.
I am amenable to logic. I am a reasonist. I have a good ammount in all 4 topics you have stated. In fact, alot more than the general population.
corpsesarefun wrote:Breeding with people of dissimilar genetics causes little variation when compared to breeding with those closely related to you?
Well that's a new one...
Think about it, what are the strong points in each race. They will also be eliminated.
I am curious. What are the strong points of each race?
Figure it out for yourself, I am not a Shepard to lead you Sheep around. I'm sick of sheep.
Nono, you can't make an argument without backing it up. You said the strong points of each race would get eliminated. Please clarify which ones you are talking about.
rockerbikie wrote:I am amenable to logic. I am a reasonist. I have a good ammount in all 4 topics you have stated. In fact, alot more than the general population.
In that case, to begin. Your concept of what you term to be 'races'. You are aware that 'race' has been demonstrably repeatedly proven, in innumerable biological, sociological, and anthropological studies, to be nothing more than a social construct? I can cite academic chapter and verse if necessary here.
corpsesarefun wrote:That is not how anything works at all.
I can understand that different ethnic grounds have a tendency to be better suited for different environments, northern Europeans tend to be stouter and more tolerant to dairy products than say Africans or folks from the Mediterranean but an Italian woman having a kid with a Swedish bloke doesn't somehow cancel this out to make some kind of rubbish half and half child. That just isn't how anything works.
I meant more skin-tone lines. Think about it fair skinned is more suited to Scandivania etc while Africans are suited to Africa. Imagine if you had a mixed skinned colour and a huge ice age happened, we'd probably die out. Tall is inherently stronger than short meaning that we'd probably die out in an ice-age. If the world heated up however we'd still be in trouble because Fat is inherently stronger than slim, meaning that we'd probably not do too well in a hot environment either.
rockerbikie wrote:No... You do not realise that my avatar is a profile picture of Varg Vikerness, a far-right political activist.
Sir, in that case, I am genuinely......flabbergasted. With a dash of being gobsmacked.
As a scholar in the field of war, with a good dose of general education, common sense, and world knowledge, I find it difficult to understand why viewpoints such as your still exist. I won't bother trying to convince you why you're wrong through academic discourse, as people with such views are usually rarely amenable to logic.
Its very simple actually. Some people, when children, grow up without the awesomoness of Tex Mex or wienerdogs (hound dogs have been found to be an effective substitute). These people, naturally have a massive void in their lives, and unfillable chasm. Like a black hole it draws in other emotions and drives, in a vast vain effort to fill that need.
This theory was first found of the Kaiser himself. Early footage shows the Kaiser with his wiener dog Smitzi. He has happy and vibrant and there are no wars. Sadly Smitzi was ambushed by the hated cats one day. The Kaiser was inconsolable. Shortly thereafter a nasty rumor went around that the Czar was a cat lover and in fact, tormented wiener dogs by forcing them to eat vegetables. The Kaiser was naturally enraged at this.
Then find that happy medium, stop whining about part of the solution.
Arent you just trying to argue for arguments sake? Read the thread, there are waaaaaay better guys to argue with than me.
I mean seriously.. what does "find the happy medium" mean? As in, what? Me and you via dakka?
I wasn't whining, I was merely giving you my opinion, and as you just stated correctly we haven't got where we want to be yet, because instead of having a nice sensible flow of immigration, we let far far too many illiterate half wits in. Yes, we need some immigration but the current system isn't correct either.
rockerbikie wrote:I am amenable to logic. I am a reasonist. I have a good ammount in all 4 topics you have stated. In fact, alot more than the general population.
In that case, to begin. Your concept of what you term to be 'races'. You are aware that 'race' has been demonstrably repeatedly proven, in innumerable biological, sociological, and anthropological studies, to be nothing more than a social construct? I can cite academic chapter and verse if necessary here.
For example compare people of central Africa to those in Egypt, then Egyptians to those living in Saudi Arabia and the middle east, then those living in Saudi Arabia and the middle east to those living in turkey, then turkey with people from eastern Europe, eastern Europe to northern Europe.
Yes it's a rough transition but the traits you would define "race" by (such as skin colour, facial features and so forth) blend more or less continuously between people from a given area. Now with the ease of modern travel even this will fade away until even people like you have very little to base these "racial" differences on.
rockerbikie wrote: I meant more skin-tone lines. Think about it fair skinned is more suited to Scandivania etc while Africans are suited to Africa. Imagine if you had a mixed skinned colour and a huge ice age happened, we'd probably die out. Tall is inherently stronger than short meaning that we'd probably die out in an ice-age. If the world heated up however we'd still be in trouble because Fat is inherently stronger than slim, meaning that we'd probably not do too well in a hot environment either.
In cold environments you should have a large volume in relation to surface area, a tall skinny person would freeze to death very quickly compared to a short bulky person whereas a black guy will freeze at exactly the same speed as a white guy...
rockerbikie wrote:I am amenable to logic. I am a reasonist. I have a good ammount in all 4 topics you have stated. In fact, alot more than the general population.
In that case, to begin. Your concept of what you term to be 'races'. You are aware that 'race' has been demonstrably repeatedly proven, in innumerable biological, sociological, and anthropological studies, to be nothing more than a social construct? I can cite academic chapter and verse if necessary here.
Races of the world:
Western European
Northern European
Slavic
Arabic
Eastern European
South East Asia
North East Asia
Western Asia
North African
South African
Paciffic
South America
Native American
People in each category have similar characteristic to each other.
rockerbikie wrote:Tall is inherently stronger than short
Uhhh
Tell that to 80% of the marines.
The Norse beat the living daylights out of the English.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Space Crusader wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Space Crusader wrote:Isnt nationalism the same as patriotism? Loving your own country but hating thoe filthy evil foreigners?
Patriotism is liking and being proud of your country.
Nationalism is believing that yours is the best.
Seems many americans are nationalists.
Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation. In the 'modernist' image of the nation, it is nationalism that creates national identity. That is Nationalism. Ho Chi Minh was a Nationalist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Ketara wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:No... You do not realise that my avatar is a profile picture of Varg Vikerness, a far-right political activist.
Sir, in that case, I am genuinely......flabbergasted. With a dash of being gobsmacked.
As a scholar in the field of war, with a good dose of general education, common sense, and world knowledge, I find it difficult to understand why viewpoints such as your still exist. I won't bother trying to convince you why you're wrong through academic discourse, as people with such views are usually rarely amenable to logic.
Its very simple actually. Some people, when children, grow up without the awesomoness of Tex Mex or wienerdogs (hound dogs have been found to be an effective substitute). These people, naturally have a massive void in their lives, and unfillable chasm. Like a black hole it draws in other emotions and drives, in a vast vain effort to fill that need.
This theory was first found of the Kaiser himself. Early footage shows the Kaiser with his wiener dog Smitzi. He has happy and vibrant and there are no wars. Sadly Smitzi was ambushed by the hated cats one day. The Kaiser was inconsolable. Shortly thereafter a nasty rumor went around that the Czar was a cat lover and in fact, tormented wiener dogs by forcing them to eat vegetables. The Kaiser was naturally enraged at this.
That day was July 27. The rest is history.
Are you implying I have Antisocial personality disorder?
rockerbikie wrote:Races of the world:
Western European
Northern European
Slavic
Arabic
Eastern European
South East Asia
North East Asia
Western Asia
North African
People in each category have similar characteristic to each other.
South African
Paciffic
South America
Native American
No. You're basing your concept of race purely on skin phenotypes. And even were skin phenotypes alone considered to be sufficient justification for race, Brazil, where people's 'race' and perception of whether they're Black, White, or Indian varies according to social standing, personal wealth, and education would be sufficient to prove such an idea wrong. I'm going to copypaste something I wrote here to elucidate further:-
Race and ethnicity are terms oft used interchangeably in common everyday speech and interaction. Both share similar meaning, in that they are used to class and categorise different people, however despite the aforementioned common perception, both terms still retain their own individual histories and definitions. In order to analyse the concepts of race and ethnicity as social constructs however, the meanings of the terms ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ must be fully explored, in order to comprehend precisely how they fall under the category of ‘social construct’, rather than a more objective definition. Firstly though, the term ‘social construct’ must be defined.
A social construct is commonly held to be a perception of a an individual, a group, or an idea that is ‘constructed’ through cultural or social practice; that is to say, a social phenomenon that has been created and developed by society itself. In and of itself, a social construct is an intangible, incorporeal thing, it relies solely on the existence of humanity, and is based in their interaction and experiences of and with each other.
The word ‘race’ seems initially not to fit this category, at least by common perception. This is because the word emerged primarily from the extended encounters between Europeans and non-Europeans in the early sixteenth century, and scientific racism in the nineteenth century. Discovering differences between themselves and humans physically, Europeans came to believe that there were fundamental differences between them and other humans, and that humans, like many animals, could separated into biologically distinctive breeds or ‘races’. However, more recent scientific evidence shows such a concept to be flawed. Geneticists have thoroughly demonstrated that whilst there may be some variation between people with different geographic origins, there is far more genetic difference between individual peoples within such groupings. Not only this, the mixing of various peoples across the face of the earth has resulted in such a genetic soup, that it is often nigh on impossible to subdivide certain people into specific races; indeed, those who did attempt to set out the different races of people, from Burke to Pickering to Linnaeus, all came up with different numbers of races. The result of this is that the concept of races as meaningful biological categories for groups of human beings has been all but dismissed by modern academics.
Despite this however, the perception of ‘race’ still wields tremendous power as a social category or construct in and of itself, allowing it to remain separate from ‘ethnicity’ in places. Karen Blu notes that ‘race’ is still a term used when considering the biological origins of an individual by the common layman and as such, ‘race’ should remain a separate category for analysis from ‘ethnicity’, because they are separate categories in common terminology. This consideration of biological origins usually rests upon physical appearance of the person in question, that is to say skin, eye, and hair colour, physical size, and so on. Yet to rely on such phenotypical characteristics in order to determine race is not always sufficiently adequate, as what can be considered to be ‘white’ or ‘black’ in one part of the world is often not what would be considered to fit that category in another. Attempting to class people in such a purely objective biological sense fails to take into account societal context, which is ultimately subjective and variable across the globe. As such, due to the variation in what is considered adequate to slot someone into an appropriate racial category differs depending on your geographical location, the term and concepts of ‘race’ must ultimately be considered to be social constructions, as they hold no objective scientific meaning outside of human interaction.
rockerbikie wrote:
I meant more skin-tone lines. Think about it fair skinned is more suited to Scandivania etc while Africans are suited to Africa. Imagine if you had a mixed skinned colour and a huge ice age happened, we'd probably die out. Tall is inherently stronger than short meaning that we'd probably die out in an ice-age. If the world heated up however we'd still be in trouble because Fat is inherently stronger than slim, meaning that we'd probably not do too well in a hot environment either.
Can't see much logic going on here.
I don't think an albino right winger would have a better chance than some african chap when a glacier grinds them to powder.
Taller is only better when trying to reach a copy of 'asian babes' on the top shelf of the newsagents.
rockerbikie wrote:Races of the world:
Western European
Northern European
Slavic
Arabic
Eastern European
South East Asia
North East Asia
Western Asia
North African
People in each category have similar characteristic to each other.
South African
Paciffic
South America
Native American
No. You're basing your concept of race purely on skin phenotypes. And even were skin phenotypes alone considered to be sufficient justification for race, Brazil, where people's 'race' and perception of whether they're Black, White, or Indian varies according to social standing, personal wealth, and education would be sufficient to prove such an idea wrong. I'm going to copypaste something I wrote here to elucidate further:-
Race and ethnicity are terms oft used interchangeably in common everyday speech and interaction. Both share similar meaning, in that they are used to class and categorise different people, however despite the aforementioned common perception, both terms still retain their own individual histories and definitions. In order to analyse the concepts of race and ethnicity as social constructs however, the meanings of the terms ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ must be fully explored, in order to comprehend precisely how they fall under the category of ‘social construct’, rather than a more objective definition. Firstly though, the term ‘social construct’ must be defined.
A social construct is commonly held to be a perception of a an individual, a group, or an idea that is ‘constructed’ through cultural or social practice; that is to say, a social phenomenon that has been created and developed by society itself. In and of itself, a social construct is an intangible, incorporeal thing, it relies solely on the existence of humanity, and is based in their interaction and experiences of and with each other.
The word ‘race’ seems initially not to fit this category, at least by common perception. This is because the word emerged primarily from the extended encounters between Europeans and non-Europeans in the early sixteenth century, and scientific racism in the nineteenth century. Discovering differences between themselves and humans physically, Europeans came to believe that there were fundamental differences between them and other humans, and that humans, like many animals, could separated into biologically distinctive breeds or ‘races’. However, more recent scientific evidence shows such a concept to be flawed. Geneticists have thoroughly demonstrated that whilst there may be some variation between people with different geographic origins, there is far more genetic difference between individual peoples within such groupings. Not only this, the mixing of various peoples across the face of the earth has resulted in such a genetic soup, that it is often nigh on impossible to subdivide certain people into specific races; indeed, those who did attempt to set out the different races of people, from Burke to Pickering to Linnaeus, all came up with different numbers of races. The result of this is that the concept of races as meaningful biological categories for groups of human beings has been all but dismissed by modern academics.
Despite this however, the perception of ‘race’ still wields tremendous power as a social category or construct in and of itself, allowing it to remain separate from ‘ethnicity’ in places. Karen Blu notes that ‘race’ is still a term used when considering the biological origins of an individual by the common layman and as such, ‘race’ should remain a separate category for analysis from ‘ethnicity’, because they are separate categories in common terminology. This consideration of biological origins usually rests upon physical appearance of the person in question, that is to say skin, eye, and hair colour, physical size, and so on. Yet to rely on such phenotypical characteristics in order to determine race is not always sufficiently adequate, as what can be considered to be ‘white’ or ‘black’ in one part of the world is often not what would be considered to fit that category in another. Attempting to class people in such a purely objective biological sense fails to take into account societal context, which is ultimately subjective and variable across the globe. As such, due to the variation in what is considered adequate to slot someone into an appropriate racial category differs depending on your geographical location, the term and concepts of ‘race’ must ultimately be considered to be social constructions, as they hold no objective scientific meaning outside of human interaction.
This may proove to be an intersting read. Which Scientist wrote this?
Genetic traits don't really "even out" the way you are saying, because traits often come in pairs (called alleles) which are dominant or recessive.
Seriously, this is basic genetics. Don't base your arguments on it without reading at least a school level textbook.
rockerbikie wrote:
I meant more skin-tone lines. Think about it fair skinned is more suited to Scandivania etc while Africans are suited to Africa. Imagine if you had a mixed skinned colour and a huge ice age happened, we'd probably die out. Tall is inherently stronger than short meaning that we'd probably die out in an ice-age. If the world heated up however we'd still be in trouble because Fat is inherently stronger than slim, meaning that we'd probably not do too well in a hot environment either.
Can't see much logic going on here.
I don't think an albino right winger would have a better chance than some african chap when a glacier grinds them to powder.
Taller is only better when trying to reach a copy of 'asian babes' on the top shelf of the newsagents.
Think about this, in hotter climates people who are taller loose less body heat than short people. Look at it in Evolutionary view, not today's contempary society's view.
rockerbikie wrote:This may proove to be an intersting read. Which Scientist wrote this?
That's a product of my own writing alas, I doubt you'd have access to it. However, if you're after some serious reading on the topic, I would recommend the following:-
Stephen Cornell and Douglas Hartmann- Ethnicity and Race (Pine Forge Press 1998)
Ken Blakemore and Margaret Boneham-Age, Race, and Ethnicity (Open University Press 1994)
Yasmin Gunaratnam-Researching ‘Race’ and Ethnicity (Sage Publications 2003)
Peter Wade-Race and Ethnicity in Latin America (Pluto Press 1997)
rockerbikie wrote:
The Norse beat the living daylights out of the English.
Seeing as the English as we understand them didn't exist at that time that is pretty impressive.
England has been around for centuries. The Saxons and the Angles united to form England. They were hammed multiple time by the Norse during the Norse Raids.
corpsesarefun wrote:That is not how anything works at all.
I can understand that different ethnic grounds have a tendency to be better suited for different environments, northern Europeans tend to be stouter and more tolerant to dairy products than say Africans or folks from the Mediterranean but an Italian woman having a kid with a Swedish bloke doesn't somehow cancel this out to make some kind of rubbish half and half child. That just isn't how anything works.
I meant more skin-tone lines. Think about it fair skinned is more suited to Scandivania etc while Africans are suited to Africa. Imagine if you had a mixed skinned colour and a huge ice age happened, we'd probably die out. Tall is inherently stronger than short meaning that we'd probably die out in an ice-age. If the world heated up however we'd still be in trouble because Fat is inherently stronger than slim, meaning that we'd probably not do too well in a hot environment either.
You are confusing genetic diversity with homogeneity. And frankly know nothing about population genetics or of human genetic diversity.
I wonder if there's a negative correlation between the people citing 'genetics' as a rationale for some position and their actual understanding of genetics. So often the people quoting 'genetics' are those that know least about the subject.
rockerbikie wrote:This may proove to be an intersting read. Which Scientist wrote this?
That's a product of my own writing alas, I doubt you'd have access to it. However, if you're after some serious reading on the topic, I would recommend the following:-
Stephen Cornell and Douglas Hartmann- Ethnicity and Race (Pine Forge Press 1998)
Ken Blakemore and Margaret Boneham-Age, Race, and Ethnicity (Open University Press 1994)
Yasmin Gunaratnam-Researching ‘Race’ and Ethnicity (Sage Publications 2003)
Peter Wade-Race and Ethnicity in Latin America (Pluto Press 1997)
Hmmm, looks like I might have to hit the book shop tomorrow.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Do you know what the scientific method means?
rockerbikie wrote:This may proove to be an intersting read. Which Scientist wrote this?
That's a product of my own writing alas, I doubt you'd have access to it. However, if you're after some serious reading on the topic, I would recommend the following:-
Stephen Cornell and Douglas Hartmann- Ethnicity and Race (Pine Forge Press 1998)
Ken Blakemore and Margaret Boneham-Age, Race, and Ethnicity (Open University Press 1994)
Yasmin Gunaratnam-Researching ‘Race’ and Ethnicity (Sage Publications 2003)
Peter Wade-Race and Ethnicity in Latin America (Pluto Press 1997)
Hmmm, looks like I might have to hit the book shop tomorrow.
I would seriously advise it. Without meaning to give offense, your understanding of genetics, race, and ethnicity is about seventy years out of date.
rockerbikie wrote:
The Norse beat the living daylights out of the English.
Seeing as the English as we understand them didn't exist at that time that is pretty impressive.
England has been around for centuries. The Saxons and the Angles united to form England. They were hammed multiple time by the Norse during the Norse Raids.
So what you are saying is two Germanic tribes were raided by a group of people from west Scandinavia and won because they were tall?
From that you deduct that the Norse beat the English because they are tall?
rockerbikie wrote:
The Norse beat the living daylights out of the English.
Seeing as the English as we understand them didn't exist at that time that is pretty impressive.
Not anymore. The Norse punched them right through TIME.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Space Crusader wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Space Crusader wrote:Isnt nationalism the same as patriotism? Loving your own country but hating thoe filthy evil foreigners?
Patriotism is liking and being proud of your country.
Nationalism is believing that yours is the best.
Seems many americans are nationalists.
Yes. It's a very popular mindset over here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
corpsesarefun wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:
The Norse beat the living daylights out of the English.
Seeing as the English as we understand them didn't exist at that time that is pretty impressive.
England has been around for centuries. The Saxons and the Angles united to form England. They were hammed multiple time by the Norse during the Norse Raids.
So what you are saying is two Germanic tribes were raided by a group of people from west Scandinavia and won because they were tall?
From that you deduct that the Norse beat the English because they are tall?
The Romans however were short and they Kicked England's ass. IN fact the Roman's kicked everybodys' ass.
The Mongols were short too. The Mayans are freaking tiny. Shorter Japanese pounded hell out of Asia including all those tall Europeans. In fact it was the descendants of short Italians and Slavs who took them to task.
Germans are tall. Shorter Slavs burned their capital. Short Japanese ancestors with California accents pounded hell out of them too.
rockerbikie wrote:This may proove to be an intersting read. Which Scientist wrote this?
That's a product of my own writing alas, I doubt you'd have access to it. However, if you're after some serious reading on the topic, I would recommend the following:-
Stephen Cornell and Douglas Hartmann- Ethnicity and Race (Pine Forge Press 1998)
Ken Blakemore and Margaret Boneham-Age, Race, and Ethnicity (Open University Press 1994)
Yasmin Gunaratnam-Researching ‘Race’ and Ethnicity (Sage Publications 2003)
Peter Wade-Race and Ethnicity in Latin America (Pluto Press 1997)
Hmmm, looks like I might have to hit the book shop tomorrow.
I would seriously advise it. Without meaning to give offense, your understanding of genetics, race, and ethnicity is about seventy years out of date.
I suppose so, the main problem is the main bulk of my reading is mainly Communist books and books around the Age of Reason.
Frazzled wrote:The Romans however were short and they Kicked England's ass. IN fact the Roman's kicked everybodys' ass.
The Mongols were short too. The Mayans are freaking tiny. Shorter Japanese pounded hell out of Asia including all those tall Europeans. In fact it was the descendants of short Italians and Slavs who took them to task.
Germans are tall. Shorter Slavs burned their capital.
This is very true, the impact the Vikings had on Britain was FAR less than the impact the Romans had.
I say this as a tall blonde with a last name ending in son.
rockerbikie wrote:This may proove to be an intersting read. Which Scientist wrote this?
That's a product of my own writing alas, I doubt you'd have access to it. However, if you're after some serious reading on the topic, I would recommend the following:-
Stephen Cornell and Douglas Hartmann- Ethnicity and Race (Pine Forge Press 1998)
Ken Blakemore and Margaret Boneham-Age, Race, and Ethnicity (Open University Press 1994)
Yasmin Gunaratnam-Researching ‘Race’ and Ethnicity (Sage Publications 2003)
Peter Wade-Race and Ethnicity in Latin America (Pluto Press 1997)
Hmmm, looks like I might have to hit the book shop tomorrow.
I would seriously advise it. Without meaning to give offense, your understanding of genetics, race, and ethnicity is about seventy years out of date.
I suppose so, the main problem is the main bulk of my reading is mainly Communist books and books around the Age of Reason.
Rented Tritium wrote:Rockerbikie turned the wayback machine inside out and is posting here from the 1940s.
WARN THE DUKE... wait too late.
Well, give the guy a break, he's been made aware of the deficiencies in his knowledge base now. If he now goes, educates himself, and corrects them, then I would say something productive will have come out of all this.
rockerbikie wrote:
The Norse beat the living daylights out of the English.
Seeing as the English as we understand them didn't exist at that time that is pretty impressive.
Not anymore. The Norse punched them right through TIME.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Space Crusader wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Space Crusader wrote:Isnt nationalism the same as patriotism? Loving your own country but hating thoe filthy evil foreigners?
Patriotism is liking and being proud of your country.
Nationalism is believing that yours is the best.
Seems many americans are nationalists.
Yes. It's a very popular mindset over here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
corpsesarefun wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:
The Norse beat the living daylights out of the English.
Seeing as the English as we understand them didn't exist at that time that is pretty impressive.
England has been around for centuries. The Saxons and the Angles united to form England. They were hammed multiple time by the Norse during the Norse Raids.
So what you are saying is two Germanic tribes were raided by a group of people from west Scandinavia and won because they were tall?
From that you deduct that the Norse beat the English because they are tall?
How does he explain pearl harbor?
No. They beat the English because they were masters of the sea. It was America's fault for the bombing of Pearl Harbour. There is no Evolutionary strength needed to press a button. The Americans embargoed trade with Japan, they had it coming.
Rented Tritium wrote:Rockerbikie turned the wayback machine inside out and is posting here from the 1940s.
WARN THE DUKE... wait too late.
Well, give the guy a break, he's been made aware of the deficiencies in his knowledge base now. If he now goes, educates himself, and corrects them, then I would say something productive will have come out of all this.
Yeah, I'm just teasing him a little. This has been way more productive than I would have predicted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rockerbikie wrote:
rented tritium wrote:
How does he explain pearl harbor?
No. They beat the English because they were masters of the sea. It was America's fault for the bombing of Pearl Harbour. There is no Evolutionary strength needed to press a button. The Americans embargoed trade with Japan, they had it coming.
Right so, wouldn't that imply that if significant differences exist (disputed), AND mixing races would eliminate those advantages (also disputed) that it wouldn't matter because technology is there to fill in the gaps either way?
I mean I've seen some pretty compelling arguments that technology has slowed down our evolution to a crawl because we have a really high survival rate by animal standards AND a very long reproduction.
So looking at it as evolution, even if you're right about everything else, doesn't seem super useful.
rockerbikie wrote:This may proove to be an intersting read. Which Scientist wrote this?
That's a product of my own writing alas, I doubt you'd have access to it. However, if you're after some serious reading on the topic, I would recommend the following:-
Stephen Cornell and Douglas Hartmann- Ethnicity and Race (Pine Forge Press 1998)
Ken Blakemore and Margaret Boneham-Age, Race, and Ethnicity (Open University Press 1994)
Yasmin Gunaratnam-Researching ‘Race’ and Ethnicity (Sage Publications 2003)
Peter Wade-Race and Ethnicity in Latin America (Pluto Press 1997)
Hmmm, looks like I might have to hit the book shop tomorrow.
I would seriously advise it. Without meaning to give offense, your understanding of genetics, race, and ethnicity is about seventy years out of date.
I suppose so, the main problem is the main bulk of my reading is mainly Communist books and books around the Age of Reason.
Yet you find no discontinuity between those two?
They do have pratical limits. Communism is not pratical due to human greed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:Rockerbikie turned the wayback machine inside out and is posting here from the 1940s.
WARN THE DUKE... wait too late.
Well, give the guy a break, he's been made aware of the deficiencies in his knowledge base now. If he now goes, educates himself, and corrects them, then I would say something productive will have come out of all this.
Yeah, I'm just teasing him a little. This has been way more productive than I would have predicted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rockerbikie wrote:
rented tritium wrote:
How does he explain pearl harbor?
No. They beat the English because they were masters of the sea. It was America's fault for the bombing of Pearl Harbour. There is no Evolutionary strength needed to press a button. The Americans embargoed trade with Japan, they had it coming.
Right so, wouldn't that imply that if significant differences exist (disputed), AND mixing races would eliminate those advantages (also disputed) that it wouldn't matter because technology is there to fill in the gaps either way?
I mean I've seen some pretty compelling arguments that technology has slowed down our evolution to a crawl because we have a really high survival rate by animal standards AND a very long reproduction.
So looking at it as evolution, even if you're right about everything else, doesn't seem super useful.
Though we don't want to become to dependant on technology. Without modern technology, 95% of us wouldn't survive because they don't teach survival skills thse days ecept in Man vs Wild(which isn't really teaching).
rockerbikie wrote:I'm not incapable of how the world works. War is War doesn't matter how big it is. Peace is futile, peace is utter stupid in some circumstances(Iraq War). I am a Nationalist Communist, I believe that everyone should get equal wages and everyone should keep to their own kind. I dispise the idea of cross breeding because it will cause little genetic variation and it will lead to the extinction of man kind. People need to look at why people are different from an Evolution point of view, then you will realise why Multi-culturism is flawed. Do you know why there is a population crisis in European countries? Due to capitalism, people don't have enough time to look after kids, also we have condoms.
You know, you almost took me in for a minute there. I almost believed you were serious.
Because you are joking/trolling for a laugh, right? Right?!
No... You do not realise that my avatar is a profile picture of Varg Vikerness, a far-right political activist.
You mean Varg Vikerness the musician and murderer?
Guys, he's got a Varg Vikernes avatar. You know, the super-racist black metal musician and murderer who has spent the majority of his adult life in prison, who espouses pseudo-spiritual-intellectual nonsense and, if I'm not mistaken, once claimed that Christianity was, get this, Jewish conspiracy to exert control over Europeans.
rockerbikie wrote:I'm not incapable of how the world works. War is War doesn't matter how big it is. Peace is futile, peace is utter stupid in some circumstances(Iraq War). I am a Nationalist Communist, I believe that everyone should get equal wages and everyone should keep to their own kind. I dispise the idea of cross breeding because it will cause little genetic variation and it will lead to the extinction of man kind. People need to look at why people are different from an Evolution point of view, then you will realise why Multi-culturism is flawed. Do you know why there is a population crisis in European countries? Due to capitalism, people don't have enough time to look after kids, also we have condoms.
You know, you almost took me in for a minute there. I almost believed you were serious.
Because you are joking/trolling for a laugh, right? Right?!
No... You do not realise that my avatar is a profile picture of Varg Vikerness, a far-right political activist.
You mean Varg Vikerness the musician and murderer?
Guys, he's got a Varg Vikernes avatar. You know, the super-racist black metal musician and murderer who has spent the majority of his adult life in prison, who espouses pseudo-spiritual-intellectual nonsense and, if I'm not mistaken, once claimed that Christianity was, get this, Jewish conspiracy to exert control over Europeans.
These days it more like control over the Americans... but why mix genetics with politics.
Nationalism comes to a head when the country is in the sh*tter.
Also not taking the BNP seriously is dangerous. Heir Hitler got into power because the rest of the boys walked out in protest. This happens to the BNP - they get ignored which in and of itself is undemocratic.
Also in terms of race, I believe we're homo sapiens. Special people like me are homo mega-pen-island
Guys, he's got a Varg Vikernes avatar. You know, the super-racist black metal musician and murderer who has spent the majority of his adult life in prison, who espouses pseudo-spiritual-intellectual nonsense and, if I'm not mistaken, once claimed that Christianity was, get this, Jewish conspiracy to exert control over Europeans.
These days it more like control over the Americans... but why mix genetics with politics.
Meh, pretty sure Varg hates America cuz we're all Jewish Zionist Mongrel Freemasons.
Guys, he's got a Varg Vikernes avatar. You know, the super-racist black metal musician and murderer who has spent the majority of his adult life in prison, who espouses pseudo-spiritual-intellectual nonsense and, if I'm not mistaken, once claimed that Christianity was, get this, Jewish conspiracy to exert control over Europeans.
If we could all just take a break from baiting the pseudo-viking nazi fantasist, I'd like to ask this: If nationalism is on the rise, then why are some of the principle European countries potentially moving towards closer political union?
Albatross wrote:If we could all just take a break from baiting the pseudo-viking nazi fantasist, I'd like to ask this: If nationalism is on the rise, then why are some of the principle European countries potentially moving towards closer political union?
Nationalism tends to rise during severe economic recessions but the eurozone can't be maintained without a unified fiscal and monetary policy? It all turns into "Europeans are better then Africans" instead of "Germans" or "whites". You can have an ascendant sense of nationalism in the broader sense of homogeneous European nationalism rather then that of independent states. We pulled it off over here.
Albatross wrote:If we could all just take a break from baiting the pseudo-viking nazi fantasist, I'd like to ask this: If nationalism is on the rise, then why are some of the principle European countries potentially moving towards closer political union?
I only see american news, but it seems to me that you guys are about to have a huge pissing match over national sovereignty vs eurozone central power that frankly mirrors our civil war in many ways.
Albatross wrote:If we could all just take a break from baiting the pseudo-viking nazi fantasist, I'd like to ask this: If nationalism is on the rise, then why are some of the principle European countries potentially moving towards closer political union?
Why do you think they are moving closer? I'm seeing an wful lot of "EUROPE BREAKING UP RUN FOR THE HILLS" and not a lot of getting together happy funtime.
Albatross wrote:If we could all just take a break from baiting the pseudo-viking nazi fantasist, I'd like to ask this: If nationalism is on the rise, then why are some of the principle European countries potentially moving towards closer political union?
Why do you think they are moving closer? I'm seeing an wful lot of "EUROPE BREAKING UP RUN FOR THE HILLS" and not a lot of getting together happy funtime.
They're taking significant steps towards unifying monetary policy and forming more powerful pan european central banks. That said, they're awful at it so you should run for the hills.
While I agree support for conservative/right wing politics is on the rise I don't see much evidence for nationalism being popular, even in america you don't see much serious nationalism in the last two generations.
Albatross wrote:If we could all just take a break from baiting the pseudo-viking nazi fantasist, I'd like to ask this: If nationalism is on the rise, then why are some of the principle European countries potentially moving towards closer political union?
Nationalism tends to rise during severe economic recessions but the eurozone can't be maintained without a unified fiscal and monetary policy? It all turns into "Europeans are better then Africans" instead of "Germans" or "whites". You can have an ascendant sense of nationalism in the broader sense of homogeneous European nationalism rather then that of independent states. We pulled it off over here.
Yes, you CAN have that, but that's not what's happening - at least, not in terms of the gains that far-Right parties have been making in mainland Europe. Pan-European Nationalist parties are pretty few and far between, and they certainly are not what is meant when people talk about the 'rise of nationalism in Europe' - it usually refers to people like Jorg Haider and Geert Wilders.
If the UK becomes nationalist it will become VERY anti-eurozone and anti-europe in general so I doubt there is much risk of a nationalist europe ganging up on france...
Italy is fethed anyway, it's hardly a major economic power in europe.
corpsesarefun wrote:If the UK becomes nationalist it will become VERY anti-eurozone and anti-europe in general so I doubt there is much risk of a nationalist europe ganging up on france...
Italy is fethed anyway, it's hardly a major economic power in europe.
Albatross wrote:If we could all just take a break from baiting the pseudo-viking nazi fantasist, I'd like to ask this: If nationalism is on the rise, then why are some of the principle European countries potentially moving towards closer political union?
Nationalism tends to rise during severe economic recessions but the eurozone can't be maintained without a unified fiscal and monetary policy? It all turns into "Europeans are better then Africans" instead of "Germans" or "whites". You can have an ascendant sense of nationalism in the broader sense of homogeneous European nationalism rather then that of independent states. We pulled it off over here.
Yes, you CAN have that, but that's not what's happening - at least, not in terms of the gains that far-Right parties have been making in mainland Europe. Pan-European Nationalist parties are pretty few and far between, and they certainly are not what is meant when people talk about the 'rise of nationalism in Europe' - it usually refers to people like Jorg Haider and Geert Wilders.
That's certainly true, the nationalist parties that are gaining on anti immigration anti eurozone platforms are resurgent, but the media I've been consuming has started to portray the average European citizen as being less nationalistic then any time in recent history. It could just be the editorials and news I've been reading slanting it a bit, but it would seem to me that the sense of belonging to the euro being more important then being a truly independent nation is starting to grow.
corpsesarefun wrote:While I agree support for conservative/right wing politics is on the rise I don't see much evidence for nationalism being popular, even in america you don't see much serious nationalism in the last two generations.
ohhh I don't know If I agree on that one, everyone around my age here is either "America is #1 herp derp" or those commies who want peace and harmony and what not but that could just be a local occurrence, though I'd bet against it
Corpses: Half of the UK's export market is the other EU nations (you are in Europe by the way, so I dunno where "they" is coming from, but anyhow).
If the single currency nations go down, the UK is completely screwed too.
For one, your banks are massively exposed to the other EU nations in terms of debts.
Without trying to sound patronizing, I think it would be beneficial for you do do some reading about the EU and Britain's place in it that didn't come from the british press. (Which sucks balls).
Da Boss wrote:Corpses: Half of the UK's export market is the other EU nations (you are in Europe by the way, so I dunno where "they" is coming from, but anyhow).
If the single currency nations go down, the UK is completely screwed too.
For one, your banks are massively exposed to the other EU nations in terms of debts.
Without trying to sound patronizing, I think it would be beneficial for you do do some reading about the EU and Britain's place in it that didn't come from the british press. (Which sucks balls).
I honestly have very little idea about economics and politics in general so it's likely I'm completely wrong about everything I've just said.
The euro is still fethed though, even if the pound is next on the chopping block.
Albatross wrote:If we could all just take a break from baiting the pseudo-viking nazi fantasist, I'd like to ask this: If nationalism is on the rise, then why are some of the principle European countries potentially moving towards closer political union?
Nationalism tends to rise during severe economic recessions but the eurozone can't be maintained without a unified fiscal and monetary policy? It all turns into "Europeans are better then Africans" instead of "Germans" or "whites". You can have an ascendant sense of nationalism in the broader sense of homogeneous European nationalism rather then that of independent states. We pulled it off over here.
Yes, you CAN have that, but that's not what's happening - at least, not in terms of the gains that far-Right parties have been making in mainland Europe. Pan-European Nationalist parties are pretty few and far between, and they certainly are not what is meant when people talk about the 'rise of nationalism in Europe' - it usually refers to people like Jorg Haider and Geert Wilders.
That's certainly true, the nationalist parties that are gaining on anti immigration anti eurozone platforms are resurgent, but the media I've been consuming has started to portray the average European citizen as being less nationalistic then any time in recent history. It could just be the editorials and news I've been reading slanting it a bit, but it would seem to me that the sense of belonging to the euro being more important then being a truly independent nation is starting to grow.
It's hard to say really - the disparate nature of European national identities makes it discuss the issue in terms of generalities, even within individual constituent nations. Consider this: There are 10 (iirc) countries outside the Eurozone, with attitudes towards the single currency ranging from 'extreme skepticism' to 'actually quite favourable'. THEN you have the countries inside the Eurozone, and that is an even more complicated situation! Some want closer union, some don't, at least one is considering leaving... there are significant numbers of people in all Eurozone countries (even Germany) who's faith in the single currency, and the now inevitable 'hardening' of political union, is beginning to wobble. In truth it's a mixed bag. Strange days for Europe.
In the US, we don't really refer to ourselves as Ohioans, or Californians, or New Yorkers as much (unless it is College Football season) as we refer to ourselves as Americans.
Being an American though to us, is all about being different individuals, having different sub-cultures, different ideas and still have one thing to unite under, even when we are (often) split in opinions on every single other issue.
And that guy was real! I LOL'd
This was an awesome experience, like finding a man raised by wolves in the wild!
So its a race on whats going to get us? Zombies or Shuma in his Little Red Riding Hood outfit carrying us all the hell in the breadbasket eh from the world financial market crash?
corpsesarefun wrote:If the UK becomes nationalist it will become VERY anti-eurozone and anti-europe in general so I doubt there is much risk of a nationalist europe ganging up on france...
Italy is fethed anyway, it's hardly a major economic power in europe.
If the UK becomes nationalist we are totally rebooting the Empire...
All aboard HMS Awesome!
Space Crusader wrote:Isnt nationalism the same as patriotism? Loving your own country but hating thoe filthy evil foreigners?
Patriotism is what you call it when you are doing it, nationalism is what you call it when other people are doing it.
Kind of like terrorists and freedom fighters. Same guys, just depents on what team you are on
Nationalism has been on the rise in the US since 9/11, it has just been cleverly disguised as patriotism until 2008. But most people still can't tell the difference and think they are only loving this country.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote:Corpses: Half of the UK's export market is the other EU nations (you are in Europe by the way, so I dunno where "they" is coming from, but anyhow).
The UK has never been part of Europe, just ask anyone from the UK. Heck, most of them were afraid that the Chunnel was just a way for the French to circumvent the British Armada and finally invade the islands
corpsesarefun wrote:If the UK becomes nationalist it will become VERY anti-eurozone and anti-europe in general so I doubt there is much risk of a nationalist europe ganging up on france...
Italy is fethed anyway, it's hardly a major economic power in europe.
If the UK becomes nationalist we are totally rebooting the Empire...
All aboard HMS Awesome!
Scotland's out, though. They don't want to roll with us any more.
My dad immigrated here in 1960.
Like many of his fellows in that "wave", they assimilated into the community. He may have been Hungarian by birth, but he followed the football and cricket and drank the beer just like a 'proper' Aussie.
He moved to a new country and left all of the old kaka behind him (except for a few minor grudges).
I've not seen many countries where "nationalism" is seen as a good thing.
rockerbikie wrote:I'm not incapable of how the world works. War is War doesn't matter how big it is. Peace is futile, peace is utter stupid in some circumstances(Iraq War). I am a Nationalist Communist, I believe that everyone should get equal wages and everyone should keep to their own kind. I dispise the idea of cross breeding because it will cause little genetic variation and it will lead to the extinction of man kind. People need to look at why people are different from an Evolution point of view, then you will realise why Multi-culturism is flawed. Do you know why there is a population crisis in European countries? Due to capitalism, people don't have enough time to look after kids, also we have condoms.
You know, you almost took me in for a minute there. I almost believed you were serious.
Because you are joking/trolling for a laugh, right? Right?!
No... You do not realise that my avatar is a profile picture of Varg Vikerness, a far-right political activist.
You mean Varg Vikerness the musician and murderer?
He's not a murderer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RatBot wrote:I was about to say...
Guys, he's got a Varg Vikernes avatar. You know, the super-racist black metal musician and murderer who has spent the majority of his adult life in prison, who espouses pseudo-spiritual-intellectual nonsense and, if I'm not mistaken, once claimed that Christianity was, get this, Jewish conspiracy to exert control over Europeans.
That's why we all shun pork like we do and never do anything on Saturdays.
And, on that bombshell ( and at the behest of my Pentagon shapeshifting Jewish alien lizard overlords of course) I think we can safely draw a line under this and move on.
But worry not ! Wackiness like this is bound to rear it's head soon enough, be sure to tune in for more lulz !
