by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .261262263264265266267. . .1,0731,074»

Post by Nikolai the russian guy suppressed by Atsuria.

Brekekk wrote:Strictly speaking, in cultural terms, the wearing of such religious attire defines an individual as being an adherent of a set of defining guidelines that makes that individual culturally distinct not in terms of personal inner faith in a belief-system but in a manner of dress and pervailent customs from a given and recognised culturally distinct geophysical location.
In general European women do not dress in medieval Arabic attire in accordance to the prerequisites of Islamic custom. Therefore, it has to be said, that European culture is distinct from Islamic culture. In such cases as an indigenous European female does for whatever reason become a Muslim, then they are expected to don Islamic attire in order to make them culturally distinct from the rest of the indigenous European populace.
In cultural terms, Islam has to make its adherents culturally distinct in order to set them apart from the unbelievers, the infidel and the kuffar which is the derogatory term employed by Mahommedans against non-Muslimists.

I'll have to get back to you on this, because the reply would take a while and I don't have the time right now.

WA representative elections in like 2 weeks lads

Atsuria and Neu tyrol

Post self-deleted by P0rtvgal.

Xozanero wrote:Looks good Atsuria! I only have one problem my capitol is spelled Metru Nui.

Fill fix it later

P0rtvgal wrote:It's about making the country less welcoming to corrosive foreigners.
No problem with that.

Multicultutalism is corrosive not the foreigners themselves necessarily.

Its all down to how well Integration and Assimilation are handled.There will be problems most likely as not all are willing to give up on their thousand year Islamic culture versus for example 100 years of finnish drinking/rye bread eating and going to the sauna.

All in all those who are not willing to assimilate, shall not pass.

Neu tyrol

Atsuria wrote:Multicultutalism is corrosive not the foreigners themselves necessarily.
Its all down to how well Integration and Assimilation are handled.There will be problems most likely as not all are willing to give up on their thousand year Islamic culture versus for example 100 years of finnish drinking/rye bread eating and going to the sauna.
All in all those who are not willing to assimilate, shall not pass.

I'm not a hundred per cent on that. Multiculture doesn't spread byitself, it requires a human host and, invariably, a foreign one at that.

It is the host-culture itself that must tolerate these alien threats to its existence. It is the native majority that must tolerate the ever expanding "minorities" right up until the point where it becomes the minority itself. Of course, by that point, the Leftards and Libtards that championed the rights of these "minorities" have themselves been destroyed by these "minorities".

"Assimilation" on a small, manageable scale is feasible; the en massed Third World "assimilation" currently unfolding across the aboriginal European homelands, is , by no stretch of the imagination, sustainable.

Atsuria and Neu tyrol

P0rtvgal wrote:WA representative elections in like 2 weeks lads

It has been a fantastic two Terms serving the Fifth Empire as WA delegate, but I intend not to run unless I feel I have a need to. We need a more fresh face on the international field, and I am willing to hand off the reins to someone else.

Brekekk wrote:I'm not a hundred per cent on that. Multiculture doesn't spread byitself, it requires a human host and, invariably, a foreign one at that.
It is the host-culture itself that must tolerate these alien threats to its existence. It is the native majority that must tolerate the ever expanding "minorities" right up until the point where it becomes the minority itself. Of course, by that point, the Leftards and Libtards that championed the rights of these "minorities" have themselves been destroyed by these "minorities".
"Assimilation" on a small, manageable scale is feasible; the en massed Third World "assimilation" currently unfolding across the aboriginal European homelands, is , by no stretch of the imagination, sustainable.

Obviously the larger the migrant wave the harder it is to manage a good level of Integration.
Such countries as germany for example are facing a crisis beyond imagination but again, in my homeland where the incoming refugees are fewer and wider between, I've rarely seen anyone not assimilating well, with some exceptions ofc.

Humans spread culture yes, but humans can be controlled and altered.Culture included.

Brekekk

Neu tyrol wrote:It has been a fantastic two Terms serving the Fifth Empire as WA delegate, but I intend not to run unless I feel I have a need to. We need a more fresh face on the international field, and I am willing to hand off the reins to someone else.

You've still got many days to go, many votes to make etc.. don't give up now.

Neu tyrol

Post self-deleted by Atsuria.

Post self-deleted by Atsuria.

The withdrawal of all Manospherians from your territory has completed, and we are withdrawing our embassy immediately. Any of your citizens left in our country will be subsequently rounded up and placed in catapults for expedient removal.

Kisses and hugs XOXO,
Landbound Pirates

Brekekk wrote:Strictly speaking, in cultural terms, the wearing of such religious attire defines an individual as being an adherent of a set of defining guidelines that makes that individual culturally distinct not in terms of personal inner faith in a belief-system but in a manner of dress and pervailent customs from a given and recognised culturally distinct geophysical location.

Which doesn't really mean anything other than they're different, really. Different cultures and religions aren't necessarily exclusive to one another, so long as they maintain general moderation. Now, what Daesh is doing is certainly incompatible with European cultures, but it's also incompatible with Middle Eastern cultures too. That doesn't stop them from attracting members from both, and beyond. Extreme philosophies create their own culture out of thin air, but the faiths that they come from do not.

This particular incident lacks any real conflicting point to be honest. Conservative Muslims do indeed believe men and women should be dressed modestly, but so do conservative Christians, whereas more liberal Muslims and Christians do not. Mind you, France is a Catholic Christian majority nation, and there are undoubtedly a number of conservatives in it that would think two-piece bikini's are 'sinful', and while they wouldn't encourage something like a burkini, they would encourage one of those ugly one piece bathing suits that covers the entire torso. But really, it doesn't matter in the end, because French, and more specifically, Corsican culture does bring modesty up as an issue. It neither supports nor opposes dressing so conservatively, because really, it doesn't matter. So, really, it doesn't harm or bring any kind of contention toward French or Corsican culture, as French and Corsican culture lack any official mindset on conservative dressing. It's simply not important enough to waste time banning.

Brekekk wrote:In general European women do not dress in medieval Arabic attire in accordance to the prerequisites of Islamic custom. Therefore, it has to be said, that European culture is distinct from Islamic culture. In such cases as an indigenous European female does for whatever reason become a Muslim, then they are expected to don Islamic attire in order to make them culturally distinct from the rest of the indigenous European populace.

The niqab actually originates from Persia, and was later adopted by Muslims, so it can't really be attributed to Arabs. I don't know about the burqa, but as for the hijab, it has been popular in many cultures across Eurasia, including Rome and Byzantium, though I have no idea where it originates. I'm not entirely sure, but I'm pretty sure none of these were worn during the Middle Ages save for maybe the hijab, but it is important to know that these veils and such did not originate in Arabic culture, nor is it really part of it either. While it is true that before Muhammad veils were commonplace amongst Arabs, their present popularity does not exist because of Arab culture, but rather because of Islamic faith. The veils are part of Islamic practice, not Arabic culture, which can be distinguished by the fact that veils are not a common sight on non-Muslim Arab women, unless of course it is mandatory by the state, like in Iran.

I'm not saying these cultures aren't distinct though, I'm saying there's nothing wrong with wearing a burkini to the beach if you're a Muslim. It's their religion, and their choice what to wear. Banning Islamic veils does nothing but spurn anti-Western sentiment, and it serves no real purpose.

Brekekk wrote:In cultural terms, Islam has to make its adherents culturally distinct in order to set them apart from the unbelievers, the infidel and the kuffar which is the derogatory term employed by Mahommedans against non-Muslimists.

The scripture is open for debate, as it is for all religions. There are plenty of Muslim women who do not wear veils, and it used to be far more popular until the US and USSR started dipping their toes in the sand and leaving behind brutal dictatorships that allowed for religious extremists to gain public support.

P0rtvgal wrote:It's about making the country less welcoming to corrosive foreigners.
No problem with that.

"Corrosive" is subjective.

Nikolai the russian guy wrote:Which doesn't really mean anything other than they're different, really. Different cultures and religions aren't necessarily exclusive to one another, so long as they maintain general moderation. Now, what Daesh is doing is certainly incompatible with European cultures, but it's also incompatible with Middle Eastern cultures too. That doesn't stop them from attracting members from both, and beyond. Extreme philosophies create their own culture out of thin air, but the faiths that they come from do not.
This particular incident lacks any real conflicting point to be honest. Conservative Muslims do indeed believe men and women should be dressed modestly, but so do conservative Christians, whereas more liberal Muslims and Christians do not. Mind you, France is a Catholic Christian majority nation, and there are undoubtedly a number of conservatives in it that would think two-piece bikini's are 'sinful', and while they wouldn't encourage something like a burkini, they would encourage one of those ugly one piece bathing suits that covers the entire torso. But really, it doesn't matter in the end, because French, and more specifically, Corsican culture does bring modesty up as an issue. It neither supports nor opposes dressing so conservatively, because really, it doesn't matter. So, really, it doesn't harm or bring any kind of contention toward French or Corsican culture, as French and Corsican culture lack any official mindset on conservative dressing. It's simply not important enough to waste time banning.
The niqab actually originates from Persia, and was later adopted by Muslims, so it can't really be attributed to Arabs. I don't know about the burqa, but as for the hijab, it has been popular in many cultures across Eurasia, including Rome and Byzantium, though I have no idea where it originates. I'm not entirely sure, but I'm pretty sure none of these were worn during the Middle Ages save for maybe the hijab, but it is important to know that these veils and such did not originate in Arabic culture, nor is it really part of it either. While it is true that before Muhammad veils were commonplace amongst Arabs, their present popularity does not exist because of Arab culture, but rather because of Islamic faith. The veils are part of Islamic practice, not Arabic culture, which can be distinguished by the fact that veils are not a common sight on non-Muslim Arab women, unless of course it is mandatory by the state, like in Iran.
I'm not saying these cultures aren't distinct though, I'm saying there's nothing wrong with wearing a burkini to the beach if you're a Muslim. It's their religion, and their choice what to wear. Banning Islamic veils does nothing but spurn anti-Western sentiment, and it serves no real purpose.
The scripture is open for debate, as it is for all religions. There are plenty of Muslim women who do not wear veils, and it used to be far more popular until the US and USSR started dipping their toes in the sand and leaving behind brutal dictatorships that allowed for religious extremists to gain public support.
"Corrosive" is subjective.

corrosive /kəˈrəʊsɪv/

adjective

to cause corrosion.

noun

a corrosive substance.

You should do France.

Then Belgium.

Sweden.

Britain.

Italy.

It's difficult to say why the burkini is problematic. We could boil it down to those poor individuals and their precious rights. Or their given religions (that they were born into ) and we can blame those devilish Westerners with their inborn need to boss around former colonialists.

And we can do all that because it's expected of us.

It fits into acceptable normie standards of conduct. It's easy to blame yourself because people don't quite "fit in" with what passes for culture in your part of the world.

"It must be me doing something wrong.

I must try harder. I must cuck myself off in public so that Western culture seems more appealing and let a whole bunch of non-related cultures more easily slip in.... I mean integrate and take advantage of the vortextual vacuum where Western ideals used to predominate."

P0rtvgal, Atsuria, and Neu tyrol

Post self-deleted by Atsuria.

Why are we still talking about this ? this is getting old.

How about a new topic ?
hmmm, let's ponder on the topic of Invididualism.

Where and how can you see it ? How should we approach it, how should we purge it from society ?
Should we allow a certain level of Invididualism for utilitarian reasons ? For example it is scientifically proven that people have invididual learning styles and learn better when they are allowed to do it their way.

I'll start this by saying that it is a blatant lie that Invididualism could lessen the amount of bullying at schools.When you're told that everyone is different and that everyone is an Invididual, how does that give any reason for the bullies to stop bullying ?

It's basically just saying that bacon is bacon for somebody who hates bacon.It doesn't give any reason to spot hating bacon.

Xozanero

Atsuria wrote:Why are we still talking about this ? this is getting old.
How about a new topic ?

Just as well, as I can't seem to figure out exactly what he's trying to argue for anyway.

I am also fully aware of the definition of "corrosive".

Nikolai the russian guy wrote:Just as well, as I can't seem to figure out exactly what he's trying to argue for anyway.
I am also fully aware of the definition of "corrosive".

This doesn't exactly move the conversation over to the new topic...

Atsuria wrote:This doesn't exactly move the conversation over to the new topic...

Alright then.

I'm going to be blunter than a caveman's club and say that "purging" individualism is incredibly stupid, unless of course your perfect utopia is a place where everyone is quite literally the same. But that's grey and boring, though it does fit the stereotype we apply to you Finns. =P

Individualism is what makes humans, well, human. It makes no sense to try and prevent it, because then you'd just create a bunch of mindless drones. While that may be ideal for some snobs who choose to see numbers instead of people, I think most people would be adamantly opposed to it. If you're looking for some serious anti-individualism, you should seek out those Daesh guys. They REALLY hate individualism.

Individualism is what keeps society from being dull, and seems more in line with what communists would want than fascists. Anti-individualism is little more than slavery of the mind, really.

Yes true, individualism does create a certain spice in life, which is good, but shouldn't we also promote that of a more collectivist society? Were we don't crush ones individuality but we promote that of a unified country. A place were we all believe in the same God, church, state, and that of authority. A place were people can go around and be themselves, but were their are strict social boundaries that are put up in place by not only the media (which would always agree with the government, not out of force but choice) but also the people. Wouldn't it be great to see people put their values and beliefs in the same general vasinity as those around them? Yes, individualism will always be a part of the human race, but we can take their want of safety and order and use it to our advantage to turning a state of individuals into that of a more collective one.

I like the new anthem to listen to, but it doesn't really sound like an anthem. Our old one was a march, and it felt like it had power and pride owing out of it, just a thought.

Neu tyrol

Nikolai the russian guy wrote:

Individualism is what keeps society from being dull, and seems more in line with what communists would want than fascists. Anti-individualism is little more than slavery of the mind, really.

Fascism is collectivist, some would argue that even more so than comunism.
I don't see any problem in collectivism.Don't tell me you prefer the Invididualistic me,me,me thinking over botherhood and unity ? Would you like if blacks, gays and cripples would be segregated for theri personal characteristics ?

In a Fascist society marked by union and brotherhood, there's no one left alone to manage.You can count on the fact that there's always a brother to help you get on your feet.To guide you if you're lost and so on.
Collectivism is power and at the root of the Fascist philosophy is the thought that united we are stronger.To tackle the hardships of life and to move forward.You have to remember that collectivism alone kept the USSR alive for so long.When everything else sank into s*it under the communist dystopia, collectivism kept the red carrier afloat.

I fail to see any correlation between your claim that collectivism would be more dull and boring.People are known to have more fun and be more happy in strong groups than where people bicker over pointless personal "taste" differences.
Collectivism doesn't mean that everyone would be a mindless drone.In fact it is encouraged to show critical thoughts, as long as it's done through the government and official means.Backdoor slander is not acceptable.It's ridiculous to think that fascism would restrict people to like the same things in everyday life.Collectivism is not about enforcing similarity but rather to set aside differences for the goal of the common good.

"slavery of the mind" as you say it.Is only acceptable to prevent large scale dissent against the state and treason.You have to look at the state from a different point of view.The state isn't just a creation of the man but rather the end product from our combined collectivist thought process.To have a strong state equals welfare and prosperity.To show dissent means to put cracks into the common cornucopia.

Don't worry, Fascism values the welfare of the people, not oppression.There will be means to remove malevolent leaders from power without dissent.

Invididualism can be seen pretty much everywhere.At school, at work etc..In order to purge it we need to promote respect and the honor of brotherhood.
I think that a small amount would be good for utilitarian reasons.As a teacher I've noted during my career that my students have invididual learning styles and learn better when allowed to do it their way.

¤¤ MAP UPDATE ¤¤

-Fixed the capital of Xozanero from "Metro Nui" to "Metru Nui"
-Added the capital of Northern memeland "Checkum"

Atsuria wrote:Fascism is collectivist, some would argue that even more so than comunism.
I don't see any problem in collectivism.Don't tell me you prefer the Invididualistic me,me,me thinking over botherhood and unity ? Would you like if blacks, gays and cripples would be segregated for theri personal characteristics ?

There cannot possibly be Fascism without the acceptance of the individual and the aspects that it entails. Hierarchy, leadership, authority- these things are attached to the notion that people are different, that people are individuals, and as such they have different strong suits, different ways to function and different tastes. These differences distinguish the individuals from one another in a community, thus allowing for there to be a judgment in regards to who is fit for what role, who can lead, who can build, who can follow, etc etc. Communism isn't less collectivist than Fascism for the Fasces acknowledges the different individuals which constitute the collective. Whereas in communism there's class struggle and the wish to do away with such classes, fascism accepts and understands the role of classes and calls for class-cooperation for the greater good of the collective.

Like the individual twigs which put together make the mighty axe of Fascism.

P0rtvgal wrote:-snip-

I get your point allright but I didn't say that Fascism would be less collectivist than communism.

Collectivism doesn't necessarily mean that Invididuals couldn't be allowed to grow at their own fields of expertise or that we wouldn't look for special traits in our comrades.

The problem with Invididualism is that it promotes the Invididual over the State and Society, this already makes it very unfascist in nature.The State is an all powerfull entity that empowers us rather than oppress us, in the same way a soldier is empowered when placed into a squad.

«12. . .261262263264265266267. . .1,0731,074»

Advertisement