Poland's Ruch Narodowy - should it be banned?

Hooligans or not, even if I don't always agree with them, they have courage to figt for they convictions.
Foxholes don't contain atheists because atheists are cowards who will run away from anything. Duty is just another arbitrary value system, right?

The reason that atheist nations don't last long enough to be recorded in the history books is that they don't last long enough for people to even remember them.

Remember, once we no longer consider ourselves to be part of an extended family as children of God, every man is a stranger to every other man and it's every man for himself. That's a recipe for dereliction of duty in all the institutions. Once again, "Islam" advances bravely and men who formerly called themselves Christians run off like cowards. It is obvious who has their sh*t together here. Metrosexual consumer units cannot be trusted with any responsibility over anything. They are cowards who will run when push comes to shove.

If the American army could not fight these people with overwhelmingly superior technology from a distance, you can bet your ass there isn't a single one of them to whom it would be worth it to fight hand-to-hand against any of these people.

These hooligans, right or wrong, have the courage of their convictions. Consumer units have nothing because they are nothing. They are cowards and they will run like the dogs they are. If they cannot kill without risk by bombs and drones, there is nothing here worth fighting over to them. This alone shows you what a bunch of moral reprobates they all are. Run away like a scared little chicken Western man, so you can sit alone in front of a computer and jack off to your only remaining industry púrnography while telling yourself how superior your civilization is. You may even believe it if you say it often enough.

The question - and the only real question, is whether or not said fascist hooligans break the law.

But it is 'democrtatic' law! Where the votes of uneducated idiots and fanatical political radicals count the same as the votes of decent people.
Political parties always squabble amongst each other and try to win the next vote rather than working together and trying to do the best for the country.

These two facts alone guarantee that a democracy never works as intended and there's so much that can go wrong. Monarchy is, by far, the better solution.

Now that is pure fascism - to say that some people's votes are somehow worth more than others'.

You mean you praise a system that relies on clueless masses deciding (directly or not) vital matters via popularity contest?

In what way is a popularity contest a basis for government? Who is eligible to take part?

In ancient Greece a man's ability to vote was based on his ability to fight in war. Athens was a popular democracy because the low classes manned the triremes, hence earning their position as a voter.

It makes no sense to cull the vote randomly based on race or gender. The vote should be given to those who earn their position in society through merit. Any deviation based on half cocked principles of pseudoscience can be summarily dismissed. It's likely that a majority of the vote in the USA would belong to white men, but I will not abide decadent whites voting over competent blacks. The system has to be multiracial not because there are many races, but because individuals within races can be better than those inside other races.

That's not how modern democracy works. We don't live in the time of ancient Greeks.
BTW, you must think very highly about yourself to make such statements.

The politicians who lie through their teeth and make empty promises to get voted into office? They're humans, they want power, they're desperate, they fear to lose the popularity contest and get shoved aside by their own party members, finally, they deem themselves the most capable of solving their country's problems, and utterly disagree with their opponents plan of actions.

Normal for humans everywhere - not just politicians.

Democracy may not always be ideal, but there is no better option.

Another problem with democracy is that it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the human condition.

Democracy is based on the idea that humans are thinking animals. The idea is that if you present the electorate with a problem, they will think about the problem and vote accordingly. But we now know that this is a simplistic and naive model.

Under certain circumstances, humans can think. But generally, we try to avoid it. We have developed elaborate systems called "culture" that allow us to determine the answer to most political problems, without the need to think.

Imagine if you will that gay marriage had been put on the ballot in the 1870s. Would the electorate think through all of the possible effects that legalizing gay marriage would have on society? Would the electorate think through all of the possible effects that banning gay marriage would have on society? No, of course not. There wouldn't be any need to think, the electorate would already know how it feels about this issue, thanks to culture.

Not every political issue is covered by culture, some of them are too novel. But most issues are covered by culture. Culture allows us to determine what we approve of, what we disapprove of, what we like and what we hate, all without the need for tiresome and painful thinking.

Enculturation is the process whereby an individual human gains culture through interaction with other humans that already have it. Through this process, behaviors and values are shaped. It is continuous, ongoing and virtually unavoidable.

In the past, enculturation would have been performed by many individuals, including parents, peers, shamans, headmen, elders, poets, singers, storytellers, priests and the like. In today's society, an ever growing percentage of the enculturation process is handled by the mass media. As control of the major media outlets has been consolidated, so has control of the enculturation process. It is now possible for a few individuals and/or small groups to significantly influence the enculturation process of an entire country.

And they've done so. In 1996, two years after notable lesbian Ellen DeGeneres got her TV show, only 27% of Americans supported gay marriage. As favorable media coverage of homosexuals increased throughout the following decade, so did support for homosexuality. By 2007, the height of the pro-homo media blitz, 46% of Americans supported gay marriage. Today, 56% of American women support gay marriage. In a few decades the mass media was able to largely reverse anti-homosexual attitudes that had been in place for centuries. It's not so long ago that sodomy was entirely illegal in many states.

This is possible because humans don't actually think about this issue. For centuries, most of our ancestors were enculturated in a manner that led them to condemn homosexuality. There were a variety of reasons for this, but it wasn't necessary for most humans to think about those reasons, they just needed to receive the piece of culture that said "homosexuality is bad". But one day the masters of culture determined that it was desirable to reverse this policy and promote acceptance of homosexuality. Directed enculturation through the mass media is so effective that they were able to train Americans to accept homosexuality within a few decades.

Of course, homosexuality is just one example. An unimportant issue, but one where the enculturation was done in a rather obvious manner. Directed enculturation through the mass media is something that happens often and on a wide variety of issues.

Given the above, it isn't quite right to conceptualize man as a thinking animal. It is better to think of man as trainable animal that can think when it has to. Sort of like a slightly more thoughtful dog, without the innate moral compass that dogs have.

Letting a trained animal vote is fundamentally problematic, since you never really know if the animal is voting or if the trainer is voting through the animal. So much for one man one vote!

To describe humans as 'trained animals' is missing the point. As for culture, major countries a increasingly a melting pot of cultus and even before then, society is not nor has ever been homogeneous.

Unfortunately your argument doesn't stand up. It is predicated on a misconception.

Anyway - this is going far off topic. The question is whether or not the law should be invoked against organised hooligan gangs.

One missing the point is you. Melting pot or not, now mass-media mediated enculturatio is done by few individuals, that are least capable of running the world.

The problem with enculturation is that without thinking there can be no discrimination between culture packages that make sense and are actually beneficial and ones that just got stuck in the loop, especially when the context changes as quickly as it does today. It does not matter if one package comes from "democratic" governmnet, and the other from organised "hooligans".

Hopefully internet, even overflowing with fecal matter, will prove to be a bit of an equalizer in this regard.
It might already, see Poland's drop in sales of homeopathic "medicine".

To put it short, democracy is a system in which the lesser rules over the higher. How do you rationalize that contradiction?

That question is impossible and illogical - no humans are 'lesser' or 'higher'. Perhaps you believe otherwise, in which case who would you call 'lesser' and who would you call 'higher'?

Indeed. Hence, why democracy = idiocracy. Each and every time. Enjoy your Justin Bieber, its what the majority decided for you.

Who did not publish his works because he knew the consequences

You have some strange and cynical ideas. For the record, I can't identify any Justin Bieber songs and have only a vague idea who he is, don't own a television, have certainly never watched a 'reality show' or televised talent contest (not since Opportunity Knocks with Hughie Green back in the '70s anyway), rarely watch or read mass media and haven't been to a cinema in 12 years.

Nevertheless, I do believe that all humans are created equal. There is no 'lesser' and no 'higher'. just different tastes and outlooks. society has room for all of us and most people are inherently good.

Though what this has to do with fascist hooligans rampaging down Marszalkowska throwing bricks at the police, I don't know. Would you describe those masked criminals as 'higher' or 'lesser' humans?

Except you do, because everything is Justin Bieber nowadays. You still don't want to get it, do you. The leading cause of everything being sh!t is the inability to point out sh!t for what it is, without being smothered by the sheer mediocrity of the majority (try to act all "elitist" on forums, or in real life, and enjoy the infinite barrage of stupidity coming from the proles, all armed with their sacrosanct "opinions"). The way people like you rationalize the whole thing is to pretend to have "free" choice when all the available options always lead to varying degrees of sh!t. When "choice" leads to the same crap every time, you have no choice.

That doesn't really make sense.


You mean not being to your own taste. Which begs the question: Everything?


An age old thing. Nothing new.


Now that truly is cynical and maudlin.

And no reason to put on a mask, run with a pack of thugs, wave nationalist flags and throw firecrackers at people in the street.

Life has so much more to offer than that. You just have to find it for yourself. I can assure you - you won't find it in the kind of society that Ruch Narodowy would favour.

Somebody needs to write that code and the judiciary are only implementing it; it all comes latter.
I'm asking who is going to decide whats right and what should be banned and what not.


Clerically you are most ignorant moron. Why don't you educate yourself ?


I gather you are talking about masked individuals who were disturbing peaceful march. Don't you think that you should prove they are fascists. Can you do it?

Do you really need to ask? You come from one parliamentary democracy and live in another.


No, I don't and yes, I can. But the web is available to all, and you can look at the pictures of what they were doing just as well as I can. If that's a chore check out some of the names of the organisations involved and even take a look at their websites. It's all out there for you.

Non-sequitur. Proles will proles and have always proled. There's even a traditional word for their status, Shudra. The correct response to the stupidity of the masses is to just fracking ignore them. They'll simply never come around. Focus on that which is great, and the rest will fall into place automatically.


No. Everything is Bieber today because it is just that. Or do you seriously think the meandering digital racket you listen to is actually music?

Again, very cynical.


What or who, in your definition, is great?


Firstly I don't listen to that sort of thing and secondly, your first sentence is incoherent.

You mean shady politcisans? No thanks!


Can you prove that individuals in baklava's are fascists? Can you name them and connect them to Fascist organization? I think not!

I-S By the way what organizations you are calling fascists?

Why shady? Are you suggesting that politicians outside democracies are somehow less shady?


The groups in question are quite open about who they are and what they do. As for naming and connecting, the banners with the groups' names are a bit of a giveway. That and the coaches they book to get there.

That proves nothing but your prejudices. For you those who took part in the demonstration are fascist, so whoever was making trouble has to be associated with the demonstration. The problem is there is no prove that hooligans in balaclavas has anything to do with the demonstration nor any organization who took part in the demonstration.

Also there is version of police provoking unrest and using gas and other dangerous devices against peaceful people as well as a small children and old people.


Why shady? Because they are unaccountable and self-serving, politicians are no longer representing interest of a country or majority but are self-serving opportunist.
Are suggesting that politician in so called democracies are somehow better than politician outside democracy. Anyway there is democracy and democracy, there is no one model of democracy.

The Hitler salutes and the slogans on their banners were a teensy weeny giveaway. That and their websites, as I mentioned
earlier...


I notice you don't suggest an alternative.........

I see that you do know much.


It doesn't mean I don't have one.


It should read - I see that you don't know much. I'm talking about demonstration on 11/11, surly ORN was only tiny minority of Demonstrators and calling all them fascist is not only silly but prejudiced. I understand that small children and old people are dangerous fascist and hoodlums for you.

What I'm getting at is a fact that you don't know who was disturbing peaceful demonstrations because they were wearing balaclavas, so calling them fascists is rich.

ONR Ideology:





There's a lot more on this website: studioopinii.pl/artykul/3837-piotr-rachtan-dokumenty-onr- Peter Rachtan: Documents ONR (In Polish)

Ruch Narodowy - should it be banned?

In my opinion they should not be banned but the Polish general public should be made very aware of these guys, so that they know who and why they are marching along side. I think that would sort out much of the support. And of course the law still applies, if anyone brakes it they should pay the penalty.

otwarta.org/old/skazani-za-hajlowanie,405.html - ONR guys get arrested for Hitler salute (also in Polish)

If I had to choose a democracy, I prefer direct democracy over what is in many countries representative democracy government.

We know that politicians lie, they are influenced through outside sources (pressure, money, lobbies) etc. Sometimes they have to play nice with the other parties. Thats the problem with rep. gov.

With direct dem. people vote directly with referendums (im not sure if thats the right term).