Because society/community can fulfill the role of the family, in a loose sense. There's a definite connection between the more collective as a species we become and the fall of monogamy.
Monogamy is an instinct. I believe it is an instinct formed to allow for gender roles and the level of nurturing required in raising the young. Species that have vulnerable and limited offspring(like us)tend towards monogamy, whereas a frog that lays many eggs and snakes that give birth to independent young are less monogamous.
I think that view is outdated, we are already massively tolerant and open to immigration. The problem now is retaining our own culture from the midst of so many others.
As for change, National Socialism was a change, Bolshevism was a change, Neo-Liberalism was a change. A change is not an endorsement because it is a change.
Naturally separated yes, that is, not forced together via political ideology and materialistic choas.
I appreciate the differing of perspectives, but if we continue to create a monoculture to replace all traditonal cultures won't we by definition become more generic and uniform as a whole? Thereby, wouldn't our perceptions and opinion begin to mirror this form?
No I include entreprenuers and businessman as well as ordinary workers in what I define as a productive person. The banker has his merit in the fact that he should be directly investing in an enterprise and be taking a personal risk in it - the modern state of the financial sector corrupts this entirely. Individual profit without individual responsibility, that's my problem with the banking sector.
We didn't want this, we never voted to drop our borders, we never voted to be dictated to by the well-meaning, middle class idiot. However, I agree that Capitalism has become an enemy of my culture, Marxists-Liberals and Libertarian-Capitalists are both internationalist traitors in my eyes and so I look for a new and original idea.
Make it global and you mix everything together, what is left is a uni-culture without diversity, without variation and without adaption - This is evolutionary suicide.
I would agree that the rise in immgration stems from the inability of White people to live off their own back, so to speak. It's just I believe we should get our own house in order, not exploit the cheap and easy labour of foreigners for the short-term benefit of the White middle class.
They all have that conclusion, albeit not specifically for the benefit of Muslims. The benefit is more for anybody who isn't English and specifically isn't White. Islam simply creates the most noticeable tension within England because it is the most intrinsically different culture to English culture.
With some common sense and farsight, there is no reason why a Democracy or Republic has to have such damaging consequences. Far better to preserve ourselves by assimilating other cultures into ours today and managing the level of integration in general, than allowing them to grow in opposition. If we fail at this and continue to pursue the grand & elitist delusions of Liberalism, then the common Englishman turns to the Nationalists as the only people that speak for them, as they are doing so already across England and in Europe too.
The sphere of influence multiculturalism includes;
Every job interview. Every piece of bureaucracy. Social housing. Education. Benefits. Media. Birth rates. Political correctness. Social/Community relations. Cultural "awareness" doctrines. Consumer rights.
To call their actions a risk is nonsense, they are bailed out before they fail. Admittedly not every banker is a crook, but one look at the derivatives market and one could easily argue otherwise.
TrueBlue1986 Forum Posts (1,322)
RE: Monogamy- Social Construct
I honestly do know that a bird isn't a mammal.