[Menydh]

Though further discussion maybe of [limited] interest for this particular thread, I must ask you first why you, a British and a Liberal, come to a forum which is dedicated to Europe and Nationalism. All you stand for opposes the very essence of Stirpes.

In your favour, I must say that so far you haven't tried to disguise this fact, and tried to pass yourself by some kind of nationalist.

Originally Posted by Gatecrasher

Liberalism is better since it provides the freedom for every individual to gratify his own spiritual needs to his pleasure.

No offense intended but that is a most hypocritical thing to say.

Liberalism, as a spring of materialism that it is, cares nothing for spiritual needs, for the soul of the people.

So as to not be tyrannical a regime must come from the people as opposed to some provisional “spiritual” control machinations manufactured by a group of elitists.

How can you tell that the spirituality of a nation, of a people, which stems from the origins of that people all the way up through the centuries, is a construct manufactured by a group of elitists?

That maybe true for your country, I have no doubt about it, but not for the nations where a real soul exist.

But should I even bother telling you what most Europeans think about “Social Nationalism”?

No, you should not. Not you. Because it is no secret that the mind of most Europeans has been annuled and their souls corrupted precisely by the construct which you come here to defend, by English Liberalism/Angloamerican Libertarianism.

The old European regimes that were based on religious rule were broken for precisely this reason.

What you argue here is based in the fallacy of the simplicism that such or such religion shaped such or such regime, thus shaping people after that. Instead the opposite is true. It is religion which was shaped after the people to which it was directed at.

Still it remains an opinion that contradicts fact.

The fact is that by putting their personal interests before the common well-being and the preservation of the people, of the nation, they are traitors. And thus your assertion are sounding empty words.

A non sequitur.

Not at all. That "religious tolerance" that you are refering to is nothing but a screen.

Liberalism is not concerned with “ancient spiritualities”.

Of course not. No materialist construct is.

Liberalism is concerned with models of social interaction that are practical but is still tolerant of all religious convictions as long as they do not impose themselves unto other people.

I'm talking of the soul of the people, of the Nation, and you are talking of a particular religious belief.

Thus it is their own business if people don’t wish to follow tradition as a whole or in part.

Liberalism has, for years, been corrupting and destroying whatever was good and pure in people. It is now, when it has infected all the threads of the society when you portray it as a passive agent, when you have blind-folded the people to the alternatives.

Is there anything more tyrannical than that?

Yes, and one that is widely supported: CIA World Factbook: Spain

As you can see, your country is still majority Roman Catholic.

Excellent example. A country where a spiritual belief is still in the majority, with a system which is constantly digging and destroying the foundations of such belief and the soul of the nation. English Liberalism/Libertarianism at its best.

Proof?

Multiculturalism, a direct effect of Liberalism which is based on the introductions of alien cultures and the subsequent destruction of indigenous cultures. Under Liberalism the industry requests additional workforce which allows it to lower wages and further maximize profits, and alien immigrants are forced into the country, making the interests of finances prime over the indigenous people, i.e. the Nation. Further, a strong police-control over the citizens is effected by enforcing laws that impell people to oppose it.