What it is fundamentally all about.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by AndyPipkin, Jan 26, 2008.

?
  1. Volk und Vaterland!

    62.5%
  2. Enlightenment ideals!

    37.5%

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. There are two concepts of nationhood. One is 'volk und vaterland', an idea based on the concept of a nation as a race or culture within specific geographical boundaries, irrespective of the prevailing national ideology of the time. Russia, France, Germany are good examploes of this. The other idea of a nation is a set of ideals, concepts, etc., thjat anyone can subscribe to, regardless of race, culture or creed. The USA at least theoretically embodies this latter idea of nationhood.

    Now, look at these two videos, and see which one makes you hard, then decide which you believe in:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNj5amOFSYk&NR=1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AEPSzLETHM
     
  2. fundamentally
    adverb
    to the very core of the matter

    fundamentalism
    noun
    (religion) The tendency to reduce a religion to its most fundamental tenets, based on strict interpretation of core texts.
    (finance) The belief that fundamental financial quantities are the best predictor of the price of an instrument.
    The beliefs held by those in this movement.
    Strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.

    Fundamentally, I think fundamentalism sucks :D
     
  3. haha, pirates of the caribbean, pmsl, confirmed by my 3 year old daughter when she came to pc in last 30 secs and said 'dad, is that a pirate ship?'
     
  4. If you are referring to Britain I think it's now more about bread and circuses than either of the above.

    Things remain more Kinder, Küche, Kirche in Ireland than Blut und Boden despite all the Chuckies efforts. Enlightenment values? Well there is the Orange Lodge.
     
  5. To be honest, I didn't see too much difference between the two. They both emphasise military strength in the guise of the traditional virtues of masculinity and virility. "We're cool, we're hard, we can blow stuff up. Don't fuck with us."

    Had the videos focussed more on promoting what the makers saw as the virtues of the political systems that strength was being deployed for, I would have come down on the side of the Seppos without a second's flinching. As it stood, the comparisons left a bad taste in my mouth.
     
  6. My bold.

    Pretty much agree with the whole post.

    I really do not get what you're trying to say here. This being a military web site. Take your thoughts to the smallest unit level, analize, then move up a level. Repeat untill you are at Nation level.

    Remove the propagander and I think you'll find 1 nation 1 world.
     
  7. And you said "yes it is darling, but watch the other video, it's much better!*"

    *actually it is, just don't tell Sergey!
     
  8. Any amateur philosophers out there will know that this was what Nietzche was on about, the "Apollonian" versus the "Dionysian".
     
  9. One lot fighting for what they believe in and the other lot just cruising, looking for trade.
    john
     
  10. Not so far off, jonwilly. But which is the better?
     
  11. Sh1t Andy
    I have never been accused of Good Taste.
    john
    Maybe I should have said
    Rough Trade.
    KO the Kruat apeals to Ones Better side.