Traditionalistic Party

Traditionalistic Party

Uhm.. no, cuz its for only one guy, if someone else here would join it, together with another, so there are 3 in the party, its ok.
But a party for only one dude, then make a party for every single idealogy.

Can you give me a better understanding of what this party stands for? Then I will vote, thank you.

social democrat party has been popular for 200 years almost, that must be the party you mean.

Tyrlop wrote:

social democrat party has been popular for 200 years almost, that must be the party you mean.

No, this is like, marridage is holy, not for gay, and like, no abortion. Like the old rules and shit in social stuff. Soc-Dem is more progressive in that.

CoolKidX wrote:

Tyrlop wrote:

social democrat party has been popular for 200 years almost, that must be the party you mean.

No, this is like, marridage is holy, not for gay, and like, no abortion. Like the old rules and shit in social stuff. Soc-Dem is more progressive in that.

i dont like you are conservative thats so shitty man. social democrats R oldschool but oldschool in populistic way

Tyrlop wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

Tyrlop wrote:

social democrat party has been popular for 200 years almost, that must be the party you mean.

No, this is like, marridage is holy, not for gay, and like, no abortion. Like the old rules and shit in social stuff. Soc-Dem is more progressive in that.

i dont like you are conservative thats so shitty man. social democrats R oldschool but oldschool in populistic way

wtf your talking about?
"I dont liek you are conservative"
what?
Also I am nto conservative in social, fuck that. Legalize abortion,euthansia,gay marriadge, weed(lol sure). And gay marriadge is cool.

If this party is to stand for Cultural Conservatism, as for example, in the task to preserve national cultures, national identity and such I would join it.

RedSoviet, is your proposal for this party to those that support cultural preservation and traditionalism in both authoritarian and non-authoritarian ways?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

If this party is to stand for Cultural Conservatism, as for example, in the task to preserve national cultures, national identity and such I would join it.

Me to. Problem is its left-wing.
Maybe it should then be a Tradtionalist Party.
The left-wing with it is just a detail, if this get to be a WR party, I want a right-wing traditonalist party to etc. Would get out messed up, instead of +2 parties, make it one party. With no left or right wing. Possible?

And to get clear this isnt like anti gay marridage and all, as in marriadge is holy etc. etc. etc. that BS.

kulturual konseratism s bad national aidentity should be demolisjed for one homogeneous world with no anient cultures oor history that way i dont have to go to museums

and everyone speak the same language so they dont get confus

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

If this party is to stand for Cultural Conservatism, as for example, in the task to preserve national cultures, national identity and such I would join it.

RedSoviet, is your proposal for this party to those that support cultural preservation and traditionalism in both authoritarian and non-authoritarian ways?

im against that! as an internationalist i believe that peoples identity can indepent from nations, religion, and traditions. The reason why we should be indepent from those, is that they have brought us so much bad things, wars and genocides, and i believe that it will be easy for humanity to find other things that we can to replace those identities with something less violence.

yeah a just Traditionalistic party is ok!

everybody can join it if right or left if radical not radical, everybody who is a traditionalist/conservative can join

Okay, but tell more about it, what it stands for, give some examples if possible.

Then I might join it. And change my vote to yes, but there is no cancel vote...

CoolKidX wrote:

Me to. Problem is its left-wing.
Maybe it should then be a Tradtionalist Party.
The left-wing with it is just a detail, if this get to be a WR party, I want a right-wing traditonalist party to etc. Would get out messed up, instead of +2 parties, make it one party. With no left or right wing. Possible?

Problem is that some right-wing proponents of cultural conservation believe that cultural conservation includes the preservation of capitalism as a cultural trait, an idea most prominent within right-wing cultural conservatists of US who argue that capitalism is an essential cultural trait of the US.

So long as the idea is to dissociate from this, I'm for the the proposal that it should be a Cultural Conservatist Group.

CKX wrote:

And to get clear this isnt like anti gay marridage and all, as in marriadge is holy etc. etc. etc. that BS.

Here's where will come the problem. I think that if we make a Cultural Conservation Party or group we'll end up divided in the following factions:

Authoritarian and Libertarian. Then from these, we'll have those that just support the preservation of some cultural traits while the rejection of others. For example, we may come up with those that believe personal matters and sexuality are dissociated from cultural preservation while others may argue that the cultural integrity of a community is threattened, for example, by homosexuality or transvestites.

So well, I propose we create a Cultural Conservation Party or something like that, then, when differeces appear we can create different wings within it... how do you all like this?

We create the group, a forum for it and, if divisions appear we just divide it in different wings each with its subforum, of course, hidden so they don't mess with those that don't belong to it.

Tyrlop wrote:

im against that! as an internationalist i believe that peoples identity can indepent from nations, religion, and traditions.

I'm an internationalist, as opposed to globalist. I do believe that people's identity is independent from Nations but national identity and individual identity are not necesarily mutually exclusive. National identity sprouts from ethnic, geographic, linguistic, vestimentary and historical conditions shared by different groups. It is a naturally derived culture dependant mainly on geographic and ethnic factors. As such it serves as what I call a "supra-culture". This national identity creates a certain group which with time develops its culture around this unifying factor.

National identity, per say, does not clash with individuality so long as said individuality is not intended to go against national identity itself.

I contend that having national idenity can be understood as belonging to an ethnic group or group of unified ethnic groups that have historically developed within a certain territory creating an entire common culture and embracing this culture completely or partially.

In my case I believe to have a combined Soviet national identity which is predominantly Russo-Ukrainian and which includes significant Spanish influence and minor Irish, Italian, German, Arabic, Argentinian, Greek, French, Portuguese and Scandinavian traits and I count with Catholic and Jewish religious cultural backgrounds forced upon me.

Tyrlop wrote:

The reason why we should be indepent from those, is that they have brought us so much bad things, wars and genocides, and i believe that it will be easy for humanity to find other things that we can to replace those identities with something less violence.

Violence is not a product of national identity. For that matter any trace of individuality could be a cause for conflict. The only causes of conflict are attempts at coercion, whatever the reason may be. The target should be coercion not diversity.

The world could have exactly the same national framework it has today in regards of culture, history and territory and it could perfectly fit a socialist economic framework.

Different nations can exist and be perfectly friendly to each other shall alienation, coercion, classes and exploitation be eliminated.

For example, take a look at the typical 1st world vs 3rd world stupid problematic:

The 1st world is rich because it exploits the 3rd world so the 3rd world inhabitants go to te 1st world. The 1st world needs to exploit the 3rd world so its inhabitants don't turn against their domestic ruling classes.

If we eliminated this we would easily eliminate all that massive migration of Mexicans to USA and of Arabs, Turks and Indians to Europe.

National conflicts sprout out of the interests of the ruling classes, for nothing else.

Zealot wrote:

Here's where will come the problem. I think that if we make a Cultural Conservation Party or group we'll end up divided in the following factions:

Authoritarian and Libertarian. Then from these, we'll have those that just support the preservation of some cultural traits while the rejection of others. For example, we may come up with those that believe personal matters and sexuality are dissociated from cultural preservation while others may argue that the cultural integrity of a community is threattened, for example, by homosexuality or transvestites.

And by cultural traits you mean, like in Spain for example, bull fighting and all should still be there etc.?
And indeed, you noticed that it would end up divided, but for the hell of it we could try to make a party of it. I already know what I would join, libertarian part yay.

Zealot wrote:

So well, I propose we create a Cultural Conservation Party or something like that, then, when differeces appear we can create different wings within it... how do you all like this?

Okay, but how do you mean with diffrent wings in? That means more then 1 party or something?

Zealot wrote:

We create the group, a forum for it and, if divisions appear we just divide it in different wings each with its subforum, of course, hidden so they don't mess with those that don't belong to it.

Ohhh yea, okay good idea.
But we might should get a debate sub-forum for the party so we can debate Authoritarian vs Libertarian.

RedSoviet wrote:

yeah a just Traditionalistic party is ok!

everybody can join it if right or left if radical not radical, everybody who is a traditionalist/conservative can join

Id agree with a Traditionalist party as long as it has a member base higher than 3. It would make for good debates.

CoolKidX wrote:

And by cultural traits you mean, like in Spain for example, bull fighting and all should still be there etc.?

Well that's one way to see it.

CKX wrote:

Ohhh yea, okay good idea.
But we might should get a debate sub-forum for the party so we can debate Authoritarian vs Libertarian.

This is how I visualize it:

We create a section in the fashion of "Parliament", for example, were we got several subforums. We name this section "Traditionalist Party" or "Union of Cultural Conservatists" or something like that (we can later discuss and modify the name). Then we create within that section a forum named in the same way as the party. There all members of that group can debate in general their personal views, understandings and so on about Cultural Preservation, like a general discussion forum on Cultural preservation and perhaps on Culture, traditions and morals in general.

There we can create a thread in which the members post the core of their personal views so we can determine more or less the kind of Cultural Conservatist they are, whether libertarian or authoritraian, moderate or extreme (in this case this is fully applicable), more focused towards preservation of national culture or religious, etc.

Shall evident enough differences appear, factions will naturally emerge and, in order to satisfy the needs of all factions subforums will be created for each.

I think another good idea could be to allow something like an "Observers' Faction". That is people that may not agree with Cultural Preservation but are invited to discuss in the main forum of the Traditionalist party or whatever the name will be, their views on Cultural Conservatism.

All in all we could say that it would look like this:

Traditionalist Party
-Traditionalist Party
-Libertarian traditionalist wing
-Authoritarian traditionalist wing

And as a plus, if convenient, we could open a right and left wing for each.


How do you think?

zealot is like always full in to it ^^

Quote :

Id agree with a Traditionalist party as long as it has a member base higher than 3. It would make for good debates.

with me you and zealot we are already 3 and sure a lot more will come, everybody have a conservativ traditionalistic side

Quote :

How do you think?

sounds great so lets do it

RedSoviet wrote:

zealot is like always full in to it ^^

Quote :

Id agree with a Traditionalist party as long as it has a member base higher than 3. It would make for good debates.

with me you and zealot we are already 3 and sure a lot more will come, everybody have a conservativ traditionalistic side

Quote :

How do you think?

sounds great so lets do it

Im not gonna join it....

Liche wrote:

RedSoviet wrote:

zealot is like always full in to it ^^

Quote :

Id agree with a Traditionalist party as long as it has a member base higher than 3. It would make for good debates.

with me you and zealot we are already 3 and sure a lot more will come, everybody have a conservativ traditionalistic side

Quote :

How do you think?

sounds great so lets do it

Im not gonna join it....

then don't

I support it being a group, I think its good idea, but I dont believe in its ideas is what Im saying.

I'm sure CKX will join.

Before creating this I think we should define exactly the general rules for the creation of groups. I'll do that in the proposals section.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I'm sure CKX will join.

Indeed.

The poll suxors since no-one can change his vote and you vote in it lol.
That's why polls are un-trustable.

We've all ready established that were making it.