Ben

drama

Nah, never jumped on a main during a trip when in a clan. Have sniped on a main when I wasn't in a clan though.

Gj. Looked like a decent performance by EOP too.

looked ez

look at u tuff guys

Haven't paid attention in a while but aren't most of them recycled members HPCs anyway. If they're not and the combats really aren't that different - I don't understand why the HPC's haven't just said fuck it and gone out during their trip times as well. Surely if these MPC trips got hit by FOE/EOP/CP the 'MPCs' would be forced to either step up or spend the next few months getting shoved around due to their own level restrictions.

Clan wars for me. Haven't been to a trip in around a year but stopped going the fights became pointless. Mains everywhere and then in F2P you had those cauliflower endless return fights hugged around teleport spots. brown sticky stuff was impossible to determine who performed better.

At least you've provoked a discussion. That's more than I've seen on these 'community' forums for the past few years.

Pretty sure SUP were a clan that's enjoyed decent success from the same bunch of clans that opened when ZU were formed. Getting 30 defence was inevitable really. When people realised how beneficial Addy was in F2P pre EoC, it was only a matter of time before some clan got it to try and push themselves to the next level without having to put any effort into improving the organisation of their members. To a certain extent, the combat levels became a bit of a substitute to member quality in the short term. Eventually these clans got the combat level and the organisation to go with it, which meant that other clans felt the need to get it to compete.

CP norm do well at these kind of things.

Grats guys, looks like a good performance.

ya, we not coming back either.

No they're not. Or at least the NME that I used to lead aren't.

Nice work guys. Can't wait to join in the fun ;p

Wooo, well done m8tys

sweeeeet

r u 99 dung cuz u got the key to my heart

U guys still owning i c :pp

Yes, if they're clever.

Looks like we've still got it .

I do agree that Fascism will lead to conflict, however, I don't agree that it's because of it's nationalistic tendencies but because of it's authoritarian / totalitarian values (as you said). I do recognise those themes as key also, I just don't believe that they're as integral to the ideology as I believe nationalism to be. That's what my original statement was referring to. I know you disagree with me but we'll have to agree to disagree as that's the conclusion that I've come to having read the literature that I have read. Your definition maybe based on different thinkers and contributors to key ideologies, but I guarantee that those thinkers don't all agree with each other. They'll have different view points on different themes and will constitute different branches of their respective ideologies. I can tell you now that Fascism is an incredibly ambiguous ideology and when you do engage in the literature of what constitutes Fascism, it is incredibly varied from one scholar/thinker to the next. That's why there's thousands of books on this very topic.

The part I bolded. Pride (Nationalism) in a country is an introverted concept, you're proud of your own country for it's achievements. Whereas xenophobia is an extroverted concept, you're bringing other countries into the fold and you're actively comparing and competing with the ideas and beliefs of others. When you talk about expansionism, surely that's more xenophobic than patriotism? Or at least that's how I interpret it. I do not disagree with your definition totally, the only reason I replied to this topic was because I felt that people wrongly put violence/force at the core of Fascism when I do not believe it to be. A lot of what you've said I agree with, but I just feel that you/others emphasised other key themes over nationalism which is the base for the entire ideology. Perhaps the only slight issue I have with what you've said is that Fascism inevitably leads to segregation and wars/expansionism as a direct result of this nationalism. If you're describing Nationalism (not sure what you mean by 'Proper' nationalism) like I am, as the pride in your own nation, then it's everywhere in Western civilisation today. European diplomats nowadays are nationalistic about their country and yet they find ways to co-operate with each other using methods other than physical conflict. On a smaller scale when visiting new countries natives are incredibly keen to show/tell me more about their culture because they're proud of it - yet from personal experiences I've never been forced to conform to their way of life. These examples, to me, display nationalism in a harmless way. Pride in your home country doesn't necessarily equate to wars/violence. I won't be writing a full definition of Fascism as having studied aspects of it at university (albeit only a semester long module), I know it's a far bigger task than a few hundred words on here. Furthermore, it's a highly interpretive subject so there will never be a 'right' (excuse the pun) definition agreed upon by all.

You're not describing nationalism though, you're describing xenophobia which depending on the scholar that you read isn't at the heart of Fascism. Nationalism is the pride in your country, not necessarily the belief that it's better than anyone else's. Again, it comes down to the scholar that you read. Some say that Fascism in its purest form (ideologically based, rather than when put in practice) is not expansionist in nature, while others disagree. I don't want to write a full paragraph at the moment, simply because I haven't engaged in the literature for a few years now and I'd rather reply when I have been able to brush up - especially considering the depth of your replies, .

Who cares? MM did this for years and it was a great way to introduce people to the community. People just stopped allowing it because everyone became paranoid of spies. If other clans don't have the community to compete, that's their fault.

I'm not a Fascist but people have got a really misshaped view of Fascism. Nazi Germany and the later stages of Mussolini's Italy have really tarnished it's reputation. I'm not a Fascist, nor do I support it but to say that force or authoritarianism is at it's heart of the ideology is wrong. Nationalism is at it's heart and is what made it so popular in Mussolini's Italy. People view the events of the 1930s-40s in a far too linear way and therefore fail to realise that Fascism in Italy in the early 1930's was far different to that in the latter stages. In the early 1930's, Fascism caught on in Italy due to its focus on Italian culture; its artwork and its language and that installed a sense of nationalism within the Italian people and made them relate what Mussolini was saying. It wasn't the later stages of the 1930's that this Fascism took a horrible turn and turned into expansionism (which could also be viewed as a trait of Capitalism to a certain extent albeit in a financial situation). It's actually widely argued that that the movements which spread across Europe in the late 1930's and early 1940's which are seen to be violent/forceful weren't truly Fascism at all (whole new debate totally). Force/Violence is just a tool used by rulers to try and embed their philosophy onto others and has been throughout history, it can't be associated with one single ideology when all the "rulers" or ideologues mentioned on this topic have used violence/force at some point in history to maintain superiority. Anyway, I didn't study politics too much, just history - hence the difference approach. I'll read through the rest of the posts when I have time, but this was something that bugged me on the first page