[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Sektor

obviously,you don't understand what I wrote...I was not talking about ethnogenesis of nations,I was talking about countries...take Italy for example...Garibaldi was a mason,count Cavour,or whatever his name is,was mason also

Yes, they were. But the way you posed it seemed as if you might accuse Leovigildo and Recaredo of being freemasons too.

Or, more seriously, because the founder of the unity of one country was a Freemason and that country was based on masonic foundations, that justified you for all other countries and/or nations.

...or France or Germany,Holland,or countries that emerged after the deconstruction of Austro-hungarian empire...I think that we can agree that idea of modern nation-states is a masonic idea...

You continue comparing different countries on equal bases. That's a mistake.

well,since the beginning of the French state,French kings fought to unite their country and create unique French nation...

Just for the sake of correctness, the French kings fought to expand their kingdoms, not to create a unique "French nation". Your mistake here is not strange because kingdoms were the predecesors of states, and you have the ability to confuse state with nation.

and they succeeded...

Actually, it was the [masonic] French Revolution which succeeded.. in uniting a state.

no offense,but who are you to tell them that they are not one nation?

No offense taken but, first thing is that here I am not telling them but you and, second thing is that this is a forum of discussion. An opinion, strong as it may be, does not imply an imposition. If you don't agree, though I am right , feel free to discuss it.

you are mixing up nationalism with ethnicism...

Well, ethnicity is the basis for the nation, unless one choses to use the Liberal Masonic view that nation and state are interchangeable.

I'm not the right person to talk about this and I don't want to play a lawyer to the British...ask for a British opinion on this subject,not just Irish...

I wouldn't ask a Turk for his opinion on the national identity of Serbia or any of its territories. Why should I ask a Brit for his opinion of the national identity of the Ulster?

Primo de Rivera once said that Spain is a common destiny of all Spaniards... If you can find that article,read it again...no regional or individual interest can be above the interest of community,in this case,known as Spain - that is basic fact of every nationalism...

"España es una entidad de destino en lo Universal".

He also said that "... preferimos una España roja antes que rota". Which translates to "... we prefer a Spain Red (Communist) before teared up (divided)". Nowadays a Spain "Red" is leading to the destruction of the very fabric of the nation through the forced introduction of the phenomenon of immigration, plus a broken Spain through division. So much so, that the division (secesion) of any of the Spanish territories which moved away from the red-immigration phenomenon, would be a blessing as it would ensure the survival of a part of Spain or, to be more exact, The Spains.

Figure out how useful it is to take something said in the early 30s as an absolute model for anything in the present.

José Antonio Primo de Rivera was a unique and much charismatic leader, who I hate seeing him related to leaders of other movements in Europe at the time. No offense meant to others, but it is a matter of style. However, his life was truncated at an early age and there was no time for his ideological evolution to complete. Had his life been larger, his potential as a Nationalist ideologue could have been unparalleled. But that was not the case and his individual background was that of a Social Patriot, who was evolving towards Nationalism.

For a more realistic approach to Nationalism in Spain, you should look into Ramiro Ledesma. It was him, by the way, the founder o National Syndicalism and not Primo de Rivera. Incidentally, Ledesma abandoned the union of Falange and JONS after disagreements with Primo de Rivera.

I think we have a problem understanding each other in this subject...

We do.

Nation isn't created at once

Agreed. As I pointed to you, a genesis is required for which a long pre-genesis is necessary.

and forever...Nation is based on the past,but does not live in past,it lives in the present time and in the future...

Nations are indeed evolutive identities, but subject to requirements that qualify them as nations.

To put you an example, because there was a Serbian nation in the past, there is one today. That the Turks conquered the region did not make the Serbians ethnic (national) Turks. There was no process of ethnogenesis in which the Serbs and the Turks merged into one people, and Serbians kept themselves as a nation despite being subject to a foreign power.

there are also terms like Patriotism and Chauvinism...

There are many terms, yes. Each one meaning its own thing.

Patriotism is a heathen word,and it means love toward the land of our fathers,and a love for one's country and it's government...Serbs have a word that is close to patriotism,it's rodoljublje,and it means love for our kin...this word is closer to Christianity,because it means love toward people that are,in spiritual and biological sense,close to us...we can also use word "Ethnicism"(or "Ethnophilia" in Greek)...

It looks as if you are describing Nationalism.

Chauvinism is something very different...it's excessive love toward everything that is authentically ours...it is a sign of backwardness,because it doesn't allow any critics toward nation and it doesn't helps one nation self-improvement...

More or less, yes.

Nationalism is wider and deeper than,both,Patriotism and "Ethnophilia"("Ethnicism" or rodoljublje)...it's goal is to reveal the essence of nation's historical task and it's eternal values...nationalism is a love toward the spirit of own nation...to be a part of a nation means blood relationship,common socio-cultural connection and education...nationalism without faith is incomplete...nationalism is love toward fatherland,own kin,and self-sacrificing as a result...

Aren't you defining Nationalism as rodoljublie? Or you fell short of defining rodoljublie earlier..

Nation is not always a ethnic category...it's not a folk(ethnic term),and it's not just population(democratic term)...as I said,it's wider and deeper than that...

Oh dear..

Serbs as a nation,are not a uniform ethnic structure,neither are any other nations in the world...there are Dinarids,Meds,Alpids,Nordids and Baltids among Serbs...we were Nordid and Baltid Slavs and we've mixed ourselves with indigenous Dinarid and Mediterranid population of the Balkans...

if we follow your analogy,then that means that every stinking village in the Balkans can be a nation for itself...this practically means that we are not a nation of Serbs but rather a bunch of Belgradians,Novosadians,,Prishtinians,Moravians,Sirmians,Banatians,Bacsians,
Kosovars,Montenegrins,Bosnians etc.

Interesting. You confuse sub-racialism with ethnicity and that leads you to confuse statehood with nationhood.

I forsee a long discussion, but I barely have time for more.