Quote:
Originally Posted by Mynydd
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.
You continue comparing different countries on equal bases. That's a mistake.
|
that's usually true,but in this case it's a bit different...
I think that we can agree,that modern French state was created by the Masons...
Germany?perhaps,perhaps not...I don't think that Bismarck was Mason,but then again,who knows?
the Netherlands?Jews fled from Spain and Portugal and they've settled in Holland,just a little bit,before Dutch struggle for independence...coincidence?I don't think so...
Austro-Hungarian monarchy?I think it's clear..."French" Grand Orient destroyed this country because it was one of the greatest and strongest,among Roman-catholic states in Europe...countries that arose from the ashes of this country were Austria,Hungary,Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia...
Quote:
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.
Actually, it was the [masonic] French Revolution which succeeded.. in uniting a state.
|
so you are basically saying that France was divided under the rule of,say,Louis the 14th?and was not a real nation in this period?I can't agree with you...in fact,we can talk about the French nation from 16th century till today...a Frenchman is a Frenchman,whether he lives in Paris or Perpignan...it would be stupid to divide them into a smaller states like Brittany,Normandy,Burgundy,Provence,Aquitaine,ill-de-France...
same goes for English...although there were some differences between Normans and Saxons,and others like Yorkers,Wessexians,Anglians,Kenters,Northumbrians,I don't think there's some normal Englishman who will say that he's not an Englishman but rather a Saxon or Norman or Yorker,or anything like that,if you know what I mean...
what I'm trying to tell you is that you're following the "Croatian" concept...
this practically means that,when you(not you personally
) find any slight difference between major population and local population,you will automatically declare this local population as a new entity...for the sake of the truth,there is a slight difference(in dialect,customs etc.) between,for example,a Russian from Moscow and Russian from Vladivostok or a difference between a German from Berlin and a German from Munich,but that doesn't mean that they are not a part of same nation...
it's a matter of definition of nation...nation can be defined as Ethnos,Demos and Laos...but I will talk about this latter...
Quote:
|
Well, ethnicity is the basis for the nation, unless one choses to use the Liberal Masonic view that nation and state are interchangeable.
|
ethnicity is not everything...take the,above mentioned,English people...
Saxons are not of the same ethnicity as Normans,neither are the Britons,so?
Quote:
|
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?
|
as you know Ulster is
still a part of United kingdom,and I get the feeling,they won't let it go so easily,no matter what any Irishman says!
so you see,the British opinion,in this matter,do counts...
Quote:
|
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.
|
interesting...what do you think about Salvador de Madariaga?
Quote:
|
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.
|
it's not a good example,because they didn't make
all Serbs like Turks,but they did make some - the Bosnian Moslems...thanks to a strong Serbian national identity and orthodox religion,most of the Serbs remained as they should be...
Quote:
|
Aren't you defining Nationalism as rodoljublie? Or you fell short of defining rodoljublie earlier...
|
no...I was trying to find a proper English word for Serbian term
rodoljublje(this "lj" combination is similar to Spanish "ll" in
ellos for example
)...the similar term is ethnicism or ethnophilia...patriotism and ethnicism are not the same thing as nationalism...
to put it simple,patriotism is love toward the soil,ethnicism is love toward the blood...nationalism is love toward both,the blood and soil...although this sounds a bit nazi,I can't explain it better...
Quote:
|
Interesting. You confuse sub-racialism with ethnicity and that leads you to confuse statehood with nationhood.
|
no...I just wanted to show you that Serbs have even different subracial origin...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mynydd
I forsee a long discussion, but I barely have time for more.  |
pity...I sure did want to hear more from you...God bless you