Farewell people

[Ostrogorski]

Well, I'm not very good in this, but I believe it's extremely rude to leave without saying good bye to people with whom I spent more than a year.

Unfortunately I came to the point where I simply don't support basic ideas upon which Stirpes was created. With each day I'm more and more convinced that European identity and cooperation between European nations is a crap. I rather see 2 totally opposite poles - the western Europe and eastern Europe, that share nothing.

And especially, I can't stand anymore the crap about "Christian solidarity" and "fellow Christians" as euphemism for practical proselytism of the Roman-catholic church toward us orthodox. Hope you'll like Albanians as your future fellow Roman-catholics...

If I offended anyone I want to apologize, but that's how I feel, and certain circumstances and acts that occurred in the last few days made my decision even quicker. I'm also sorry if I were a pain in the arse for some of you here.

I wish you all the best in your further work.

Take care

Ostrogorski

[Delbáeth]

Oh, good bye .

[Weltschmerz]

I count it to your merit that you don't complain about being treated unfairly or anything like that. I noticed that your views go in an East versus West direction, but I'm surprised to see you leave just the same. I must admit that I found some of your views mythical rather than true, and that I found your attitude at times to be chauvinist. Especially, your reluctance against your neighbouring nations are not taken lightly, because this is a nationalist website and not an expansionist one. Imagine how truly weird it would be to have an expansionist discussion forum dedicated to verbal warfare.

As for that idea about proselytism, it must have passed by without my noticing.

If there's a chance that this is a hasted decision, as far as I'm concerned you are welcome back, but in order to feel "at home" here I think you should consider another approach to nationalism for your return.

Best wishes.

[Monolith]

We may have had a several arguments and differences in opinions, but you were not prone to insulting people, which was not the case with many of your people who I encountered earlier. Even though I do not share your views about the two currents in Europe and their differences, I hope that you've just hastened your decision a bit. It is good to have a disagreeing side anyway .

Well, good luck.

[Menydh]

European identity as such is a geopolitical concept, relative to true identity which is ethnopolitical and it has an independent and unique character for each nation. Mutual respect to those identities is conditio sine qua non for European cooperation to be possible, at any level. I agree with Gnist that your views are not nationalistic but expansionistic. As such, you have yourself to blame if you see European cooperation failing for your purposes.

Everyone knows that you are likely to find on Stirpes more support to Serbian Nationalism (and to Serbian Irredentism in the case of Kosovo), than the contrary. That you take a few isolated views which are the result of a conflict to which the rest of us is alien (the mutual Serbo-Croatian hostility) and pretend to misrepresent it as the general view, is not an honest thing to do. But that is ultimately your problem, not ours.

Last, I do not agree with your division between a Western (Catholic, Celto-Romance) Europe and an Eastern (Orthodox, Helleno-Slavic), in absolute terms. Mind you, there is also a Central & Northern (Protestant, Germanic and Slavic) bloc. Not that I would say that differences do not exist, but not the way you would like them to be and here again similar principles of mutual respect that I mentioned earlier, should apply.

Look at Europe and realize of its complexity. Once you do, realize that it cannot be held hostage of one conflict alone, namely The Balkans. I'm not saying this to you alone.


Farewell

[Susi]

byebye ,-, i'll miss you

[Lutiferre]

While I respect your choice to leave, I am skeptical of these grounds that you provide, which you take an intellectual approach to, probably a mistake.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

With each day I'm more and more convinced that European identity and cooperation between European nations is a crap. I rather see 2 totally opposite poles - the western Europe and eastern Europe, that share nothing.

So the Eastern/Western division is absolute - the nations in each direction share nothing with each other? Nothing? With a proper mind and soul, it should not take more than a few seconds to reject this notion, or even the notion that we share almost nothing. The differences do not nullify the similitudes, and vice versa. Ethnic conflicts tend to be based more on differences and especially so in neighboring nations. Here, if there is a division in religion, that can easily dominate ethnic relationships, all though in many cases, individual nations and ethnic groups consist of so much more. Indeed the historically dominating school of religion plays a central role in the nature of a culture, but present differences can be spurious and inauthentic to the true spirit of nations. It is also essential to the question whether the difference is Sunni (and Shafi'i versus Hanafi, etc) versus Shi'a, Orthodox versus Catholic versus Protestant, or Islam versus Christianity. Entire schools of religion more seldom lead to local conflicts due to a natural geographical separation. There are different levels of differences, but they all count, and they all have a great potential to divide and lead to ethnic conflicts and barbarism, if they are all one notices.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

And especially, I can't stand anymore the crap about "Christian solidarity" and "fellow Christians" as euphemism for practical proselytism of the Roman-catholic church toward us orthodox. Hope you'll like Albanians as your future fellow Roman-catholics...

This only seems to confirm the current situation. You are assuming that our only qualities are our gods or our religions, because the conflicts are based on the differences hereof. That is hardly an intellectual assertion, more like emotional whining about an ethnic division and conflict that dominates your mind, and keep you from saying anything with sense in it about the true circumstances in general Europe.

Therefore, my honest analysis is that you have emotional grounds for leaving, and in that regard the ideological questions are irrelevant - they are only the product of your emotional way of thinking.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Last, I do not agree with your division between a Western (Catholic, Celto-Romance) Europe and an Eastern (Orthodox, Helleno-Slavic), in absolute terms. Mind you, there is also a Central & Northern (Protestant, Germanic and Slavic) bloc.

We can hardly limit Western Catholics to what you refer to as "Celto-Romance", or limit the Germanics to Protestantism. The Western Catholics referred to consist of not just two meta-ethnicities, but just as much the millions of Germanic catholics that do exist, especially in central/southern Europe. The meta-ethnicities are not central to the question though, it is a matter of geographical proximity and cultural areas. The Northern areas are typically more Protestant, the Western more Catholic.

If there's a chance that this is a hasted decision, as far as I'm concerned you are welcome back, but in order to feel "at home" here I think you should consider another approach to nationalism for your return.

I second this. Farewell.

[Ostrogorski]

Mynydd, you're assuming too much, and you base your opinion on your general impression rather than objective reasons. You're also putting into my mouth something that I never said, which I must say is not fair at least. Same goes for Gnist. And don't make it personal because it isn't.

It's interesting that accusations about expansionism come from a Swede and a Spaniard, since the results of expansionism of your nations can be seen still today. You can accuse me of expansionism the day Serbia is the size of Sweden or Spain, and not the size of the average Swedish or Spanish province with the tendention of being even smaller and smaller with each day.

Just because I see certain neighboring nations as a quasi or surrogate nations and as a result of Austro-Hungarian and communist policy, that doesn't make me chauvinist or expansionist. I'm not eager to accept some people as a nation just because they think they are, and because of the reality of political circumstances. If we go that way Kosovo Albanians are a nation because they think they are and because of reality of political circumstances.

And both of you know very little about Balkans to judge whether my views are nationalist or expansionist. Particularly because I don't remember saying anything bad about our first neighbors and real, historical nations like Romanians, Bulgarians and Greeks, which I'm very fond of.

This view:

Look at Europe and realize of its complexity. Once you do, realize that it cannot be held hostage of one conflict alone, namely The Balkans.

- is for example, essentially wrong. It's not Europe that is hostage of some Balkan conflict, it's the other way around. The Balkans is the Europe in the small, and conflicts inside (and outside of) Europe have it's repercussions here in the Balkans. Once you realize that it's not us that fight but great powers and great geopolitical concepts behind us, perhaps you'll understand us, the Balkanics.

As for the so called "European cooperation" failing for my purposes, I must say that I think we Serbs absolutely don't need your support, absolutely from no one of you from the west, and it means to us as much as Japanese or Zulu support. And accusation that I came here in the first place because of that is a insult to me and everything that I stand for.

The division between the eastern and western Europe is not in the sense of geopolitical concepts, but more in the sense of way of thinking. Protestant rationalism is just one step away from Roman-catholic scholasticism, and if there wasn't for Roman-catholicism in the first place, there wouldn't be any protestantism. Both are on the other hand extremely far away from Orthodox mysticism. Most of you in the west didn't have a clue what are nations and nationalisms up until 19th century, when you embrace Jacobin ideas.

I thought I make some things straight before I go definitely, not because I wanted to be drama queen or something, but because I wanted to be completely honest with all of you. I'm not pissed at any of you, and I wish you all well, hope just that no matter how our opinions differ you understand me and respect my decision...

[Weltschmerz]

I think that maybe this discussion can be fruitful.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

Mynydd, you're assuming too much, and you base your opinion on your general impression rather than objective reasons. You're also putting into my mouth something that I never said, which I must say is not fair at least. Same goes for Gnist. And don't make it personal because it isn't.

It's interesting that accusations about expansionism come from a Swede and a Spaniard, since the results of expansionism of your nations can be seen still today. You can accuse me of expansionism the day Serbia is the size of Sweden or Spain, and not the size of the average Swedish or Spanish province with the tendention of being even smaller and smaller with each day.

In an irredentist scheme, Sweden should lose some territory to Saami and gain some from Finns. But I think you confuse expansionist and irredentist. The former wants to gain territory for the sake of gaining territory, while the latter wants to lose as well as gain territory from the point of view of what is right.

The size of Sweden in absolute terms has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

Just because I see certain neighboring nations as a quasi or surrogate nations and as a result of Austro-Hungarian and communist policy, that doesn't make me chauvinist or expansionist.

To just have such views in general is what I was referring to a as a "mythical" narrative rather than one that seeks truth. In any case, you should back up your views with good arguments, or else you can expect that pointing a finger toward a neighbouring nation, calling it "surrogate", will be considered a serious insult. The proper meanings of nation and ethnic group are very relevant to all of this. For a start, you could discriminate by a distinction between a state that is brought about by political circumstances under false motives, on the one hand, and a nation, on the other.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

And both of you know very little about Balkans to judge whether my views are nationalist or expansionist. Particularly because I don't remember saying anything bad about our first neighbors and real, historical nations like Romanians, Bulgarians and Greeks, which I'm very fond of.

Hungary and Croatia then, are they not real, historical and your neighbours? I'm not asking you to express any affection towards them, recognition will do. But you express the opposite of recognition, which is denial.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

The division between the eastern and western Europe is not in the sense of geopolitical concepts, but more in the sense of way of thinking.

I think it is also about politics.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

Protestant rationalism is just one step away from Roman-catholic scholasticism, and if there wasn't for Roman-catholicism in the first place, there wouldn't be any protestantism. Both are on the other hand extremely far away from Orthodox mysticism. Most of you in the west didn't have a clue what are nations and nationalisms up until 19th century, when you embrace Jacobin ideas.

I agree with a modification: Protestantism is just one step away from the exaggerated intellectualism that became norm in Catholicism. Surely, exaggerated intellectualism has been present in the West since before the addition of filioque even.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

I thought I make some things straight before I go definitely, not because I wanted to be drama queen or something, but because I wanted to be completely honest with all of you. I'm not pissed at any of you, and I wish you all well, hope just that no matter how our opinions differ you understand me and respect my decision...

There are no hard feelings from me either, just my disagreement on one issue.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

I rather see 2 totally opposite poles - the western Europe and eastern Europe, that share nothing.

By eastern you mean Eastern Orthodox? That they are in many respects different, that is a fact which nobody can deny. To say that that they share nothing, is a gross historical inaccuracy.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

And especially, I can't stand anymore the crap about "Christian solidarity" and "fellow Christians" as euphemism for practical proselytism of the Roman-catholic church toward us orthodox.

So on Stirpes there was every day, while you were an active member of this board, a thread-sermon calling the Orthodox to convert en masse to Catholicism? Maybe you could show me these mysterious threads, filled with posts written by fanatical Roman Catholic missionaries, calling upon the Orthodox to accept the Roman Church?

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

Hope you'll like Albanians as your future fellow Roman-catholics...

Now you seem to be able to predict future: all Albanians converting to Catholicism, everybody liking them etc.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

You can accuse me of expansionism the day Serbia is the size of Sweden or Spain, and not the size of the average Swedish or Spanish province

Nah, yes, it is always important to have a realistic view of one's own abilities and possibilities.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

Just because I see certain neighboring nations as a quasi or surrogate nations and as a result of Austro-Hungarian and communist policy, that doesn't make me chauvinist or expansionist.

Yes, it does.

Besides, Austro-Hungarian (ie. Habsburg prior to 1867) policy towards Serbs living on the territory of the monarchy was quite complex one thoughout centuries. Sometimes Habsburgs protected and supported Serbs, at other times they were inimical to Serbs. Wasn't Serbia an ally of Austria-Hungary until 1903, when the change of the royal dynasty occurred in Serbia, which effected also a change in the direction of the international affairs?

But if you like a mythomaniac approach to history, boosted by the mythology of the First and the Second World War, that is your own choice and your own right. No problems with that.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

I'm not eager to accept some people as a nation just because they think they are, and because of the reality of political circumstances.

It is your own problem and not the problem of those nations. As if anybody cared about whom some chauvinists accept as real nation and whom not. Everyone of us can at times construct some hallucinatory vision of reality of his own and pretend it's real.

One could with the same method argue that Serbs are a fictitious nation, that the real Serbian nation ceased to exist after the breakdown of the remains of the remains of the medieval Serbian kingdom/empire, that the Serbs in their present-day variety are an invention of the Ottoman Empire, which needed auxiliary soldiers for inroads into the Central Europe, that the Serbian Church (which was part of the Ottoman system as well) artificially spread the Serb name to various populations. Thence it would be in its present-day form a surrogate nation. There are innumerable ways of twisting historical facts around in order to create some concept of the present reality of your own, on condition you are mythomaniac enough.

First you tell how miserable the state of things at present is ("every day smaller..."), then you indulge in wild dreams of grandeur (the only historical nation, others are surrogates etc). Plenty of contradictions. Self-bragging with no basis in the present reality, coupled with whining. Who ever boasts too much...

It is a sure way to expose yourself to the ridicule rather than to anger anyone (I wasn't angered by your yesterday remark).

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

If we go that way Kosovo Albanians are a nation because they think they are and because of reality of political circumstances.

As far as I know, they consider themselves as Albanians, and not as "Kosovo Albanians" meaning some separate nation.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

It's not Europe that is hostage of some Balkan conflict, it's the other way around.

It is up to debate.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

The Balkans is the Europe in the small

Now that is the only true thing you said. Throughout Europe there are issues similar to those plaguing the Balkans, the only difference being that there was no war recently in the rest of Europe, so that all those issues are not so much publicized.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

and conflicts inside (and outside of) Europe have it's repercussions here in the Balkans. Once you realize that it's not us that fight but great powers and great geopolitical concepts behind us, perhaps you'll understand us, the Balkanics.

It is sometimes so, not always. There is, yes, meddling of the exterior forces, but there are also domestic-grown ideas which lead up to conflicts.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

The division between the eastern and western Europe is not in the sense of geopolitical concepts, but more in the sense of way of thinking. Protestant rationalism is just one step away from Roman-catholic scholasticism, and if there wasn't for Roman-catholicism in the first place, there wouldn't be any protestantism. Both are on the other hand extremely far away from Orthodox mysticism. Most of you in the west didn't have a clue what are nations and nationalisms up until 19th century, when you embrace Jacobin ideas.

Yet your ridiculous notions about "historical nations" are a very distant echo of the philosophy of history of Hegel, a "Western European" par excellence.

-----------

Well, what else, I am joining in the choir and saying: Farewell!