Disturbing, are European nationalist becoming zionist liberals

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Sektor

well,don't get me wrong...I'm not trying to offend you,because you're a Croat!

No, I'm not offended.

As for secession: many nations needed to secede in order to gain their independence and freedom. Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria once seceded form the Ottoman Empire, didn't they?

[Ostrogorski]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

You would have to give some evidence before any credit can be given to your words. Most nations having an ethnogenesis which predates the existance of Freemasonry, your statement sounds a bit bizarre to say the least.

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...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...

thanks for this brief history of Spaniards...

Originally Posted by Mynydd

France, in contrast, is a state composed by different nations with a much varied ethnic composition. Italy too is a state with a particular composition of its own.

well,since the beginning of the French state,French kings fought to unite their country and create unique French nation...and they succeeded...no offense,but who are you to tell them that they are not one nation?

In the end, no nation is equal to another, nor there is a state equal to the next. However, the difference between state and nation is clear and should be given careful consideration.

you are mixing up nationalism with ethnicism...

The problem of the Ulster is different. The Ulster is an Irish province which is currently divided between a part in Ireland and another part which is invaded by Britain. It is not a mere case of indepence, but of freedom and reunification with the rest of the Irish nation.

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 will speak only of the Basques here. If they want to secede, it will be a tragedy (for the Basques and, in a lesser form, for the rest of the Spanish). But in the end it is the consequence of Spain having suffered from a foreign jacobine and centralist, alien artificial system of state

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...

It is the deconstruction of [natural] nations into [artificial] states which is an error of magnitude. Not the opposite.

I think we have a problem understanding each other in this subject...Nation isn't created at once and forever...Nation is based on the past,but does not live in past,it lives in the present time and in the future...there are also terms like Patriotism and Chauvinism...

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)...

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...

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...

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...

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.

[Ostrogorski]

Originally Posted by prometheus

No, I'm not offended.

As for secession: many nations needed to secede in order to gain their independence and freedom. Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria once seceded form the Ottoman Empire, didn't they?

that's not the same thing...Serbia,Greece and Bulgaria were occupied by Turks...just don't tell me that Serbs occupied Croatia

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Sektor

that's not the same thing...Serbia,Greece and Bulgaria were occupied by Turks...just don't tell me that Serbs occupied Croatia

Whatever...

I am really amazed that you as a Serbian nationalist have some fondness for Yugoslavia. That monster does not exist already 17 years.

[Crvena zvezda]

Originally Posted by prometheus

Occupation is occupation. It is technically the same thing. Forcing someone to live in a multinational and multicultural creation like Yugoslavia, through military force, what is that?

Again. Croatian leaders chose to join Yugoslavia by agreeing to the Corfu Agreement. If not for the Yugoslav side at the Paris Peace Conference, I doubt Croatia would of gotten independence and if they did they would of been angered since Serbia would of gotten all of Bosnia, Dubrovnik, and southern Dalmatia up to Split and other parts of Croatia (Krajina and areas of Dalmatia), while Italy would have obtained Istria and the rest of Dalmatgia, and their actually was a possibility that Slovenia would have gotten independence since the British had a plan to give Slovenia independence and to have some British noble as it's king.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Crvena zvezda

Again. Croatian leaders chose to join Yugoslavia by agreeing to the Corfu Agreement. If not for the Yugoslav side at the Paris Peace Conference, I doubt Croatia would of gotten independence and if they did they would of been angered since Serbia would of gotten all of Bosnia, Dubrovnik, and southern Dalmatia up to Split and other parts of Croatia (Krajina and areas of Dalmatia), while Italy would have obtained Istria and the rest of Dalmatgia, and their actually was a possibility that Slovenia would have gotten independence since the British had a plan to give Slovenia independence and to have some British noble as it's king.

I don't care for what some Croatian traitors (like those in the "Yugoslav committee") did almost 90 years ago.
Let their memory be damned.
As far as I'm concerned, this discussion has ended.

[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.

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Crvena zvezda

and their actually was a possibility that Slovenia would have gotten independence since the British had a plan to give Slovenia independence and to have some British noble as it's king.

Never heard of that. Do you have more info? Sounds interesting...

Originally Posted by Sektor

or countries that emerged after the deconstruction of Austro-hungarian empire...

I can speak for Slovenia, Slovenian nationalist movement in 19th century was not connected with free-masonry, though there were some persons before the rise of Slovenian nationalism that are sometimes identified as part of "Slovenian national awakening" that were free-masons.

Anyway, Slovenia as such was homeland of Slovenians long before French free-masons spread here and ideas of independent Slovenia were in mind of all Slovenians.

[Crvena zvezda]

Originally Posted by Panonski

Never heard of that. Do you have more info? Sounds interesting...

i read it in a book called Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan. She breifly stated that such a proposal existed and that the British were interested, I believe she cites it from another source.

[Ostrogorski]

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...

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...

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?

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...

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?

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...

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...

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...

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

[Erasmus]

Salvador de Madariaga was a liberal