On the "Social Right" (split discussion)

[Kernunnos]

[ Note: this discussion has been split from a thread article in the forum for Italo-Dalmatian languages, due to the use of English as a main language for the discussion. The original thread article, in Italian is here: Sulla «destra sociale» ]

"Roma fu la più grande integratrice di popoli diversi, che chiamò a partecipare al suo potere barbari e nordafricani, li civilizzò, addossando loro il peso di corresponsabilità nel governo, offrendo ad essi di «fare le cose insieme».
Settimio Severo era stato un bravo generale bèrbero, e fece una certa carriera nello Stato: diventò imperatore.
Quella è civiltà: siccome «c'è da fare» e tanto - governare un impero, sollevare le condizioni di vita e di cultura generali, più gente si guadagna a condividere il compito (e migliori si rendono quei collaboratori) meglio si fanno le cose, meglio avanza il progetto comune"

Rome attracted also so many tricksters, con men, drifters, lazy orientals, fake philosophers, perverts, corrupt people that it finally lost its true source of strength: the MOS MAJORUM, the ancestor's set of rules of behavior that had made great the real Romans.

Countless roman writers report the evil that came to Rome from immigration, and many foresaw that the doom of Rome would come from the negative influx of immigrants and their often corrupted mores.

One for many Cato, who said the famous phrase "o tempora, o mores" just referring to foreign customs that had come to corrupt the pristine rugged and morally sound character of the early romans.

It is quite the history of Rome that shows how much immigration can destroy an empire.

I'm sorry but Blondet must be taken with much acre, since in italy there is a law forbidding a serious racial debate, moreover Blondet is likely finaced by arab powers.


In all his career he never saw a word against islam, of which he slyly makes often random apologies within his theological ramblings.

Also he wrote that it is dangerous to oppose to immigrants since they will become more and more so it will be wiser to find a way of living with them.

He speaks rarely about islam but when he does it he ever points out favorable aspects.

There is no need to understand much, Blondet now doesn't work for any newspaper anymore so we have to ask whence his money comes, since he claims to be a common person with no other income that what comes out of his work.

Even if he wasn't on their payroll i wouldn't call him a nationalist at all but just a catholic traditionalist with an assimilationist perspective.

Sometimes he writes sound things, I said it already.

But if he attacks the israeli lobby every two articles he writes his silent endorsement of islam is much more than suspect.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Breha

Rome attracted also so many tricksters, con men, drifters, lazy orientals, fake philosophers, perverts, corrupt people that it finally lost its true source of strength: the MOS MAJORUM, the ancestor's set of rules of behavior that had made great the real Romans.

Countless roman writers report the evil that came to Rome from immigration, and many foresaw that the doom of Rome would come from the negative influx of immigrants and their often corrupted mores.

One for many Cato, who said the famous phrase "o tempora, o mores" just referring to foreign customs that had come to corrupt the pristine rugged and morally sound character of the early romans.

It is quite the history of Rome that shows how much immigration can destroy an empire.

I dodn't endorse his glorification of Rome, because I am not fond of empires in general and am aware of all these corruptions of the ancient Rome.

I posted this article because it contained an endorsement of sovereignity and autarky. This article contains many vlaid point, although I don't agree with everything in him.

Originally Posted by Breha

moreover Blondet is likely finaced by arab powers.

LOL

That sounds rather like science fiction. Any concrete indications for that?

There is no need to understand much, Blondet now doesn't work for any newspaper anymore so we have to ask whence his money comes, since he claims to be a common person with no other income that what comes out of his work.

Once he said that his has a pension of 2500 euros a month. Not so modest a pension, is it?

[Menydh]

I object to making an oversimplified reading of what Rome was, based on the times of (and around of) its decline.

There was a time when Roman citizenship was granted only on solid grounds, and those times were the times of Rome at the peak of its grandeur. Judging what Rome represents solely on the grounds of what was its decline is very wrong.

We must also not forget the time period. Why would have been more correct to grant citizenship to peoples originating from tribes in Northern Europe than to peoples originatin from Northern Africa or Minor Asia? ...

That is how we logically see it today, because there is a reality (on the make) that is Europe, and in our minds it is well delimited. However, that was not the case in those times and the construction of the future could have well gone in any direction starting at Rome. It was just a series of events that made Romanitas the principles of what is today Europe.

Nowithstanding the decline of Roman Civilisation, what we are used to know as Europe is the result of a process of Roman Civilisation expansion: Europa <- Christianitas <- Romanitas.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I object to making an oversimplified reading of what Rome was, based on the times of (and around of) its decline.

I object to that as well.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

There was a time when Roman citizenship was granted only on solid grounds, and those times were the times of Rome at the peak of its grandeur. Judging what Rome represents solely on the grounds of what was its decline is very wrong.

The watershed between the old and the "new" Rome was (in my opinion at least) the death of Marcus Aurelius (180.)

Originally Posted by Mynydd

We must also not forget the time period. Why would have been more correct to grant citizenship to peoples originating from tribes in Northern Europe than to peoples originatin from Northern Africa or Minor Asia?

European Christendom as such did not exist at that time. There was another civilizational/cultural reality, Mare Nostrum and the peoples around it, unified under the Roman eagle. This unity existed until the Arab/Islamic invasions.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Nowithstanding the decline of Roman Civilisation, what we are used to know as Europe is the result of a process of Roman Civilisation expansion: Europa <- Christianitas <- Romanitas.

Europe (or European Christendom) is the heir to Rome, there can be no doubt about that. From the Roman law, the Latin language, to different architectural patterns... A claim is often made that Europe is a synthesis of Christianity, Roman Law and Greek philosophy. However, that synthesis happened already in the Late Roman Empire. So that Roman Empire was proto-Europa.

The only addition to that already formed conglomerate were some elements of the ancient practices, customs and even some religious elements (from the ancient paganism) of the "newcomers" to the Roman/European civilization, like Germanics, Slavs, one part of Celts, Finno-Ugrics...

What I object to, is using the Roman Empire in the political discourse about the realities of today and to propose some "solutions" based on the experience of the imperial Rome (that is what Blondet is doing in one part of his article). Imperial Rome was and vanished long ago as earthly power. We are its spiritual descendants.

You know, even Americans tend to view themselves as the "new Roman Empire".

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Plethon

European Christendom as such did not exist at that time. There was another civilizational/cultural reality, Mare Nostrum and the peoples around it, unified under the Roman eagle.

That is actually correct. And it was by certain events of history that Europe took the shape and direction that has led us until the present. But it was not intended.

Europe (or European Christendom) is the heir to Rome, there can be no doubt about that. From the Roman law, the Latin language, to different architectural patterns... A claim is often made that Europe is a synthesis of Christianity, Roman Law and Greek philosophy. However, that synthesis happened already in the Late Roman Empire. So that Roman Empire was proto-Europa.

The only addition to that already formed conglomerate were some elements of the ancient practices, customs and even some religious elements (from the ancient paganism) of the "newcomers" to the Roman/European civilization, like Germanics, Slavs, one part of Celts, Finno-Ugrics...

Actually, the Celts were pre-Europa.

Germanics and Slavics assimilated their share of Romanitas either through Rome or Byzantium. I'm not sure about Finno-Ugrians, but I believe that this came at a later time and through an indirect source (either through Germanics or through Slavics).

What must be stressed here is that this Romanitas is in present times, a concept in an evolian sense. It is a spiritual Romanitas, not a physical one. It does not live in an individual because he lives in the City, or within the limits where the Empire stretched and what was then considered Romanitas.

What I object to, is using the Roman Empire in the political discourse about the realities of today and to propose some "solutions" based on the experience of the imperial Rome (that is what Blondet is doing in one part of his article). Imperial Rome was and vanished long ago as earthly power. We are its spiritual descendants.

I just read this last sentence, after I wrote the above.

You know, even Americans tend to view themselves as the "new Roman Empire".

Spain was considered the heir to Rome. This was correct while Spain had an Empire, and until the Empire turned into a Colonial power.

In the highest spirit of Romanitas, the new discovered and conquered lands were considered vice-kingdoms and provinces and its peoples subjects of the crown who enjoyed the same rights as other subjects. I read from a British historian how a Spanish Conquistador had his hand cut for slapping and humiliating a native tribe chief. Hardly what you would expect from a colonialist rule.

But it moved towards colonial rule as competition with other new powers arose. And I would argue that this colonial rule increased to its full as the territories achieved independence, since the so-called Libertardores, the heroes of the independence, had all been exposed to the colonialist influence of English and Anglo-Americans, as many of them had been in England or North America and were known Freemasons.

But America? The anti-Rome, if something.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

What must be stressed here is that this Romanitas is in present times, a concept in an evolian sense. It is a spiritual Romanitas, not a physical one. It does not live in an individual because he lives in the City, or within the limits where the Empire stretched and what was then considered Romanitas.

I meant it precisely in this same way.