If you ruled...

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Awar

Well, I'm a nationalist too, but there's no real need for a 100% pure ethno-religious country.

I'm harbouring doubts. Well, I'm sure that you wish for your people, but still is not enough for being a nationalist.

Jews can't be anti-European if they're not allowed to act like that.

So to the ghettoes? Fair. If you don't mind, we'll have our ghettoes in Belgrade instead of Madrid.

Their existence is not a threat to anyone, them, being endogamous and non-proselytizing.

Jews are endogamous? LOL. Where did you get that from?

The thread's title is "if you ruled", not "if you were god".

And "if I ruled" they wouldn't be here in the first place. No need to be God for that.

If I suddenly became the supreme ruler of my country, and had the freedom to regulate things as I wish, I'd have to take into consideration
that homosexuals exist. They have, and they always will, they are a sad reality, but a reality nonetheless, and as such, they have to be dealt with in a realistic manner.

We didn't use to have that problem, eventhough they existed.

I'm not so sure about that.

But you have started a long discussion without even being sure. I told you, you are visiting da phora much lately.

Well, that's a dysfunctionality of your government.

No sh*t!

In my perfect state, people wouldn't be allowed to form political movements based on gender, sexual preference etc.

You sound like a politician in the make. Just on the first years before his career.

Everything can be explained, it's the question of how deep/far/thorough we're able/willing to go.

I'll tell you, I'm not going any deeper/further/thorougher than this post with you. It's getting boring and pointless.

Yes, because religion was a factor, not the factor.

Which shows that you don't know what it was about. Neither did Kemp, by the way.

But, it wouldn't have happened if there wasn't something to start it,
and the beginning was with the economic interest of the rulling elite.

The ruling elite, my dear Awar, kept ruling. They simply changed their names from ones like Cassius to Banu Qasi.

Please, don't insist in this point as it is very complex. For a start, there is something that research historians call "the battle of the adoptionism", wich is of a profound religious origin and which was central in both the arrival of Islam and the later (Re)conquista. It would take us many threads to discuss.

[Rusalka]

I think a purely hypothetical argument based solely on utopic claims should only occupy us for this much.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Cristoforo

Yes, I do. Materialism is the cause of our decline.

Yes.

But I don't consider atheism (my atheism at least, part of the problem).

Atheism is materialist per definition. Anything else is delusive or wrong. Sorry.

Is was a clear cut question imho. I asked "Do you consider atheism as a symptom of liberalism?" I get the impression that you think so. I asked another traditional catholic and he told me in no clearer terms that he considers Atheism as a symptom of liberalism. So do you agree with him?

It is irrelevant to the issue at this stage. Whatever it is, both are products of materialism.

Cristoforo, it takes much more than just one or two points, like ethnia and culture, for Nationalism. In the long term you will need much more strenght than that, and I'm afraid that it will not come from a view such as Atheism.

[Fantom]

Cristoforo, You forgot on poll Gnosticism

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

It is because of materialism in societies that people drop the value of sacrifice for the good of the community. Personal sacrifice and materialist egoism are opposed concepts.

Perhaps self-sacrifice is important in street-fights with immigrants,
but doesn't mean much on a grander scale.
A group of well organized people will always be more efficient than
a bunch of self-sacrifice berserkers.

A Nation needs that there are people willing to sacrifice themselves for the common good of the people. Materialism is not compatible with True Nationalism.

And this level of self-sacrifice must be determined by a government which is benevolent toward it's own people, not left up to uneducated people to decide.

A sacrifice must be a part of some strategy, not sacrifice for sacrifice sake.

You are neglecting all the advances produced during long centuries of Christianity in Europe. Perhaps to you secular societies in Africa produced more than Christian societies in Europe?

Ha! I waited you to say this:

1. Any advancements during the christian era in Europe can't be ascribed to the religion, but only to the people who achieved them.

2. Since the reduction of the importance of church-the-institution,
there has been a rise of scientific achievment such as the world has never seen. Europe, which embraced secular states the first was the one who advanced by far the most.

3. Secular states in Africa... well, there are not that many of them, but
even so, they were the ones who achieved the most, in Africa.
One of the most readily visible differences between developed and underdeveloped countries is the difference between the average number of children per family.

Children are the future, but, too many of them just eat that future.

That's why, ( for example ) Spain is in the position to be sought-after by immigrants.
That's why Spain is in the position to fight a war with any number of countries which produce children and poverty instead of advancing.

The problem of Spain is because it allows immigration, not because
Moroccans multiply faster. If you tried to race with them in the sheer number of kids produced per year, soon, you'd end-up being a third-world country yourselves, without any immigration.

Sure, a bunch of religious working-class Spaniards can produce an army of
kids, but these kids wouldn't ammount to much more than just being working-class, and the more of them there are, the less jobs for them there would be.

I know, there are some succes-stories of families with lots of children,
but those are exceptions to the rule, and a system must be made in accordance to the rule.

Besides, while it is important to keep a development in science, it is still more important to maintain the spirituality in people. Science should be to the service of society, not society to the service of science.

The government can't provide spirituality to the people. The government can provide a frame in which the people can be able to pursue their spirituality.

Apparently, your frequent visits to Da Phora have americanicized you. Which is funny as all you might be able to discuss on science there will come from a copy & paste of the wikipedia.

Your mistake.

No. The whole point of educating people is to have a nation where people are more prepared and where you have a wider range of intelligent and educated people to choose from for an aristocratic elite. Which improves the overall quality of the nation.

Not everyone can be a part of the aristocratic elite.
A society needs all its strata to survive.

Don't forget to make yourself a nice bunker for your last days.

Hitler ended-up in a bunker because he attacked Russia, not because his government was dysfunctional.

LOL. You must have Serbian politicians in very high regards when you call them an "elite".

I call Spanish politicians trash, and had it not been because democracy really exists, they would now be cleaning toilettes instead of screwing the country with their profound retardness.

That's because they're marionettes in the hands of the real elite,
and the real elite decides based on its own interests.

Still not a good reason to wanting to have a nation made up by ignorant peasants.

No such nation could exist, at least not for long.

Second or third time. I lost the count. Make up your mind and let's end with this masquerade.

So, explain to me the difference between a laicist and agnostic position of the government.

The advantages of homogeneity and compactness as opposed to heterogeneity and division and conflict.

Better a real heterogenity than cosmetic uniformity.

Because you were merely speculating.

Speculating?

You do know that repentance is only valid when it is sincere, don't you?

...and how would the government assure the repentance of the adherents of the official religion?

Umh.. a boring state with boring people. You should go and live in Switzerland.

A state should be boring. Switzerland is boring when compared to Spain,
Spain is boring when compared to Indonesia, Indonesia is boring when compared to Nigeria.... etc. etc.

How many millions of those people in Spain will be Moroccans, Algerians, other Moslems, or other non Spanish?

Not many, if you stop the immigration policy of YOUR government.

Focus on that, not on competing with Muslims in natality rates
and fundamentalism.

That requires a will for sacrifice, as discussed above.

Not really. Spain is functioning quite good in that aspect,
the only thing ruining it is the accepting of immigrants.

I've always liked Spain as a low populated country, this is not news for me.

Well, newsflash! A country full of fundamentalist Catholics wouldn't stay
low-populated for long.

Fair, you are not telling me anything that I didn't know. Only that in old times Catholic Spain, families were not composed of 10+ children except at a time when the State released a policy to increase the demography in the 60s, out of a need due to the [historical] low level of demography. Does this tell you something?

Nothing I didn't already say.

It is much more complex than that. If we have this problem it is precisely because we live in a materialist society, and people won't care providing that they have a good level income and all comforts, even if that means taking immigrants. Your proposals are shortcuts which lead nowhere.

That's because your working class has risen up a notch and left an empty niche for the immigrants.

You are still wrong. A Nation without a spiritual guidance ends up in the mess that we are seeing today.

I don't see why it's such an irreparable mess.

Have you bothered with finding out what many here with the label "Traditionalist Catholic" stand for, and what their guides have to say on the issue?

I see no relevance.

The Church hasn't got any law in it that says "no non-European converts",
quite the opposite.

Have you not realized that they reject the current status of the Church?

What the members of stirpes reject is irrelevant, the church and it's efforts and place in politics are as they are, and no ammount of writing on the internet can change that.

A state can write laws which would stop immigration, a church can't,
in fact, during all of its history, the church was eager to convert 'new souls', as we can see in their missionary work all over the world.

In many aspects, it was the end for the Romans. And yes, the world went on.. but without the Romans. Now we are the new Romans. And yes, the world will go on.. but this time without us.

...and nobody de-evolved because a state or two failed, or a religion or two crumbled.

That's an ad hominem.

kempkempkempkempkemp

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I'm harbouring doubts. Well, I'm sure that you wish for your people, but still is not enough for being a nationalist.

There's no need for extremes just for cosmetics sake.
If some aspects of nationalism don't work, they're bound to die anyway.

So to the ghettoes? Fair. If you don't mind, we'll have our ghettoes in Belgrade instead of Madrid.

Well, I said I wouldn't mind Jews living in my country,
I wouldn't exactly invite them ( or anyone else ) in.

I don't care if it's Jews, Germans or Martians, any such population
can and usually does act like a cancer against the body of the state and its majority people.

Jews are endogamous? LOL. Where did you get that from?

Well, even if they aren't as endogamous as they used to be,
they still aren't spreading, and pose no threat of flooding some people with their offspring.

And "if I ruled" they wouldn't be here in the first place. No need to be God for that.

In the reality of international politics, that would hardly be achievable.

We didn't use to have that problem, eventhough they existed.

What?

But you have started a long discussion without even being sure. I told you, you are visiting da phora much lately.

Explain!

No sh*t!

It's not the dysfunctionality of the secular system.

You sound like a politician in the make. Just on the first years before his career.

In my perfect state, there would be no politicians, just public servants

The ruling elite, my dear Awar, kept ruling. They simply changed their names from ones like Cassius to Banu Qasi.

Please, don't insist in this point as it is very complex. For a start, there is something that research historians call "the battle of the adoptionism", wich is of a profound religious origin and which was central in both the arrival of Islam and the later (Re)conquista. It would take us many threads to discuss.

No need for many threads, there simply wouldn't be a religious strife if there wasn't for someone to lead it, and such persons must have some interest in mind, in this case it was land, riches, subjects and adherents.

[Heretik]

I would tolerate all religions but I clicked Paganism to annoy christians.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Awar

Ha! I waited you to say this:

1. Any advancements during the christian era in Europe can't be ascribed to the religion, but only to the people who achieved them.

I didn't adcribed it "to the religion", but to societies based on "the religion".

And I should remind you that much of the ethics and deontological code forced onto science derives from Christian ethics. Without it we would see much more often human beings used as guinea pigs in the labs.

2. Since the reduction of the importance of church-the-institution,
there has been a rise of scientific achievment such as the world has never seen. Europe, which embraced secular states the first was the one who advanced by far the most.

That's yet another false argument. The rise of scientific achievement is due to a logical evolution through the centuries. Are you now going to blame The Church because electricity appliances were not invented in the XIIIth century?

Further, much of the scientific knowledge that arrived to us through the Dark Ages and into the Renaissance was due to all the knowledge kept in the monasteries.

3. Secular states in Africa... well, there are not that many of them, but even so, they were the ones who achieved the most, in Africa.
One of the most readily visible differences between developed and underdeveloped countries is the difference between the average number of children per family.

This, and this...

Well, newsflash! A country full of fundamentalist Catholics wouldn't stay
low-populated for long.

Are more fake arguments. Actually, and allow me the expression here, bullshit. More so when the second quote was your answer to my following comment: "I've always liked Spain as a low populated country, this is not news for me."

If you had been interested in having a real and balanced debate over an issue, instead of just trying to heat up the debate for the sake of attracting the audience interest, you would have realized that Spain has been until recently one of the stronger supporters of Catholicism, and yet the demography has ALWAYS been low throughout history. So your argument is mere speculation which does not stand in the lights of historical evidence.

The government can't provide spirituality to the people. The government can provide a frame in which the people can be able to pursue their spirituality.

Scary. Stop trolling.

A state should be boring. Switzerland is boring when compared to Spain, Spain is boring when compared to Indonesia

You don't know much about Indonesia, do you? It is surely more to be compared with Switzerland than with Spain.


Awar, you are trolling for the sake of a heated debate. Report yourself, dammit! I have no more time for this.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I didn't adcribed it "to the religion", but to societies based on "the religion".

There's no society which is based on religion... even Vatican isn't based on religion, but on other, much older mechanisms.

And I should remind you that much of the ethics and deontological code forced onto science derives from Christian ethics. Without it we would see much more often human beings used as guinea pigs in the labs.

Japan isn't Christian, still, it doesn't use people as guinea pigs in labs.

That's yet another false argument. The rise of scientific achievement is due to a logical evolution through the centuries. Are you now going to blame The Church because electricity appliances were not invented in the XIIIth century?

The rise of the power of church also slowed down/discontinued the
evolution of science. Who knows, if there was no rise of Christianity,
perhaps there would've been electrical appliances in the XIII century.

Further, much of the scientific knowledge that arrived to us through the Dark Ages and into the Renaissance was due to all the knowledge kept in the monasteries.

That's in spite of the teachings of the church.

This, and this...Are more fake arguments. Actually, and allow me the expression here, bullshit. More so when the second quote was your answer to my following comment: "I've always liked Spain as a low populated country, this is not news for me."

If you had been interested in having a real and balanced debate over an issue, instead of just trying to heat up the debate for the sake of attracting the audience interest, you would have realized that Spain has been until recently one of the stronger supporters of Catholicism, and yet the demography has ALWAYS been low throughout history. So your argument is mere speculation which does not stand in the lights of historical evidence.

Well, as I said, the Spaniards could've been 'officially Catholic',
but practised different rules in the privacy of their own homes.

If the Spaniards were true followers of the church, they'd abide to the
rule that 'all sexual intercourse must be in the goal of producing a child'.

Thus, your statistic shows only that the Catholics of Spain have been 'pulling it out' throughout the last several hundred years.

Scary. Stop trolling.

LOL! Imagine waking up in a Spain where catholicism is enforced by the government's heavy hand, and the laws written by theologians who base them on things as ambiguous as the bible and the other 'scriptures'.

You don't know much about Indonesia, do you? It is surely more to be compared with Switzerland than with Spain.

It was a much more 'interesting' country 30 years ago

Awar, you are trolling for the sake of a heated debate. Report yourself, dammit! I have no more time for this.

Find the time!

[Caesar Princeps]

I thought it was about world domination, so I enlisted all Religions, except for Satanism (aagh, I also left in Wicca ). One thing is private tolerance, another is official religion;
As for that, in Europe I would say: Catholicism, Orthodox Church, Anglicanism, Luteranism, Calvinism, Presbiterianism, Tribal Animism, Sunni Islam (for Bosnians and Albanians), Judaism (for Jews), depending on each Nation's tradition. Anyway I would peacefully encourage the process of reunification of Christian Churches and conversion of Islamics and Jews.