Slavic Wars

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Wilkolak

Right, and these politics don't stem from Nationalism perhaps? You just said in the last sentence!

So the problem is because of Nationalism (ie. Irish people want to be free, live in their own land, control their own destinies, preserve their ancient language, culture, etc)?

I suppose that's one way to look at it. My view is that it is not Nationalism, but British Imperialism that is the problem. The desire to expand one's influence, impose one's language, culture, rule over another people by force.
Don't you agree that is more of a problem? That Imperialism is the aggressor?
Why should the desire of a people to be themseves and be left alone & free from foreign interference constitute a problem?

Racialism, for example, would be one way for any kind of unity amongst Europeans, because obviously Nationalism, Language and Religion does not work.

Racialism would be a method for unity amongst Europeans?
For a start I don't want unity with Europeans. Friendship - yes. Cooperation - yes. Unity - no. I am not "European". I am a European. But I am also Irish. I have far more in common with an Irishman than a Ukranian. That doesn't mean I have anything against Ukranians, it is just reality.
In any case, Racialism wouldn't limit us to European unity. The race we belong to (Caucasian race) includes people from the Middle East and as far away as Northern India. Let's be clear that "White" is not a race. It is a socio-political construct. Good luck in trying to find agreement amongst White Nationalists over who is and isn't white. The Irish weren't even considered "white" until the last century despite the fact that geneticaly they are descended from the earliest European inhabitants.
For some "white" means a WASP. For others it means only Northen Europeans with nordic features. For others it means only Western Europeans. For others, Southern Europeans aren't allowed. Some include arabs in it. Unlike Caucasian, "white" doesn't have a scientific basis which is why it means different things to different people.

Unless of course you believe every European nation should be on its own terms, then whatever.

Of course I do. I believe in self-determination for each and every distinct people. Multiculturalism (whether it is racialist or not) is anathema to me.

Neither would I, hehehe, no to all your questions. But then again I never claimed any of them to be some kind of redeeming force anyway...

Then what is your solution then? Pan-European Multiculturalism?

There were, yes, but not on the grounds of religion. Then it was about land and belief in the clan/tribe/rod (in Slavic). Even just the idea of fighting and dying for glory was a driving force to war then!

In other words, people will fight and be in conflict over just about anything.
Isn't it more sensible then to accept that conflict will arise whatever happens rather than trying to eliminate anything which might be a cause?

But not religion... the key is to find something common among us so there would not be conflict of any sort.

That is exactly what multiculturalism tries to do. It removes borders, it removes any sense of national, cultural or ethnic identity. It even pretends that Race doesn't exist. All to make us believe that everyone has something in common. Unfortunately, by the time they strip away all the differences between us we end up with nothing left. I propose a radical alternative - that instead of destroying our differences we decide to accept and celebrate them instead.

[Aeternitas]

Originally Posted by Wilkolak

No, two stupid things cause the carnage there, and a vast majority of carnage that has happened in Europe: Christianity and Nationalism.

http://forum.stirpes.net/rules.php?show=about

[Zrinski]

Originally Posted by Wilkolak

Has the wheel been the cause of any wars in Europe between Europeans, Mister Zrinski?

Actually by your analogy you could conclude something like that. For example if not for the wheels there would be no tanks, etc...

Do you understand how ridiculous that is?

I don't reject foreign elements into Europe that have brought benefit, but I do have things against foreign objects that cause war, conflict or eve contempt between European nations.

Perhaps then you should know that Christinity has made Europe what it is or should I say has been...(since it's becoming more and more something else with each passing year)....you know my position on Christinaity but I cannot and will not deny the extremly positive role which Christianity had in European history.

[Defensor Fidei]

I have read it and it's a load of stupid stories. Nothing more!

Maybe you are "inconsistent"

You should be happy, our tourists are contributing to your tourism! Be happy! BE HAPPY!!!

[Tss tss tss. I can't believe my eyes! Such a lowbrow comment for a Roman Catholic...]

why is it the Croats who have jumped down my throat?

Because of your anti-christian statements ("Christianity is a jewish faith ... It's like MacDonald's")

[Wilkolak]

Right, I am leaving this discussion, too many angry, neurotic Catholics, no matter what I say, you'll never take anything I say into account, being so fervently faithfull, so I think this topic can be closed, because this is really just getting hilarious.

[Galaico]

Originally Posted by Zrinski

There was however the true movement of Christianity in Europe in middle ages known under the names of Cathars, Bogomils and 'good christians' but we all know what happened to them.

Good Christians???
Cathars beleived that materia was evil, that had been made by the devil, and that only spirituality was pure and related to God. These beliefs excused them to practise abortions and ritual suicides, aswell as the practise of frenetic sex, as long as it remained unfertile.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Wilkolak

Right, I am leaving this discussion, too many angry, neurotic Catholics, no matter what I say, you'll never take anything I say into account, being so fervently faithfull, so I think this topic can be closed, because this is really just getting hilarious.

Speaking for myself personally, I am not angry in the slightest.
Perhaps somewhat tired of having to refute the same fallacies continually, but not angry in the slightest. You have your opinion and I have mine.
I am neither angry nor neurotic in the slightest merely because i don't happen to agree with you.

Is it a case then that you are convinced that you are right, and if people don't agree with that then there must be something wrong with them? I did take into account what you said, I merely disagreed with it.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Galaico

Good Christians???
Cathars beleived that materia was evil, that had been made by the devil, and that only spirituality was pure and related to God. These beliefs excused them to practise abortions and ritual suicides, aswell as the practise of frenetic sex, as long as it remained unfertile.

Yes, they held that the flesh was created by the Devil rather than God, thus everything physical was evil. Reporduction was a continuation of the evil, physical world and thus was considered a great sin. Collective suicide (the Endura) was practised by starving one's self to death or by strangulation.
They rejected marriage, and also any form of oath or allegiance.
Obviously this would have meant the destruction of medieval society not to mention the possible destruction of the people as well.
Thus, the Cathars were not only persecuted by ecclestiastical authorities (and truthfully, only after they murdered Papal envoys who had been sent to speak with them), but mainly by the temporal, secular authorities who considered them a grave and dangerous threat to society as a whole.

Scholars have traced various non-Christian influences in their theology including Judaism and Islam (I would also think some Persian Dualism of the Zoroastrian type exists there as well).

It is likely fair to say that they were the ancient equivalent of today's David Koresh (Branch Davidians) or Jimmy Jones cults.

[Zrinski]

Galaico Cathars and 'Good Christians'('Dobri Krstjani' of the Bosnian Church) are two different thing.

However there is striking similarites in how they refered to themselves. Cathars called themselves 'Bonneshommes'(Good Men).

[Galaico]

Originally Posted by Zrinski

Galaico Cathars and 'Good Christians'('Dobri Krstjani' of the Bosnian Church) are two different thing.

However there is striking similarites in how they refered to themselves. Cathars called themselves 'Bonneshommes'(Good Men).

Okay, sorry for the mistake.

[Milesian]

Let's just have an Inquisition anyway. It couldn't do any harm....

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Zrinski

However there is striking similarites in how they refered to themselves. Cathars called themselves 'Bonneshommes'(Good Men).

"Bonhommes".

[Hrvoje]

Originally Posted by Wilkolak

Right, I am leaving this discussion, too many angry, neurotic Catholics, no matter what I say, you'll never take anything I say into account, being so fervently faithfull, so I think this topic can be closed, because this is really just getting hilarious.

The crusaders are victorious once again

Amen!