It has been said that speaking the truth is "negative". Using that line of reasoning Jesus Christ was very negative when He said:
"34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."
Liberals have become an enemy of God and enemy of this country. They are your foe. Pray for them, love them, but show your contempt for their ways by separating yourself from them.
2 Corinthians 6:14Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?15Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?
16Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said,
"I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM;
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
17"Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord.
"AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN;
And I will welcome you.
We shall notice that all conservative civilisations prosper, and all liberal civilisations fail.
Look at the ancient Rome, it is the most precious lesson. In the beginning, while Rome was a conservative and pretty much homogeneous community - they managed to unite the whole of Italy and later the Mediterranean. But, as their society became multicultural, they forgot their traditional customs and mixed with other very different peoples and cultures - they started to regress, until they were finally destroyed.
The same is happening today. Once prosperous Christian communities became that much liberal they are about to fail very soon. At the other side, Muslim communities, for example, kept their tradition, and so they prosper and advance.
Quote from: milos on June 30, 2013, 09:24:16 AM
We shall notice that all conservative civilisations prosper, and all liberal civilisations fail.
Look at the ancient Rome, it is the most precious lesson. In the beginning, while Rome was a conservative and pretty much homogeneous community - they managed to unite the whole of Italy and later the Mediterranean. But, as their society became multicultural, they forgot their traditional customs and mixed with other very different peoples and cultures - they started to regress, until they were finally destroyed.
Well, they didn't "start to regress" until they expanded that empire as far north as Britain, as far west as the west coast of Africa, etc., etc., etc.
Are you really suggesting that multi-culturalism is equivalent to liberalism, is dangerous, and is preferable to a homogeneous culture?
Isn't the United States built on numerous cultures? Hasn't it been "multi-cultural" for years? Did the cultural disintegration happen a long time ago or more recently?
Quote from: MFA on June 30, 2013, 07:19:19 PM
Well, they didn't "start to regress" until they expanded that empire as far north as Britain, as far west as the west coast of Africa, etc., etc., etc.
Are you really suggesting that multi-culturalism is equivalent to liberalism, is dangerous, and is preferable to a homogeneous culture?
Isn't the United States built on numerous cultures? Hasn't it been "multi-cultural" for years? Did the cultural disintegration happen a long time ago or more recently?
I am from Europe, so maybe my point of view could be different. We Europeans have built our nations on tribal and ethnic backgrounds, so we naturally see any idea of multiculturalism as a liberal threat to our communities.
The fall of Rome was a long process. The process of liberalisation went along with the process of multiculturalism. I don't know if that is a historical rule, but it happened in Rome that way. By gaining new teritorries and accepting different cultures and peoples, original Romans mixed with the newcomers. They forgot their original tradition and identity, but they didn't form any new identity nor tradition. They abandoned patriarchal values and became promiscuous. That was why they got weaker and disintegrated. At the end, they finished up with crazy emperors who had no relations to Rome nor its customs, Rome and other large cities became overcrowded with poor people, and very little people remained to cultivate the land and serve the army. That was when feudalism begun, when Romans were forced to free the slaves and accept barbarian tribes to colonize the emptied land. Christianity could save the Rome, it could unite Romans to become homogeneous community again, but they didn't adopt it on time, they persecuted Christians for centuries, and by the time Emperor Constantine finally allowed Christianity, it was already too late for them.
Sorry, multiculturalism is not equivalent to liberalism, liberalism can happen in any kind of society. But I think they are connected in a way that liberalism opens the doors for multiculturalism, and the opposite, multiculturalism opens the doors for liberalism. Because, for any liberalism more choices are required, you can hardly build liberalism in a homogenous conservative traditionalistic patriarchal society. Look at the Sweden, they had to become an open liberal socialist society before today's multicultural invasion could happen. Multiculturalism is alright when different cultures manage to preserve their original identity and don't mix with each other, but that kind of society is very hard to preserve. Look at the examples of Austro-Hungarian Empire, Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, or Yugoslavia. Different peoples could have been kept together in those countries only because there was a central power strong enough to keep them together by force. Otherwise, peoples always look to find their own path. Mixed peoples can form a new entity, but their new entity must unite over some strong gathering point, like religion and language. For example, today's Turkey is a mixed multicultural and multiracial society, but they are all strongly connected over Islam and Turkish language.
The people who built United States were all Europeans. They came from different countries: Great Britain, Ireland, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, etc; but they were all Europeans. And Native Americans, or Mexicans, or Chinese, or Blacks, had very poor rights. So I think United States were built on European culture, and not on multiculturalism. I am not fully aware of what is actually happening in the United States today. I know American states are very different, with different peoples, laws, customs, traditions, and religious beliefs. I am sure they can live good lives together in peace and prosperity if they have a strong central power, and if they accept each other as they are.
Well said Milos.
Here in the US, liberals are using multiculturalism as a way of dividing America, removing Christianity from the public square, they have no interest in making immigrants become Americans, learn the language, our history.
To do so would give people an understanding of what truly being an American means, they don't want that because these new people would vote Conservative, it's the reason they are pushing this huge amnesty bill, they know it will destroy what little of it means to be a true American.
Quote from: Solar on July 01, 2013, 06:07:48 AM
Well said Milos.
Here in the US, liberals are using multiculturalism as a way of dividing America, removing Christianity from the public square, they have no interest in making immigrants become Americans, learn the language, our history.
To do so would give people an understanding of what truly being an American means, they don't want that because these new people would vote Conservative, it's the reason they are pushing this huge amnesty bill, they know it will destroy what little of it means to be a true American.
I live in a far more multi-cultural country than the United States. From what I've see lately, many of the immigrants are far more conservative than the people who were already here.
Quote from: MFA on July 01, 2013, 09:19:17 AM
I live in a far more multi-cultural country than the United States. From what I've see lately, many of the immigrants are far more conservative than the people who were already here.
Lucky you.
But you don't have people in the millions breaking the law to be there. That's the difference in those seeking to do it legally and those that scoff at our laws and culture.
Quote from: Solar on July 01, 2013, 09:49:50 AM
Lucky you.
But you don't have people in the millions breaking the law to be there. That's the difference in those seeking to do it legally and those that scoff at our laws and culture.
That's true. In Toronto, arguably the most multi-cultural city in the world, immigrants tend to move to the inner city and than radiate outward to the suburbs as they increase stability and income.
But hey, I love my "Chinese food," Mexican food, Thai food, as well as other valuable cultural input. In my view, it is not multiculturalism that is the threat. Just thinking out loud, I think it the exaggeration or distortion of the ideal of tolerance that makes it mean that every point of view is
equally valid or
equally true. While this sounds nice and accepting, the reality is that nobody holds to a worldview or point of view that they believe to be false. That would be literally insane. But in the clash of worldviews we are somehow expected to dismiss or diminish the validity of our own point of view for a competing point of view,
regardless of the soundness of the competing view.
To be honest, fair, and intellectually sound, we must be able to
respect another person without caving to their point of view--establishing dialog in which worldviews can be critically valued rather than mindlessly accepted and adopted.
Quote from: MFA on July 01, 2013, 09:58:58 AM
That's true. In Toronto, arguably the most multi-cultural city in the world, immigrants tend to move to the inner city and than radiate outward to the suburbs as they increase stability and income.
But hey, I love my "Chinese food," Mexican food, Thai food, as well as other valuable cultural input. In my view, it is not multiculturalism that is the threat. Just thinking out loud, I think it the exaggeration or distortion of the ideal of tolerance that makes it mean that every point of view is equally valid or equally true. While this sounds nice and accepting, the reality is that nobody holds to a worldview or point of view that they believe to be false. That would be literally insane. But in the clash of worldviews we are somehow expected to dismiss or diminish the validity of our own point of view for a competing point of view, regardless of the soundness of the competing view.
To be honest, fair, and intellectually sound, we must be able to respect another person without caving to their point of view--establishing dialog in which worldviews can be critically valued rather than mindlessly accepted and adopted.
Yep, I agree and that is what made America great, cultures coming together under a belief in one culture, a culture of freedom, all the while keeping their own heritage alive.
Flooding the US with people that have shown they have no interest in following the laws of the land is what is destroying our culture, along with having a Marxist in the WH.
Quote from: Solar on July 01, 2013, 10:20:40 AM
Yep, I agree and that is what made America great, cultures coming together under a belief in one culture, a culture of freedom, all the while keeping their own heritage alive.
Flooding the US with people that have shown they have no interest in following the laws of the land is what is destroying our culture, along with having a Marxist in the WH.
This is one of the few cultural differences between Canada and the United States:
The United States sees and sells itself as a "melting pot."
Canada sees and sells itself as a "mosaic."
I think this one of the reasons Canada is more liberal--traditionally, we are less patriotic and allow more perpetuation of incoming culture (a stronger "voice"), even though, on paper, we have no "separation between Church and State" and the Church
used to have far more influence.
Quote from: MFA on July 01, 2013, 11:02:00 AM
This is one of the few cultural differences between Canada and the United States:
The United States sees and sells itself as a "melting pot."
Canada sees and sells itself as a "mosaic."
I think this one of the reasons Canada is more liberal--traditionally, we are less patriotic and allow more perpetuation of incoming culture (a stronger "voice"), even though, on paper, we have no "separation between Church and State" and the Church used to have far more influence.
Interesting, and makes sense.
Quote from: MFA on July 01, 2013, 11:02:00 AM
The United States sees and sells itself as a "melting pot."
Canada sees and sells itself as a "mosaic."
Thank you for this explanation.
It seems like Canada is one rare example of succeeded multiculturalism. Do you in Canada have a feel of a Canadian nation? I have nothing against a multicultural mosaic, on the contrary. I was born in the former Yugoslavia, and I really believed different peoples, like Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, and the others, could live happily together and be proud of their multicultural mosaic. (Which was not that much "multi" at all, actually very similar.) But, recent history taught us the opposite - very few of us really enjoyed being together in the same country. Former Yugoslav kingdom before WWII, and later communist Yugoslav republic, both wanted to establish a new Yugoslav nation as a melting pot instead of a mosaic, but it could never happen. It seems European peoples have a strong will for self determination.
I am not sure United States weren't also meant to be a mosaic rather than a melting pot. A mosaic of different states and a mosaic of different peoples. But maybe it's up to peoples themselves to stick together if they want to? For example, Irish or Italian or Jewish, i think they stick together more than English or Germans in the USA? Not to mention Native Americans, Mexicans, Chinese, or Blacks. Could USA be more like Canada? And if not, why is it so? I found this on Wikipedia about the explanation of the Seal of the United States motto "E Pluribus Unum": "Traditionally, the understood meaning of the phrase was that out of many states (or colonies) emerge a single nation. However, in recent years its meaning has come to suggest that out of many peoples, races, religions and ancestries has emerged a single people and nation—illustrating the concept of the melting pot."
And I have to apologize because I have turned this topic into a subject of multiculturalism instead of liberalism, but I have explained why it semed the same to me, because one can easily involve the other.
Quote from: milos on July 02, 2013, 12:55:50 AM
Thank you for this explanation.
It seems like Canada is one rare example of succeeded multiculturalism. Do you in Canada have a feel of a Canadian nation? I have nothing against a multicultural mosaic, on the contrary. I was born in the former Yugoslavia, and I really believed different peoples, like Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, and the others, could live happily together and be proud of their multicultural mosaic. (Which was not that much "multi" at all, actually very similar.) But, recent history taught us the opposite - very few of us really enjoyed being together in the same country. Former Yugoslav kingdom before WWII, and later communist Yugoslav republic, both wanted to establish a new Yugoslav nation as a melting pot instead of a mosaic, but it could never happen. It seems European peoples have a strong will for self determination.
I am not sure United States weren't also meant to be a mosaic rather than a melting pot. A mosaic of different states and a mosaic of different peoples. But maybe it's up to peoples themselves to stick together if they want to? For example, Irish or Italian or Jewish, i think they stick together more than English or Germans in the USA? Not to mention Native Americans, Mexicans, Chinese, or Blacks. Could USA be more like Canada? And if not, why is it so? I found this on Wikipedia about the explanation of the Seal of the United States motto "E Pluribus Unum": "Traditionally, the understood meaning of the phrase was that out of many states (or colonies) emerge a single nation. However, in recent years its meaning has come to suggest that out of many peoples, races, religions and ancestries has emerged a single people and nation—illustrating the concept of the melting pot."
And I have to apologize because I have turned this topic into a subject of multiculturalism instead of liberalism, but I have explained why it semed the same to me, because one can easily involve the other.
Canada is still a divided Nation, with a split personality, one speaks French, while the other English.
Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2013, 06:39:21 AM
Canada is still a divided Nation, with a split personality, one speaks French, while the other English.
Not quite true...almost all people born in Canada speak both English and French...or, more precisely, speak English and a bit of French or speak French with a bit of English.
Quote from: MFA on July 02, 2013, 11:02:27 AM
Not quite true...almost all people born in Canada speak both English and French...or, more precisely, speak English and a bit of French or speak French with a bit of English.
http://world.time.com/2013/04/08/quebecs-war-on-english-language-politics-intensify-in-canadian-province/ (http://world.time.com/2013/04/08/quebecs-war-on-english-language-politics-intensify-in-canadian-province/)
Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2013, 11:47:39 AM
http://world.time.com/2013/04/08/quebecs-war-on-english-language-politics-intensify-in-canadian-province/ (http://world.time.com/2013/04/08/quebecs-war-on-english-language-politics-intensify-in-canadian-province/)
Hmmm...that might be a continued rivalry that most of the rest of Canada is either unaware of doesn't care. Similar to my experience living on the west coast and finding out about this longstanding rivalry between British Columbia and Ontario that those in Ontario didn't know existed.
I've been to Montreal and apparently you can get by quite nicely in Montreal without any French whatsoever (a bastion of English in the middle of Quebec?). I haven't really been anywhere else in Quebec so I couldn't really comment about attitudes outside of Montreal.
As I've said elsewhere, though, any culture (or language, in this case) that requires government protection doesn't deserve to survive. Survival of the fittest, when it comes to culture. I would guess that if the French culture was actually suppressed, it might thrive underground.
Reminds me of an anecdote that I heard from a family member...a coworker was in France and could get around with his Quebecois, until he tried to get a train ticket at the booth. It went something like this:
Tourist: "Puis-j'avoir un billet, s'il vous plaît?"
Ticket-guy: "Pardon?"
Tourist: "Un billet, pour la train, s'il vous plaît..."
Ticket-guy: "Ah! Un tick
et!"
Quote from: MFA on July 02, 2013, 12:43:40 PM
Hmmm...that might be a continued rivalry that most of the rest of Canada is either unaware of doesn't care. Similar to my experience living on the west coast and finding out about this longstanding rivalry between British Columbia and Ontario that those in Ontario didn't know existed.
I've been to Montreal and apparently you can get by quite nicely in Montreal without any French whatsoever (a bastion of English in the middle of Quebec?). I haven't really been anywhere else in Quebec so I couldn't really comment about attitudes outside of Montreal.
As I've said elsewhere, though, any culture (or language, in this case) that requires government protection doesn't deserve to survive. Survival of the fittest, when it comes to culture. I would guess that if the French culture was actually suppressed, it might thrive underground.
Reminds me of an anecdote that I heard from a family member...a coworker was in France and could get around with his Quebecois, until he tried to get a train ticket at the booth. It went something like this:
Tourist: "Puis-j'avoir un billet, s'il vous plaît?"
Ticket-guy: "Pardon?"
Tourist: "Un billet, pour la train, s'il vous plaît..."
Ticket-guy: "Ah! Un ticket!"
Kind of the obverse here in the US, where the Govt is promoting Spanish rather than English, all for political gains.
Quote from: milos on July 02, 2013, 12:55:50 AM
Thank you for this explanation.
It seems like Canada is one rare example of succeeded multiculturalism. Do you in Canada have a feel of a Canadian nation? I have nothing against a multicultural mosaic, on the contrary. I was born in the former Yugoslavia, and I really believed different peoples, like Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, and the others, could live happily together and be proud of their multicultural mosaic. (Which was not that much "multi" at all, actually very similar.) But, recent history taught us the opposite - very few of us really enjoyed being together in the same country. Former Yugoslav kingdom before WWII, and later communist Yugoslav republic, both wanted to establish a new Yugoslav nation as a melting pot instead of a mosaic, but it could never happen. It seems European peoples have a strong will for self determination.
I am not sure United States weren't also meant to be a mosaic rather than a melting pot. A mosaic of different states and a mosaic of different peoples. But maybe it's up to peoples themselves to stick together if they want to? For example, Irish or Italian or Jewish, i think they stick together more than English or Germans in the USA? Not to mention Native Americans, Mexicans, Chinese, or Blacks. Could USA be more like Canada? And if not, why is it so? I found this on Wikipedia about the explanation of the Seal of the United States motto "E Pluribus Unum": "Traditionally, the understood meaning of the phrase was that out of many states (or colonies) emerge a single nation. However, in recent years its meaning has come to suggest that out of many peoples, races, religions and ancestries has emerged a single people and nation—illustrating the concept of the melting pot."
And I have to apologize because I have turned this topic into a subject of multiculturalism instead of liberalism, but I have explained why it semed the same to me, because one can easily involve the other.
Canadians are very patriotic, but in a soft-spoken, apologetic kind of way. Prior to the Olympics in Vancouver, the Prime Minister encouraged Canadians to display an "uncharacteristic outburst of patriotism" and apologize to the world later. :biggrin:
In general, though, the primary characteristic of Canadian culture is the pride of those insignificant areas in which we are distinct from Americans.
Quote from: MFA on July 02, 2013, 01:51:01 PM
Canadians are very patriotic, but in a soft-spoken, apologetic kind of way. Prior to the Olympics in Vancouver, the Prime Minister encouraged Canadians to display an "uncharacteristic outburst of patriotism" and apologize to the world later. :biggrin:
In general, though, the primary characteristic of Canadian culture is the pride of those insignificant areas in which we are distinct from Americans.
If it wasn't for your gun control laws, I'd probably become an expat, and move North, instead, I'm heading to Alaska.
Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2013, 02:58:55 PM
If it wasn't for your gun control laws, I'd probably become an expat, and move North, instead, I'm heading to Alaska.
Are you? Wayyy too cold for me. I'd like the long summer days but hate the short winter days. Where we lived in BC we had sunlight until 11:00pm in summer, which was great. Also had kids in our church with their own guns. Not a big issue there. Nobody made it one.
Quote from: MFA on July 02, 2013, 04:16:33 PM
Are you? Wayyy too cold for me. I'd like the long summer days but hate the short winter days. Where we lived in BC we had sunlight until 11:00pm in summer, which was great. Also had kids in our church with their own guns. Not a big issue there. Nobody made it one.
Yeah, the Winter says will be an issue, and I love the cold, though I am a bit spoiled living in Ca.
Yeah, I've heard they ignore the rural folks with guns, but that's until you use in self defense.
Quote from: Solar on July 01, 2013, 06:07:48 AM
Well said Milos.
Here in the US, liberals are using multiculturalism as a way of dividing America, removing Christianity from the public square, they have no interest in making immigrants become Americans, learn the language, our history.
To do so would give people an understanding of what truly being an American means, they don't want that because these new people would vote Conservative, it's the reason they are pushing this huge amnesty bill, they know it will destroy what little of it means to be a true American.
I understand what you mean, it already happened here in Europe. I was always proud of Europe, thinking the European way of life is far better than the American, or any other. But, now I have to admit United States are better, you have more freedom of speech and choice there. Here in Europe, all governments are now more or less communist. And if you are a patriot and support traditional religious and cultural and moral values, you will be immediately proclaimed a racist, a nazi, or a clero-fascist, and banned and persecuted and tried. In some American states you are even allowed to carry automated weapons, which is an amazing amount of freedom. Oh, I wish I could carry an AK-47 on the street, ha ha, that would make me a free man. Or a 44 Magnum, "the most powerful handgun in the world", lol. I served the army, I carried a loaded Kalashnikov with me, and I know very well it gave me the feeling I can say "no" to anyone. Here in Europe they tend to ban any firearms, in spite of the fact almost all crimes are being commited with illegally possesed weapons. And they push non-European immigrants in intentionally to divide the people and provoke the revolt of the native Europeans, so they can enforce more government repression. Because, for God's sake, we are all just humans, right? And there is no difference which race or religion or culture or language or historical background do you belong, right? True, but it depends in which way you are implementing it. The World is a mosaic of different kind of peoples, but you should not mix nor spoil nor dilute the native communities, because that way you will destroy what true diversity means. They are telling us a half-truth, which is more dangerous than a lie. They are just destroying our meaningfulness. And by "social justice", they mean native people should be forced to work to support both themselves and the immigrants who they didn't want there in the first place. The things are worse in the west of Europe for some reason, they got screwed before noticing it. Maybe if you become more "civilised", it means you become more weak? Did we forget what a civilisation truly means? A community of the people of the same kind, who share the same values? Please, don't let that happen to you in America, maybe you are our last hope.
Obraz ("Образ" in cyrillic, The Cheek, meaning The Honour) is a Serb patriotic organization which supports the traditional Christian way of living. Their motto is: "Everything for the cheek, and the cheek for nothing." In 2005 Serbian police marked Obraz as a clero-fascist organization, and in 2012 the Constitutional Court banned Obraz as a ultra-right organization, for the reason of protecting the human and civil rights, and preventing violence and non-tolerance.
In 2010 Obraz organized a protest in Belgrade, the capital of Serbia, to interrupt the gay pride parade. The police provided a transportation to the gay activists, so they could reach the place of their meeting unharmed. After the event, the police also transported the gay activists back their homes. I wonder if all citizens are equal, why then the police doesn't provide free transportation to all of us? And how shitty the country which protects gays and forbids traditionalistic people should be?
In the first video, you may see the police arresting a girl for protesting. In the other one, people are carrying Christian icons, and shouting to the police: "Let us walk the streets of our own city!"
Razbijanje gej parade u Beogradu, 10. oktobar 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4TpYFxOa3g#)
Razbijanje gej parade u Beogradu, 10. oktobar 2010 drugi deo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjDPGkv1R6E#)
Mladen Obradović, Obraz leader, is facing a court trial for organizig the violent anti-gay protest in 2010.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.tf.rs%2F2012%2F03%2F27%2Fobraz-2.jpg&hash=1a28de6da81997469319efdde7fb274a53afe1ff)
An Obraz anti-gay pride parole on the street, saying: "We are waiting for you!"
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Ff%2Ff1%2FObraz_cekamo_vas.jpg&hash=d6d2d610044518ac6428fa1125623f70e88aab8b)
Maybe John Lennon was a leftist, but he had a good point in organizing non-violent protests. Because, if you make a violent protest, you give your government an excuse to apply more violence on you.
Quote from: milos on July 01, 2013, 02:34:56 AM
I am from Europe, so maybe my point of view could be different. We Europeans have built our nations on tribal and ethnic backgrounds, so we naturally see any idea of multiculturalism as a liberal threat to our communities.
The fall of Rome was a long process. The process of liberalisation went along with the process of multiculturalism. I don't know if that is a historical rule, but it happened in Rome that way. By gaining new teritorries and accepting different cultures and peoples, original Romans mixed with the newcomers. They forgot their original tradition and identity, but they didn't form any new identity nor tradition. They abandoned patriarchal values and became promiscuous. That was why they got weaker and disintegrated. At the end, they finished up with crazy emperors who had no relations to Rome nor its customs, Rome and other large cities became overcrowded with poor people, and very little people remained to cultivate the land and serve the army. That was when feudalism begun, when Romans were forced to free the slaves and accept barbarian tribes to colonize the emptied land. Christianity could save the Rome, it could unite Romans to become homogeneous community again, but they didn't adopt it on time, they persecuted Christians for centuries, and by the time Emperor Constantine finally allowed Christianity, it was already too late for them.
Sorry, multiculturalism is not equivalent to liberalism, liberalism can happen in any kind of society. But I think they are connected in a way that liberalism opens the doors for multiculturalism, and the opposite, multiculturalism opens the doors for liberalism. Because, for any liberalism more choices are required, you can hardly build liberalism in a homogenous conservative traditionalistic patriarchal society. Look at the Sweden, they had to become an open liberal socialist society before today's multicultural invasion could happen. Multiculturalism is alright when different cultures manage to preserve their original identity and don't mix with each other, but that kind of society is very hard to preserve. Look at the examples of Austro-Hungarian Empire, Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, or Yugoslavia. Different peoples could have been kept together in those countries only because there was a central power strong enough to keep them together by force. Otherwise, peoples always look to find their own path. Mixed peoples can form a new entity, but their new entity must unite over some strong gathering point, like religion and language. For example, today's Turkey is a mixed multicultural and multiracial society, but they are all strongly connected over Islam and Turkish language.
The people who built United States were all Europeans. They came from different countries: Great Britain, Ireland, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, etc; but they were all Europeans. And Native Americans, or Mexicans, or Chinese, or Blacks, had very poor rights. So I think United States were built on European culture, and not on multiculturalism. I am not fully aware of what is actually happening in the United States today. I know American states are very different, with different peoples, laws, customs, traditions, and religious beliefs. I am sure they can live good lives together in peace and prosperity if they have a strong central power, and if they accept each other as they are.
I agree with almost everything you have stated in this thread, one eastern european country that has turned to the right and is being punished by it now in Europe is Hungary. If you are still interested in the old world, I suggest reading about the success of Fidesz and how EU communist are trying to economically strangle Hungary. It is a strange twist of fate that China is today the country that is most open to right wing governments.
Rome became powerfull because they were multiethnic and embraced melting pot assimilation approach to immigrants. The first original Romans were subjects of the Etruscans Kings, the Etruscans were promiscous and liberal people whereas the romans were hardworking and conservative, when the Romans finally killed the Etruscans and conquered them as you said they embraced new immigrants but also assimilated them into Romans thereby aquiring their knowledge of seafearing, astronomy, architecture, but most importantly republican philisophy from the Greeks. Like you said, it wasn't until they abandoned their culture that they got weak.
The point I want to make is multiethnic immigration is a force of good and enchances the nation, aquiring both new ideas and more manpower. Assimilation is the key, as it was for the Romans. A society can be prosperous by staying ethnically pure with the examples of Japan and South Korea, but with the control variable of North Korea we see that prosperity is a tribute to Capitalism and not ethnocentrism. Ethnic pure native communities is not a necessary or even integral party of prosperous society.
With the Canada argument, I think is more an example more similar to Norway, with huge oil and mineral deposits allowing for a national healthcare and wellfare system to operate and give immigrants the means to not work or assimilate while at the same time be segrageted from the rest of canadian economical society. Whereas USA, GB and Sweden is more similar where people have to pull their own weight if not risking national debt, where USA is now and Sweden is able to stay clear of so far to a certain degree. You don't see canadian immigrants act like british immigrants.
As for being christian in Europe, when I state I'm a christian at work I have to defend my position and clarify my beliefs. It was 1018 years since the last time someone had to that in Norway.
Quote from: Mountainshield on July 15, 2013, 02:32:16 AM
I agree with almost everything you have stated in this thread, one eastern european country that has turned to the right and is being punished by it now in Europe is Hungary. If you are still interested in the old world, I suggest reading about the success of Fidesz and how EU communist are trying to economically strangle Hungary.
I heard Hungary was forced to sell all their natural resources and national companies to foreigners, and now the country is being literally owned by them. Which is about to happen soon in my country, too. And people can do nothing, although this is allegedly supposed to be a democratic society. I dream of a new people's uprising, so we beat the shit out of those freaks on power, and gain our country for ourselves again. But not likely to happen.
Quote from: Mountainshield on July 15, 2013, 02:32:16 AM
Rome became powerfull because they were multiethnic and embraced melting pot assimilation approach to immigrants. The first original Romans were subjects of the Etruscans Kings, the Etruscans were promiscous and liberal people whereas the romans were hardworking and conservative, when the Romans finally killed the Etruscans and conquered them as you said they embraced new immigrants but also assimilated them into Romans thereby aquiring their knowledge of seafearing, astronomy, architecture, but most importantly republican philisophy from the Greeks. Like you said, it wasn't until they abandoned their culture that they got weak.
The Rome is a precious historical lesson of one country developed from a small tribe into a kingdom, then a republic, and then an empire, before it finally fell down. The republic period was probably the most prosperous, after they got rid of Etruscan kings, and before they were forced to implement empire to be able to hold such diversed country together with a strong central power. I think their melting pot assimilation politics were cuccessful up to a point when they became too much diversed until beyond recognition. They had a politics to adopt any foreign religion, cult, and culture, and in the end very little of truly Roman has remained. Popular belief is the Christianity destroyed the Rome, but I think it was quite the opposite - Rome destroyed itself because it didn't adopt Christianity on time. The problem Romans had with Christianity was the Christians opposed the Roman politics of adopting all religious beliefs as true and equal. What emperor Constantine did was to finally allow Christianity as equal to other religions, which was not right from the Christian point of view, but it ended the persecution of Christians, and marked the beginning of Rome as a Christian power. And the Eastern Roman Empire survived as a Christian state for 1000 years more, until the time they became decadent too, and so they fell into Ottoman Turk hands.
Quote from: Mountainshield on July 15, 2013, 02:32:16 AM
The point I want to make is multiethnic immigration is a force of good and enchances the nation, aquiring both new ideas and more manpower. Assimilation is the key, as it was for the Romans. A society can be prosperous by staying ethnically pure with the examples of Japan and South Korea, but with the control variable of North Korea we see that prosperity is a tribute to Capitalism and not ethnocentrism. Ethnic pure native communities is not a necessary or even integral party of prosperous society.
True, and I think it depends on the extent of assimilation. For example, my country of Serbia, during the Middle Ages, imported Saxon miners and smiths, because we didn't have the knowledge to develop mining and metal industry ourselves, so they were of a crucial help for developing our country. And our kings payed German cavalry and Spanish infantry mercenaries, from which we surely learnt some new war tactics. But, it was to extent we didn't become Germans nor Spanish nor a mixed nation, it was just a healthy exchange of knowledge and ideas between different peoples. Today, we have lots of Gypsies here, and some are Christian, the other are Muslim. Not much to learn from them in my opinion, but those Christian Gypsies have assimilated themselves into our society, they feel as Serbians, speak Serbian language, go to school, get a job, and have the same customs as we do, whether they live in a city or in a countryside. But, those Muslim Gypsies, some of them even don't speak Serbian at all, they live as nomads, don't go to school, never get a job, they dig into trash, and beg on streets, sometimes very rudely and offensively. Their women have a custom to use the babies for begging, they drunk or drug the babies so they sleep whole day, sometimes a baby dies this way, but it seems they don't matter at all. And when our government (read "our people") gifts them with houses or apartments, they just ruin them, for example burn the parquet for heating. So I find them to be a problem to our society.
Quote from: milos on July 15, 2013, 05:08:54 AM
I heard Hungary was forced to sell all their natural resources and national companies to foreigners, and now the country is being literally owned by them. Which is about to happen soon in my country, too. And people can do nothing, although this is allegedly supposed to be a democratic society. I dream of a new people's uprising, so we beat the shit out of those freaks on power, and gain our country for ourselves again. But not likely to happen.
The Rome is a precious historical lesson of one country developed from a small tribe into a kingdom, then a republic, and then an empire, before it finally fell down. The republic period was probably the most prosperous, after they got rid of Etruscan kings, and before they were forced to implement empire to be able to hold such diversed country together with a strong central power. I think their melting pot assimilation politics were cuccessful up to a point when they became too much diversed until beyond recognition. They had a politics to adopt any foreign religion, cult, and culture, and in the end very little of truly Roman has remained. Popular belief is the Christianity destroyed the Rome, but I think it was quite the opposite - Rome destroyed itself because it didn't adopt Christianity on time. The problem Romans had with Christianity was the Christians opposed the Roman politics of adopting all religious beliefs as true and equal. What emperor Constantine did was to finally allow Christianity as equal to other religions, which was not right from the Christian point of view, but it ended the persecution of Christians, and marked the beginning of Rome as a Christian power. And the Eastern Roman Empire survived as a Christian state for 1000 years more, until the time they became decadent too, and so they fell into Ottoman Turk hands.
True, and I think it depends on the extent of assimilation. For example, my country of Serbia, during the Middle Ages, imported Saxon miners and smiths, because we didn't have the knowledge to develop mining and metal industry ourselves, so they were of a crucial help for developing our country. And our kings payed German cavalry and Spanish infantry mercenaries, from which we surely learnt some new war tactics. But, it was to extent we didn't become Germans nor Spanish nor a mixed nation, it was just a healthy exchange of knowledge and ideas between different peoples. Today, we have lots of Gypsies here, and some are Christian, the other are Muslim. Not much to learn from them in my opinion, but those Christian Gypsies have assimilated themselves into our society, they feel as Serbians, speak Serbian language, go to school, get a job, and have the same customs as we do, whether they live in a city or in a countryside. But, those Muslim Gypsies, some of them even don't speak Serbian at all, they live as nomads, don't go to school, never get a job, they dig into trash, and beg on streets, sometimes very rudely and offensively. Their women have a custom to use the babies for begging, they drunk or drug the babies so they sleep whole day, sometimes a baby dies this way, but it seems they don't matter at all. And when our government (read "our people") gifts them with houses or apartments, they just ruin them, for example burn the parquet for heating. So I find them to be a problem to our society.
Absolutely I agree, my stephmother is Romanian, and she hates gypsies for ruining her country, it is quite a tribute to leftism that my stephmother who come to Norway to work hard and pay taxes has to go through rigerous immigration customs to be allowed to stay and work, whereas gypsies who come here are allowed to stay and be on wellfare and get all the judicial and financial help they need. Gypsies even get pensions while my stephmother who pay taxes still hasn't qualified for pension under this semi communist system.
It is true, the communist in Hungary before they were voted out of power sold all the countries natural resources to EU governments and even sold their national central bank, thereby leaving the new right wing government with huge financial problem, the good thing is the Hungarian people revolted against the communist. The society is still divided though, by the parasitic communist and the new right wing citizens. This shows why democracy without laws does not work, when one government can sell their country's resources for personal profit and get away with it (thanks to the EU).
It is nice to meet a fellow European Christian, like you said Christianity strenghtened Rome and Constantinople for hundred of years and even after these two empire faded away the kingdoms of europe were bound by christianity to stop outside invaders and gave rise to one of the greatest empires this world has ever seen the Holy Roman Empire/Habsburg Empire, as a Serb I'm sure you have a good understanding of this empire. Even though it was not a perfect Empire it gave autonomy a good degree of freedom to the provinces while at the same keeping the Empire stable and together. As we saw with breakup of HRE the individual internal states turned to wage war against each other like happened with Yugoslavia where Albanian nationalists/racist committed ethnic cleansing against serbs in their quest for what they called "Greater Albania". Christianity was discarded and changed for ethnocentricism/pseudo-darwinism. This is based on what I know, I'm interested in hearing your knowledge and reflection on the Habsburg Empire.
Quote from: MFA on July 02, 2013, 11:02:27 AM
Not quite true...almost all people born in Canada speak both English and French...or, more precisely, speak English and a bit of French or speak French with a bit of English.
Yes, and half are apologizing to the other half for not learning more! :wink:
Quote from: quiller on July 15, 2013, 10:17:20 AM
Yes, and half are apologizing to the other half for not learning more! :wink:
:biggrin:
Quote from: Mountainshield on July 15, 2013, 05:45:14 AM
It is nice to meet a fellow European Christian, like you said Christianity strenghtened Rome and Constantinople for hundred of years and even after these two empire faded away the kingdoms of europe were bound by christianity to stop outside invaders and gave rise to one of the greatest empires this world has ever seen the Holy Roman Empire/Habsburg Empire, as a Serb I'm sure you have a good understanding of this empire. Even though it was not a perfect Empire it gave autonomy a good degree of freedom to the provinces while at the same keeping the Empire stable and together. As we saw with breakup of HRE the individual internal states turned to wage war against each other like happened with Yugoslavia where Albanian nationalists/racist committed ethnic cleansing against serbs in their quest for what they called "Greater Albania". Christianity was discarded and changed for ethnocentricism/pseudo-darwinism. This is based on what I know, I'm interested in hearing your knowledge and reflection on the Habsburg Empire.
Thank you. I feel kind of sorry for people who think Christianity destroyed European culture. To me, Christianity is a faith in one and only God, the Creator. Nothing more, and nothing less. And it allows any culture whatsoever, but what it does not allow is a faith in false gods. Why do I think pagan gods are false? Because I think there could be only one God the Creator, who created all of the Universe, the Earth, and the mankind, and Odin for example definitively could not create Chinese or Zulus. Simple as that. But I love all Europeans anyway. I think Christianity shall unite Europe, but it has been divided itself, which is a pity.
I don't know much about the Holy Roman Empire, but I am aware of what a concept of an empire means. I know there was some fight between the Emperor and the Pope, which one would prevail, the Church or the Empire. And one of the purposes of the Holy Roman Empire was to show the Empire is as holy as the Church.
I am more familiar with the Habsburg Empire. I will speak from a Serb perspective. To make a short intro firstly. After the Ottoman Turks occupied Serbia in 1459, huge Serb migrations to the north started, from Turkey to Hungary. Then Hungary also fell, and later the Austrian Habsburg Empire liberated Hungarian lands from Turks. By that time, Habsburg Empire held the territories in which many different peoples lived: Germans (Austrians), Hungarians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Italians, Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Romanians. Serbs were divided into two kind of position. One were serfs, like the rest of non-Austrian peoples. The other, who lived in the border zone with Turkey, were given freedom by the Emperor in Wien for a favor of serving as frontiersmen, to prevent Turkish attacks. Those Serbs were under direct protection of the court in Wien, and in much better position than all other non-Austrian peoples. So, we had enslaved Serbs in Turkey, and to say half free Serbs in Austria. Both were not satisfied with their position, because they wanted full freedom, but those Serbs in Turkey always looked at Austria as their ally against Turks, and they always cooperated with Austrians when they waged wars against Turkey. I myself think Habsburg Empire was not so bad, it allowed some kind of peace, although there were lots of social turmoils between the different classes. But, all peoples wanted their freedom, so the Empire could not stand as a permanent solution for them to fully accomplish their national identities. Ethnocentricism could not be avoided. The same happened later to Yugoslavia. Different peoples were put together by the force of the central power. It was a bomb to explode sooner or later.
The problem with Albanians in Yugoslavia was a pure illegal immigration problem. After the WWII, the new communist Yugoslav government allowed free immigration from Albania, some legal but mostly illegal. The border was practically kept opened. There were lots of Albanians in Yugoslavia already, who had migrated there during the Turkish period, and they were mostly peaceful. But those new Albanians, they came not to become the citizens of Yugoslavia and appreciate the values of Yugoslav society and the way of life, they have never had any interest to assimilate with other Yugoslav peoples. They started making troubles, demanding their separation from Yugoslavia. No country would allow a separation of a part of its territory by some national minority, of course. The government forces reacted, but the UN and EU and NATO decided to help Albanians to separate.
I see the same thing could happen to USA as it happened to Yugoslavia. There are lots of different peoples, and lots of new immigrants. If USA allow mass immigration, those new immigrants could demand to separate, and the rest of their kind would probably follow them. USA shall not allow this to happen.
Quote from: milos on July 17, 2013, 02:49:55 PM
Thank you. I feel kind of sorry for people who think Christianity destroyed European culture. To me, Christianity is a faith in one and only God, the Creator. Nothing more, and nothing less. And it allows any culture whatsoever, but what it does not allow is a faith in false gods. Why do I think pagan gods are false? Because I think there could be only one God the Creator, who created all of the Universe, the Earth, and the mankind, and Odin for example definitively could not create Chinese or Zulus. Simple as that. But I love all Europeans anyway. I think Christianity shall unite Europe, but it has been divided itself, which is a pity.
I don't know much about the Holy Roman Empire, but I am aware of what a concept of an empire means. I know there was some fight between the Emperor and the Pope, which one would prevail, the Church or the Empire. And one of the purposes of the Holy Roman Empire was to show the Empire is as holy as the Church.
I am more familiar with the Habsburg Empire. I will speak from a Serb perspective. To make a short intro firstly. After the Ottoman Turks occupied Serbia in 1459, huge Serb migrations to the north started, from Turkey to Hungary. Then Hungary also fell, and later the Austrian Habsburg Empire liberated Hungarian lands from Turks. By that time, Habsburg Empire held the territories in which many different peoples lived: Germans (Austrians), Hungarians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Italians, Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Romanians. Serbs were divided into two kind of position. One were serfs, like the rest of non-Austrian peoples. The other, who lived in the border zone with Turkey, were given freedom by the Emperor in Wien for a favor of serving as frontiersmen, to prevent Turkish attacks. Those Serbs were under direct protection of the court in Wien, and in much better position than all other non-Austrian peoples. So, we had enslaved Serbs in Turkey, and to say half free Serbs in Austria. Both were not satisfied with their position, because they wanted full freedom, but those Serbs in Turkey always looked at Austria as their ally against Turks, and they always cooperated with Austrians when they waged wars against Turkey. I myself think Habsburg Empire was not so bad, it allowed some kind of peace, although there were lots of social turmoils between the different classes. But, all peoples wanted their freedom, so the Empire could not stand as a permanent solution for them to fully accomplish their national identities. Ethnocentricism could not be avoided. The same happened later to Yugoslavia. Different peoples were put together by the force of the central power. It was a bomb to explode sooner or later.
The problem with Albanians in Yugoslavia was a pure illegal immigration problem. After the WWII, the new communist Yugoslav government allowed free immigration from Albania, some legal but mostly illegal. The border was practically kept opened. There were lots of Albanians in Yugoslavia already, who had migrated there during the Turkish period, and they were mostly peaceful. But those new Albanians, they came not to become the citizens of Yugoslavia and appreciate the values of Yugoslav society and the way of life, they have never had any interest to assimilate with other Yugoslav peoples. They started making troubles, demanding their separation from Yugoslavia. No country would allow a separation of a part of its territory by some national minority, of course. The government forces reacted, but the UN and EU and NATO decided to help Albanians to separate.
I see the same thing could happen to USA as it happened to Yugoslavia. There are lots of different peoples, and lots of new immigrants. If USA allow mass immigration, those new immigrants could demand to separate, and the rest of their kind would probably follow them. USA shall not allow this to happen.
Thanks for reply,
It is a tribute to the strenght of christianity that politicians and media do everything in their power in futile attempt to crush christianity, they are so afraid of people's faith in God that they have to spend incredible amount of resources to ridicule christianity. The Norse religion in addition to being pagan and heretic was weak, it was a horrible blueprint for civil society. Odin and Thor pagans was crushed by the forces of Olav Tryggvason with the blessing of God, and society went from slavery based agriculture to yeoman agrarianism.
Christianity has the potential to unite Europe like it was before, not saying it was united politically but it was united culturally with the bible as foundation. Competition creates excellence, and it is something that is good with having many different nation states, even though war can break out, it was always limited compared to the ideological wars of the 20th century where communist/socialist created the concentration camps and gulags. Even the Thirty years war which is wrongfully assumed today to be about Catholics and Protestants was limited, and except for the germanic provinces that was raided and heavy taxation in warring countries had limited suffering when you compare it to communist and national socialists wars/civil war.
Thanks for the perspective and knowledge on Habsburg Empire.
Regarding the US/Nato led intervention I have always been pro intervention with regards to ending the conflict, however the terms imposed by the US/EU were detrimental to both the peace effort and in promoting stability. Serbians was blamed for a war that they did not start. And I apologize on behalf of my government in not granting Milošević amnesty. Even though not innocent, there were no innocent political leaders in that war and it was wrong to blame serbia for the war just as it was wrong to blame germany for ww1. We might disagree on the likes of Arkan however, but this is not important.
I was under the impression however that the Serbian populace at large wants to become a full EU member, how is Serbian society today with regards to Christianity and the EU?
Quote from: Mountainshield on July 19, 2013, 10:16:47 AM
It is a tribute to the strenght of christianity that politicians and media do everything in their power in futile attempt to crush christianity, they are so afraid of people's faith in God that they have to spend incredible amount of resources to ridicule christianity. The Norse religion in addition to being pagan and heretic was weak, it was a horrible blueprint for civil society. Odin and Thor pagans was crushed by the forces of Olav Tryggvason with the blessing of God, and society went from slavery based agriculture to yeoman agrarianism.
Yes. The atheists, they just don't want to believe, so they want us to give them the proofs God exists. I like to reply on this that the life itself is a proof - because God is Life. And the pagans, I can understand them. They think pagan beliefs are the roots of their national identity. I agree they are, but for me as a Christian our pagan roots are now just a cultural background, and not a belief. Because, polytheism doesn't make any sense to me - God can be only one for everyone, the Creator of everything and everyone.
Quote from: Mountainshield on July 19, 2013, 10:16:47 AM
Thanks for the perspective and knowledge on Habsburg Empire.
Maybe the Holy Roman Empire was better, because it was predominantly German, and the kingdoms, and principalities, and free cities, etc, from which it consisted of, were mostly equal in their rights I suppose. At the other side, the Habsburg Empire was quite different, all other peoples except Austrians were feeling enslaved. There was a famous partially successful national revolution of 1848-49. And only Hungarians got their kingdom in 1867 when the empire was redefined as Austro-Hungarian. All other peoples were dissatisfied.
Quote from: Mountainshield on July 19, 2013, 10:16:47 AM
Regarding the US/Nato led intervention I have always been pro intervention with regards to ending the conflict, however the terms imposed by the US/EU were detrimental to both the peace effort and in promoting stability. Serbians was blamed for a war that they did not start. And I apologize on behalf of my government in not granting Milošević amnesty. Even though not innocent, there were no innocent political leaders in that war and it was wrong to blame serbia for the war just as it was wrong to blame germany for ww1. We might disagree on the likes of Arkan however, but this is not important.
Well, regarding Kosovo, I think the intervention didn't end the conflict, it just helped one side, but the conflict is still there. Milošević was a criminal and a traitor to most Serbs, including me. Do you know that during the war of 1991-1995 between Serbs and Croats, their presidents, Slobodan Milošević and Franjo Tuđman, were best buddies at the same time? They had a deal to rob their peoples, and they have jointly put the stolen money on their bank accounts in Cyprus and France, billions of euros. And regarding the war in Bosnia, as determined by the UN Hague Tribunal, Serbs were 100% guilty, Croats were 50% guilty - 50% innocent, and Muslims were 100% innocent, while all sides did war crimes. Selective justice is not a justice, but just a political propaganda. About Arkan, well, he is not important. He was an agent of Yugoslav secret service before the war, and during the war he was a criminal, and he probably did some war crimes. (He did crimes in Serbia as well.)
Quote from: Mountainshield on July 19, 2013, 10:16:47 AM
I was under the impression however that the Serbian populace at large wants to become a full EU member, how is Serbian society today with regards to Christianity and the EU?
Regarding Christianity, around 90% of people are formally Christian (80% Serbian Orthodox). But, you know, there is a difference in being a proclaimed Christian and a true believer Christian. The latter are maybe a couple of percent, but it is not up to me to judge, just saying my opinion. There are also some atheists and pagans. Regarding EU, a few year ago there were 80% of supporters and 20 % of non supporters. Regarding NATO however, the situation was opposite - 20% of supporters and 80% of non supporters. But nowdays, people realise EU will blackmail us to recognize Kosovo independence if we want to join EU, so the support to EU has fallen to less than 50%. I myself think European Union is a communist organization which does not represent true European values. It seems Germany is our largest obstacle for joining EU, so if we are finally not accepted into EU, I will be glad to shout out loud: Danke Deutschland! Ha ha, Angela, please, don't let us in!
Quote from: milos on July 19, 2013, 02:26:41 PM
Yes. The atheists, they just don't want to believe, so they want us to give them the proofs God exists. I like to reply on this that the life itself is a proof - because God is Life. And the pagans, I can understand them. They think pagan beliefs are the roots of their national identity. I agree they are, but for me as a Christian our pagan roots are now just a cultural background, and not a belief. Because, polytheism doesn't make any sense to me - God can be only one for everyone, the Creator of everything and everyone.
I agree, as a norwegian I love my cultural heritage, and I like reading Håvamål and think it is important to preserve artififacts for future generations as this is our identity, but where I differ from some other norwegians is in the signficance of Norse religion as they tend to romanticize pagan belief when in fact you read håvamål and see it's application to society it is not a civil society, and it stagnated Scandinavia economic/cultural progress.
Quote from: milos on July 19, 2013, 02:26:41 PM
Maybe the Holy Roman Empire was better, because it was predominantly German, and the kingdoms, and principalities, and free cities, etc, from which it consisted of, were mostly equal in their rights I suppose. At the other side, the Habsburg Empire was quite different, all other peoples except Austrians were feeling enslaved. There was a famous partially successful national revolution of 1848-49. And only Hungarians got their kingdom in 1867 when the empire was redefined as Austro-Hungarian. All other peoples were dissatisfied.
Thats true, the Holy Roman Empire was more a political confederation than a federal system, if you don't have representation in your government (I don't necessarily mean democratic representation) then you also don't have any loyalty to the institutions. As you said the mayor flaw of the Habsburg Empire was not creating a sense of loyalty and give ethnic groups representations.
Quote from: milos on July 19, 2013, 02:26:41 PM
Well, regarding Kosovo, I think the intervention didn't end the conflict, it just helped one side, but the conflict is still there. Milošević was a criminal and a traitor to most Serbs, including me. Do you know that during the war of 1991-1995 between Serbs and Croats, their presidents, Slobodan Milošević and Franjo Tuđman, were best buddies at the same time? They had a deal to rob their peoples, and they have jointly put the stolen money on their bank accounts in Cyprus and France, billions of euros. And regarding the war in Bosnia, as determined by the UN Hague Tribunal, Serbs were 100% guilty, Croats were 50% guilty - 50% innocent, and Muslims were 100% innocent, while all sides did war crimes. Selective justice is not a justice, but just a political propaganda. About Arkan, well, he is not important. He was an agent of Yugoslav secret service before the war, and during the war he was a criminal, and he probably did some war crimes. (He did crimes in Serbia as well.)
I see i'm sorry for my ignorant statement then, I never knew that fact about Slobodan Milošević and Franjo Tuđman. History is more incredible than fiction, disgusting corruption. The UN Hague Tribunal is no more about justice than the UN commission for human rights is about preventing genocide or oppression, the whole UN is rotten to the core.
Quote from: milos on July 19, 2013, 02:26:41 PM
Regarding Christianity, around 90% of people are formally Christian (80% Serbian Orthodox). But, you know, there is a difference in being a proclaimed Christian and a true believer Christian. The latter are maybe a couple of percent, but it is not up to me to judge, just saying my opinion. There are also some atheists and pagans. Regarding EU, a few year ago there were 80% of supporters and 20 % of non supporters. Regarding NATO however, the situation was opposite - 20% of supporters and 80% of non supporters. But nowdays, people realise EU will blackmail us to recognize Kosovo independence if we want to join EU, so the support to EU has fallen to less than 50%. I myself think European Union is a communist organization which does not represent true European values. It seems Germany is our largest obstacle for joining EU, so if we are finally not accepted into EU, I will be glad to shout out loud: Danke Deutschland! Ha ha, Angela, please, don't let us in!
Yeah, Norway is only EØS member and have the option to opt out, which has served Norway well since the EU parliament has become communist. We don't have to follow the EU regulations, but still we pay taxes to the fatcats in Brussels.
How can Serbia survive without the EU? Hungary for example, being a landlocked country is wholly dependent on the EU for trade, even though China is the mayor trading partner the EU has threatened to stop all imports/exports from Hungary if they leave the EU or don't enforce EU regulations. Serbia also being a landlocked country looks to be in almost the same situation as Hungary. With still 50% supporters for the EU I guess Serbia continue to have many communist like all other european countries that want to welcome the EU and corrupt politicians that want to profit at the expense of the country. I wholly agree with you about the EU, I was a supporter before, but that was before I knew how far left the EU had fallen. I watch a lot of videos from the EU parliament I often see right wing politicians being banned from the assembly for nothing more than stating facts, it is not a democratic organization.
Quote from: Mountainshield on July 20, 2013, 02:58:30 AM
How can Serbia survive without the EU? Hungary for example, being a landlocked country is wholly dependent on the EU for trade, even though China is the mayor trading partner the EU has threatened to stop all imports/exports from Hungary if they leave the EU or don't enforce EU regulations. Serbia also being a landlocked country looks to be in almost the same situation as Hungary. With still 50% supporters for the EU I guess Serbia continue to have many communist like all other european countries that want to welcome the EU and corrupt politicians that want to profit at the expense of the country.
Some people here are just stupid, they think if we join EU, the money will start falling from the skies. Serbia can survive without EU. We have huge agricultural resources, including very fertile land and clean water. Also some excellent tourist destinations, like Belgrade with its history spots, night life, and low prices, or country tourism with awesome nature and fresh air and healthy organic food. We produce our own electricity. We had industry once, we can have it again. We are producing aircraft of our own design, so we have technology. Also, we hold the most important geostrategic position in the center of Balkans, large part of Danube, and main land road from Europe to Middle East. Europe just can't ignore us. We plan to build a channel from Danube to Aegean sea, along the rivers of Morava and Vardar, to connect to the seaport of Salonika. But, our most difficult problem are our corrupted politicians. They are destroying our country, stealing our money together with mafia, and moving it outside the country. I am not sure Hungary is dependant on EU either, but their politicians are probably corrupted, too.
Quote from: milos on July 20, 2013, 06:17:59 AM
Some people here are just stupid, they think if we join EU, the money will start falling from the skies. Serbia can survive without EU. We have huge agricultural resources, including very fertile land and clean water. Also some excellent tourist destinations, like Belgrade with its history spots, night life, and low prices, or country tourism with awesome nature and fresh air and healthy organic food. We produce our own electricity. We had industry once, we can have it again. We are producing aircraft of our own design, so we have technology. Also, we hold the most important geostrategic position in the center of Balkans, large part of Danube, and main land road from Europe to Middle East. Europe just can't ignore us. We plan to build a channel from Danube to Aegean sea, along the rivers of Morava and Vardar, to connect to the seaport of Salonika. But, our most difficult problem are our corrupted politicians. They are destroying our country, stealing our money together with mafia, and moving it outside the country. I am not sure Hungary is dependant on EU either, but their politicians are probably corrupted, too.
It is true, Hungary can survive without the EU with is why they are developing closer ties with China in order to shift trade from the EU. The communist party of Hungary sold off all states assets, banks and resources to European firms for personal profit and then sent the capital gained from these sales to their personal bank accounts. Hungary have many corrupt politicians but they do have now a new group of patriotic and some nationalist politicians that want to save their country and who are not corrupt. The problem is the EU is punishing election results in Hungary with economic sanctions in attempt to force the hungarian people to accept the communist back into power even though they were voted out (democracy in action no?). The Communist also shut down the power plants in Hungary making the country dependent and vassal of Austrian power companies. the EU also set up a telecommunication cartell to control all of Hungarys communication, in march when Hungary was experiencing a blizzard catastrophy these companies wanted huge payment from the government just to send out warning messages, when the hungarian right wing government took matters into its own hands and sent out the warning messages without paying the ludicrious price the EU commission fined Hungary for it...
Another thing, the communist in Hungary made it possible to retire at age 21 if you get a doctor certificate that says you are alcoholic, so now Hungary has over 1 million registered alcoholics recieving wellfare thanks to the communists policy. Great nationbuilding right?
If the EU sets up a trade blockade of hungary then hungary is doomed, the communist have destroyed hungarian agriculture and sold off land to foreigners. If Serbia still has its agriculture and infrastructure then you are on the right track, I pray Serbia will stay independent of the EU. Infrastructure plans like the one you stated here is exactly the type of thing taxes should go too, not wellfare parasites or politicians.
I wish there was an answer to Europe's socialist/communist and their corrupt politicians, they don't produce anything and only ruin our economies.
Quote from: Mountainshield on July 20, 2013, 07:45:36 AM
If the EU sets up a trade blockade of hungary then hungary is doomed, the communist have destroyed hungarian agriculture and sold off land to foreigners. If Serbia still has its agriculture and infrastructure then you are on the right track, I pray Serbia will stay independent of the EU. Infrastructure plans like the one you stated here is exactly the type of thing taxes should go too, not wellfare parasites or politicians.
Thank you for the detailed info on Hungary. Serbia still has its agriculture, but our government tries to sell it to some United Arab Emirates' company, behind which it turned out lies Albanian mafia's capital. Previous governments have already sold some water resources and spas to Coca-Cola. So, we are on the same track Hungary was, and it seems people can do nothing to stop that. It is currently one of the most important issues here, but almost all politicians support this sellout of country, both in the government and in the opposition. And those remained political parties and NGOs who speak against this are being silenced in medias, or proclaimed fascist, or banned.
The problem with liberalism in the US is that they want the freedom to disobey a religion while taking away the right of the religious person to obey his own religion. Two cases follow:
- They demand that all health insurance must pay for abortions and contraception. They also demand that all people must buy health insurance. This forces the religious person who believes that abortion or contraception is wrong to violate his beliefs.
- They demand hiring equality for homosexuals. This causes the religious person to disobey any requirement to not have long-term association with people who deliberately disobey the religion in public.
Note that homosexuality has the death penalty in Islamic Sharia law. Using a US law to force a Muslim who believes Sharia law to hire a homosexual might result in the mysterious death of that homosexual.
Hi!! I am new here!!! I am a 33 year old stay at home, CHRISTIAN and CONSERVATIVE mom, things are so tight right now that we have not even paid rent yet this month... But I am not and will not take a government hand out! What I have decided to do instead is to start my own business, one that I can be proud of and one that will be able to help others in TRUE need. You know, the ones that have found themselves in a difficult spot because of uncontrollable circumstances, not laziness or a desire to be taken care of by others instead of working hard! I was wondering, if there was any way possible that you all may help me spread the word?!?! I have no money of my own to get it going, but I started a kickstarter campaign to hopefully get the ball rolling. It is called G-Word and it is based on the premise that GOD is not a Four letter word. I just need to reach 1500 people in the next 41 days. I do not want to be so forward as to simply post the link and complete info without someones permission, but if you say it is ok, I will send it :)
Please know, from the bottom of my heart, if there is nothing you can do to help me spread the word, I COMPLETELY understand, and will never think any less of you.. I am now and will continue to use the Forum!!
Respectfully,
Nicole
Quote from: Nicoled789 on November 14, 2013, 04:06:54 PM
Hi!! I am new here!!! I am a 33 year old stay at home, CHRISTIAN and CONSERVATIVE mom, things are so tight right now that we have not even paid rent yet this month... But I am not and will not take a government hand out! What I have decided to do instead is to start my own business, one that I can be proud of and one that will be able to help others in TRUE need. You know, the ones that have found themselves in a difficult spot because of uncontrollable circumstances, not laziness or a desire to be taken care of by others instead of working hard! I was wondering, if there was any way possible that you all may help me spread the word?!?! I have no money of my own to get it going, but I started a kickstarter campaign to hopefully get the ball rolling. It is called G-Word and it is based on the premise that GOD is not a Four letter word. I just need to reach 1500 people in the next 41 days. I do not want to be so forward as to simply post the link and complete info without someones permission, but if you say it is ok, I will send it :)
Please know, from the bottom of my heart, if there is nothing you can do to help me spread the word, I COMPLETELY understand, and will never think any less of you.. I am now and will continue to use the Forum!!
Respectfully,
Nicole
If you know how to use our PM (private message system) you can cover that with Solar. You will see his name throughout the board, just click on his name and you can send him a PM and talk it over with him.
Welcome to the board by the way.