# General Discussion > Opinions >  The Byzantine Empire must be revived

## Echetlaeus

What do you think bros and broettes of the former glorious Byzantine Empire?

Wouldn't we be better off if we create a super-state, an empire once again?

----------


## LeBrok

> What do you think bros and broettes of the former glorious Byzantine Empire?
> 
> Wouldn't we be better off if we create a super-state, an empire once again?


It is called EU these days. Although much better, it is a republic of free people.

----------


## Aberdeen

> What do you think bros and broettes of the former glorious Byzantine Empire?
> 
> Wouldn't we be better off if we create a super-state, an empire once again?


That would definitely give the Turkish army something to do.

----------


## ebAmerican

> What do you think bros and broettes of the former glorious Byzantine Empire?
> 
> Wouldn't we be better off if we create a super-state, an empire once again?


You would be OK with being subjugated by an elite class where there is no middle class only rich and poor, that is essentially a monarchical rule? Do you think the ordinary citizen of the Byzantine Empire was living a life of freedom and prosperity? It's only good to be King, until your assassinated (by your brother or your father's second wife, lol).

----------


## Echetlaeus

> That would definitely give the Turkish army something to do.


The aim is to wipe-out that army together should they attack us.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> You would be OK with being subjugated by an elite class where there is no middle class only rich and poor, that is essentially a monarchical rule? Do you think the ordinary citizen of the Byzantine Empire was living a life of freedom and prosperity? It's only good to be King, until your assassinated (by your brother or your father's second wife, lol).


Yes, we will do everything for the beloved benevolent despot, who cares about his people. 

I think that the Byzantines were living much better than the rest of the Europeans that time.

The middle class appeared many years afterwards, I think during the period of the French Revolution.

----------


## Coolboygcp

> It is called EU these days. Although much better, it is a republic of free people.


 :Bravo: 

I completely agree.

----------


## Coolboygcp

Echetlaeus, I can't believe I don't agree with you. (Sarcasm.)  :Laughing: 

First off, there is no chance in hell to happen. Many Greeks have this dream, including myself once in a blue moon; of the Byzantine Empire returning. It will never happen. Many Greeks want Constantinople to be returned, but this won't happen either. There are almost 8 times more Turks than Greeks. What do you plan to do with them? Where would be the capital be? Would it be led by Greeks or Turks? Would it be an absolute monarchy? How do you plan on this even happening?

Yes, it would be nice if Istanbul was still Constantinople and was still Greek. It would be nice if the Greeks that had lived in Turkey for thousands of years along the Mediterranean and Black Sea coasts were still able to live in their land. But that won't happen. It is a pipe-dream. Look at how well Enosis with Cyprus went. How would Greece be able to attempt a project of this magnitude?

----------


## Echetlaeus

> Echetlaeus, I can't believe I don't agree with you. (Sarcasm.) 
> 
> First off, there is no chance in hell to happen. Many Greeks have this dream, including myself once in a blue moon; of the Byzantine Empire returning. It will never happen. Many Greeks want Constantinople to be returned, but this won't happen either. There are almost 8 times more Turks than Greeks. What do you plan to do with them? Where would be the capital be? Would it be led by Greeks or Turks? Would it be an absolute monarchy? How do you plan on this even happening?
> 
> Yes, it would be nice if Istanbul was still Constantinople and was still Greek. It would be nice if the Greeks that had lived in Turkey for thousands of years along the Mediterranean and Black Sea coasts were still able to live in their land. But that won't happen. It is a pipe-dream. Look at how well Enosis with Cyprus went. How would Greece be able to attempt a project of this magnitude?


No Turks following Islam shall be in the new revived Byzantine Empire.
When I talked about the revival I meant a unification in the European lands. Once this power is established well, then we can move in the next step.

The capital city will be the most prestigious city in the European lands, for the time being. That being said, it cannot be Constantinople (at least in the beginning).

The regime must be democratic, to follow nowadays wave, an emperor would not be bad idea though.

----------


## Echetlaeus

^ I expected "nogoods" for this statement.

What would it be good though is the revelation of the people who vote (positively or negatively). Then someone can distinguish friends from foes, as it happens in reality.

I hope the mods. will do something for this.

I expect "nogood" for this statement also.

Cheers!

----------


## Fire Haired14

> What do you think bros and broettes of the former glorious Byzantine Empire?
> 
> Wouldn't we be better off if we create a super-state, an empire once again?


Echetlaeus, I admire your Greek patriotism. Don't take criticism from EU fanatics to seriously, there is alot of good in how the west works today, but there was also good(not all bad) in the old ways they can't see.

----------


## LeBrok

> Echetlaeus, I admire your Greek patriotism. Don't take criticism from EU fanatics to seriously, there is alot of good in how the west works today, but there was also good(not all bad) in the old ways they can't see.


Actually by our standards it was all bad. It was only good when compared to other countries or civilisations back then.
Give me one example what they had back then that you want it to have today.

----------


## matbir

> No Turks following Islam shall be in the new revived Byzantine Empire.
> When I talked about the revival I meant a unification in the European lands. Once this power is established well, then we can move in the next step.
> 
> The capital city will be the most prestigious city in the European lands, for the time being. That being said, it cannot be Constantinople (at least in the beginning).
> 
> The regime must be democratic, to follow nowadays wave, an emperor would not be bad idea though.


  :Laughing:  I found this statement funny. Idea is quite interesting, Spaniard had their reconquista it is time for Greeks to have their own. I gave you +, because I thing that it would be good to take back Anatolia the cradle of Christianity to Christian community. But as far as I am concerned that is just a dream, because Bulgarians, Macedonians, Albanians, Serbs and Bosnians could not be happy with proposal of giving up their state to reestablish Europe in Byzantine nomenclature, and Turks would especially have something against.

BTW I have read somewhere that even today around Trabzon - Trapezund people are speaking Greek but they are Muslim, they are descendants of Pontic Greeks. Do you know how much Greeks are still leaving in Turkey?

----------


## FBS

The "black and white" mentality of this discussion amazes me. There is a great song on this theme by TOOL. It starts like this: Black and white are all I see in my infancy"... Maynard is a genius!

----------


## Fire Haired14

> The "black and white" mentality of this discussion amazes me. There is a great song on this theme by TOOL. It starts like this: Black and white are all I see in my infancy"... Maynard is a genius!


Can you explain your point with more detail. I would like to know exactly what you mean by this.

----------


## LeBrok

> I found this statement funny. Idea is quite interesting, Spaniard had their reconquista it is time for Greeks to have their own. I gave you +, because I thing that it would be good to take back Anatolia the cradle of Christianity to Christian community. But as far as I am concerned that is just a dream, because Bulgarians, Macedonians, Albanians, Serbs and Bosnians could not be happy with proposal of giving up their state to reestablish Europe in Byzantine nomenclature, and Turks would especially have something against.


 Also Albanians and Bosnians are mostly Muslims, they wouldn't be glad to hear you want it back in Christian hands.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> Also Albanians and Bosnians are mostly Muslims, they wouldn't be glad to hear you want it back in Christian hands.


They were Christians before. They will become again.

----------


## LeBrok

> They were Christians before. They will become again.


Shouldn't it be everybody's personal choice and not you telling people what to believe? According to your logic Greeks should go back to original hellenistic religion.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> Shouldn't it be everybody's personal choice and not you telling people what to believe? According to your logic Greeks should go back to original hellenistic religion.


Yes, we should, for the sake of Apollo and mighty Zeus.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> I found this statement funny. Idea is quite interesting, Spaniard had their reconquista it is time for Greeks to have their own. I gave you +, because I thing that it would be good to take back Anatolia the cradle of Christianity to Christian community. But as far as I am concerned that is just a dream, because Bulgarians, Macedonians, Albanians, Serbs and Bosnians could not be happy with proposal of giving up their state to reestablish Europe in Byzantine nomenclature, and Turks would especially have something against.
> 
> BTW I have read somewhere that even today around Trabzon - Trapezund people are speaking Greek but they are Muslim, they are descendants of Pontic Greeks. Do you know how much Greeks are still leaving in Turkey?



Only 2000 by Turkey's standard. But I believe that those by blood, although they do not feel like that, must be many, maybe millions. I cannot give a specific number. For this you should ask the experts, if there are any.

----------


## LeBrok

> Yes, we should, for the sake of Apollo and mighty Zeus.


Then I don't understand why you want Albanians and Bosnians to be christian? What is you logical base?

----------


## Echetlaeus

> Then I don't understand why you want Albanians and Bosnians to be christian? What is you logical base?


We need to have a common religion to make the unification stronger. Of course to revive the old Gods would be a difficult task, but Christianity is common in the Balkans nowadays.

----------


## kamani

> We need to have a common religion to make the unification stronger. Of course to revive the old Gods would be a difficult task, but Christianity is common in the Balkans nowadays.


how about no religion at all. That would be fair to everyone and no more wars. Problem solved.

----------


## Sile

> We need to have a common religion to make the unification stronger. Of course to revive the old Gods would be a difficult task, but Christianity is common in the Balkans nowadays.


equal parts religion and equal parts nationality = wars for all 

One should rule completely over the other , which is why we have issue in the world today

----------


## LeBrok

> We need to have a common religion to make the unification stronger. Of course to revive the old Gods would be a difficult task, but Christianity is common in the Balkans nowadays.


How about more teaching more tolerance to make Unification stronger. Remember how Alexander the Great (the one you so fond of) embraced every religion of every country he conquered. He even became pharaoh with blessing of Egyptian priests.
You have so many great Geeks philosophers, scientists and conquerors showing you the right way to live or build a strong union, but you don't like their teachings for some reason. 
Socrates and Hypatia, just to name couple from long lineup) would cry hearing what you're saying and dreaming of.

----------


## LeBrok

> how about no religion at all. That would be fair to everyone and no more wars. Problem solved.


 I support it if it comes to big organized religions, although people are spiritual in nature, and need to believe in something for at least healthy psychological reasons. That's why total ban of religion, like in Soviet Union or China, never worked. After 80 years (3 generations) of programed atheism in Russia 75% of people still believe in god. This should tell us something.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> They were Christians before. They will become again.


It is the opposite of Christian to force people to convert. Christianity isn't a culture and should not be something a nation uniformly or by law believes, because it becomes plastic(which is what happened in Europe, going back to the Roman empire).

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Shouldn't it be everybody's personal choice and not you telling people what to believe? According to your logic Greeks should go back to original hellenistic religion.


It depends on how Greeks converted to Christianity. Many at least in the early days willingly converted.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Yes, we should, for the sake of Apollo and mighty Zeus.


Now we know this is all a joke.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> How about more teaching more tolerance to make Unification stronger. Remember how Alexander the Great (the one you so fond of) embraced every religion of every country he conquered. He even became pharaoh with blessing of Egyptian priests.
> You have so many great Geeks philosophers, scientists and conquerors showing you the right way to live or build a strong union, but you don't like their teachings for some reason. 
> Socrates and Hypatia, just to name couple from long lineup) would cry hearing what you're saying and dreaming of.


Who likes Alexander the evil? I would rather see his gentiles slowly crushed by heavy metal and then have his intestines sliced with a sword, than meet him. I hate how people adore evil men from history, just because they were powerful.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> I support it if it comes to big organized religions, although people are spiritual in nature, and need to believe in something for at least healthy psychological reasons. That's why total ban of religion, like in Soviet Union or China, never worked. After 80 years (3 generations) of programed atheism in Russia 75% of people still believe in god. This should tell us something.


You are more open to banning religion than enforcing religion, that tells alot about how you fell about religion. Don't forget that the last two greatest murders in history, Stalin and Hitler, were strong atheist. Their reasoning for dis belief in God came from the same European roots as your's. There are alot of things which are important to culture besides religion that cause conflict. You should not but all religious people under the same label, many are not going to conquer people because of dis agreement.

----------


## LeBrok

> Who likes Alexander the evil? I would rather see his gentiles slowly crushed by heavy metal and then have his intestines sliced with a sword, than meet him. I hate how people adore evil men from history, just because they were powerful.





> It is the opposite of Christian to force people to convert. Christianity isn't a culture and should not be something a nation uniformly or by law believes, because it becomes plastic(which is what happened in Europe, going back to the Roman empire).


Yes we know, you only addor what your narrow definition of Christianity covers. I hope that by now you noticed, that just because you learnt your religion from your beloved parents, it doesn't make it true. Yes it makes your Christianity special, because your version of beliefs is different from other 7 billion people, but again it is not a reason to be the only true one. It makes your religion special but yourself very common. There are billions of people on this planet believing that their religion is only true and chosen one and their god(s) exist. They all want their religion to be most successful and rule the world at the end of times. Most of them will do various sacrifices in name of their religion, some even giving life for it.
Are you still feeling special and chosen?

----------


## LeBrok

> You are more open to banning religion than enforcing religion, that tells alot about how you fell about religion. Don't forget that the last two greatest murders in history, Stalin and Hitler, were strong atheist.


 So was Churchill fighting them, so were many founding fathers of USA with Lincoln and Jefferson leading the way. Hitler and Stalin didn't kill because they were atheists, they killed because they were psychopaths. They took pleasure in human suffering and death. In this department of monsters we can find many Christians and Muslim kings of the past.
Do you think there is a reason why most atheists are among scientists?

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Yes we know, you only addor what your narrow definition of Christianity covers. I hope that by now you noticed, that just because you learnt your religion from your beloved parents, it doesn't make it true. Yes it makes your Christianity special, because your version of beliefs is different from other 7 billion people, but again it is not a reason to be the only true one. It makes your religion special but yourself very common. There are billions of people on this planet believing that their religion is only true and chosen one and their god(s) exist. They all want their religion to be most successful and rule the world at the end of times. Most of them will do various sacrifices in name of their religion, some even giving life for it.
> Are you still feeling special and chosen?


Wow, what a model and mature adult making attacks on someone's parents. Should I believe Jesus is the Son of God and believe he is not? There is nothing wrong with believing only one thing. Lebrok you are usually the one who shoot out the first PERSONAL insult. If you want to have civilized arguments don't insult people PERSONALLY. 

I am not a ignorant as you think, I have heard that argument millions of times and your way of thinking is very common(the media preaches that gospel 24/7). 

You are like many on the left, you guys tend to think that anything that is passed down, moral, or seen as normal, was dictated to us by an old man who lived thousands of years ago and that he did it to control people, or for some other bad reason. The left trys to twist alot of things like gender roles, traditional family, marriage(not talking about gay marriage), sexuality, you name it. You guys feel intelligent and entitled if you even consider an idea like boys and girls are no differnt.

If you actual live by the rules of the far left you will have an empty meaningless life, because they don't believe in morality, they don't believe in family, they don't believe in ethics, and they tend towards utilitarianism and Marxism. 

My narrow definition of Christianity? Did Jesus ever say we should enforce his teachings and conquer unbelievers, like some Christian have done? Jesus rebelled against Jewish religious leaders who thought about religion in a very similar way as do modern Catholics and other Christians. Many Christians throughout history have perverted the religion into just a culture and tradition, and they are plain wrong they don't just have another definition. For many subjects in Christianity there is only ONE correct way to interpret them.

I am not as ignorant as you assume. I know there are alot of people who thing about things differently than I do, and have some of the same desires(I have heard this argument millions of times). That doesn't mean that one way of thinking about certain things can't be correct.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> So was Churchill fighting them, so were many founding fathers of USA with Lincoln and Jefferson leading the way. Hitler and Stalin didn't kill because they were atheists, they killed because they were psychopaths. They took pleasure in human suffering and death. In this department of monsters we can find many Christians and Muslim kings of the past.
> Do you think there is a reason why most atheists are among scientists?


I don't associate with Christians in the past who twisted the religion, and who conquered and killed? There should not be a contest to see who kills more atheist or religious people. Throughout history the vast majority of humans have probably been religious and religion is important to people personally and ethnically, and worth fighting for(much more than dis belief), so it is an unfair contest. My guess is that most conquest and killings in history had nothing to do with religion or non-religion, and mostly due to resources, pride, survival, competition, hate, and madness.

----------


## ebAmerican

"If you actual live by the rules of the far left you will have an empty meaningless life, because they don't believe in morality, they don't believe in family, they don't believe in ethics, and they tend towards utilitarianism and Marxism." Please quit stereotyping. It is like saying everybody from the right are racists, war mongers, religious fundamentalists, and women beating gun totting rednecks. It has nothing to do with values. Both parties have the same agenda, they only differ on the fluff (the BS that doesn't really matter). When it comes to making policy both the right and the left go center. The left and the right rhetoric is nothing more than talking points to sway vote for a candidate. Don't get trapped in the hate (from both sides).

----------


## Aberdeen

> You are more open to banning religion than enforcing religion, that tells alot about how you fell about religion. Don't forget that the last two greatest murders in history, Stalin and Hitler, were strong atheist. Their reasoning for dis belief in God came from the same European roots as your's. There are alot of things which are important to culture besides religion that cause conflict. You should not but all religious people under the same label, many are not going to conquer people because of dis agreement.


Actually, Hitler was a devout christian who claimed in his writings that he was "doing the Lord's work". I suppose one could deny that, or resort to the "no true christian' argument on the basis of some of Hitler's less than orthodox ideas about what christianity was, but he definitely considered himself to be a devout christian and a strong supporter of corporate Germany. Fascism is all about using religion and nationalism and the fear of "the other" in order to manipulate the masses on behalf of the plutocrats.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Actually, Hitler was a devout christian who claimed in his writings that he was "doing the Lord's work". I suppose one could deny that, or resort to the "no true christian' argument on the basis of some of Hitler's less than orthodox ideas about what christianity was, but he definitely considered himself to be a devout christian and a strong supporter of corporate Germany. Fascism is all about using religion and nationalism and the fear of "the other" in order to manipulate the masses on behalf of the plutocrats.


I recently learned about the Nazis in history class and wrote a paper on Adolf Hitler. All that I remember finding about his religious beliefs was that he was raised Catholic, left the faith when he left home, and feared away from religious debates when he was a politician because the German people were traditionally very Christian. 

Also, Wikipedia agrees with sources I used(can't find them now). 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...f_Adolf_Hitler

Jesus said the only way to the father is through him, if you don't believe that you're not a Christian plain and simple. Saying someone is not a Christian because of that is not being judgmental it is being factual.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> "If you actual live by the rules of the far left you will have an empty meaningless life, because they don't believe in morality, they don't believe in family, they don't believe in ethics, and they tend towards utilitarianism and Marxism." Please quit stereotyping. It is like saying everybody from the right are racists, war mongers, religious fundamentalists, and women beating gun totting rednecks. It has nothing to do with values. Both parties have the same agenda, they only differ on the fluff (the BS that doesn't really matter). When it comes to making policy both the right and the left go center. The left and the right rhetoric is nothing more than talking points to sway vote for a candidate. Don't get trapped in the hate (from both sides).


I hope it is as you describe. I described the far far far left, my point was that leftism tends towards those extremism just like rightism tends towards religious fundamentalism.

----------


## LeBrok

> Wow, what a model and mature adult making attacks on someone's parents. Should I believe Jesus is the Son of God and believe he is not? There is nothing wrong with believing only one thing. Lebrok you are usually the one who shoot out the first PERSONAL insult. If you want to have civilized arguments don't insult people PERSONALLY.


 What?! Stating that faith of your parents might not be true is an insult? It is pretty much description that all people could be wrong in anything. It is a general truth of human nature, we do make mistakes. Should I apologize to all humans? Do you feel insulted when I tell you that you don't know everything?




> I am not a ignorant as you think,


Possibly so, you just have difficulty considering and contemplating other's point of view.




> If you actual live by the rules of the far left you will have an empty meaningless life, because they don't believe in morality, they don't believe in family, they don't believe in ethics, and they tend towards utilitarianism and Marxism.


 Lol, you are ignorant after all. Did Jefferson, Lincoln, Marx or Einstein have meaningless lives? Since when I don't believe in family? 
Just becuase your ethics might be a tad different than Marx's it doesn't mean he didn't have any. Your black and white world must be very scary for you. Only you are Christian, only you have morals and ethics, only you can see the truth, everybody with different opinion is attacking you. Dude, can't you see how ridiculous your point of view is?
Morality and Ethics are rules of interaction between human beings. You don't need ethics or morals for a country of one man. Whenever there is a group of people there *must be* rules, so they can coexist together. Christians or Marxists consist of many people therefore need morals and ethic (not mentioning codexes of laws for many segments of life and work). Even though these two groups don't have same sets of ethics they do have them. Actually in more instances than not they have similar ethics. They both emphasise importance of hard work and working together, they both emphasize justice and equal sharing (actually marxists more than christians), group order and peaceful coexistence are addressed, family life, protection of children, property rights, etc, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_socialism
Please, don't confuse again lack of ethics with groups having few differences.




> My narrow definition of Christianity? Did Jesus ever say we should enforce his teachings and conquer unbelievers, like some Christian have done? Jesus rebelled against Jewish religious leaders who thought about religion in a very similar way as do modern Catholics and other Christians. Many Christians throughout history have perverted the religion into just a culture and tradition, and they are plain wrong they don't just have another definition. For many subjects in Christianity there is only ONE correct way to interpret them.


Did you give some thought these few questions I've asked?




> I am not as ignorant as you assume. I know there are alot of people who thing about things differently than I do, and have some of the same desires(I have heard this argument millions of times). That doesn't mean that one way of thinking about certain things can't be correct.


 That we know, what baffles me is how in tender age of 16 you assumed that what you were taught was right or wrong? If you have different religion than your parents, I would say that you made your own choice, gathered info, did some thinking and made an educated choice. Otherwise you just believe what you were taught with no choice.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I recently learned about the Nazis in history class and wrote a paper on Adolf Hitler. All that I remember finding about his religious beliefs was that he was raised Catholic, left the faith when he left home, and feared away from religious debates when he was a politician because the German people were traditionally very Christian. 
> 
> Also, Wikipedia agrees with sources I used(can't find them now). 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...f_Adolf_Hitler
> 
> Jesus said the only way to the father is through him, if you don't believe that you're not a Christian plain and simple. Saying someone is not a Christian because of that is not being judgmental it is being factual.


Read what Hitler actually wrote and said publicly (repeatedly). The fact that he was a murderous lunatic doesn't prove that his repeated professions of faith were insincere, it just proves that he didn't look at christianity the same way a lot of other people did. As for Wikipedia, if the last person who edited a particular page about Hitler wanted him to be an atheist and wasn't too concerned about facts, that's what that person would write. And that's why Wikipedia is only really useful to lead you to source documents, which must be judged on their own merit or lack thereof.

And no, you don't get to define what christianity is for everyone else. There have been all sorts of interpretations of what it's about over the centuries by people who considered themselves good christians. If you think, for example, that belief in the christian trinity is central to being a christian, that would suggest that Hitler was more of a christian than the "Oneness" pentacostal types are, but I doubt they'd agree with that assessment. As for Hitler's ideas about christianity being heretical, since I know someone is going to bring that one up, the religious ideas of St. Francis of Assisi were also heretical but the christians want to keep him, because he was a really nice guy.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> What?! Stating that faith of your parents might not be true is an insult? It is pretty much description that all people could be wrong in anything. It is a general truth of human nature, we do make mistakes. Should I apologize to all humans? Do you feel insulted when I tell you that you don't know everything?


Don't act innocent. "I hope that by now you noticed, that just because you learnt your religion from your beloved parents, it doesn't make it true." There is sarcasm and insult written all over that statement. You are lying to yourself if you don't admit it. 





> Possibly so, you just have difficulty considering and contemplating other's point of view.


I honestly don't understand how you came to this conclusion. I dis agree with some people, it is not a crime. You appear just as close minded as me when you argue for something. 




> Lol, you are ignorant after all. Did Jefferson, Lincoln, Marx or Einstein have meaningless lives? Since when I don't believe in family? 
> Just becuase your ethics might be a tad different than Marx's it doesn't mean he didn't have any. Your black and white world must be very scary for you. Only you are Christian, only you have morals and ethics, only you can see the truth, everybody with different opinion is attacking you. Dude, can't you see how ridiculous your point of view is?


Lincoln, Jefferson, and Einstein were not the far left types I am referring to. There is a trend in leftism to be anti-moral, and there are some who go to an honestly violent and evil extreme, they are who I am referring to. You don't understand, there is nothing wrong with having an opinion and dis agreeing with other people. I have my own ideas of morality and I dis agree on some points with others. Being open minded is not believing in their idea's as much as my own. Are you close minded for believing Mesolithic Europeans are most related to Baltic populations, and saying someone who believes they are most closely related to Chinese is wrong?

There are core believes of Christianity and if someone does not believe in them, by definition they are not Christians. I don't read minds and so I can't know if someone believes in those core believes or not though. I never said for someone to be Christian they have to be just like me in every way. Having a faith is not believing in your faith and not believing in it at the same time. You're miss interpreting how I think. 




> Morality and Ethics are rules of interaction between human beings. You don't need ethics or morals for a country of one man. Whenever there is a group of people there *must be* rules, so they can coexist together. Christians or Marxists consist of many people therefore need morals and ethic (not mentioning codexes of laws for many segments of life and work). Even though these two groups don't have same sets of ethics they do have them. Actually in more instances than not they have similar ethics. They both emphasise importance of hard work and working together, they both emphasize justice and equal sharing (actually marxists more than christians), group order and peaceful coexistence are addressed, family life, protection of children, property rights, etc, etc.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_socialism
> Please, don't confuse again lack of ethics with groups having few differences.


If the left is as morally sound as you describe I am very happy because that means the west isn't going to be as messed up as I thought. I don't care much about little points like you think, I care about people who believe that there should be no family and people should be raised by the state like Karl Marx did(sick and unnatural). I care about people in the 1970's who were so twisted and hateful that they created plans to destroy the traditional family, and they claimed the best way was through gay marriage. I don't care much about the gay stuff anymore as long as people keep to themselves, but it makes you wonder if there is some type of conspiracy when also considering liberal dominance of the media(incredible influence on everyday people), a crazy idea but possible. 





> That we know, what baffles me is how in tender age of 16 you assumed that what you were taught was right or wrong? If you have different religion than your parents, I would say that you made your own choice, gathered info, did some thinking and made an educated choice. Otherwise you just believe what you were taught with no choice.


I understand your point, and I have understood this my whole life. My parents did not grow up in religious families and they make it clear that you can make your own chose. I know that it was passed down to me, and I am fine with that. If you really want to get deep in this topic, we have to discuss how a person develops mentally(all the differnt factors that contribute to it), etc. etc. etc. I am tired and I have work to do i don't feel like doing that.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Read what Hitler actually wrote and said publicly (repeatedly). The fact that he was a murderous lunatic doesn't prove that his repeated professions of faith were insincere, it just proves that he didn't look at christianity the same way a lot of other people did. As for Wikipedia, if the last person who edited a particular page about Hitler wanted him to be an atheist and wasn't too concerned about facts, that's what that person would write. And that's why Wikipedia is only really useful to lead you to source documents, which must be judged on their own merit or lack thereof.
> 
> And no, you don't get to define what christianity is for everyone else. There have been all sorts of interpretations of what it's about over the centuries by people who considered themselves good christians. If you think, for example, that belief in the christian trinity is central to being a christian, that would suggest that Hitler was more of a christian than the "Oneness" pentacostal types are, but I doubt they'd agree with that assessment. As for Hitler's ideas about christianity being heretical, since I know someone is going to bring that one up, the religious ideas of St. Francis of Assisi were also heretical but the christians want to keep him, because he was a really nice guy.


You can't put any believe under Christian!!! If you don't believe Jesus died and rose from the dead, defeated death, is the only one who can forgive your sins, and the only way to live eternally with God, you're not a Christian, it means you made up you're own religion and labeled it as Christian. In the end the only person to judge if someone believes those things or not is God. 

Honestly I don't care if Hitler claimed to be a Christian or not. 

I am tired of typing, I'll treat you two later, when I finally can get MSB.

----------


## Aberdeen

You might want to ask yourself at what point all the nonsense you were taught about "evil liberals" stops being about religion and becomes more about the plutocrats wanting to have obedient slaves who won't question whether what they've been taught really is the One True Way. But all this is getting way off topic. The discussion is whether the Byzantine Empire should be revived. I vote no, but it has nothing to do with the fact that American Republichristians wouldn't consider Greek Orthodox types to be True Christians. I think the whole 'emperor" concept and the idea of one nationality ruling over others is more problematic than any religious quibble.

----------


## Ike

No, no. It is the religious problem.
If Turks weren't rigid and adopted Christianity after the fall of Constantinople, they probably would have been a prosperous European nation by the time of Age of Revolution. Their backwards culture and religion kept them in stagnation, and left the whole region in turmoil. We all know that there are really not much real Turks in today's Turkey. Those are mostly descendants of old Anatolian population.

If there hadn't been for Russian Empire and constant support of Ottoman Empire against it, Turkey would probably never happen.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> You might want to ask yourself at what point all the nonsense you were taught about "evil liberals" stops being about religion and becomes more about the plutocrats wanting to have obedient slaves who won't question whether what they've been taught really is the One True Way.


I am sure my dedicated and loving parents are evil plutocrats and are behind some conspiracy. I am sure the way you grew up helped create you're political ideas. Everything you dis agree with is not a conspiracy created made to control people? Argue in a civilized way, you should read Maciamo's rules of logic, personal attacks is no way to convince people. 

Lets stop with the insulting, and attacks on people's families. We can dis agree and respect each other at the same time.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I am sure my dedicated and loving parents are evil plutocrats and are behind some conspiracy. I am sure the way you grew up helped create you're political ideas. Everything you dis agree with is not a conspiracy created made to control people? Argue in a civilized way, you should read Maciamo's rules of logic, personal attacks is no way to convince people. 
> 
> Lets stop with the insulting, and attacks on people's families. We can dis agree and respect each other at the same time.


Actually, I didn't mention your family at all. After all, there are a lot of people out there who sincerely believe nonsense and teach it to others and I have no idea who taught you what you believe. I'm merely suggesting that you might want to consider who benefits when people are taught to believe that anyone who isn't an American Republichristian is an evil librul who eats kittens and wants to destroy "the family".

I don't think you're the best person to be criticizing people for making personal attacks on others since you've been doing a bit of it yourself. Now, can we please get back to the New Byzantine Empire? (I vote against it, but that probably won't matter to the emperor.)

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Actually, I didn't mention your family at all. After all, there are a lot of people out there who sincerely believe nonsense and teach it to others and I have no idea who taught you what you believe. I'm merely suggesting that you might want to consider who benefits when people are taught to believe that anyone who isn't an American Republichristian is an evil librul who eats kittens and wants to destroy "the family".


You are stero typing me I don't believe that, in no way should my comments have made you come to that conclusion about me. Just because i dis agree with the left, does not mean I am your stero type of a conservative. My family never taught me to be a hater. I came up to many of my conclusions on my own, and my family doesn't really give a crap about politics and history like I do, they are actually annoyed by how much I care. Like I said before the atmosphere you grew up in certainly helped create your political mind. 





> I don't think you're the best person to be criticizing people for making personal attacks on others since you've been doing a bit of it yourself. Now, can we please get back to the New Byzantine Empire? (I vote against it, but that probably won't matter to the emperor.)



Many of your posts are full high and might snobby insults. You arrogant assumption that I am an ignorant brain washed little child, and that you are a wise adult who can teach me the way, clear of faults, and wise beyond comprehension is insulting. Stop treating me as if I am a far-right extremist because I am not. I almost always insult after they insult me in the same snobby way you do, not saying that justifies it but you need to understand the circumstances. 

You and Lebrok clearly first insulted me, and also insulted my FAMILY and that is 100% not acceptable. Both of you deserve some type of penalty. We can argue and dis agree, but still respect each other.

----------


## FBS

Before Turks, the Constantinople was ransacked by Crusaders. Just a small description of what Christians can do to other Christians: " The Library of Constantinople was destroyed.[11] Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the Crusaders systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying or stealing all they could lay hands on: nothing was spared. The civilian population of Constantinople were subject to the Crusaders' ruthless lust for spoils and glory: thousands of them were killed in cold blood. Women, even nuns, were raped by the Crusader army, which also sacked churches, monasteries and convents. The very altars of these churches were smashed and torn to pieces for their gold and marble by the warriors who had sworn to fight in service of Christendom without question."

And of course: "The sack weakened the Byzantine Empire, which allowed neighboring groups like the Sultanate of Rum, and later the Ottoman Turks, to gain influence (see the Byzantine–Ottoman Wars)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(1204)

So, "Muslims are bad" "Christians are good" is a black and white thinking, infancy.

----------


## FBS

But, prior to the above, this happened:

"The Massacre of the Latins (Italian: Massacro dei Latini; Greek: Σφαγή των Λατίνων) was a large-scale massacre of the Roman Catholic (called "Latin") inhabitants of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, by the Eastern Orthodox population of the city in May 1182.[1][2]


The Roman Catholics of Constantinople at that time dominated the city's maritime trade and financial sector.[1] Although precise numbers are unavailable, the bulk of the Latin community, estimated at over 60,000 at the time,[1] was wiped out or forced to flee. The Genoese and Pisan communities especially were decimated, and some 4,000 survivors were sold as slaves to the (Turkish) Sultanate of Rum.[3]

The ensuing massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and Latin patients lying in hospital beds were murdered.[4] Houses, churches, and charitable institutions were looted.[4] Latin clergymen received special attention, and Cardinal John, the papal legate, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

----------


## Angela

> Before Turks, the Constantinople was ransacked by Crusaders. Just a small description of what Christians can do to other Christians: " The Library of Constantinople was destroyed.[11] Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the Crusaders systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying or stealing all they could lay hands on: nothing was spared. The civilian population of Constantinople were subject to the Crusaders' ruthless lust for spoils and glory: thousands of them were killed in cold blood. Women, even nuns, were raped by the Crusader army, which also sacked churches, monasteries and convents. The very altars of these churches were smashed and torn to pieces for their gold and marble by the warriors who had sworn to fight in service of Christendom without question."
> 
> And of course: "The sack weakened the Byzantine Empire, which allowed neighboring groups like the Sultanate of Rum, and later the Ottoman Turks, to gain influence (see the Byzantine–Ottoman Wars)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(1204)
> 
> So, "Muslims are bad" "Christians are good" is a black and white thinking, infancy.


If you're interested in that period and haven't read it, I can recommend The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople by Jonathan Phillips. 

From the book, "Almost 800 years later, in the summer of 2000, Pople John Paul 11 issued an extraordinary statement-an apology to the Greek Orthodox Church for the terrible slaughter perpetrated by Venice and the warriors of the Fourth Crusade...Thefact that the pople felt the need to issue such a document...reveals just how deep a wound had been left by this long-distant campaign."

And yet, as you point out in a subsequent post, it was preceded by a massacre of Latin Christians by the Byzantines, and followed by the brutalities of the Ottoman conquest.

Then, just a few days ago, I saw the movie Twice Born, directed by Sergio Castellito and starring Penelope Cruz in an outstanding performance, which in addition to dealing with other things, depicted the horrors that took place during the siege of Sarajevo, including the mass rape of women as an instrument of war and ethnic cleansing. Those monsters still walk amongst us.

Indeed, as the UN doctor in that movie stated, "It makes me ashamed to be a human being".

And no, I don't think getting rid of religion will stop it. The horrors perpetrated by both the Nazis and the Communists had nothing essentially to do with religion, just as World War I had nothing to do with religion. Or what went on in Ceaucescu's Romania, which I saw at first hand, or North Korea, which I didn't but which is well known, or what happened to the Tutsi in Africa. The cause lies deeper. It's a sickness of the soul.

----------


## LeBrok

> No, no. It is the religious problem.
> If Turks weren't rigid and adopted Christianity after the fall of Constantinople, they probably would have been a prosperous European nation by the time of Age of Revolution. Their backwards culture and religion kept them in stagnation, and left the whole region in turmoil. We all know that there are really not much real Turks in today's Turkey. Those are mostly descendants of old Anatolian population.
> .


You remember that the richest part of Europe through all Middle Ages were Islamic Al Andalus with biggest city in Europe Cordoba, till it was destroyed and million books burned by Christians?

----------


## FBS

> If you're interested in that period and haven't read it, I can recommend The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople by Jonathan Phillips. 
> 
> From the book, "Almost 800 years later, in the summer of 2000, Pople John Paul 11 issued an extraordinary statement-an apology to the Greek Orthodox Church for the terrible slaughter perpetrated by Venice and the warriors of the Fourth Crusade...Thefact that the pople felt the need to issue such a document...reveals just how deep a wound had been left by this long-distant campaign."
> 
> And yet, as you point out in a subsequent post, it was preceded by a massacre of Latin Christians by the Byzantines, and followed by the brutalities of the Ottoman conquest.
> 
> Then, just a few days ago, I saw the movie Twice Born, directed by Sergio Castellito and starring Penelope Cruz in an outstanding performance, which in addition to dealing with other things, depicted the horrors that took place during the siege of Sarajevo, including the mass rape of women as an instrument of war and ethnic cleansing. Those monsters still walk amongst us.
> 
> Indeed, as the UN doctor in that movie stated, "It makes me ashamed to be a human being".
> ...


Thank you for your comments and for the reference. I have been reading about Byzantine a long time ago when I was trying to understand the roots of my ancestors, their oldest surname was Despot, and we still have that surname but in a more accepted Albanian version. I never really found out why my ancestors were known as despots since all the members of the family simply decided to neglect that part of their history, no one can provide me with an answer. 

Why I copy-pasted from wikipedia was just to a avoid my subjectivity. 

We Albanians are intertwined with Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman reign, we were in the middle of it all and we are pretty much aware that religions can all be "bad" and "good", what matters is tolerance. 

What is the solution? Transcendence, since religious beliefs or atheism are both part of the same medal, both can become extreme and absorbed with their so called absolute truth. We cannot fight it, unfortunately those are just phases that humanity needs to get through in order to reach new heights of mental complexities. It is like moving from a two-dimensional world into the three dimensional world, suddenly one realizes that there is more to it then just simply thinking that one way is the best. Same happens when a junkie "finds" God and spirituality and realizes that there is more to life than just a short term pleasure (quick fixes).

----------


## FBS

Regarding the title of the thread, I would quote the famous saying of Albert Einstein: "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." And imagine trying to solve new complex problems with an old dead way.

Longing for those days and glorifying them shows inability to adapt to the reality (present life conditions), or in other words,rigidity.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> How about more teaching more tolerance to make Unification stronger. Remember how Alexander the Great (the one you so fond of) embraced every religion of every country he conquered. He even became pharaoh with blessing of Egyptian priests.
> You have so many great Geeks philosophers, scientists and conquerors showing you the right way to live or build a strong union, but you don't like their teachings for some reason. 
> Socrates and Hypatia, just to name couple from long lineup) would cry hearing what you're saying and dreaming of.


I have no problem with other religions, or atheism. 
I hope this answers your questions.

With respect,
-3|E-

----------


## Echetlaeus

> Regarding the title of the thread, I would quote the famous saying of Albert Einstein: "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." And imagine trying to solve new complex problems with an old dead way.
> 
> Longing for those days and glorifying them shows inability to adapt to the reality (present life conditions), or in other words,rigidity.


Who said it would be with exactly the same format as the Old Empire?

----------


## Echetlaeus

> we turks are native Anatolians. LONG LIVE ANCİENT ANATOLİANS!


I don't think so. Turks are no natives of Anatolia. 

If you use another name to describe the actual Anatolians, then we can talk about it.

To cut a long story short, I advise you to be very careful when you use ethnicities to describe the whole population of an area, although they may be the minority of it, but you don't know, or pretend that you don't know.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> It depends on how Greeks converted to Christianity. Many at least in the early days willingly converted.


This is not true.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> Now we know this is all a joke.


What do you mean Lone-Star-State bro? The religion of our old guys was very human friendly.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> How about more teaching more tolerance to make Unification stronger. Remember how Alexander the Great (the one you so fond of) embraced every religion of every country he conquered. He even became pharaoh with blessing of Egyptian priests.
> You have so many great Geeks philosophers, scientists and conquerors showing you the right way to live or build a strong union, but you don't like their teachings for some reason. 
> Socrates and Hypatia, just to name couple from long lineup) would cry hearing what you're saying and dreaming of.


I don't think so.

BTW, I feel offended by this statement, as being a direct and personal attack to my personality. To whom should I talk about this, so he will make you more tolerant about others' opinion and at the same time more respectful? Being a mod you should understand these stuff I suppose.

----------


## LeBrok

I said this: 



> Also Albanians and Bosnians are mostly Muslims, they wouldn't be glad to hear you want it back in Christian hands.


Then you said this:



> They were Christians before. They will become again.


So I pointed your intolerance, by recalling few ancient Greeks and their tolerance, and that their philosophy is not in agreement with yours. By this you got offended. lol 
So this is my fault that you have different philosophy than Alexander? Go ahead, change your views, and be in agreement with him, because Alexander can't.





> BTW, I feel offended by this statement, as being a direct and personal attack to my personality. To whom should I talk about this, so he will make you more tolerant about others' opinion and at the same time more respectful? Being a mod you should understand these stuff I suppose.


If you can't stomach this civilized critique of your views perhaps you should avoid talking to people. You don't expect people agreeing with you all the time just not to hurt your feelings, right?

----------


## Echetlaeus

> I said this: 
> 
> 
> Then you said this:
> 
> 
> So I pointed your intolerance, by recalling few ancient Greeks and their tolerance, and that their philosophy is not in agreement with yours. By this you got offended. lol 
> So this is my fault that you have different philosophy than Alexander? Go ahead, change your views, and be in agreement with him, because Alexander can't.
> 
> ...


LOL, just lol at you who pretend to be the civilised one.

And the Greeks did not tolerate the others. They just did that to maintain the power in the beginning. Eventually the Greek civilisation would rule out or be part of the barbaric ones. 'Barbaric' is the word that my ancestors would use for these kind of cases. Please do not say that it is not politically correct.

I hope you understand how Albanians and Bozniaks became Christians, then Muslims, then Atheists, and eventually returned in the old status quo.

I expect people to say their logical arguments, not to criticize just for the fun of it.

Actually I do not like your irony.

----------


## LeBrok

> And the Greeks did not tolerate the others. They just did that to maintain the power in the beginning. Eventually the Greek civilisation would rule out or be part of the barbaric ones. 'Barbaric' is the word that my ancestors would use for these kind of cases. Please do not say that it is not politically correct.


Are you more tolerant in your views than Alexander, Socrates or Hypatia?




> I hope you understand how Albanians and Bozniaks became Christians, then Muslims, then Atheists, and eventually returned in the old status quo.


 Their past is not in question here. Why do you want them to become christians again?




> I expect people to say their logical arguments, not to criticize just for the fun of it.


 When you have your own website you will introduce your rules, ok?




> Actually I do not like your irony.


I don't like your points of view at all, but guess what, you still posting here.

----------


## Ike

> You remember that the richest part of Europe through all Middle Ages were Islamic Al Andalus with biggest city in Europe Cordoba, till it was destroyed and million books burned by Christians?


Ye I remember that some peoples were very culturally advanced before adopting Islam and that 'First Wave of Islam' was carried on the wings of that prosperity. I think that Fertile Crescent civilizations would have advanced much more if there was not for Islam to put 'em down. It's now 1435 in their calendar, and it's where they really are. Those people should really get back to Christianity or Zoroastrianism or whatever, or they'll be stuck in 14-th century.

Christian religious was not perfect either. Especially the Roman version was more concentrated on power struggle and brought a lot grief to many people.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> I don't like your points of view at all, but guess what, you still posting here.


Well then, why don't you ban me from being a member here?




> When you have your own website you will introduce your rules, ok?


This is what I call dictatorship of the third kind.

----------


## Luan

> They were Christians before. They will become again.


Greeks were Pagan before, they will be again I guess. :Good Job:

----------


## FBS

> Who said it would be with exactly the same format as the Old Empire?


I believe this is the title of the thread that you have started: The Byzantine Empire must be revived. Let us analyse the "must be revived" part:

- When "must" is used in the sentence, it is e declarative sentence.

- Definition of revived form Merriam-Webster:

verb
: to make (someone or something) strong, healthy, or active again
: to become strong, healthy, or active again
: to bring (something) back into use or popularity

_intransitive verb_
*:* to return to consciousness or life *:* become active or flourishing again

_transitive verb_
*1*
*:* to restore to consciousness or life

*2*
*:* to restore from a depressed, inactive, or unused state *:* bring back

*3*
*:* to renew in the mind or memory

----------


## Echetlaeus

> I believe this is the title of the thread that you have started: The Byzantine Empire must be revived. Let us analyse the "must be revived" part:
> 
> - When "must" is used in the sentence, it is e declarative sentence.
> 
> - Definition of revived form Merriam-Webster:
> 
> verb
> : to make (someone or something) strong, healthy, or active again
> : to become strong, healthy, or active again
> ...


Are you playing the smart guy by writing down the definition from a dictionary?
Well done sir!

P.S. I 'nogooded' you.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> Greeks were Pagan before, they will be again I guess.


It ain't bad if you want my opinion, but it is called polytheism bro.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Well then, why don't you ban me from being a member here?
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I call dictatorship of the third kind.


In my opinion, you're being rude, disrespectful and immature. And I don't personally find your brief, cryptic posts to be of much value. Perhaps you'd be happier on another forum. If "Second Life" is still a thing, perhaps you could go there and focus on creating your fantasy version of what you imagine the Byzantine empire to be.

However, if you want to discuss your original post, perhaps you could explain what you meant by it, since the original post seems to me to be suggesting that the original Byzantine empire be recreated, but you later said the new version doesn't have to be the same as the old version. So, what kind of "Byzantine empire" did you want to create? I think you should have explained that in your original post.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> In my opinion, you're being rude, disrespectful and immature. And I don't personally find your brief, cryptic posts to be of much value. Perhaps you'd be happier on another forum. If "Second Life" is still a thing, perhaps you could go there and focus on creating your fantasy version of what you imagine the Byzantine empire to be.
> 
> However, if you want to discuss your original post, perhaps you could explain what you meant by it, since the original post seems to me to be suggesting that the original Byzantine empire be recreated, but you later said the new version doesn't have to be the same as the old version. So, what kind of "Byzantine empire" did you want to create? I think you should have explained that in your original post.


Dear Aberdeen,
thank you for letting me know about your beliefs considering my posts. You are welcome to not participate in any of them, as you find them immature and cryptic.

People, in my humblest opinion, must be able to understand fantasy from reality. My first posts wants to bring to the surface the possibility of creating a mega-state like the Byzantine Empire. We in the Balkans, and a little bit further away, have been living together for centuries. Maybe a new 'Byzantine Empire' could make us all better off.

I hope this answers your question.

With respect,
- E

----------


## FBS

> Are you playing the smart guy by writing down the definition from a dictionary?
> Well done sir!
> 
> P.S. I 'nogooded' you.


Hm, suave...

----------


## Aberdeen

> Dear Aberdeen,
> thank you for letting me know about your beliefs considering my posts. You are welcome to not participate in any of them, as you find them immature and cryptic.
> 
> People, in my humblest opinion, must be able to understand fantasy from reality. My first posts wants to bring to the surface the possibility of creating a mega-state like the Byzantine Empire. We in the Balkans, and a little bit further away, have been living together for centuries. Maybe a new 'Byzantine Empire' could make us all better off.
> 
> I hope this answers your question.
> 
> With respect,
> - E


No, that doesn't answer my question at all. I can see how a confederation of Balkan states, sort of like a localized version of the EU focussed on the needs of the Balkans, might actually be useful. A Greek dominated mega state ruled by an emperor with absolute power would probably not appeal to many people. If that is in fact what you're proposing - you still haven't really explained what you mean. although your comment about forcing moslems to convert to christianity does suggest an interest in absolutism.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> No, that doesn't answer my question at all. I can see how a confederation of Balkan states, sort of like a localized version of the EU focussed on the needs of the Balkans, might actually be useful. A Greek dominated mega state ruled by an emperor with absolute power would probably not appeal to many people. If that is in fact what you're proposing - you still haven't really explained what you mean. although your comment about forcing moslems to convert to christianity does suggest an interest in absolutism.


Greece will be the heart of this state, as being the more powerful at the time being, it was the case of the old empire as well, mostly due to the higher cultural level.

We will not have an emperor as I said before, but we will adopt the practices of the modern era.

I did not say that I will force Muslims to become Christians.

You should not say words that I did not mention.

----------


## Angela

My sympathies are always with the civilized core in contests with the "barbarians" of any stripe, so, despite the fact that the Byzantine Empire certainly had its problems and made its mistakes, and did *not* always act ethically or even sensibly, I think it was a great tragedy that it fell, and the behavior of the westerners was appalling.

However, the Balkans, as well as the rest of the world, has changed, and not only in terms of religion, but also in terms of affiliations. That isn't to say, as Aberdeen has suggested, that a sort of localized version of the EU might not make sense. However, I see no evidence that the Balkan states would agree to enter into some sort of political confederation with Greece. The idea that they would is almost more of a fantasy than the ludicrous proposal by Lega Nord to have some sort of confederation of Switzerland, Austria and Italy north of the Po. You may not have been aware of that cringe making event. The silence from Switzerland and Austria was deafening. I'm sure in private the laughter was even more deafening.

The only other alternative would be the use of force. Even were Greece to contemplate such an idea I would think that its lack of resources would make that a non-starter.

Perhaps Greek patriots would do better to contemplate how they can help their country get back on its feet economically.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Greece will be the heart of this state, as being the more powerful at the time being, it was the case of the old empire as well, mostly due to the higher cultural level.
> 
> We will not have an emperor as I said before, but we will adopt the practices of the modern era.
> 
> I did not say that I will force Muslims to become Christians.
> 
> You should not say words that I did not mention.


You did say "They were Christians before. They will become again." To me, that sounds like suggesting forced conversion. Even if that isn't what you meant, I really don't think the other Balkan countries consider Greeks to have a higher cultural level than themselves - I definitely get the impression that each group, Albanian, Croat, Serb, Romanian, Bulgarian, whatever else, each consider their own group to be superior. That would make co-operation difficult. And if you want to adopt "the practices of the modern era", that would not be a revival of the Byzantine empire, it would be something else, maybe a localized version of the EU, as I suggested. Although Angela is correct in suggesting that will never happen in real life, because the different groups will never co-operate with one another. But in theory it would be a great idea if it could be made to work. It's just that that will never happen.

----------


## kamani

> I really don't think the other Balkan countries consider Greeks to have a higher cultural level than themselves - I definitely get the impression that each group, Albanian, Croat, Serb, Romanian, Bulgarian, whatever else, each consider their own group to be superior.


 Believe it or not the "others" don't bother with such questions. Nobody questions Greek cultural superiority in Europe 2000 years ago. And it wasn't just the Greeks in the Balkans who were the most advanced, but also Illyrians, Macedonians etc. Whoever lived in the Balkans at that time deserves utmost credit for being the Champions. But we are 2000 years later and other areas of the world have caught up and gone ahead in terms of culture and development. Unfortunately we cannot afford to live in the past. 



> Although Angela is correct in suggesting that will never happen in real life, because the different groups will never co-operate with one another. But in theory it would be a great idea if it could be made to work. It's just that that will never happen.


Everybody in the Balkans will join the EU in the next 10-20 years, so they will co-operate in a different level, under different dominating influences.

----------


## Aberdeen

> ................
> Everybody in the Balkans will join the EU in the next 10-20 years, so they will co-operate in a different level, under different dominating influences.


Which, I suspect, will not have as good for Balkan countries as a BU (Balkan Community) would be. But that is what will happen, and the Balkans will remain less developed than some of the other EU countries.

----------


## kamani

> But that is what will happen, and the Balkans will remain less developed than some of the other EU countries.


That's quite a statement about the future but having less people and stuff does not necessarily mean lower standard of living. Some big country like China might have highways with 12 lanes and 150-floors skyscrapers but they need those to support their population. They're very developed and advanced but their life is not better. People from the Balkans just need to stop being nationalistic and hot-headed, forget about religion for a while, and good things will follow.

----------


## Ike

> Everybody in the Balkans will join the EU in the next 10-20 years, so they will co-operate in a different level, under different dominating influences.


That is what we're trying to avoid. Their influence has brought us where we are.

----------


## Ike

> But that is what will happen, and the Balkans will remain less developed than some of the other EU countries.


While Balkan was under Ottoman occupation half of the Europe sucked the goods from their overseas colonies, so it's not a good comparison to make. 
Even now EU countries don't restrain themselves from throwing religious war-starting bugs in here from time to time, just to keep us down.

----------


## LeBrok

> Even now EU countries don't restrain themselves from throwing religious war-starting bugs in here from time to time, just to keep us down.


 Yes, it is another conspiracy Ike can see. The whole world ganged up to keep Balkans down. 
Your self-importance is too sensitive I would say.

----------


## Ike

No, no no. I didn't say the whole world. You've just made that up, because that would sound like something coming from the mouth of a paranoid man, which would consequently give you better position to mock my writings.
What's in it for you, I really don't know. They don't pay you for that? Some kind of weird inner satisfaction of kicking someone who is down runs through you.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> No, no no. I didn't say the whole world. You've just made that up, because that would sound like something coming from the mouth of a paranoid man, which would consequently give you better position to mock my writings.
> What's in it for you, I really don't know. They don't pay you for that? Some kind of weird inner satisfaction of kicking someone who is down runs through you.


I don't know anything about this subject but I see problems in the way you guys are arguing. I think we would learn much more and this would be a better forum if we all tried to correct the wrong ways we reason, not assume we(you as a individual) are perfect in the way we think and everyone who dis agrees is 100% wrong(everyone is born selfish), stop insulting each other so much, and had absolute respect for everyone.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> I don't know anything about this subject but I see problems in the way you guys are arguing. I think we would learn much more and this would be a better forum if we all tried to correct the wrong ways we reason, not assume we(you as a individual) are perfect in the way we think and everyone who dis agrees is 100% wrong(everyone is born selfish), stop insulting each other so much, and had absolute respect for everyone.


I agree with your statement, but some people, whose names shan't be mentioned, are always willing to attack you, no matter what!

----------


## Taranis

In a way, the Byzantine empire was already revived, back in 1822, when modern Greece became independent. Modern Greece is much more of a revived Byzantium than a revived ancient Greece, as it has little of continuity with the latter, but a good deal of continuity with the former. As for reviving it in the sense of a totalitarian religious monarchy (by modern standards), I don't think the world needs any more of those...

----------


## Echetlaeus

> In a way, the Byzantine empire was already revived, back in 1822, when modern Greece became independent. Modern Greece is much more of a revived Byzantium than a revived ancient Greece, as it has little of continuity with the latter, but a good deal of continuity with the former. As for reviving it in the sense of a totalitarian religious monarchy (by modern standards), I don't think the world needs any more of those...


The Greek Independence was not in 1822, alas almost a decade passed until a small part became an independent state. It took until 1947 for Greece to become the state that you see nowadays, and all of these land gains came after numerous wars against those who oppressed us for numerous centuries.

That said, Greece still has lands outside its nowadays borders.

----------


## ΠΑΝΑΞ

Instead of antiguity, the byzantine era offers us more "historical data", lucky the byzantinologists maybe you say but you have to know that is far the most complicated studies of history.
Generally the term "Byzantine" it is an exonym from a german scholar with a greek name (Ιερώνυμος)- Hieronymus Wolf 1516-1580, someone could say that they baptized after death, the byzantines i mean, which they prefer to call themselves as_ -Ρωμηοί, Ρωμιοί_ = _Romans_>_ Rumeli_ (the region of cent. Greece), some historians preferred the "East Roman Empire" which in some occasions is more reliable. ( i also want to remind to some of us that it is not named as Orthodox empire! The Roman rule was above all.) opa!..

-I realise for another time, being slightly off topic. (never mind, i would say about the collonists of city_ -Μέγαρα_ and -_Βύζας_, son of Poseidon and Κερόεσσα... )
But...

The thread is probably '' We need a strong coalition/federation/union in Balkans and(part of)l Anatolia; close ?
If yes, -i would say that i also agree with you for many reasons. 
*I mind the fall of ''Polis'' as the start of the -East Question. 
*The cold War seperate the Balkanians as western/eastern, allthough for centuries was the center of the world!
*I also think, that we (greeks) commoned a collectivist heritage with the rest of the balkanians birthplaced at byzantine ages. 
*For somehow the balkans are deeply independent from the economic theories of the recently past century 
I hope new political aspects for the region beyond left and right parties which tyrrant parliaments and opinions. (off topic or of topic?)
Dont know thats what you mean Eχετλαίε..?

(close) 
The Thousand year Empire influent and inspire the Rennaisance later and still now our free modern world.
My personaly opinion is that the long lived empire is the big bang of Greek/Roman world.

For the interested about history of that time
a safe, as objective link and usefull as a first guide entrance(!) to the subject is Byzantine chronicles- Βυζαντινόν Χρονικόν.
http://www.byzantium.xronikon.com/homegr.html#
available also in English version. (γοογλ translator-no good. -yet.)

----------


## Vedun

And who will be the leader of the new Byzantium Sanhedrin then?

Byzantium was the New Jerusalem, this was the place, where the Oldest Torah (Leningrad Codex) was constructed (written) in 11th century AD, as the "oldest Book of all times" and reliable source of all historical sources.

Then you consequently ask yourself, why was Russia in a total war with Byzantium and why the allegedly "1." Slavic "invasion" appeared in 6th century "AD" against Rome and Constantinople...when Slavs were already in constant wars with Avars (Hebrews) in Khazar Khanate...
The answer is because they did not want to accept the new Christian cult, which was created in Byzantium and Rome...

----------


## Yetos

> Everybody in the Balkans will join the EU in the next 10-20 years, so they will co-operate in a different level, under different dominating influences.


If EU exists in 10-20 years,
the latest elections show Europeans to be sceptic, 
the South Europe's problem could be solved easily if treaty's like Lisbon Maastrich (however is written) etc etc exist.
just think taxation in borders to eupoe's south and you will understand,

EU is not as planed in 1950's

Norway and Swiss are km better.

I don't want to buy a FIAT that is taxated in Netherlands, Neither drink a Cola that is taxated in Swiss, neither buy a sampoo made in Africa but taxated in France etc etc

----------


## Yetos

> You would be OK with being subjugated by an elite class where there is no middle class only rich and poor, that is essentially a monarchical rule? Do you think the ordinary citizen of the Byzantine Empire was living a life of freedom and prosperity? It's only good to be King, until your assassinated (by your brother or your father's second wife, lol).


no matter the thread, 
do you believe that modern EU, especially the last 6 years wants middle class?

NO, they wanted to destroy middle class,

both capitalism and communism do not want middle class,

simply as in USA, same in EU, although build by people for people, they are under big multinational corporations, and especially under the banker's will,
tell us in USA what justice was given when Liehman (bro) and Goldman (Such) and did simple worker took their money as big shares or managers?
a banker's will is stronger than millions people demand and vote,

----------


## Yetos

> we turks are native Anatolians. LONG LIVE ANCİENT ANATOLİANS!


Ancient Anatolians spoke either Aramaic, either IE either Pelasgian/Etruscan, surely not Turkish

----------


## wlkwos

Why revived?

----------


## Boreas

I guess, this topic and many comments classify as white fasicm; middle level fasicm with heavily romatic nationalism

----------


## Rethel

> glorious


Are you serious? 
If it would be glorious, would not
collapse in sach disgracefull way
with such long agony.




> Byzantine Empire?


This such a thing never existed.

It was always Roman Empire.
In XIII century were even 5 Roman Empires, but still... 




> Wouldn't we be better off if we create a super-state, an empire once again?


You should speak about this with Greeks and Turkies 

Of course, it would be nice reconquer Constantinopole,
and it should be done in 1920, but now it is only dream...




> it is a republic of free people.


Nihilistan?

It would sound much better. 




> Do you think the ordinary citizen of the Byzantine Empire was living a life of freedom and prosperity?


In the Roman Empire on the east even slut could be an empress.
About prosperity: did you never hear about byzantian pomp-luxury?





> YI think that the Byzantines were living much better than the rest of the Europeans that time.


In the early Middle Ages probably yes.
West was very poor. This is the reason,
why orthodox buildings and ritus are so
rich in gold, and latin churches and ritus
so modest - compare to the eastern.





> No Turks following Islam shall be in the new revived Byzantine Empire.
> When I talked about the revival I meant a unification in the European lands. Once this power is established well, then we can move in the next step.
> The capital city will be the most prestigious city in the European lands, for the time being. That being said, it cannot be Constantinople (at least in the beginning).
> The regime must be democratic, to follow nowadays wave, an emperor would not be bad idea though.


In the world exist only a few worse exaples (or rather antiexamples)
how to ceate glorious empire, than so called Byzantium. Getting this
decline verion of Roman Empire as a exemplar model is simply stupid.




> to revive the old Gods







> how about no religion at all. That would be fair to everyone and no more wars. Problem solved.







> That's why total ban of religion, like in Soviet Union or China, never worked. After 80 years (3 generations) of programed atheism in Russia 75% of people still believe in god.


Soviets and China WERE a DEEPLY RELIGIOUS states.
Their religion was called COMMUNISM.
They belived in:
- communism and socialism
- atheism
- evolution
- natural selection
- superiority of socialistic economics
- internationalism
- a.s.o.

And you could be kill or prisoned if you didn't share this belives.




> This should tell us something.


Maybe, that atheism is unnatural, and faith in some kind of deity is better from even evolutionary point of view?




> Hitler and Stalin didn't kill because they were atheists, they killed because they were psychopaths.


You are so wrong, or you don't know anything about them?

1. If Stalin wouldn't became an atheist, he will be a priest and wouldnt kill anyone.

2. Stalin, as a bolsheviks before him, was killing, because belived, that he will not answer
before anyone - he belived that we are only animals (as atheists do) and it doesn't matter
how much people you kill - the most important thing is to survive and have power. When
you compare this with class conflict (which was based on atheism too) you have alleready
killing machine. 

3. Hitler wasn't killing because he was psychopat, but because he shared your belives about
natural selection. Only the best can survive, so he thought, that Germans are superior to others
and must survive. The lower species must be exterminate, exactly as darvinism predicted and as
you are beliving. So, his deeds were very logical and based on atheism and natural selection.
You belive in that, so what do you want from him? He was as theory of evolution wanted him to be.




> Actually, Hitler was a devout christian who claimed in his writings that he was "doing the Lord's work".


Americans (and as I see Canadians too) have a very interesting usefullness for Hitler.
They mostly know nothing about him, his belives and ideology, but they allways use
him, as a scarecrow, impute him sayings of somebody else, or twisting his words.

1. Hitler was a christian, as everybody else, when he was young and only then.
2. Hitler was using sometimes christian language in political purposes, because 99% of Germans were christians.
3. Hiler as a adoult men was an atheist, who belived deeply in evolution and natural selection.
4. He was rather a beliving germanic-pagan and spiritualists than a christian.
5. This saying which you quoted, if it is even true, wasn't about christian God, but some kind of providence or fate.
6. He was planning to wipe out christianity once and for all - the same claimed today neonazists groups.
7. He hated Jews, so how he can be beliving in jewish God and messiah.  :Laughing:  




> Lincoln


Atheist? 
Are you lost your mind?

And Jefferson was at least a deist, not an atheist.




> You remember that the richest part of Europe through all Middle Ages were Islamic Al Andalus with biggest city in Europe Cordoba, till it was destroyed and million books burned by Christians?


You really are beliving in that myth?  :Petrified: 




> Turks are no natives of Anatolia.


People living in Turkey mostly are anatolians natives.
Language and concept of that nation - aren't.

Can you argee with that formulation of matter?

Modern Greeks probably mostly arent the Greeks at all.
In VI-VIII centuries most of modern Greece land was slavic,
and greek language was useing only in costline, before that
period and even after that time there lived many different romanic
if not romanian people, during the Ottoman rules many Turks were
hellenized and probably settled there many jannissaries, and even in
XIX and XX century, the heart of Greece were (and is still) setteled by
Albanians - Attica, Beotia, Eubea and many parts of Peloponez. It is
like in Rome and in whole Latium, Toskany and Campania would live
exclusivly Berbers, and Italians would clame, that they are ancient
Romans - it would be an absurd...  :Laughing:  Or Palestinians in Jerusalem, 
and Judea as native Israelites! Did Medinat Jisrael do that?  :Laughing: 




> And who will be the leader of the new Byzantium Sanhedrin then? Byzantium was the New Jerusalem, this was the place, where the Oldest Torah (Leningrad Codex) was constructed (written) in 11th century AD, as the "oldest Book of all times" and reliable source of all historical sources. Then you consequently ask yourself, why was Russia in a total war with Byzantium and why the allegedly "1." Slavic "invasion" appeared in 6th century "AD" against Rome and Constantinople...when Slavs were already in constant wars with Avars (Hebrews) in Khazar Khanate... The answer is because they did not want to accept the new Christian cult, which was created in Byzantium and Rome...


What is this nonsens?  :Petrified:

----------


## Yetos

> In the Roman Empire on the east even slut could be an empress.
> About prosperity: did you never hear about byzantian pomp-luxury?


I like some of your thoughts !!!! true indeed, and sence of humor
but you have to admit that was also the oposite sometimes in East Roman Empire,
'Borgias' were not only in West,
neither luxury was a priviledge of East.
Anyway Monks, Arc Bishops, and judges or rich existed in both East and West,

----------


## Garrick

> However, I see no evidence that the Balkan states would agree to enter into some sort of political confederation with Greece.


Why not? It is very good idea. This idea in Serbia would have a lot of supporters.

----------


## Rethel

> Why not? It is very good idea. This idea in Serbia would have a lot of supporters.


Probably, if it would be an "Empire of the Serbs... and maybe some Greeks too..."  :Laughing:  
As it was during the rein of Stephan Dushan and his son.

----------


## Garrick

> Probably, if it would be an "Empire of the Serbs... and maybe some Greeks too..."  
> As it was during the rein of Stephan Dushan and his son.


It's not that. Serbs usually prefer holistic approach, while the emperor Dushan had partial approach. In other words, the whole territory where Byzantine civilization has flourished have priority over particular interests. So Serbs can support restored Byzantium because in this new superstate everyone will be better and it can be realized conditions for long-term development. Small poor states have no such chance.

----------


## Sile

Western European leaders in majority of historical decisions, have always blundered.

Byzantine should have been allowed to fall to the russians in the turko-russian wars and only when that happened should the British, france etc interfered and had their "Crimean wars against Russia "

----------


## Yetos

There can not be Byzantine revival anymore,

there could be alliances or Unions but not Byzantine empire,
like the old Greek Serbia at WW1 or Greece Yugoslavia Bulgaria at 1976 till Yugoslavian end.

if an empire can be resettle is Ottoman empire,
which, although as Greek I do not want, I see as more possible,
but not Byzantine

----------


## Garrick

> There can not be Byzantine revival anymore,
> 
> there could be alliances or Unions but not Byzantine empire,
> like the old Greek Serbia at WW1 or Greece Yugoslavia Bulgaria at 1976 till Yugoslavian end.
> 
> if an empire can be resettle is Ottoman empire,
> which, although as Greek I do not want, I see as more possible,
> but not Byzantine


Byzantine empire in the former borders very hardly to be rebuild, even in the modern mode as economic community, it is hard to suppose that Arabian countries would be the part that superstate. And the question is for Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria, if they want to be minority in country where majority of inhabitants would be nations of Near East and Northern Africa.




Of course, Ottoman empire is not possible, Ottoman empire collapsed in the 19th and early 20th century. Ottoman empire was sick man of Europe. The country collapsed due to its narrow-mindedness and luck of inventiveness, while the other countries developed it remained in the Middle age.

Punch_magazine_-_Turkey_Ltd_-_1896.jpg

----------


## DuPidh

> Yes, we will do everything for the beloved benevolent despot, who cares about his people. 
> 
> I think that the Byzantines were living much better than the rest of the Europeans that time.
> 
> The middle class appeared many years afterwards, I think during the period of the French Revolution.





Byzantines reigned for a long period of time. I think 1000 years. Of course there should have been few prosperous times but that time its not a time to be nostalgic for. Some really tragic things happened to the Byzantines. The Slavic invasion was the worst one. Byzantines lost most of their territories. Since you have a Greek flag at your avatar Macedonia used to be Greece. Its not any more.Its Slavic. Then Ottoman occupation happened that was also bad. The only thing Byzantines had that Northern European did not was the knowledge. The Byzantine schools were advanced for the time and the schools were in strong scientific foundations. its the Byzantine schools where Northers learned hard core subjects like math, geometry etc..
So in short its not a time for nostalgia....

----------


## MrErdo

Byzantine empire still exists. It is called Turkey. :)

----------


## pacificbreeze

I'd like Byzantine Empire to revived but it's seems impossible now because of Turkey and EU/US politics.

----------


## Milan

The Byzantines never knew themselves as such but only as Romans,this term is derived from much earlier Thracian settlement near Constantinople or their founder Byzas.The first use of the term "Byzantine" to label the later years of the Roman Empire was in 1557, when the German historian Hieronymus Wolf published his work Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ, a collection of historical sources.
If we are to say this to Basil or any other that he was "Byzantine" he will get a laugh at it,this is what he thought about himself;

Thirty years later, in spring 871, the eastern and western emperors, Basil I and Louis II, quarreled over control of Bari, which had been conquered from the Arabs by their joint forces. The "Byzantine" emperor sent an angry letter to his western counterpart, reprimanding him for usurping the title of emperor. He said that the Frankish rulers are simple reges, while the imperial title properly applied only to the overlord of the Romans, that is, to Basil himself. He also pointed out that each nation has its own title for the supreme ruler: for instance, the title of chaganus is used by the overlords of the Avars, Khazars (Gazari), and "Northmen" (Nortmanno). 

Or if we are to say that Constantine the great is regarded as "Byzantine emperor" will be the same,he founded Constantinople(Nova Roma) and moved the capital there,the empire,legacy,politics remained always Roman.

As for the revival of it,i doubt anyone will like to live under monarchy or much more this idea should have been embraced since 19th century starting of the demise of the Ottoman empire,but the "great powers" of that time would have much different say,as they wouldn't allowed this to happen,the warring Balkans countries have their issues too,then we have the Ottomans proud as Turks today in Anatolia with their own Turkish language.
This is just history and dream,which can never happen but better cooperation can happen if people from those regions wants.

----------


## Shlomo

> It is called EU these days. Although much better, it is a republic of free people.



I completely agree.

----------


## LABERIA

And who will be the Emperor of this Empire?

----------


## davef

> And who will be the Emperor of this Empire?


I elect Maleth for Emperor and Angela for Empress

----------


## LABERIA

> I elect Maleth for Emperor and Angela for Empress


OK. Then, from this moment i am the Despot of Epir.  :Grin:

----------


## Diurpaneus

> I elect Maleth for Emperor and Angela for Empress


Let's call it an update:you all are off-topic for a long time.


Secondly,you can divert the topic,if you really feel that you
have something to say(about history and genetics;for example,
I always feel that I have something to say)- the brain
responds differently to different stimului.
I agree, there are cases when the brain offers the same 
answer(and it surely isn't a bad one),but it can actually be
much worse:to offer the same answer to certain stimuli.

Generally,I'll stick to my conservative stance:
"You talking to me?"

----------


## Piro Ilir

> I elect Maleth for Emperor and Angela for Empress


You can't elect them, because there are no elections within the empire .

----------


## Angela

I beg leave to doubt the Balkans and Turkey would choose a half Northern Italian/half Tuscan as Empress, much less the Levant and North Africa, but you guys could do worse in my not so humble opinion.  :Grin: 

Plus, I think the Emperor gets to choose the Empress, yes?

----------


## Twilight

> I beg leave to doubt the Balkans and Turkey would choose a half Northern Italian/half Tuscan as Empress, much less the Levant and North Africa, but you guys could do worse in my not so humble opinion. 
> 
> Plus, I think the Emperor gets to choose the Empress, yes?


Perhaps it's the Emperess' turn to become the ruler. ;)

Welp, looks like Empress Angela has been summoned.

----------


## davef

SUMMONED! Like ifrit from final fantasy unleashing his fiery comet.

Anyway i shall bestow the new emperor with the following greekobalkanoroman name and it shalt beith....
Dionysiouises Caesaritis Snufflipigus Hermetophanundrum Monkeysaurus Rex

----------


## Diurpaneus

Romania is already the satellite of the Central European countries,
and we can clearly see the consequences,both culturally and economically,
joining the Visegrad group would legitimize this last form of enslavement,
blocking in the same time its and others' hopes of autonomy in an essential
Balkanic League.


Bulgaria has probably opposed so far to the integration of these two states in the
above-mentioned structure ,a Russian-influenced decision or not.


Products,many times of dubious quality(like freezed or expired bread and meat) or simply unnecessary,
have been imported (systematically or on pressures) from these Central European countries ,
while the foreign investments are dangerously concentrated in a specific part of Romania.


The economic situation strongly contrasts with the political one,where Romania has one of the
most pro-Euro-Atlantic(basically there is no anti- party) ,defeating,at this chapter,coutries
like Poland,Hungary or the Czech Republic.


The extreme lack of the autochthonous capital was the result of long-term administrative measures
such as ,the complete dissapearance of the Romanian banks,today's terms of crediting are
literally draconian,bureacracy,old-fashioned threats,blackmail and murders(see the recent
Condrea case),extremely high levels of inflation and the foreign banks' autocracy and monopoly
within the Financial System (see the BNR Governor's dictatorship).
It is interesting that the most intensive or decisive parts of these processes took place earlier,
in the 90's,when the Visegrad States have blocked the entrance of Romania into this League.


Because of the obstructions,the level of the local production is lower and much more monopolized,
than in Bulgaria,where the goods are cheaper and not rarely,better,indicating a more competitive
environment.These products enter more and more on the Romanian market.


It was not that easy, with a Communist regime that strongly resembled the USSR in the very bad years
and a North Korean-like propaganda,for the Romanian of those years,that had a Tv programme of two
hours,Yugoslavia and Bulgaria seemed like some sort of US,from certain points of view.


Though,some economic processes were boldly and well-implemented,both internally and externally,where
Romania was providing services and secondary products(esp. the oil industry and constructions) to the
North African,Middle Eastern,Asian and Latin American markets,using mechanisms similar to those described
by John Perkins.The situation of the Commercial Fleet speaks for itself-it was the 9th World's largest.


Among the things that don't make Ceausescu quite a hero,is that,despite the myths,his decision of 
paying rapidly the huge debt to World Bank in the conditions of the 70's Global Crisis is not
unique,the Brazilian right-winged dictators have done it similarly. 






"History will have to evolve quite a bit for this to take place.
For now, the question is Romania and Bulgaria."

https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/2011...military-force


"I personally hope that as members of the EU these four Central European
countries will continue as a regional group, leading to an enhanced Visegrad
both in content and as a geographical extension."

http://www.visegradgroup.eu/the-visegrad-book/jeszenszky-geza-the


http://bbj.hu/economy/v4-bulgaria-ro...greement_99449

----------


## Diurpaneus

I was recently to Madrid,in a coffee-shop I have met two Spaniards and the discussion went
towards their opinion about the Romanians.One of them smiled at me "The only problem with the 
Romanians is that they work too much!",
"why?",I answered,"I think that's because of Communism",he replied;
"It's much more than that;they work hard,because they want to have much,so they can joyfully
and proudly present to their neighbours and friends what they have accomplished,saying
'I have done something in my life',that's our old way of doing things",was my response.
This mentality also exists in the Aromanian families.



He countinued,saying that he knew some Romanians from Spain and one of his friends has
Romanian employees,who always stress him about punctuality and to keep the
workplace in a good condition.
The last thing he told me was,"the men are OK,very sociable,you can laugh and party for hours
with them,but the ladies are hard to conquer","por que?","because they are Orthodox,the Catholics are
allowing too much";I sincerely disapproved him,"It can't be",but he insisted.
I wanted to speak about the women,telling that "It's true ,they are well-mannered,but it has also to do with
cleverness". 
The man was not a dumb,he works at Prado.

----------


## Diurpaneus

Turkey is a country searching for stability,I suppose they would
want a Balkanic entity as a buffer zone.
China can be supportive,but we have to be careful, they are much more aggressive nowadays,acting like
a state-corporation,with no important Communist state left to trade with.
Who knows?Perhaps Great Britain...
We would have 5 seas,so a Commercial Fleet would be very useful,trading with
Brazil,India etc.

http://www.geoatlas.com/medias/maps/...OPE_XL_phy.jpg

We would be a knot of the silk road:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Silk_route.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road



Performing a little bit of taxation, assuring in the same time the good's optimal flux.
The program doesn't accept a bigger picture.

----------


## Diurpaneus

We are not Guinea pigs.

http://www.politico.eu/article/roman...oy-hans-klemm/


http://www.nineoclock.ro/laura-codru...n-directorate/


http://www.agerpres.ro/english/2016/...igest-17-31-11


http://www.romaniajournal.ro/tomis-a...inmates-books/


http://www.romania-insider.com/roman...tain-eu-funds/


an extremely savage model of changing a government:

"“People had to die so that the Government would finally resign”, Iohannis said, fueling endless conspiracy theories."

http://www.nineoclock.ro/a-year-after-klaus-iohannis-won-the-elections-my-government-mission-accomplished/


https://cristiansurubaru.wordpress.com/tag/colectiv/


He just didn't know.

http://hungarianfreepress.com/2016/0...or-to-romania/

But they did.

http://www.americanhungarianfederati...016-09-15.html

The unavoidable conflict:

http://hungarianfreepress.com/2016/0...an-federation/


Seriously now,Mr. Klemm is really playing with our kind and hospitable nature,
if he continues like that,nobody will be able to listen to him.

----------


## Ukko

I agree, good guard against threats to Europe.

Catholics where stupid to attack and undermine it, we suffer from that stupidity even today.

----------


## LABERIA

> I agree, good guard against threats to Europe.
> 
> Catholics where stupid to attack and undermine it, we suffer from that stupidity even today.


Your post can be summarized in, why the world roll in this way? If catholics didn't attacked the orthodox, you have to be sure that orthodox will attacked the catholics.

----------

