On the unique situation of Cassia's founding of a "Roman Group"

The social and political heart of the respublica community

Moderators: Publius Iunius Brutus, Caeso Cispius Laevus, Titus Flavius Severus, Marcus Flavius Celsus, Lucius Aurelius Curio, Lucius Curtius Philo

Re: On the unique situation of Cassia's founding of a "Roman Group"

Postby Gaius Cominius Laenas » Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:49 am

Gaius Florius Lupus wrote:I think Praetor Celsus is right. No harm was done by inviting others to this group. It is highly unlikely that this will have any effect on your further career in the Republic, Valeria Messalina, especially after you clarified your position publicly.

Roma Aterna is just a Facebook group, it is not a "competing organization". Our leges do not even know this term. Neither Cassia nor Paullus are enemies of the Republic. Antonius Paullus has not resigned. He understands his duties like a true Roman and only wants to avoid escalating the current situation. Cassia's resignation on the other hand was unjustified and showed poor judgement as well as a lack of certain virtues. Nevertheless she remains an important person in the worldwide Roman reconstructionist movement. It would be wise to maintain contact with her and to avoid hostilities. There might be future opportunities where we can cooperate with her and her group.

Those who joined Cassia's group are not taken away from our Republic. Apart from herself no other citizen has left the Republic after joining this Roman interest group on Facebook. There are many other Roman themed groups on Facebook. I am a member of several of them. This is not a matter of allegiance. I did it because I want to get information about Roman topics in my Facebook account. I assume this is the same for all the others. A Facebook group is neither a threat to us nor a protest movement against us.

What is important now is not alienating other friends of Cassia. We should focus on filling the positions that she abandoned and learn from the events. It is crucial for our Republic to avoid in the future that one person holds too many offices. So whenever a citizen is not able or willing to continue his duties it should not cause a crisis for the entire Republic.
Historically the accumulation of so many offices in one hand is what caused the downfall of the ancient republic. This was the way how the triumviri, Caesar and later Octavianus ruled. And this is not what we want.
I suggest the Senate looks into this issue.

Valete!
C. Florius Lupus


Salve Lupe,

Fair comments.

But I think we also must consider the purpose of these additional groups.

Nova Roma started the modern movement then became corrupt and non-functional.

The RPR formed as an alternative. But it never really took off for many reasons.

The CPR was formed to focus on the regional development of the CDR outside the context of other aspects of Romanitas.

The RR was formed as a synthesis of what NR could have become and also to further many of the goals of the CPR on a sacra publica level internationally.

Cassia's group is pretty much the RR 1:1. Cassia did not get her way. She wanted even more power. She didn't want to follow due process in resolving her concerns. So she created her own little kingdom (note no elections) and fled her duties to the 300+ people here in the RR. I fail to see how this helps the community. This is exactly the type of non-collaborative attitudes that have plagued the Roman community. Disagree with something? Take off shouting and stamping your feet.

Everything Cassia and Paullus desired could have been achieved in a Collegium and with the added collective resources of the RR. The only catch is that it would have required collaborating with other people who might hold various political ideas. It is a real shame and more complex than it first appears.

I see no net benefit here. Praetor Laevus called it as it is, selfish.
User avatar
Gaius Cominius Laenas
Quaestor
Quaestor
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:24 am
Location: Michigan, USA

Re: On the unique situation of Cassia's founding of a "Roman Group"

Postby Spurius Iuventius Catulus » Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:09 am

Laenas sal.

Given that I stated my agreement with RA's objectives, I had assumed my having read them would be obvious? As for the similarities between theirs and ours, I fail to see the issue as they're relatively common goals in this context. It would be far stranger to me if RA's goals weren't similar.

I am, however, noting that you've kindly quoted the portion of the Declaration that supports my reasoning in not taking Cassia's choice to move on as an affront -- i.e. our own organizational prohibition on political extremism promoting intolerance -- which was a significant factor for me in my own decision to join this group.

Or have we forgotten the matter that led us here?
Spurius Iuventius Catulus
"The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it."
Procurator, Province of Missuria
User avatar
Spurius Iuventius Catulus
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:58 am
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: On the unique situation of Cassia's founding of a "Roman Group"

Postby Lucius Metilius Niger » Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:14 pm

Gaius Cominius Laenas wrote:The CPR was formed to focus on the regional development of the CDR outside the context of other aspects of Romanitas.
I permit me to correct you
CPR is an International organization who focus on ROMANITAS, including firstly Cultus Deorum, because people of CPR are Polytheists in a great majority, but they are also interested on many subjects, like Social, History, archeology etc etc

the CPR not focus on regional development of CDR, we are present now in Italia, in France, in Costa Rica, in Brasil, and in Spain soon, I hope. Our activity center is localised in the Latin countries or Europe, Italy-France-Spain, but the organization, firstly and originally italian, a very roman organization, is international.

For me, the BIG difference between NR, RR, RPR and CPR is not their goals and objectives, but on very simple thing who is an innovation I think : the CPR is not a Virtual Republic, revivalistic one, or just a board, a website, a virtual group, but an organization who ABSOLUTELY NOT tend to take itself too seriously (it's very sad to take itself too seriously, it's the reason why many organizations implodes I think) we doesn't mind about magistrates titles, about virtual Senates, and people who have fonctions are very humbles...we not play at roleplaygames, our beliefs are serious, because we are polytheists, but we try to not take ourselves too seriously. It is crucial. European polytheists don't want to be drived by US people on virtual games, they don't need it, they living in the ancient world, and they are proud of their roman heritage, but with a lot of humility.

CPR is a LIVING COMMUNITY of polytheists, people who meet together, with big conviviality, and do Sacra Publica, visit museums, take lunches outside, make ludii, in real (poems, games etc) honors the Gods, and try to apply the romanitas values every day etc... European people have the suprem chance to live with the direct heritage of Romanitas, a living heritage, a living community.
Lucius Metilius Niger
 

Re: On the unique situation of Cassia's founding of a "Roman Group"

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:45 pm

Spurius Iuventius Catulus wrote:I am, however, noting that you've kindly quoted the portion of the Declaration that supports my reasoning in not taking Cassia's choice to move on as an affront -- i.e. our own organizational prohibition on political extremism promoting intolerance -- which was a significant factor for me in my own decision to join this group.
Or have we forgotten the matter that led us here?


If I remember correctly, Cassia Longina left our Republic, because we were too tolerant for her taste. She was not expelled, she wanted somebody else censored or expelled and our Consuls refused.
So who is promoting intolerance here?
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Kenya

Re: On the unique situation of Cassia's founding of a "Roman Group"

Postby Publius Iunius Brutus » Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:32 pm

Gaius Florius Lupus wrote:
Spurius Iuventius Catulus wrote:I am, however, noting that you've kindly quoted the portion of the Declaration that supports my reasoning in not taking Cassia's choice to move on as an affront -- i.e. our own organizational prohibition on political extremism promoting intolerance -- which was a significant factor for me in my own decision to join this group.
Or have we forgotten the matter that led us here?


If I remember correctly, Cassia Longina left our Republic, because we were too tolerant for her taste. She was not expelled, she wanted somebody else censored or expelled and our Consuls refused.
So who is promoting intolerance here?



Brutus sal.

I think this is worth commenting on. As you may know Lupe, Philo and myself helped write the Declaration you speak of.

The freedom of expression is a key aspect of the RR. This is a major reason why we are different from other groups.

There are a few exceptions to this stated in the Declaration. The Declaration forbids the RR being used as a vehicle for extremism. For instance, we don't look fondly upon Mussolini's views on Roman history. Any citizen using our fora to promote such views would be in potential violation of the Declaration. Lex Iunia-Fabia would be the process by which this breach would be explored. See: download/file.php?id=475

Maecenas, the citizen that Cassia was arguing with on a non-RR fora (private Facebook pages) certainly held some alt-right views. But none of these views were related to Rome or the RR. Similarly, Cassia often expressed views in private on the opposite side of the political spectrum. None of this really was any of the business of the RR. It was all expressed away from the RR.

Now this matter could have been explored by the RR to see if a violation occurred. Again the lex described provides this process. But Cassia did not choose this avenue. She just resigned in a huff. Maecenas then resigned when he realized he may have hurt the Republic.

We must be careful to not police the Internet. This sets a dangerous precedent. I honestly think that Maecenas' appointment as a scribe to the Consul was not wise from a public relations standpoint. Similarly I don't think Cassia respected her offices or the citizens in how she responded to a public conflict. She dragged the RR into a non Roman conflict. Maecenas should have been ignored. I frequently ignore political advocacy in my daily life... I think we all do.

I certainly don't see the Declaration being broken here. The opposite actually. The private poor choices of two citizens are responsible for this "scandal". The Republic is simply the unfortunate victim of these two people not burying the hatchet. One's private views on Trump, feminism, Islam et al. really should have no bearing here if it has no relevance to our objectives in the Declaration or how one performs their duties.
User avatar
Publius Iunius Brutus
Censor
Censor
Senator
Senator
Martis et Minervae Sacerdos
Martis et Minervae Sacerdos
Lictor Curiatus Magister
Lictor Curiatus Magister
Augur
Augur
 
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 5:54 am
Location: Nova Gallia

Re: On the unique situation of Cassia's founding of a "Roman Group"

Postby Spurius Iuventius Catulus » Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:17 pm

Gaius Florius Lupus wrote:
Spurius Iuventius Catulus wrote:I am, however, noting that you've kindly quoted the portion of the Declaration that supports my reasoning in not taking Cassia's choice to move on as an affront -- i.e. our own organizational prohibition on political extremism promoting intolerance -- which was a significant factor for me in my own decision to join this group.
Or have we forgotten the matter that led us here?


If I remember correctly, Cassia Longina left our Republic, because we were too tolerant for her taste. She was not expelled, she wanted somebody else censored or expelled and our Consuls refused.
So who is promoting intolerance here?


To clarify what I meant, I was pointing out that our Declaration specifically denounces fascism. The white nationalist and white supremacist movements are firmly under that umbrella. The issue at hand between Maecenas and Cassia related to Maecenas apparent sympathy for and promotion of that worldview. The Daily Stormer -- which according to my understanding of the situation, Maecenas liked and/or subscribed to on Facebook -- is overtly white supremacist. It's the Stormfront newsletter. They are literally fascists.

Also, let's dispense with the term "alt-right" as a neutral term. It is a term of art within the nationalist movement that created it, and even the AP refuses to use it. Call a spade a spade.
Spurius Iuventius Catulus
"The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it."
Procurator, Province of Missuria
User avatar
Spurius Iuventius Catulus
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:58 am
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: On the unique situation of Cassia's founding of a "Roman Group"

Postby Lucius Aurelius Curio » Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:30 pm

Curio Sal.

We are not here to debate politics. Cassia left and formed her own group. Who was right or wrong is irrelevant. Both behaved very poorly for public figures. Cassia was an elected Curule Aedile, yet made comments of a disparaging nature towards a certain demographic (straight white males). Maecenas was the representative of Philo Maior as he was gone for medical reasons. His behavior also was grossly inappropriate. Their political views are their own. It is expected of magistrates to get along, regardless of personal political, religious, or any other views they may hold.

As far as I'm concerned, that is the core of the issue here. She left after this blowout, (and after I refused to honor her request to censor him), and formed her own group. That is the issue at hand, not whether or not a now former citizen was or was not fascist or a neo nazi.

Valete Bene!

L. Aurelius Curio
Consul Minor
Vis per Unitatem Romanam
User avatar
Lucius Aurelius Curio
Consul
Consul
Governor of Transborealis Silva
Governor of Transborealis Silva
Lictor Curiatus
Lictor Curiatus
Fortunae Sacerdos
Fortunae Sacerdos
 
Posts: 645
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:04 pm

Re: On the unique situation of Cassia's founding of a "Roman Group"

Postby Publius Iunius Brutus » Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:36 pm

Lucius Aurelius Curio wrote: That is the issue at hand, not whether or not a now former citizen was or was not fascist or a neo nazi.


Brutus sal.

If any citizen is concerned about the behavior of a citizen, I remind them to report it to a Censor or a Praetor. Again, we can not read minds. We need to know about concerns to address them.

Concerning Cassia, I was never contacted upfront. Similarly, the Praetores said they were not contacted. Interestingly, I was only contacted by Maecenas once the word "nazi" was being tossed around... This prompted the investigation that led to both getting a Censorial Nota.

I can't promise we will draw the same conclusion as every citizen issuing a concern. But we will investigate ALL concerns. If you don't like a decision made on such a matter every citizen can appeal to the Consules, the Praetores, or to the Senate. You can appeal to all three if you want. Lots of avenues to address these concerns and appeal decisions.

The system here is much more fair than many other circumstances encountered in everyday life...
User avatar
Publius Iunius Brutus
Censor
Censor
Senator
Senator
Martis et Minervae Sacerdos
Martis et Minervae Sacerdos
Lictor Curiatus Magister
Lictor Curiatus Magister
Augur
Augur
 
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 5:54 am
Location: Nova Gallia

Re: On the unique situation of Cassia's founding of a "Roman Group"

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:47 am

Bene dixisti, Iuni Brute!
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Kenya

Re: On the unique situation of Cassia's founding of a "Roman Group"

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Mon May 08, 2017 8:25 pm

Recent events in the Roma Aeterna group should worry us.
In spite of their positive goals like building a temple, the group appeared suspicious from the beginning because of their outspoken stance against free speech. Accordingly they have already made an example of the first of their critics and banned him.
But now Cassia has deified her supposed ancestor C. Cassius Longinus, made herself priestess of his cult and declared cofounder Paullus and herself so called Augusti , which is the Latin title of the Roman Emperor.
This group of more than 200 followers is apparently glorifying the worst aspects of Roman civilization and the corruption of the Res Publica.
But what really worries me is the number of supporters who do not find anything wrong with it and accept it without criticism (Our Censor P. Iunius Brutus being the only positive exception).
What kind of people do we have in our global Roman community? How many modern Romans reject the achievements of democracy and Enlightenment and willingly accept Orwellian totalitarianism under a nice charismatic leader?
And I wonder how I could myself be so totally wrong about Cassia. She seems to develop more and more the insane character traits of Caligula. It might get extremely difficult to cooperate with Roma Aeterna.
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Kenya

PreviousNext

Return to Main Forum

cron