[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

You are not wrong in your perception that most people here are [ethno-]nationalists. No need to correct you there.

This part is basically everything you said that actually relates to my post, and to any of my sentiment.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

But you are wrong in your concept of being "Europeanist".

I'll explain this next, but first let me deal with another thing you said: my ethnic/national identity is not "sub-European". "Sub-European" implies that, in order to be, it depends on anything Europe, which is far from right as it can be attested throughout history, and because Europe is after all circumstancial.

It is, in fact quite the opposite. Being European does not grant an element of identity, if you are not part of a national/ethnic identity that is in turn identified as "European". Therefore, European is (if something) a sub-identity. Not the other way round.

But let us go back to the idea of being "Europeanist". One should first define what is Europe, an who are the Europeans.

If tomorrow the Iberian Peninsula was placed in the middle of the Atlantic, I would continue being a Spaniard and that's all that matters to me. Of course I'd miss the climate and the waters of our eastern coasts of the Mediterranean. But peace has a price. I wouldn't miss much more, neither north of the Pyrenees nor south of the Strait.

What I'm saying is that my identity would not vary in the least. And yet you think that European is an identity? Well, no. Or at least not in the way you think. It is a political... geopolitical identity. But that does not compare to an ethnic identity.

However, undeniably, as ethnic nationalists one must not forget that, while ethnicity comes as a result of an evolution of a people or peoples, together and in a relative isolation from other groups, the isolation is not total even from before the ethnogenesis of the nation takes place.

What does this mean? Well, it means that the isolation being relative, it is because it is produced inside the boundaries of a more or less defined geographical environment of cultures, which inevitably influence in a greater or lesser degree into yours, at the various moments of this evolution (or, which assimilate influences similar to the ones you do, in different degrees). Eventually an environment in which you interact with these other groups, ethnicities, nations.

So there we have Europe defined. A common geographic environment that provides a space for cultural interaction among different ethnicities, identities, nations. Both historically and in the present moment.

To be Europeanist, or a Pro-Europeanist, implies to realize and to accept this relation, and a will to improve its terms. But if you push it further, if you stretch it beyond its natural limits, you attempt against the preservation, sovereignty and freedom of those very identities that make up the face of Europe and you are therefore not being a Europeanist, but a Pan-Europeanist.

My allegiance to my nation, to my country, to my people is absolute and irrevocable. My allegiance to Europe is relative and reciprocal. What makes me an Europeanist is that I want it to be, ideally, at the best level. Unfortunately this is a chimera and the next alternative, which is not bad at all, is to choose allegiances on individual bases within this environment.


p.s. I've never voted in this poll, it's always looked to me of little substance.

The rest is you trying to school me, based on false premises about my opinions. And this was never about my opinions. I didnt attempt to define Europe, nor Europeanism. I simply defined what most people at Stirpes are all about, and thats all I said. And to that, you agreed, in the first few lines. The rest is an opposition to what you believe I stand for, and what you believe I think about the subjects you are describing (and you are mistaken). This was never about my belief, but you've made it, now.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

You are committing a terrible mistake here. What you define is not Europe. What you define are some United States of Europe, a la United States of America or some other such beast.

Europe is made up of sovereign and free nations. For a Europeanist this should be sacred to preserve, the integrity, sovereignty and freedom of those nations.

But I warn you that if your idea of Europe is based upon a political construct, you will likely end up with nothing in your hand because you will have left nothing of Europe. You'll have brought America into Europe, and nothing will make us different from them anymore. God! I can even imagine hundreds of years later, people in Europe talking of heritages that are a vague memory to them.

You have the answer to the last part, in my previous post.

To answer what "European Nationalists" means, it means just that: Europeans and Nationalists. Not meaning that Europe is a "nation", which is clearly not.

Same thing, new post. I am not defining Europe, and I am not for the EU or a European nation, or "the United States of Europe". That is all in your mind, not mine. But you are trying to define what I stand for, you are trying to make it easier to ignore what I say, by simply laying words in my mouth, interpreting what I am about, by saying things I dont sympathize with, and by changing the subject.

Terminology such as "sub-European" was more coincidental than anything; it was never an attempt to project a view of Europe, a definition of Europe, or any non-objective matter, that we dont all agree about. It was simply terminology, to articulate what I was talking about, and I was talking about the sovereign countries and the nations that today make up the geopolitical Europe.

What you have just pulled, is one big straw man. There are no merits in discussing this straw man. What I wrote, stands. What you wrote, doesnt, because you cannot define me, and misinterpret me, without my objection. And you can define your view of Europe and your idea of Europeanism all you want, but dont attempt to taint it as if you are correcting me, because that was never my attempt in those posts.