[Menydh]

There are two different issues mentioned here, and more which have not been mentioned.

In a comfortable order.

Eurovox, I sincerely hope that the concept of Euro-Siberia presented by Faye can be defined on bases other than being the contrary to the Eurasia project.

Surely you will be able to see the little substance in something that is defined as a contrarian to something else. Things must be possibled to be defined per se.

Without getting into further considerations, the concept has a certain flair which makes it geo-politically attractive. This is undeniable. The geostrategical interest of a Europe which extends beyond the Urals is, without a hint of doubt, of a considerable magnitude.

However, further considerations are needed since it is compelling to find out the bases upon which such a proposal is made. The larger a bridge is built, the more solid its foundations must be.

Siberia belongs to Russia and it is only a part of Europe so long as it belongs to Russia. This is so obvious and simple, that it is almost stupid to mention it. Almost. How it is a part of Europe it depends on how one defines Europe. And it is there where I believe that the Identitarian movement starts building on non-solid foundations. A solid foundation is one made of reality, not of myth.

So, next we should define what is Europe. And the first question should be, why should we have to define Europe?

Simply, because it is not as clearly defined as people would like to believe that it is. In fact it is much confusing. Confusing and yet necessary.

Salaün tells us that Europe is a cultural concept. Carnyx disgresses and says that it is a continent with a well defined [natural] borders. So it is a geographical concept for him. Agrippa agrees with Carnyx in that it is geographical and then he introduces the adjective European --now turned into some kind of generic gentilitium-- which he identifies under a wide but well-known range of concepts. Without stopping to define each and every of these concepts and without explaining their are precise relation to being European. Fair enough. This is a discussion forum and no-one is expected to offer a complete and definitive exposition as in a written thesis. Questions are open to debate.

But notice too how Agrippa next says that "where Europeans live and identify as such, living in larger communities and settlements, I see no reason to not accept them as Europeans, even more so if those settlement just border the geographical borders of Europe."

This is a problem because once we admit that Siberia is a part of Europe, the next geographical borders of Europe in the North-East become those of Siberia. And, doesn't Alaska border with Siberia?

It should go without saying that I am almost sure that this is not what Agrippa meant to say. However, I would be careful with such things because some might see in a small error a chance to stretch things so to reach their agendas. This is not an exercise to test the elasticity of Europe. Let us just consider this a parenthesis and returnn to the central issue. What is Europe?

It's late so I'll give my opinion as briefly as possible.

Europe is a nightmare and Europe is an ideal. It can be one or another. In either case, Europe is not as real as we might want (or not) to believe. Which is why I started talking about building when I started this post.

It is defined in different ways depending on under which political or other interests it is being defined. And not just. There is a sense of chaos in it. A chaos which is directly derived from the fact that it is not as real as it is assumed.

But if we looked at Europe from a historical perspective, we might be able to identify a denominator which has been common in the concept of Europe in the past. Europe as an ideal. Which is also common to the hopes of modern days nationalists. Or at least no few of them.

This is not exempt of trouble in modern days. It is my strong belief that one of the main elements which were central to the formation of that ideal is being neglected and negated, even destroyed.

A crippled Europe as an ideal is not any ideal.

I'll leave it for now as an excercise to find out what makes it a crippled ideal. At least for those who agree in that it is an ideal. Those who don't, who believe that it is much real and that all that is needed is to put the pieces together as in a puzzle, without a glue, I would expect them to explain it in a convincing manner.