Definition of Europe

[Galician]

How would you define Europe?

[Delbáeth]

Originally Posted by Galician

How would you define Europe?

In what sense? Geopolitical or Geographical?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Highland Thistle

In what sense? Geopolitical or Geographical?

I would also add.. Historical? And if so, at which period of time in History?

[Uri]

For me, Europe is more a Cultural term than a geographical one. Geographically, it's only a peninsula of Asia.
This Cultural traits are a mix of Pagan and Christian beliefs and the fact that, in a reduced space, the people developed societies that evolucioned into urban ones with continuity in the present (in a different sense,for example, the civilizations of ancient Middle East don't survive to the current times; only aspects like script or mathematics are now useful, but his ethic system and religious values were destroyed by the islamic monotheism. In Europe, the Arts, the Law (at least, the Roman Legacy) and some aspects of Christian beliefs and celebrations, are a surviving evidence of this ancient values.

When I say "Cultural" I'm not including the Americas, Australia and other areas colonised by european inmigrants, because they are secondary areas of expansion with more specifical traits not related to his european origin; another sociopolitical system based on ideas that, for more reasons (importance of stablished religions, monarquical systems...) were not possible to develop in Europe (english religious dissidence in North America, the penal colony in Australia and even, Siberia, the "frontier" caracter of his population due to the contact with indigenous peoples).

[Ostrogorski]

Originally Posted by Uri

the civilizations of ancient Middle East don't survive to the current times; only aspects like script or mathematics are now useful, but his ethic system and religious values were destroyed by the islamic monotheism.

You're so wrong, mate. Look deeper...

Islam changed nothing, because Islam comes from the same root. They've kept almost whole their pre-Islamic tradition, only thing they've discard are religious prostitution, child sacrifices, worshiping of abominations like Moloch, Baal Hadad, Asherah and Astarte and instead worship only El or Hubbal, whom they call Allah.

Everything else is the same - chtonic symbolism like crescent and star, lunar calendar, stone worshiping - Bethel ( Kaaba for example), polygamy etc.

Simply, you can take Semite from the desert, but you can't take desert out of Semite.

In Europe, the Arts, the Law (at least, the Roman Legacy) and some aspects of Christian beliefs and celebrations, are a surviving evidence of this ancient values.

Europe is turning more and more to it's Babylon whore role model - USA, and is every day lesser and lesser Christian and therefore European, worshiping money ( golden calf) instead of God!

...Siberia, the "frontier" caracter of his population due to the contact with indigenous peoples.

Indigenous peoples of Siberia were never majority there nor were they major civilizational force. It were always Russians!

[Uri]

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

Islam changed nothing, because Islam comes from the same root. They've kept almost whole their pre-Islamic tradition, only thing they've discard are religious prostitution, child sacrifices, worshiping of abominations like Moloch, Baal Hadad, Asherah and Astarte and instead worship only El or Hubbal, whom they call Allah.

Everything else is the same - chtonic symbolism like crescent and star, lunar calendar, stone worshiping - Bethel ( Kaaba for example), polygamy etc.

Yes, that's true. I was referring to the fact that, for example, ancient sumerians, assirians (semites) or persians (not semites) had "broken" his continuity by adopting islam as main religion. It's clear that, for example, nothing from ancient egyptians remained in muslim Egypt. Also, the Saddam Hussein's regime honoured the ancient Babylonians but this was only an excentricity.
It's curious to see that Islam specifically prohibited the images of human beeings or deities. They ancestors of the desert represented their gods (or abominations) without problems.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

Indigenous peoples of Siberia were never majority there nor were they major civilizational force. It were always Russians!

This perhaps is an error of mine with the comma. Obviously, I was referring to North America, not to Siberia.

[Galician]

Originally Posted by Highland Thistle

In what sense? Geopolitical or Geographical?

I am looking for a geopolitical definition that would define what Europe is.

[Errigal]

I would say Europe is the cultural area of the Roman Empire which was maintained and expanded on by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The regions permanently lost to Islam (the Maghreb, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor) obviously are no longer part of Europe.

I have never been to the Caucasus but I would say the Georgians are European while the Armenians are not. The Armenians seem too Oriental to me.

[Der]

So you wouldn't consider Ireland, Scotland, Germany and Russia... to be Europe?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Der

So you wouldn't consider Ireland, Scotland, Germany and Russia... to be Europe?

See here: Are uralids caucasoids?, here: The concept of Identity? and here: On the "Social Right" (split discussion).

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Der

So you wouldn't consider Ireland, Scotland, Germany and Russia... to be Europe?

Oh no, I definitely would consider those regions as part of Europe, along with Poland, Ukraine etc. These regions were converted by missionaries from the old Eastern and Western Roman Empires long ago and came to see Rome and Byzantium as their spiritual capitals.

The Nordic countries are bit of a special case. It seems as if Roman or Orthodox Christianity did not really sink right down into their cultures. Hilaire Belloc said the same is true of Germany and he may be partly right. I think he was writing out of anger just after the First World War and to counter all the pro-Germanic thinking in England which grew up under Queen Victoria and Prince Albert's influence. I just read his Europe and the Faith a month ago and found it quite interesting. It is more of a long editorial than a well-balanced history, but it is worth looking at.

[Delbáeth]

This is basically Europe for me, minus Turkey. (We all know it should be Greek ).

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Errigal

I have never been to the Caucasus but I would say the Georgians are European while the Armenians are not. The Armenians seem too Oriental to me.

Pardon me, but isn't it a bit too arbitrary? Georgians are Europeans and Armenians are not? On what ground? They are both Christian nations, they share a very similar culture and cultural patterns. Both have undergone a profound influence from the (both Islamic and pre-Islamic) Persian cuture, as well as from the Ottoman culture. Actually, one could say exactly the opposite, namely that, judging by a purely linguistical criteria, Armenians are more European than Georgians, because Armenian is, unlike Geogian, an Indo-European language, just as most European languages. But since I am not much of an "Indo-Europeanist", I don't opine along such an argument.

I would say that neither of those two nations are European, which, of course, does not mean to belittle them in any way.

Originally Posted by Der

So you wouldn't consider Ireland, Scotland, Germany and Russia... to be Europe?

I think that you misunderstood Errigal: he meant the spiritual and cultural concept of Romanitas, whereof Europe is an heir, and he did not mean the territorial extension of the Roman Empire at this or that moment in history. Romanitas (ie. Europeanness) spread to Russia, Scotland, Ireland, Scandinavia etc, while it was ousted from Northern Africa and Anatolia.

Originally Posted by Errigal

The Nordic countries are bit of a special case. It seems as if Roman or Orthodox Christianity did not really sink right down into their cultures. Hilaire Belloc said the same is true of Germany and he may be partly right. I think he was writing out of anger just after the First World War and to counter all the pro-Germanic thinking in England which grew up under Queen Victoria and Prince Albert's influence. I just read his Europe and the Faith a month ago and found it quite interesting. It is more of a long editorial than a well-balanced history, but it is worth looking at.

Actually, Belloc was very much anti-Prussian and not anti-German in general. He saw the Prussian spirit as something very negative.

I appreciate Belloc in many of his views, but, on the other hand, I disagree and - I must say that I am almost appalled - by his black-and-white and Manichean outlook at the frist world war. He somehow saw that conflict as one opposing the forces of Christian civilization, the Forces of the Light, of the Good, the Beatiful and the True (as embodied in the Entente Cordiale), against the Evil Forces of the Darkeness of New Heathendom and Barbarity, as embodied in the forces of the Axis (Germany/Prussia and its allies). I have no clue, as to whence he might have borrowed such a silly and one-sided outlook. Or was it simply the product of the old-fashioned war jingoism? Or maybe fruit of some of his personal obsessions?

[Ostrogorski]

That Europe can be defined only through the heritage of the Roman empire and Christian faith is oversimplification of European identity and Europe itself.

Like Nietzsche said, Europe is the last haven of Hyperboreans ( children of the sun). There were other havens as well, like Persia, Tocharia, (V)India but they fell into the hands of children of the desert, children of the steppe and children of the jungle.

Roman empire and Christianity were sowed at already fertile field of Hyperborean spirit. Sacred imperial idea is essentially Hyperborean and only the Hyperboreans are capable of creating great empires. Children of desert aren't - they can only create short lasting and blood sucking imitations of real empires. Why? Because they cannot imagine anything greater or brighter than their city-state - the Polis.

Whenever you see the blood sucking and short living empire, you'll know that the only ruling spirit in it is the spirit of desert, and that their only god is Mamon, no matter whether the name of that "empire" is caliphate, sultanate, Ottoman, British or American "empire".

But Roman empire wasn't the only Hyperborean empire at the time, neither was it the first. Greek-Macedonian empire of the Alexander the great and it's successors - Ptolemaic, Seleucid and Macedon empire. It was Alexander's empire that brought Hyperborean Hellenism to near and middle east and thus making the later Roman conquest of these lands a lot easier.

Then there's also Persian empire and it's fascinating Zoroastrian religion, Sarmatian and Armenian, but also early Aryan empire in (V)India.


Ever wonder why was Europe for such a long time only resort of Christianity? And why was it abandoned by the desert people?

The answer is simple, it is essentially Hyperborean - the sign of honorable cross, solar calendar we use, celebration of the birth of the God the savior which happens to be during the winter solstice - Sol Invictus, the holy trinity, the three wizards that came from the east to greet the savior of the world were the 3 Irano-Aryan priests etc.

From time to time, there and then, we could hear the beautiful voice of Hyperborea in Persia and India, but unfortunately not hearing it for such a long time only means that the desert and the jungle obviously swallowed it and silenced it for good...

[Marulus]

Who are Hyperboreans?

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

That Europe can be defined only through the heritage of the Roman empire and Christian faith is oversimplification of European identity and Europe itself.

There is a third element, which is the Hellenic philosophy. And elements of pre-Christian heathendom need not be left out from the equation.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

Because they cannot imagine anything greater or brighter than their city-state - the Polis.

Then it means that Greeks - whose main political-organizational unit was also polis - are not Hyperboreans? Polis was the favourite political unit of the Greeks during the brightest period of their culture (the Classical Age). During those times they looked with scorn towards political units of different organizational forms, like the Kingdom of Macedonia or the Persian Empire. For the classical Greeks living in poleis, they were barbarians.

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

Ever wonder why was Europe for such a long time only resort of Christianity? And why were it abandoned by the desert people?

The answer is simple, it is essentially Hyperborean - the sign of honorable cross, solar calendar we use, celebration of the birth of the God the savior which happens to be during the winter solstice - Sol Invictus, the holy trinity, the three wizards that came from the east to greet the savior of the world were the 3 Irano-Aryan priests etc.

Interesting observations, although they don't convince me in their entirety. In this case Hyperborean seems to be synonymous with Aryan/Indo-European?

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

From time to time, there and then, we could hear the beautiful voice of Hyperborea in Persia and India, but unfortunately not hearing it for such a long time only means that the desert and the jungle obviously swallowed it and silenced it for good...

What would then be the natural habitat of the Hyperboreans, whatever that terms means?

[Ostrogorski]

Originally Posted by Marulus

Who are Hyperboreans?

Originally Posted by Marulus