How far do you think the European Union should expand?

[Sifjar]

Originally Posted by Theobald

Nobody but ignorant Americans can deny the Europeanness of Greece, Serbia or Ukraine.

But you're against the expansion of the European Union on the past Eastern European , however geopolitically Greece is the member state of the European Union, and economically the Greeks are doing well compared 'Ukrainians', so the expansion would give the Ukrainian's stability in social, economic and politics as well. I'm not saying that EU is all for positiveness but to integrate a society economically such as '' Ukraine'' as much benefits

[Monolith]

My opinion about EU is somewhere between dissolution and restructuring. I believe that EU should be a strong military alliance, in order to protect European values and peoples from foreign threats. Also, certain free trade agreements between European countries could be used to protect European products from foreign competition.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

The problem maybe that certain Skopjans immigrants in Australia, are too quick to jump into conclusions.

How do you know he's from Skoplje?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Plethon

And moreover, I think that that Russians are too proud ever to allow to the euro-(c)rats from the Brothel of Brussels tu rule over them and impose them regulations on, for example, how mach crops they are allowed to grow.

In fact I don't think ever having read that Russia has made any approach to the E.U. with the intention of joining the brothel.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Monolith

My opinion about EU is somewhere between dissolution and restructuring. I believe that EU should be a strong military alliance, in order to protect European values and peoples from foreign threats. Also, certain free trade agreements between European countries could be used to protect European products from foreign competition.

True that the state of the military throughout E.U. countries is... ridiculous? pathetic? pitiful? ..whatever, but relying on alien federated troops (read America) is the same mistake committed by the late Roman Empire which precipitated its fall (never mind more exotic interpretations). Which, by the way, I've read somewhere that it was a reason why a short-lived [true] Western split occurred (the so-called Gallic Empire, made up by Gallia, Hispania and Britannia) against what was perceived erroneous policy of the Eastern part of the Empire (From Rome, eastwards to Byzantium).

How do you know he's from Skoplje?

Do you mean that he could be a Greek of "Slavic meta-ethnicity"?.

[Theobald]

Originally Posted by Sifjar

But you're against the expansion of the European Union on the past Eastern European

Where did I say that ?

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Sifjar

But you're against the expansion of the European Union on the past Eastern European , however geopolitically Greece is the member state of the European Union, and economically the Greeks are doing well compared 'Ukrainians', so the expansion would give the Ukrainian's stability in social, economic and politics as well. I'm not saying that EU is all for positiveness but to integrate a society economically such as '' Ukraine'' as much benefits

Integration into such an anti-national system makes you lose your national soul and resources (the sellout...) and in the long term makes you totally dependent on the faceless international system, which is ruled by forces that not even governments of the biggest European countries are able to control and rein in.

So, I think that the losses in the long term outweigh the possible short-term benefits.

Nations and countries should enhance their wealth and pursue their economic interests internationally by bilateral co-operation and nationally by trying to rely on their own forces, ie. autarky as much as possible.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

True that the state of the military throughout E.U. countries is... ridiculous? pathetic? pitiful? ..whatever, but relying on alien federated troops (read America) is the same mistake committed by the late Roman Empire which precipitated its fall (never mind more exotic interpretations). Which, by the way, I've read somewhere that it was a reason why a short-lived [true] Western split occurred (the so-called Gallic Empire, made up by Gallia, Hispania and Britannia) against what was perceived erroneous policy of the Eastern part of the Empire (From Rome, eastwards to Byzantium).

Yes, I've read about that too, and came to a very similar conclusion. But I had no idea that the overall state of the military through EU countries is bad. I always had an impression that some countries(namely France, UK, Germany) have pretty strong and well equipped armies?

Do you mean that he could be a Greek of "Slavic meta-ethnicity"?.

No.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Monolith

Yes, I've read about that too, and came to a very similar conclusion. But I had no idea that the overall state of the military through EU countries is bad. I always had an impression that some countries(namely France, UK, Germany) have pretty strong and well equipped armies?

And plenty of alien [non-federated] integrated troops in their "legions", as it also happened in the late Roman Empire.

Recently there have been some voices here from the military warning about the unreal probability that those foreigners set themselves to defend the country in the event that it was needed.

[Agrippa]

If the European Union would be of real value and truly European, acting in the interests of true Europeans and humanity, this question would be more interesting and answered by me like this:
The European Union should expand as far as were European people by race, culture and spirit live, no matter where they are and exclude all areas, even if they are on the continent, small or large, which are not inhabited by Europeans. If Europeans would settle en masse in Central Asia again, Central Asia should be welcomed to the Union of the European People, if an area of the continent Europe should be lost to foreign elements, this area should be excluded and cordonef until they are dominated by Europeans again.
Like today, the European Union (in America and in the Pacific) could have members with colonies, which would be by that definition only an indirect part of the Union of the European people in which only the locals with European heritage should be looked as Europeans obviously.

Geography only matters if its about limits of settlements and people.

Russians are Europeans, Turks not - if parts of Turkey would be settled by Greeks, it would be another matter. Same for North Africa - if in parts of North Africa would live people of European heritage, race and occidental culture, like it was the case for some parts of the former French colonies, it would be again a different matter whereas muslims with non European racial and cultural heritage should not be members.

[Lagun]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

And plenty of alien [non-federated] integrated troops in their "legions", as it also happened in the late Roman Empire.

Recently there have been some voices here from the military warning about the unreal probability that those foreigners set themselves to defend the country in the event that it was needed.

Do you mean the presence of Morrocans and Southamericans in the Spanish army for instance? I did not know that Germany, UK.. had a similar problem.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

If the European Union would be of real value and truly European, acting in the interests of true Europeans and humanity, this question would be more interesting and answered by me like this:
The European Union should expand as far as were European people by race, culture and spirit live, no matter where they are and exclude all areas, even if they are on the continent, small or large, which are not inhabited by Europeans. If Europeans would settle en masse in Central Asia again, Central Asia should be welcomed to the Union of the European People, if an area of the continent Europe should be lost to foreign elements, this area should be excluded and cordonef until they are dominated by Europeans again.
Like today, the European Union (in America and in the Pacific) could have members with colonies, which would be by that definition only an indirect part of the Union of the European people in which only the locals with European heritage should be looked as Europeans obviously.

Is this not a white nationalism of sorts?

Some kind of jacobinism and racial internationalism (no doubts by ways of socialism, call it national-socialism or whatever else) taken to the fields of race, that negates the superior and absolute value of ethnicity and national identity.

I, for one, object to it to the point of rejection.

Geography only matters if its about limits of settlements and people.

Take no offense, but I find this sentence too vague coming from you.

Russians are Europeans, Turks not - if parts of Turkey would be settled by Greeks, it would be another matter. Same for North Africa - if in parts of North Africa would live people of European heritage, race and occidental culture, like it was the case for some parts of the former French colonies, it would be again a different matter whereas muslims with non European racial and cultural heritage should not be members.

Opposed to the proletaryanist ideas of a Europe defined on the sole bases of a badly defined race, there is the aristocratic ideals of a Europe based on her real roots as a high Civilization.

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by Sifjar

[...] geopolitically Greece is the member state of the European Union, and economically the Greeks are doing well compared 'Ukrainians', so the expansion would give the Ukrainian's stability in social, economic and politics as well. I'm not saying that EU is all for positiveness but to integrate a society economically such as '' Ukraine'' as much benefits

Viewed from a short-term economical perspective there could be benefits, although I wouldn't bet on it. The big problem is that the nation of Ukraine most certainly would not benefit from it, just like other European nations and the gentiles did not benefit from it. I think we need to get past the point where the EU is discussed in terms that stem from official EU discourse, since that perspective is irrelevant from a nationalist point of view.

If I may ask you, what in your opinion is good about the EU?

[Sifjar]

Originally Posted by Theobald

Where did I say that ?

So you're not against the expansion of the European Union on the past Eastern European states? However please elaborate your hesitation with '' Huntington's theory?

[Sifjar]

Originally Posted by Seekers

If I may ask you, what in your opinion is good about the EU?

I'm speaking from the '' economical '' perspectives, because trading between members states are massive and this is from the geopolitical point of aspect . However from my personal opinion EU is a great institution with great potential because it has been the only body that linked other part of Europe much closer. But of cos everyone of us has different views.