How far do you think the European Union should expand?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Llywarch Hen

Interesting, and should be discussed. I as a Protestant atheist do have acertain kneejerk dislike of Catholic forms. However, I live in Russia, and don't experience the same with regard to Orthodoxy. Maybe I'm just too close to Roman Catholicism (my father's Irish family) to dispassionately evaluate it, but this is a real part of my feelings.

That's a trivialization.

I find a celibate male priesthood rather distasteful. Of course, it's not beyond me to overcome this, by virtue of sound reason over gut instinct, but to not acknowledge it would be equally bad.

Maybe this is because you are not meant to understand why so many great thinkers have lived in celibate or near celibate, to sacrifice their entire selfs to their work, not being priests.

It should also be noted that Russian thinkers, notably Eurasianists like Gumilyov, view the West as one, the "RomanoGermanic Superethnos".

They are also "Eurasianists". It is no one's fault if the men in white haven't come for them yet.

Originally Posted by Sifjar

I'm not a great expert in theology however I am aware that two teleological schools came in conflict which is the '' Protestant and the Catholic'' mean while the Bishop of the Rome sees as the '' icon'' of the the central authority of all the '' Christendom '' over the '' Origin of the German emperors, the North Italian and also the France and also low countries. It's very strange how geographically locations played important rolls even from the beginning.

In the early Church the Bishop of Rome was primus inter pares with the Patriarchs of Contantinople and of Alexandria. It would be interesting to find out how much of the centralization of power in the figure of the Bishop of Rome is Latin, and how much comes from a different source.

Other than that, I agree with Breha.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Superstar

The very fact that he posed the question makes a statement. But hey, maybe I did jump to a conclusion.

Now a question implies a statement. Oh well..

Bitola, not Skopje.

Skopje as in the Republic of Skopje. Not as in the city of Skopje.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

We are talking of Europe, not of any individual nation. And as it happens, I do not share any views of any racial connection throughout the entire spectrum of Europe strong and homogenous enough to make a case for any European structure, or pre-structure.

Such views are derivatives in the realm of what being very generous I will call aryanology (a more appropriate name would be aryanomania).

Inside of Europe we see just the repetition of the basic 6-race type-scheme (Nordid, Cromagnoid, Mediterranid, Dinarid, Alpinoid, Osteuropid) - the main variation between nations is about percentages but there are always overlaps and only certain regions and more distant areas-people are more different.

This is true for the racial specialisation, genetically we can deal with similarities as well, with just the extremes clustering more closely-distantly and relative to non-European people like Ashkenazic Jews (even though they have signicant European admixture!) the case is even more clear.

Compare with this study about Euro-American and Jewish clusters on Dienekes blog:
Dienekes\' Anthropology Blog

Dienekes\' Anthropology Blog: Genetic structure of European Americans
Dienekes\' Anthropology Blog: Genetic structure of European Americans

Europeans have primarily a gradient from North-North Western (Cluster 1: SWE, GB, PL) to South Eastern Europe (Cluster 2: GRE, IT), with Iberia (Spain) being in between with this being primarily the result of the varying Neolithic input I guess. But as a whole Europeans form a cluster on their own with non-Europeans staying largely outside - Jews f.e. have only single individuals in the spectrum but cluster overall independently (Cluster 3) and clearly outside of the European spectrum.
123.jpg (image)

Culture is a tool for individuals and biological units of higher lifeforms and humans in particular. A culture working against the needs and benefit of the people and group it should serve should be corrected or abandoned.

Europeans were closer to a optimum than any other people and still have a great potential not just racially, but also culturally, there is just the need for some corrections.

The Indoeuropean cultural fundament and occidental spirit together with the racial make up is what being European is or should be about.

Being Nordid, Alpinid or Mediterranid alone doesnt make one European alone, but it makes a bloodline at least integrable by race because it fulfils the first precondition. One who doesnt fulfil the first precondition is excluded automatically with exception of very exceptional individuals of greatest value probably.

Or do you think a Sudanese is closer to a Spaniard than a Swede or Greek?
Its all about distance, both between individuals as well as groups on the one hand and qualitative differences, different developmental levels on the other. Obviously you could say a Russian is not like my Spaniards, but a Russian is closer than a Sudanese or Wedda and its also more rational to support the first, as long as they are no concrete threat for your ethnocultural regional group, than the latter, because of the common heritage in many aspects - even if there are differences as well.

Inside of Spain you can distinguish different racial types, ethnic formations and regions as well, so again its very relative, depends on with whom you are comparing. Things are in nature as well as if its about humans in general always hierarchic.
Your brother is closer to you than your cousin, but your cousin closer than...
I think you got what I mean. From a certain point of development and in certain situations your cousin is as good as your brother because your whole family might be at stake and to still debate who's closer will just help the enemies of your family to wipe out all of you.

In the end I'm ready to work with everyone together for reaching a good goal. To name an example, in real policy its better to have an Indian president of a former colony than a European corrupt subject which sells out his own people and mankind the same time to the high finance, plutocratic oligarchy. If a corrupted cousin works against the family, but a foreigner does something good for it, the cousin will be punished and the foreigner awarded. That doesnt make him a family member though, not even one of the second line, whereas the relative of the treacherous cousin is still a preferable individual member of the family.

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by Sifjar

I'm speaking from the '' economical '' perspectives, because trading between members states are massive and this is from the geopolitical point of aspect .

Trade has only little to do with it in my opinion. Take Sweden as an example, who was already in beneficial trading agreements, before joining the EU, with all or nearly all of those with whom she is trading with today. However, trading with some countries outside the EU has become much more difficult due to the high customs of the EU.

Originally Posted by Sifjar

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.

What was great in particular about Sweden joining the EU? What happened as a result that was so great?
In what other way - apart from being big - is the EU great?
That EU has been the only body linking different parts of Europe is an absurd statement, but it might have created a melting pot of different parts of Europe as well as of all the immigrants that the EU demands that the nations take in. Please give me a more positive and good example of how the EU has linked different parts of Europe much closer?

[Carnyx]

Croatia, Serbia, BH, Belarus, Ukraine, Romania, Moldavia (Transnistria included), Bulgaria, Turkey, the near East, Middle East, North Africa (Maghreb), Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Niger, Congo, Zambia, Zwaziland, etc., Central Asian Republics, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, etc., Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, etc., excepted Russia of course.

[Marulus]

Latest news (from the website of the EU): "The European Commission gave its positive recommendation (avis) for the candidacy of Rwanda for membership in the European Union."

[Sergius]

Originally Posted by Carnyx

Romania, Bulgaria

That's never going to happen!

[Sifjar]

Originally Posted by Seekers

Trade has only little to do with it in my opinion

Historically speaking all the great empire collapses because of '' economic crises'' Well do you remember couples of years ago how much KR against USD? Well look at now how much KR against Euro,and the Swedish '' consumptions has increased because most of the trading are done within EU

Originally Posted by Seekers

What was great in particular about Sweden joining the EU? What happened as a result that was so great?

Well at time it might look really good to moderate isolationist because you're able to trade freely without any problems with the bloc, no pass, importantly'' Sovereignty'' about Sweden in every accept and also other countries in the EU

Originally Posted by Seekers

That EU has been the only body linking different parts of Europe is an absurd statement, but it might have created a melting pot of different parts of Europe as well as of all the immigrants that the EU demands that the nations take in. Please give me a more positive and good example of how the EU has linked different parts of Europe much closer?

Well can you named one organization that has been a driving force other that the EU? Historically speaking it has been for the last 50 years, but of cos Germany has more political power because of German industry. So again as you can see the economic of a state is important for the survival of a society however France and Belgium also the main reason why Eu exits right. So what is Sweden in the middle of this ? If you can't win your enemy you must join them. All the Swedish industries been moved out side European Union, how are small country like Sweden could accumulate '' capitals'' without any trading and no industries and only high taxes ? Immigrant flux is the impact of other elements from inside and outside not because the EU.

Could you think of any country that wouldn't be forced in the EU beside UK? Well Switzerland is forced into Eu policy. Well I'm sure you have your own reason against the expansion of Eu, but we all have our own opinion don't we ?

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by Sifjar

Historically speaking all the great empire collapses because of '' economic crises'' Well do you remember couples of years ago how much KR against USD? Well look at now how much KR against Euro,and the Swedish '' consumptions has increased because most of the trading are done within EU

Are you making an argument that implies that a high level of consumption is absolutely necessary for a land to prosper? That could be a separate discussion of its own, in economics, if there isn't one already in that forum.

The fact that we are on a relative high economically compared to a couple of years ago - what exactly does it have to do with Sweden being a part of the EU? The US dollar has gone down.

Originally Posted by Sifjar

Well at time it might look really good to moderate isolationist because you're able to trade freely without any problems with the bloc, no pass, importantly'' Sovereignty'' about Sweden in every accept and also other countries in the EU

Souvereignity? That's what we stake for being a part of the EU. Haven't you noted all the changes made to Swedish society since the debate on the EU started? Our corrupt politicians decided even before we joined to adapt to EU norms, so you have to go way back to see what I mean. Or you can focus on pretty much any of the major steps in which the EU has evolved, to see that souvereignity is something that the EU took from us. Or we gave it away. A part of the Monnet strategy was to keep the peoples of Europe ignorant regarding this development.

No passport needed? Is this good or bad? I think it's bad, since it means less knowledge and less control of what flows in and out.

Originally Posted by Sifjar

Well can you named one organization that has been a driving force other that the EU?

The countries in Norden used to cooperate. And as I said, Sweden had trading agreements with many of the nations of Europe. She had the choice of maintaining all the good relations and still staying out of the political experiment now known as the EU.

Originally Posted by Sifjar

Historically speaking it has been for the last 50 years, but of cos Germany has more political power because of German industry. So again as you can see the economic of a state is important for the survival of a society however France and Belgium also the main reason why Eu exits right. So what is Sweden in the middle of this ? If you can't win your enemy you must join them. All the Swedish industries been moved out side European Union, how are small country like Sweden could accumulate '' capitals'' without any trading and no industries and only high taxes ? Immigrant flux is the impact of other elements from inside and outside not because the EU.

Western Germany paid up for Eastern Germany, and perhaps for some others too in a way. I'd like to hear Aptrgangr out on this one. But if you call that power, it's just your choice of words. The de facto power they have - isn't it more related to how numerous the population is?

All that talk about what would happen to Sweden if we didn't join, as well as the talk of all the wonders that would happen if we joined, proved to be just talk, or rather lies created by corrupt politicians to force people to think along their lines. There were even those who admitted that. Stig Malm was one of them. He threated the Swedish people with poverty, and later on admitted that it was just a threat.

Immigrant flux: I do believe you are wrong on this one. Just because Sweden tries to be more 'welcoming' than any other nation, it does not mean that the EU does not affect the problem of immigration. It bribes nations to take immigrants, and it punishes those who refuse.

Originally Posted by Sifjar

Could you think of any country that wouldn't be forced in the EU beside UK? Well Switzerland is forced into Eu policy. Well I'm sure you have your own reason against the expansion of Eu, but we all have our own opinion don't we ?

I believe that some nations were forced to a greater extent than others, but not for the reasons you claim. I apply to other forum members to help us sort this one question out, for I'm not entirely sure.

As for the case of Sweden, we were never forced by economical factors or any other real reason that I know of. Our politicians forced us with massive pressure and propaganda, to which quite some people yielded. But the distrust with the EU is much greater now that people have seen what it brings.

[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by Carnyx

Croatia, Serbia, BH, Belarus, Ukraine, Romania, Moldavia (Transnistria included), Bulgaria, Turkey, the near East, Middle East, North Africa (Maghreb), Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Niger, Congo, Zambia, Zwaziland, etc., Central Asian Republics, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, etc., Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, etc., excepted Russia of course.

Tabarnak! You forgot Québec.