How to preserve Europe?

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Gonzalvus

I voted for "other". I think that european preservation is not related to any of the measures listed above --I think it is a matter of belief. If people believed in God, in their nation, in Europe... in something above themselves, things would sort out spontaneously. None of the aforementioned measures will magically resolve our problems.

Agreed, many things have to change though. This can't happen over night with some simple solutions. It's even not sure whether this would happen in the first place, the way things are now... I don't know.

[Lutiferre]

One might postulate that the general problem with this poll is that most people here are not Europeanists, but ethno-nationalists. So dealing with Europe as one entity, and talking about Europeans versus non-Europeans, and talking about race, is irrelevant, in a context where people are more concerned with their own sub-European, national, ethnic or meta-ethnic identity (and in many cases, dont care about Europe as a whole, but strictly their own nation or country). The focus of the poll seems to be the very anti-thesis to that, in that it has a Eurocentric orientation.

I dont know to which extent this is true, but I have a feeling its very true, from the discussions I've had here. From the discussions I've had, I also know it isnt true with everybody here, but my guess is mostly. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I truly hope that it will only happen in England. What's there of good to preserve there?

Now, I'm not English, but if I was English I would be somewhat offended by that.

Originally Posted by Faustas

Preserve Europe? Vote for Naser Khader.

Hmm, I already did?

[Carnyx]

2b. Denaturalization (Loss of Citizenship) and Repatriation of non-European Citizens.

What about European Citizens?

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

The focus of the poll seems to be the very anti-thesis to that, in that it has a Eurocentric orientation.

Aren't we all (at least a bit) Eurocentric here at Stirpes (Europaeae forums)? Otherwise I don't really see the interest of joining it.

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

One might postulate that the general problem with this poll is that most people here are not Europeanists, but ethno-nationalists. So dealing with Europe as one entity, and talking about Europeans versus non-Europeans, and talking about race, is irrelevant, in a context where people are more concerned with their own sub-European, national, ethnic or meta-ethnic identity (and in many cases, dont care about Europe as a whole, but strictly their own nation or country). The focus of the poll seems to be the very anti-thesis to that, in that it has a Eurocentric orientation.

I agree with you, even though there are some simmilar problems in European countries, particularly in western and central Europe. Considering this poll it all looks like that the only problem is non-European immigration. What about European immigrants and their influence, how should that be handled? Or I should somehow welcome eastern Europeans in my country with open hands (not that I'm saying someone here promotes that, but it surely looks like this when someone has a look on that poll)?

There are also tons of problems which are specific for my country and should be dealt with. Basicaly just sending non-Europeans home wouldn't do a thing, since there aren't that much of them here in the first place. Also, looking at this poll it seems like the only problem Europe has is relation between Europeans and non-European immigrants/non-Europeans.

[Carnyx]

6e. Cancelation of Diplomatic Relations with non-European Countries (No Non-European Diplomats & Staff.)

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Carnyx

Aren't we all (at least a bit) Eurocentric here at Stirpes (Europaeae forums)? Otherwise I don't really see the interest of joining it.

Many might like that word, but in reality the majority here are not. If you're an ethno-nationalist, the logical consequence is opposition against any form of non-national (European) entity and unity or coalition, whether it be a real life political coalition, or just a conceptual idea of unity and community, that you would perceive to threaten your country's sovereignty and preservation. So the very principle of asking a bunch of ethno-nationalists from all over Europe "how to best preserve Europe" is ironic.

I can see you have written "trans-European friendship" in your politics (Carnyx) so I suppose this might not be true for you.

Gaidheal Ceilteach put it well -

Originally Posted by Gaidheal Ceilteach

I don't know how to preserve Europe, but in all honestly Europe isn't my concern, Scotland is. So this is how I would go about to preserve Scotland.

From what I know about his opinions, that seems consistent, and from what I know about the majority of Stirpes, that seems consistent. Most are not at all concerned about "Europe". The fact that the site in turn is announced to be for "European nationalists" has nothing to do with Eurocentrism, but that the people here are "European and nationalist". I've even read that somewhere in the rules or its been said by an administrator. Its a factoid really, most people here couldnt care less. Europe is just a continent, right? Its just a geographical area on the map

Originally Posted by M.R.

I agree with you, even though there are some simmilar problems in European countries, particularly in western and central Europe. Considering this poll it all looks like that the only problem is non-European immigration. What about European immigrants and their influence, how should that be handled? Or I should somehow welcome eastern Europeans in my country with open hands (not that I'm saying someone here promotes that, but it surely looks like this when someone has a look on that poll)?

There are also tons of problems which are specific for my country and should be dealt with. Basicaly just sending non-Europeans home wouldn't do a thing, since there aren't that much of them here in the first place. Also, looking at this poll it seems like the only problem Europe has is relation between Europeans and non-European immigrants/non-Europeans.

You are quite right. Not that I necessarily agree with you, because you probably are an ethno-nationalist, and not that there arent intra-european immigration problems (economically deprived populations fleeing to other countries through the EU, which is not right), but at least you are hinting at the general ethno-nationalist sentiment held on this site.

[NatVox]

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

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

One might postulate that the general problem with this poll is that most people here are not Europeanists, but ethno-nationalists. So dealing with Europe as one entity, and talking about Europeans versus non-Europeans, and talking about race, is irrelevant, in a context where people are more concerned with their own sub-European, national, ethnic or meta-ethnic identity (and in many cases, dont care about Europe as a whole, but strictly their own nation or country). The focus of the poll seems to be the very anti-thesis to that, in that it has a Eurocentric orientation.

I dont know to which extent this is true, but I have a feeling its very true, from the discussions I've had here. From the discussions I've had, I also know it isnt true with everybody here, but my guess is mostly. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

[NatVox]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Many might like that word, but in reality the majority here are not. If you're an ethno-nationalist, the logical consequence is opposition against any form of non-national (European) entity and unity or coalition, whether it be a real life political coalition, or just a conceptual idea of unity and community, that you would perceive to threaten your country's sovereignty and preservation. So the very principle of asking a bunch of ethno-nationalists from all over Europe "how to best preserve Europe" is ironic.

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.

The fact that the site in turn is announced to be for "European nationalists" has nothing to do with Eurocentrism, but that the people here are "European and nationalist". I've even read that somewhere in the rules or its been said by an administrator. Its a factoid really, most people here couldnt care less. Europe is just a continent, right? Its just a geographical area on the map

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.

[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.

[NatVox]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

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


The rest is you trying to school me, based on false premises about my opinions. And this was never about my opinions.

Au contraire.

Notice that I start saying

Originally Posted by Mynydd

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

I'll explain this next [...]

in response to your saying that

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

[...] people here are not Europeanists, but ethno-nationalists.

and so I go about to explain where you are wrong in your concept of Europeanism (since you deny it to those of us who think along those lines).

[quote]I didnt attempt to define Europe[quote]Mind you, and I never said that you did. But I did give a definition of what Europe is to me, so to help in the explanation of where you were wrong to deny us being Europeanist.

nor Europeanism.

Well, you did define it with respect to us, when you denied that we are not Europeanists. Certainly far from a full definition, but it still gives a hint to one. I won't apologize for reading in between lines (even if I wouldn't call that even reading in between lines).

I simply defined what most people at Stirpes are all about

And I proved you wrong. Not a crime, I hope.

And to that, you agreed, in the first few lines.

That's not true. I only agreed agreed to the second part of your statement, which is that "most people here are ethno-nationalists" (or maybe not even most, but a good number of us are ethno-nationalist or have a strong leaning towards ethno-nationalism).

But I denied (and further explained) the first part of your statement, that we "are not Europeanists".

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.

What you believe you haven't said it yet.

But you have said what you believe about a number of us here. And that is, basically, what I have answered pointing at your error of perception.

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.

More of the same:

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

If you're an ethno-nationalist, the logical consequence is opposition against any form of non-national (European) entity and unity or coalition

This pressuposes a definition of Europe that is non compatible with ethno-nationalism.

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.

If I'm wrong, or if you chose the wrong words and these are being misleading, I would much like you to explain what you stand for to see how wrong or misleading it was. This will be more productive than this...erh.. what's the intention of this post if not to discuss about the topic? (I ask it before you say again that I "put words on your mouth").

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.

So you admit now that maybe you chose the wrong words, and that these may have been a bit misleading? Well, it's a start. How about if you give now a more precise and correct view of your ideas? If only for the sake of discussion.

What you have just pulled, is one big straw man.

Oh, dear! I see that the above rant was all to end up with this! I didn't pull anything, if you notice. Not a straw man, nor anything else similar. But I see how this can help you avoid the discussion:

There are no merits in discussing this straw man.

Quod erat demostrandum

What I wrote, stands. What you wrote, doesnt

Such is life. I think that I'll survive till the end of the night, regardless.