Europe or Euro-Siberia?

[Galaico]

What's the geographical concept we, as nationalists, should take of Europe?

Geographically, Europe is a peninsula of the Eurasian continent that borders with the Atlantic Ocean in the West and with the Ural Mountains in the East. Traditionaly Siberia was never considered part of Europe, it was the land of different Turkic nomadic tribes, and it was started being colonised by Russian settlers in the 17th century.

Here, we face two different points of view:

Siberia must be Europe:
- Siberia is part of Russia, and Russia is a European nation, thus Siberia is Europe.
- Siberia is rich in natural resources, which will help the growth of Europe.
- Millions of ethnic Europeans, mainly Russians, but also Poles, Ukranians, Germans, etc., live in Siberia.
- Could be the green heart of Europe, stablishing an equilibrium with urbanised Europe.

Siberia must not be Europe:
- Siberia is just a remnant of European Imperialism, that has brought terrible consequences to all us. We don't want hundreds of thousands of Tatar and other Turks with European citizenship migrating to Europe.
- Siberia has the longest border with non-European countries, what adds difficulties to control immigration.
- It is not natively European, we must respect Siberian natives.
- Eurosiberianism would give wings to those National-Bolsheviks who claim for greater Eurasia.
- It is simply out of Europe borders, it's not about more natural resources or more territory, it's just Europe, nothing more.

So what's your option, Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, or Europe from the Atlantic to Kamchatka?

[Menydh]

I've voted Europe. Those are two different concepts in my opinion.

To me Europe extends from the Straight of Gibraltar to the Urals and beyond. Siberia is European so long as Russians live there. There are buffer and sub-buffer regions which are important to the survival of Europe as a whole.

In fact the buffer area should have extended down to the Atlas Mountains in Northern Africa. Unfortunately the diversion of resources towards defending the dinastic rights of the Habsburgs prevented the Spains from fulfilling her destiny.

The more we shrink our buffer areas of protection, the more that our survival is endangered.

[PermCity]

i live in European part of Russia, so you think when i pass Ural mountains (4 hours by car) and visit Ekaterinburg i meet thousands of Asiatics? Siberia - country with Russian majority, paleo-asiatics live deep in the forest, tundra, Turkic, Mongol, Altaic e.t.c. people, yes they have some weight, hm but Kalmyks that live in European part too...


Tobolsk (West Siberia) - old capital of Siberia



Tobolsk Kremlin



Panorama of Tobolsk



Catholic church



Tobolsk before 1917

Tomsk (East Siberia) - city of students

















Siberians - Russians, but sub-ethnos?

So modern Siberia land with european civilization that was brought by Russian Empire, cossaks of Ermak began conquering of this land, then simple merchants, peasants colonised this (as usual desolate but unused) lands, so what the sence of the question?

[Eurovox]

Dear Galaico, Im so sorry but I have to say that your definition of Eurosiberia it is totally wrong and not too much accurate I'm afraid, since that concept its quiet the contrary of the Eurasia project, not to say that the man who developed that concept, Guillaume Faye, never mentioned that it would be some type of imperialistic state...

Where does it says that Europe should stop at the Ural mountains? That definition of the european borders/limist are no more then a convention and worths no more no less.

Using your words "Siberia is part of Russia, and Russia is a European nation, thus Siberia is Europe..." So, " it's just Europe, nothing more", i can't agree more.

I believe it is important to know very well what one want to debate, otherwise its leads only to confusion.

Abrazo.


Ps/ Perm City, could you post more pics from siberia inhabitants? It would be nice to see some beautiful russian girls faces...

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Eurovox

Where does it says that Europe should stop at the Ural mountains?

Tradition says so. If we are dealing with geography, borders can't move, now politics...

That definition of the european borders/limist are no more then a convention and worths no more no less.

If it's just "convention", why should it stop at the Bosphorus then? Why not N. Africa, M. Eastern?

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Carnyx

Tradition says so. If we are dealing with geography, borders can't move, now politics...

But Europe is more a cultural than geographical concept. It's not even a real continent.

If it's just "convention", why should it stop at the Bosphorus then? Why not N. Africa, M. Eastern?

For cultural reasons, as said above.

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Salaün

But Europe is more a cultural than geographical concept.

I don't think so, they have the same importance; otherwise, Argentina would be in Europe.

It's not even a real continent.

On the contrary, I think our continent is for real. There are natural borders in Europe: the Atlantics, the Mediterranean, the Urals, the Caucasus. Vladivostok may be culturally European, still it's not in Europe. Those are real facts.

For cultural reasons, as said above.

But what if a culture moves outside its own borders? Do you then move the latter? So Québec is in Europe, right?

[Agrippa]

Europe is a geographical concept, but being European and its definition is about politics, ethnicity, race and culture. 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.

On the other hand, someone being not integrable if going after the standards I spoke about above and probably some additional ones, should not be considered Europeans and areas where the majority of people dont fulfil the minimum standards are therefore to be excluded as long as thats the case. Thats the main point.

I dont care for Europe vs. asia minor because of geography, thats uninteresting, the problem is that at least the majority of Turks are no Europeans by all more common and reasonable definitions. If they would be, I would have no objections to asia minor joining the a European political structure.

Same for Siberia, as long as Europeans live there and control it, it can be integrated with certain limitations and special rules (for the non-Europeans living there, if, f.e., they would want to leave Siberia for another European regions, the rules would be more strict for them than for real Russians of European character if its about me).

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Carnyx

On the contrary, I think our continent is for real. There are natural borders in Europe: the Atlantics, the Mediterranean, the Urals, the Caucasus.

Like France: the Pyrenees, the Mediterranean sea, the Atlantic ocean and the Rhine ?

But what if a culture moves outside its own borders? Do you then move the latter? So Québec is in Europe, right?

Of course, the geographical continuity have some importance. The Atlantic ocean can be considered as a natural border of Europe, but I don't think the same about the Ural mountains.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Salaün

Like France: the Pyrenees, the Mediterranean sea, the Atlantic ocean and the Rhine ?



Of course, the geographical continuity have some importance. The Atlantic ocean can be considered as a natural border of Europe, but I don't think the same about the Ural mountains.

Its worth to mention that Europeans (European Europids racially, Indoeuropeans ethnolinguistically) lived East of the Ural mountains in ancient times too, actually it was just more recently that Mongoloid groups (Turkic and Mongol primarily) took Central Asia. It was an essentially Europid land since Europids existed and Indoeuropean for thousands of years.

[Pagandawn]

Siberia belongs to Europe. If they want to that is.

Europe from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I like it.

So, what do you guys against want to do? Hand it over to China?

[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.

[Eurovox]

Mynnyd, of course Faye concept of Eurosiberia doesen't resumes to be the contrary of Dugin Eurasia project, however it would be much more reasonable and fair to open a poll about something exposing precisely what one intend to debate.

At a distance of a click Galaico could find out what Faye think about Eurosiberia here, for example.

Nevertheless, I decide to publish a small extract about it.

EUROSIBERIA
The Europe of the future must no longer be envisaged in the mushy, ungovernable forms of the present European Union, which is a powerless Medusa, unable to control its borders, dominated by the mania of free-trade, and subject to American domination. We need to imagine a federal, imperial Grande Europe, ethnically homogenous (that is, European), based on a single autonomous area, and inseparably linked to Russia. I call this enormous continental bloc "Euro-Siberia." Having no need to be aggressive toward its neighbors because it would be inattackable, such a bloc would become the premier world power (in a world partitioned into large blocs), self-centered, and opposed to all the dangerous dogmas now associated with globalism. It would have the capacity to practice the "autarky of great spaces," whose principles have already been worked out by the Noble Prize winning economist, Maurice Allais. The destiny of the European peninsular cannot be separated from continental Russia, for both ethno-cultural and geopolitical reasons. It's absolutely imperative for America's mercantile thalassocracy to prevent the birth of a Euro-Siberian federation.

This is not the place to speak of the Israeli state. Only a word: For essentially demographic reasons, I believe the Zionist utopia conceived by Hertzl and Buber and realized since 1948 will not survive any longer than Soviet communism did; indeed, its end is already in sight. I'm presently writing a book on "The New Jewish Question," which I hope will be translated into Russian.

[Menydh]

While I don't deny an interest in Faye's proposal of Euro-Siberia, I find that it doesn't build upon solid (read real) foundations. See here:

We need to imagine a federal, imperial Grande Europe, ethnically homogenous (that is, European), based on a single autonomous area, and inseparably linked to Russia. I call this enormous continental bloc "Euro-Siberia."

This is an error which one sees often in the theses of the Identitarians. Not the only one, but one of much importance.

It is, in its essence, not much different to the pan-Europeanism of the European Union. Little surprise here when both argue for a pan-constructionist view of Europe.

Euro-Siberia seems to me as if it is constructed upon a flawed view of Europe: an ethnically homogenous Europe?

This error is of a bigger magnitude than what it may seem at a glance. It does not stop at constructing Europe over a flawed conception.

This is not the only point in the foundations proposed by the Identitarian movement is flawed. But this would be an issue for a later discussion.

Its magnitude is increased by the fact that, in order to give an impresion of likeliness to it, the true foundations of Europe have to be deconstructed: the ethnic-national identities which conform Europe.

I must wonder, where is the defense of the Identity in the Identitarian movement?

[Eurovox]

First of I would like to invite all people who have some doubts about the ethnical constitution of Siberia population to visit Wikipedia here.

As for Mynnyd remarks, well, please try to visit Athenaeum webpage and there you will find this article of great interest, in my opinion of course, and where Faye explain quiet well his views about Eurosiberia.

Euro-Siberia seems to me as if it is constructed upon a flawed view of Europe: an ethnically homogenous Europe?

Faye reply to that objection in these terms: «L’Eurosibérie devra être fondée sur le principe de «séparation des peuples». Chacun chez soi, et en bonne entente de voisinage, si possible. Le modèle économique, en rupture complète avec la «mondialisation» et le libre-échangisme planétaire actuels, part du principe que chaque aire de civilisation doit être autosuffisante. C’est la théorie économique de l’autarcie des grands espaces que j’ai développée à la suite des travaux de l’École historique allemande et de Maurice Allais, selon une «troisième voie» qui renverse à la fois les vieux paradigmes obsolètes capitalistes et marxistes. À chaque groupe de peuples son propre modèle économique, politique, ethnique.»

The bold is mine.