“European” has been a pan-national identity for thousands of years without erasing the individual cultures within it. Feudal and early Modern European states all had the same basic framework, hierarchies, and often Dynasty of Monarch, without losing their individual nationhood.
Today, half of Europe is undergoing a demographic crisis so severe that countries like Sweden, France and the UK are being declared lost (prematurely, but still), and explicitly pro-white movements are excluded even from the growing right wing backlash. Individually, our progress is going to take decades. Decades that we don’t have. But as Europeans in a united effort, we stand a much better chance.
The European union has soured the idea of pan-Europeanism through increasing federalism to a bureaucracy that only cares to turn Europe into a single brown blob. But the union was a right-wing and nationalist idea before, and it is one that has to be reclaimed.
European Confederation
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Bumping for discussion
yeah until it's hijacked by kikes and Europe is Africanized.
Your experience with how the EU runs things is precisely why we need to retake the idea.
We already had an European Confederation
You don't know what Confederation means, do you.
a european union would and could be possible however.
the pan european movement as conceived by Kalergi would not be possible.
as with the current european union it seeks to supercede national borders and ethnic distinctions. this will never work because it simply cant wrap its head around the fact that these exist as a result of human nature. and human nature cannot be ignored.
second if it were to actually succeed in superseding national disctinctions it would only be done after the errosion of the spiritual of the cultures.
basically people would have to completely stop caring about these distinctions and only care about money and the immediate physical world around them. culture, history and national and ethnic identity would have to stop having meaning. basically the pan european union as conceived by Kalergi if it ever did come to exist would only come about with a lack of spiritual importance in life and mostly material. and this means in order for people to supercede these identities of these countries you would have to errode their foundation which is a sort of spiritual concept and important views of life. you would need a population that really cares about immediate gratification and feeling good. which typically happens at the tail end of a societies natural progression. you would need a population that doesnt care about borders in order to redraw borders, or doesnt care about their history etc etc. this is a population that doesnt care about the vast majority of things that require someone to step outside their self and place importance on abstract concepts of identity. in essence you couldnt do it unless you usurped and took control of a dying society. and by that point you wouldnt be able to make anything out of a population that couldnt be bothered.
You have a talent for stating the obvious in more words than necessary.
Obviously Kalergi isn't the model.
I believe that Farage was right when he stated that you dont need an organization as big as the European union in order to foster economic cooperation between countries. if you want cooperation you just do it. true that europe should cooperate to bolster its presence on the world stage. however an organization that needs enough power to write laws on the color of toothpaste in clearly unnecessary.
this would leave with a new government that would rely on its ability to supersede the distinctions over populations to survive and operate. it would inevitably lead to stamping out differences and creating a uniformity to maintain cohesion of the group it oversees.
and this is both unnecessary and unwanted for the survival of European political power and presence.
all that is needed is a space and an excuse for European countries to cooperate to foster cooperation. it needs to be encouraged and shown that it would be mutually beneficial to create enough convening interests to create its desired result.
No.
Consitutionally limited federal government managing autonomous states.
It's the system Europe had from Rometo Napoleon, except this time with active value in unity, rather than constant warfare.
Because the UK government is clearly the much better option...
the first and most necessary action would be the destruction or dissolution of the European union.
get rid of it and get rid of it now this is something that is rapidly getting out of control.
next would be a good excuse for creating a European open forum to discuss the effects and clean up of the EU this would be an open organization dedicated to fostering discussion and cooperation of European interests.
It would receive no real funding it would employ just enough staff to provide firstly an area for European government to discuss issues that would benefit from mutual cooperation and secondly some sort of structure that allows the local national governments to poll European citizens topics for discussion based on issues they deem important.
for instance greeks are polled about what affects them and they say poverty and lack of jobs.
germans and brits are polled saying they need workers.
the leaders are then informed of issues and topics affecting people with an area that is open to anyone to find solutions
finally the germans and brits pay some of the expense to allow greeks and spanish to temporarily work in britian and germany providing workers and jobs to find each other.
the workers are helped by being set up with work temporarily they are then swapped out for new workers evenly distributing workers and jobs and wages. helping everyone as much as possible but most importantly fostering cooperation desired.
that's like identifying as successful
FUCK OFF KALERGI COMMIE GLOBALIST
Check filename and read OP, faggot.
Check the filename.
problem is how do you plan to eradicate the bureaucratic mindset from flourishing where you get the junckers and merkels who are pro immigration
In theory the organization is bare bones and by being so it requires the use of already existing governments to accomplish anything. it would take alot of effort to create a new EU with it. or use it to create a new EU. in that case it doesn't stop the governments from creating one nor would anything it would be governments subverting their power to snag more and there is no real way of stopping corruption like that by law since its very nature is undermining the law meant to keep it in line.
if your problem is people breaking rules no amount of rules will stop it.
secondly the amount of polling and openness would be a hindrance to bureaucracy taking root since there is minimal barriers from the average citizen and the governments. it simply acts as a neutral third party that streamlines discussion and informational transfer between people. any bureaucracy would slow it down and this would mean people would either stop using it because it doesn't work or they would simply complain about it. and then the organization would have to either adapt to maintain efficiency or die out.
also every attempt at european union has failed
from wiki
Ideas of European unity before 1945
(this excludes the attempts of Charlemagne)
Europa regina in Sebastian Münster's "Cosmographia", 1570.
Large areas of Europe had previously been united by empires built on force, such as the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Frankish Empire, the First French Empire and Nazi Germany. A peaceful means of some consolidation of European territories used to be provided by dynastic unions; less common were country-level unions, such as the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and Austro-Hungarian Empire.[4]
In the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle of 1818, Tsar Alexander, as the most advanced internationalist of the day, suggested a kind of permanent European union and even proposed the maintenance of international military forces to provide recognised states with support against changes by violence.[5]
language differences = permanent balkanization
So attempts at unity from the 1500's means that near half populational support in even the msot sceptic countries counts for nothing today.
>Language differences= premanent balkanistation
I'm counting on it. Latin or Greek for an administrative language, and ensure the language barriers stop "these unitedstates" from becoming "the united states".
>In theory the organization is bare bones and by being so it requires the use of already existing governments to accomplish anything.
1) thats all great in theory, but only theory in reality it often fails what do you mean by polling you mean people voting?
You how that works, governments and media conspire to together to do heart felt stories and women start crying on planes to allow the muzzies to come in
2) the nature of government is to seek more power and it will do so first under the guise of protecting the citizenry then to consolidate its power will do so under the guise of tolerance and hate speech.
by keeping the nation states separate you remove the impulse of intra-national(not international) government officials from seeking to gain to undermine more power and authority under the guise of protecting the populace.
Sure sure, but what about all those non-Europeans on European soil?
>by keeping the nation states separate you remove the impulse of intra-national(not international) government officials from seeking to gain to undermine more power and authority under the guise of protecting the populace.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
No.
You do that through Constitutional limitations and meritocratic selection.
if it hasnt worked in 1000 years why do you think it would work now in form or capacity. Youve seen customs unions rise and fall and if you go by the dates they are often short lived and asking people to speak greek or latin for administrative purposes is just foolish pie in the sky thinking.
THat's a question we're already facing as individual nations. The fight against the great replacementwould be easier working with an entire continent's worth of nationalists,as I dscribed in the OP.
hows that working now, the US has a constitution and now you have people calling for open borders.
Even with the laws on the books you still have as many as 11million illegals in America.
Again you seem to be ignoring basic human psychology not everyone is going to think HOW YOU WANT THEM
So was English, but that'sthe current administrative language along with French.
And i'm sorry, but past examples of failed empires are irrelevant to the sysem proposed, and the Eu'sfailure doesn'tundermine the support the basic ideas behind it have, right now, today.
but you are not truly individual nations is you have follow an edict from brussels.
so just keep trying until it sticks right?
Sure sure, but what about the non-nationalists on this continent?
Do we deport them with the non-Europeans? Do we kill them for their treason?
Theoretically speaking of course because practically this would just end up the same anti-European shitshow that is the EU.
>but you are not truly individual nations is you have follow an edict from brussels.
Which is why this isn't a copy of the EU.
CAPS DOESNTMAKE YOUR ARGUMENT MORE CORRECT.
And of course states go through periods of subversion, it's a matter oflimiting the damage. Is the US not in a btter position to combat theirs than europe currently is?
This isn't democracy. It's corporateconfederalism,more inline with your memeflag than a 1 man, 1 vote system.
And how, exactly, would a confederation of nationlist states go the same way as an entity specificallyset up for replacement of the European peoples? I see that statement mad all th time, but never with an argument.
ive made my case for why its impossible but your answer is human psychology be damned, good luck
Yes, and i've answered it. But if you can't think of another argument,i guess this'll do for a concession.
the people vote yes but they only vote on topics of discussion.
they really only vote on problems they want solved.
this isn't meant to be a government this is only a place for existing governments to operate more efficiently using the power they already have. any subversion of populations is something outside the scope of the organization. as for crying woman who want more refugees this would reflect in the polls yes but if it shows the majority of Europe wants them in then there is nothing anyone can do to save Europe it wants its own death.
as for the nature of government that also would this would only be true if you draw a distinction between government and nation strongly enough to separate them which would fail to acknowledge that the government comes from the people. corrupt people have a corrupt government. people who want handouts and use the government to get them is an issue outside the government its an issue with the moral integrity of the population themselves. an issue that cant be solved by any outside force. the population would have to change themselves to change this. there is no government on earth that could ever change the moral integrity of the people thats not what governments are.
>We already had an European Confederation
Nope, that wasn't a Confederation.
It was conquest and control
Why would you want to share a country with the likes of us?
I wouldn't. No offence. I'm sure you'dsay the same the other way around.
This isn't about building a new country ora single nation. It's about confederalism of multiple nations.