Refugees and the European strategic error

Impartiality or neutrality in regards to what? The claim that the EU is a Nazi project?

 

Your view that history supports a pan-European state and republicanism which it simply does not. Ergo you are seeing what you want to see when reading history.
Yes its true that some people have advocated that idea but there has not been a overwhelming desire to do so.

 

History supports it? I have said no such thing. I have said that it has been a constant idea in European identity and culture going back at least a millennia.

 

That's the same thing particularly if you're going to use it to support your views.

 

So when I identify a lot of the European antisemitism with Luther I somehow support antisemitism because I identify antisemitism in history?
That simply does not make sense.

I have simply stated that those ideas have been around for a long time. Long before the CIA or Nazi's as the other poster tried to claim. The EU is largely based on those people. People Like Mazzini who created "Young Europe" to fight for liberalism and an end to absolutism and a federal Europe.
To claim that the EU was a product of Nazi's is ludicrous.

Now... Do you want to claim that as well?

 

You're right. You are not making any sense.

Which you have used to back up the idea of a federal Europe as being a popular aspiration.
The same can be said for your stance on republicanism.

I contest that. The EEC was formed to ease trade between European states. The EU which has evolved from that is something very different and is a more recent product.

Not entirely as indirectly the predecessor organisations would not have existed without the 2nd world war.

Why would I do that?

 

You should read it carefully then.

Why would it be a problem to use earlier thinkers ideas when arguing for something?
My stance on Republicanism is as much based on ancient writers as anything. I am not sure why you have problem with sharing values with writers from our history. Republicanism is a proud tradition going back to our earliest writing... Definitely the most enlightened writers through any age were republicans.
Regarding European federalism and unity. Yes... Many thinkers throughout history identified that in order to have a peaceful Europe you would need unity of some kind.

Then you should study the background of the minds behind the European Coal and Steel Community and the EEC.
Read the Schuman decleration:
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/symbols/europe-day/schuman-declaration_en

There are a couple of noticeable things such as workers rights need to be harmonised. The treaty of Rome has much more.

http://ec.europa.eu/archives/emu_history/documents/treaties/rometreaty2.pdf

Worth noting would be Social Provisions, article 117-18. Chapter 2 The European Social Fund would also be worth reading, article 123.

Of course the preamble should be clue enough;

Even Encyclopædia Brittanica recognises the political aspect of the EEC.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/European-Community-European-economic-association

Even if they hadn't spelled it out for you in the treaties you still have to know that these things could not be achieved without creating political cooperation?

So no... It was not just formed to ease trade... It was formed to redistribute wealth, eliminate trade barriers and borders, it was formed to improve workers rights and infrastructure and it was even formed to help former European colonies. It is even spelled out for you in the preamble... Just so you wouldn't have to read all the boring articles. Pretty amazing that this is still a living myth. This is a purely British invention of history which I don't know why you picked up.

The EU would probably not exist without WWII but that is far from what the poster claimed.

 

I did and it did not make any sense whatsoever.

Because its not representative of popular ideas

if you say so

That has been proven to be flawed and repeatedly so

Completely irrelevant

That's not even a proper sentence

I didn't say that

The EU did not exist until 1993 which did transform the EEC from a trade organisation to a political one.

So?

 

You might have a point there.

Islam being the fastest growing religion in the world (especially in Europe) with women being the vast majority of those converts, the Muslim population will vastly expand. Who knows? Muslims may well become the majority there in another generation or two. Wouldn't that be cool?

 

I accept your surrender... Semantics and useless bickering is all you have left. You have been shown why and how the EEC and the European Coal and Steel Community was founded on more than just easing trade as you claimed. I have also shown you that the idea goes far back into European history.

Now move along... I don't waste time on repeating myself for people unwilling to learn and the wilfully ignorant.

Let's just leave this here;

I like how arrogant you are...

 

Where do you put the peremption so? You don't care if there's no colonization anymore and think french of nowdays still have to pay for what their country done near to 100 years ago, but, what's happened 500 year ago don't count for you... This is pretty weird.

French empire wasen't worsen than the others. Then the french and the british invest a lot in their colonies to make them grow-up, what show that we wheren't here to take all the ressources scorning the original population like some other people did; it was more complexe than that. There's no point to say we where the more brutal

 

Where did I say the French need to pay for it? I don't think the French deserve any of this (*)(*)(*)(*).
Unfortunately that kind of history does facilitate the radicalisation of Muslims as does the fact that you have millions of Muslims from those former colonies.

Actually... The French colonial history is universally seen as quite brutal. The whole assimilation and forcibly making them French was also quite uniquely French... The Portuguese did the same but they don't have same number of immigrants from their former colonies and it mostly happened centuries before.

 

Shouldn't you be in school?

I never said that it was just founded to ease trade but it was the prime reason. Which it was and it is an economic union despite what you have said.

I never contested that if you had bothered to read what I wrote.

Ah now I remember you. You're that angry little boy who can't take anyone else's opinion unless its aligned with his.

I think that you need to improve your English language skills.

That's funny because I don't like how ignorant you are not to mention juvenile.
Do you even know the meaning of arrogance?
I mean you're certainly showing it even if you're unaware of it.

 

I guess that depends on how one defines cool. Certainly if you hate Western Culture, and the enlightenment, it would be "cool."

 

It was Muslims who resurrected Western culture after the Dark Ages.

 

Well if you think that, then no doubt your prediction/wish that Muslims become the majority in Europe in a generation or two will mean a new flowering of Western Civ!

 

Best to keep an open mid.

As for me, I won't be around when that happens but good luck to those of you who will live to see it.

 

I agree it does. That's why it's very dangerous to let them enter in our countries with no rules. We have to check that those who enter aren't dangerous and want to integrate because our common past creat hard tentions towards our societies who look to still very importants for some persons nowdays who use it to justify their hate.

It depend what you see as "brutal". In France, we've done that in our own home country, with our own citizens, calling that the "assimilation". Even in part of my region, people used to don't speak french and changed their langage, and huge majority of people don't see anything wrong with that. Then, no one forced them to stop to have their own culture. They make like most of the Corsicans, Brittons, Alsatians-Lorrainians, Occitans, etc, etc... they saw that the french langage and culture had more influence than their regional one and that it would be more useful for them to adapt, so they didn't tryed to kept some aspect of their culture. This ain't brutal. We see the same things with glabolization - people just don't feel the need to protect some aspects or their culture because they think it's damaging for them.

 

Independently of how one's view on the issue is, I'm wondering about the idea behind this mission that EU has set up, aiming on picking refugees out of mediterranean waters...which does not make sense at all. I mean, they're currently running some type of ferry business that has some life-threatening flaws in it. Migrants are filing out from the african coastline and heading towards ships they cannot see, facing the risk of drowning before they find them or are located by themselves. Wouldn't it be easier to agree on a central meeting point close to the shore, where the migrants are being taken over by the european ships? That given, it would be even easier for the latter to moor right at the Libyan cost to get them on board? Or even, to think consequently, to abolish immigration restrictions and let them all fly into Europe?

To avoid any misunderstandings, I'm not saying that I'm promoting these ideas. I'm just wondering if there's any way out of the dilemma that the refugee crisis has Europe put in, that is actually there since decades. It seems there will be no solution that is not "extreme".

:-/

 

I couldn't believe it when I found out they can just claim asylum without offering the slightest proof for their claim. It's almost as daft as asking them if they're 'nice guys', and if they say 'yes', it's a question of 'Thank you, and here's your approval documentation . . . next please?' The stupidity of the West!!

 

Yes... And this situation can't last forever... I guess next elections in Europe will be very interesting

 

Only up until a few weeks ago it was taboo questioning the age of the refugees coming to Sweden- it was "racist", it was "fascist" and it was all the deregatory terms there is. Asking for age-testing was not, by any means, anywhere on the map.

A few weeks ago, reports from peopke working with asylum-seekers was caught attention after Public Service conducted a little investigation; teachers and employees at refugee-houses, concerned as they were, reported about adults hanging out with children.

Ta daa. Another spindoctor has been done in this question by the leftist establishment and I would nit say that I am surprised, but sure is funny and a little annoying at the same time. Age-testing seems to be PC now.

I am more surprised the people working with tbese people haven't raised their voices earlier.

Lol.

 

Invader Gang Rape at Eiffel Tower

Three Algerian invaders living as “refugees” in Germany have been arrested in France after gang-raping a woman in the gardens directly under Paris’s Eiffel Tower.

The victim was lured to the gardens after being offered a date on Facebook, and was then trapped, raped, and beaten to a pulp.
....
The ordeal only ended when the victim’s screams attracted the attention of two passing Canadian tourists who were out for a late night jog in the park. “Without them, I do not know if we would have found the young girl alive,” an investigator told La Parisien.
...
The three suspects, all aged 17 and holding Algerian nationality, were arrested as they were preparing to leave Paris by train back to the “refugee camp” in Germany where they reside.

Swift police action—aided by the fact that the first invader had lured her via Facebook—allowed them to swoop on three of the four nonwhites before they left Paris.
....
This attack at one of Paris’s most famous areas, by “refugees” seeking “asylum” in Germany, is but the latest example of the wave of sex attacks which have swept the entire continent in the wake of the mass Third World invasion of the past few years.

Read full article here:
http://www.jewworldorder.org/invader-gang-rape-at-eiffel-tower/
-----------------
To be raped is one of the most degrading experiences for a young girl. To be gang-raped is horrifying.
This young girl was "lucky" she survived the ordeal.
How should these wild monsters be dealt with? Apparently, they were only 17 years old. Still juveniles, I guess?
In Germany the most they would get is a warning. No idea how the legal system works in France.

Let this incident be a WARNING for all young girls!!
Don't go out alone with a stranger!
Never trust a stranger, no matter what he tells and promises you!!
Once he has managed to isolate you, you are doomed!!

 

The words 'juvenile' and 'youths' seem to have been erased from the lexicon here, and migrants up to the age of 18 are classified as 'child migrants'. Our liberal fraternity keep bellyaching that we should take in even more 'child refugees' than we already have. 'the enemy inside' is such an apt expression?