The United States of Europe

[Durius]

I haven’t read the book, but from what I know the idea is the war is stagnant because the nations need eachother to continue existing so they can have unifying enemies. I’m not sure what your point is.

The point of the book had deeper ties with government abuse of historical rendering (example: you know 9/11 happened because of people affected and unscripted news outlets. In the book people are scripted, events are invented, and news outlets are nonexistent unless controlled by the government) and populace control(every person has a specific job, strict rules such as not even being able to love unless permitted, or being watched constantly). A real world example of what this is like would be, Russia has used tactics against its own populace to paint a narrative where some nation(any nation) has been politically/economically(or for any reason disliked for being NATO supporters) strikes Russia first. In truth it was Russia and evidence to it being Russia is pretty obvious if you did any research of your own unless all you do is watch the Russian news. Well, that leads us to the feedback look of how history can be written by certain countries which in turn created the "ever-on-going" war which possibly wasn't even occurring. No one sees the war, the only evidence of it is occasional bombs falling from the sky.

Lets not forget: BIG BROTHER IS ALWAYS WATCHING.

Russia, Russia, Russia. Do you know that the topic is about a European Federation, not how Russia creating Eurasia, right? Again, in anything, Russia makes a case in favor of a European Federation, as I explained above.

[Indecent Anime Empire]

Russia, Russia, Russia. Do you know that the topic is about a European Federation, not how Russia creating Eurasia, right? Again, in anything, Russia makes a case in favor of a European Federation, as I explained above.

uhhh dude/dudet...chill, You are right.

I was just explaining the book to the guy.

[Transsibiria]

Structurally like the Soviet Union, ideologically it would result in fascism.

Yeah, liberal democracies love to function like a fascist Soviet Union. Astute political analysis.

Implying that the european superstate would be anything but an manifestation of pure, undilluted racial supremacism and thus fascism because the existence of such ideology would be pre-requisite of a pan-european nation and identity.

The only way to create a pan-european national identity would be rooted in race superseding national identities with a racial european (or aryan if you prefer that word) one. You see where this is going.

This is an analysis, not a judgement.

[Durius]

Yeah, liberal democracies love to function like a fascist Soviet Union. Astute political analysis.

Implying that the european superstate would be anything but an manifestation of pure, undilluted racial supremacism and thus fascism because the existence of such ideology would be pre-requisite of a pan-european nation and identity.

This is an analysis, not a judgement.

You are the one making the ridiculous and unproven implication that it would. That's not an analysis, it's a distillation of barbarities and broad discriminatory statements against Europeans. The current European project was born in the aftermath of WW2 and sought to unite democracies to protect them from the threats of fascism and communism. It's frankly insulting to suggest, given the background that led to EU's creation, that Europeans are only able to cross their differences and unite under a fascist and racist ideology.

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

Yeah, liberal democracies love to function like a fascist Soviet Union. Astute political analysis.

Implying that the european superstate would be anything but an manifestation of pure, undilluted racial supremacism and thus fascism because the existence of such ideology would be pre-requisite of a pan-european nation and identity.

The only way to create a pan-european national identity would be rooted in race superseding national identities with a racial european (or aryan if you prefer that word) one. You see where this is going.

This is an analysis, not a judgement.

No it's not. Firstly, confederations have existed with multiple ethnicities inside of it. There's no need for every nation to have an ethnicity or culture, including a European nation. Secondly, a European identity has no need to be built on Race. You could be Italian first, European second, and even though you identify cheifly with Italian, you still feel attachment with the rest of europe, as an example.

[Transsibiria]

You are the one making the ridiculous and unproven implication that it would. That's not an analysis, it's a distillation of barbarities and broad discriminatory statements against Europeans.

No it isn't. Its the result of through research and analysis of european history and what would required to turn it into an unified and singular Nation. I did it as part of some research and theres nothing else as strong as the racial element present there. It is frightening and i did not expect to discover this. The potential of which, most contemporary nationalist aren't even aware or capable of to grasp, what is truly there.

It would be the strongest power to forge an unified European Nation and quite possibly something even greater and bigger.

The current European project was born in the aftermath of WW2 and sought to unite democracies to protect them from the threats of fascism and communism. It's frankly insulting to suggest, given the background that led to EU's creation, that Europeans are only able to cross their differences and unite under a fascist and racist ideology.

Are you familiar with Oswald Mosley and his concept of Europe a Nation? Or various former nazis who post-war turned to similiar concepts of an European Nation, abandoning their earlier nordicist ideology. They knew what they were doing.

And yes I am familiar with the creation of the current EU and it's history. But the EU is not going to be a Nation in any form or shape.

[Saor Alba]

Yeah, liberal democracies love to function like a fascist Soviet Union. Astute political analysis.

Implying that the european superstate would be anything but an manifestation of pure, undilluted racial supremacism and thus fascism because the existence of such ideology would be pre-requisite of a pan-european nation and identity.

The only way to create a pan-european national identity would be rooted in race superseding national identities with a racial european (or aryan if you prefer that word) one. You see where this is going.

This is an analysis, not a judgement.

Yes I am more than happy to imply that any "European superstate", a term that I should remind you is only ever used as a pejorative by ANTI-EU populists, would not be remotely fascist. Why would a Pan-European identity have to be rooted in "nationalism"? Kalergi, who spearheaded efforts for European integration, was mixed race and wrote countless critiques of anti-Semitism and totalitarianism. European integration from 1945 onwards has been the child of progressives, liberals, and Christian democrats.

It has nothing to do with fascism or nationalism. European integration has always been seen as, by its proponents, as an antidote to both. It might be an "analysis", but it is an utterly ignorant one.

[Transsibiria]

Implying that the european superstate would be anything but an manifestation of pure, undilluted racial supremacism and thus fascism because the existence of such ideology would be pre-requisite of a pan-european nation and identity.

The only way to create a pan-european national identity would be rooted in race superseding national identities with a racial european (or aryan if you prefer that word) one. You see where this is going.

This is an analysis, not a judgement.

No it's not. Firstly, confederations have existed with multiple ethnicities inside of it. There's no need for every nation to have an ethnicity or culture, including a European nation. Secondly, a European identity has no need to be built on Race. You could be Italian first, European second, and even though you identify cheifly with Italian, you still feel attachment with the rest of europe, as an example.

Fair enough but a confederacy as you describe it is not a nation in any form or shape, but more closer to the current EU. This could entirely work out without a strong unifying superidentity.

No disagreements here.

[Transsibiria]

Yes I am more than happy to imply that any "European superstate", a term that I should remind you is only ever used as a pejorative by ANTI-EU populists, would not be remotely fascist. Why would a Pan-European identity have to be rooted in "nationalism"? Kalergi, who spearheaded efforts for European integration, was mixed race and wrote countless critiques of anti-Semitism and totalitarianism.

Thats were I disagree with you, because you need a factor strong enough to unite all the different european tribes and nations into something bigger. And such exists.

Also the Pan-Europe Union is irrelevant and the only people who keep bringing up Kalergi are conspiracy theorists, and they do so in negative context. His ideas never were relevant and he is overrated.

European integration from 1945 onwards has been the child of progressives, liberals, and Christian democrats.

Yes it has been no doubt and it has now hit the ceiling and is increasingly being rejected. Transforming the European Community into the Union and Maasricht may have been a mistake.

It has nothing to do with fascism or nationalism. European integration has always been seen as, by its proponents, as an antidote to both. It might be an "analysis", but it is an utterly ignorant one.

I am talking about pan-european nationalism, as opposed to the nationalism of the current nation. A form of supra-nationalism that goes far beyond. Theres theoretical and ideological foundations for such. It could be done. And it would be far more terrifying than anything those populist types have currently in store.

[Whallhall]

First post,plz be gentle on me.

EU is somewhat a league of nations, it is still fragile, we need greater unity, as in time, a Federation of states is the only way Europe can guarantee its own freedoms, democracy, and way of life, a divided Europe would easily fall prey of poverty and internal conflict, civil wars, and country against country, and be subject to overhelming external forces(Russia/China),that would in time conquer Europe,trough "Divide et Impera" strategies.

A democratic federation of European states would be a superpower, in nearly all terms, perhaps even stronger than the USA.


Unfortunately, I find it that for Europe, It is either "become an Empire", or be slowly devoured by the "Empires" that are,the past is the past,we need to advance into the future.

[Saor Alba]

Thats were I disagree with you, because you need a factor strong enough to unite all the different european tribes and nations into something bigger. And such exists.

Why do we? Why does European federalism necessitate a Pan-European "national" identity? There is already a European civic identity.

Also the Pan-Europe Union is irrelevant and the only people who keep bringing up Kalergi are conspiracy theorists, and they do so in negative context. His ideas never were relevant and he is overrated.

Kalergi obviously wasn't irrelevant since he was the inaugural Charlemagne prize winner and the Pan-European Union contained a lot of important people as members: Adenauer, Léon Blum, Einstein, Freud, Charles de Gaulle, Pompidou, Schuschnigg, Stresemann and Bruno Kreisky. Yeah, the "Kalergi Plan" is a conspiracy, but Kalergi was an important player in post-war European affairs. It is wrong to say otherwise.

I am talking about pan-european nationalism, as opposed to the nationalism of the current nation. A form of supra-nationalism that goes far beyond. Theres theoretical and ideological foundations for such. It could be done. And it would be far more terrifying than anything those populist types have currently in store.

Pan-European nationalism is 1000x more irrelevant than any other form of European integration. I know what it is, I've read Mosley's writings and I've looked at the stuff the Nouvelle Droite have published. They will always remain on the fringes of Europeanism. European federalism is not an ethnic nationalist project, it never was and it never will be. I'm not even a federalist but scaremongering about what it is doesn't do any good.

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

No it's not. Firstly, confederations have existed with multiple ethnicities inside of it. There's no need for every nation to have an ethnicity or culture, including a European nation. Secondly, a European identity has no need to be built on Race. You could be Italian first, European second, and even though you identify cheifly with Italian, you still feel attachment with the rest of europe, as an example.

Fair enough but a confederacy as you describe it is not a nation in any form or shape, but more closer to the current EU. This could entirely work out without a strong unifying superidentity.

No disagreements here.

Confederated states can exist. You can have individual states with powers and identities that still are united in a higher government. This would be a nation, and would be more united than the E.U. is now.

[Transsibiria]

Thats were I disagree with you, because you need a factor strong enough to unite all the different european tribes and nations into something bigger. And such exists.

Why do we? Why does European federalism necessitate a Pan-European "national" identity? There is already a European civic identity.

Also the Pan-Europe Union is irrelevant and the only people who keep bringing up Kalergi are conspiracy theorists, and they do so in negative context. His ideas never were relevant and he is overrated.

Kalergi obviously wasn't irrelevant since he was the inaugural Charlemagne prize winner and the Pan-European Union contained a lot of important people as members: Adenauer, Léon Blum, Einstein, Freud, Charles de Gaulle, Pompidou, Schuschnigg, Stresemann and Bruno Kreisky. Yeah, the "Kalergi Plan" is a conspiracy, but Kalergi was an important player in post-war European affairs. It is wrong to say otherwise.

I am talking about pan-european nationalism, as opposed to the nationalism of the current nation. A form of supra-nationalism that goes far beyond. Theres theoretical and ideological foundations for such. It could be done. And it would be far more terrifying than anything those populist types have currently in store.

Pan-European nationalism is 1000x more irrelevant than any other form of European integration. I know what it is, I've read Mosley's writings and I've looked at the stuff the Nouvelle Droite have published. They will always remain on the fringes of Europeanism. European federalism is not an ethnic nationalist project, it never was and it never will be. I'm not even a federalist but scaremongering about what it is doesn't do any good.

The european civic identity is weak. It wouldn stand a chance against a racial european identity which may developing anyways due exposure and confrontation with huge amounts of non-europeans inside Europe (increasing racial tensions) and as well the internet and the eroding of national borders in terms of shared political spaces. My point stands, if Europe were to become an unified nation (as opposed to a confederacy or some in-and-between thing like the EU) the strongest point would be rooted in an racial identity and history that can be traced back thousends of years and has imprinted and shaped the world in its own image over the past fivehundred years through ruthless conquest and exploitation.

I am not so sure that it never will, it has an enormous untapped and devastating potential within it.

I should add, i researched and reconstructed this as part of my worldbuilding efforts. What I came across happened by accident... I won't go into details, least not to give the far-right some appealing ideas.

An loose confederacy would be an different story alltogether however, and I believe this would be a preferable idea.

I do not believe an european superstate is feasible, unless some very dark political currents are being utilized.

[Durius]

You are the one making the ridiculous and unproven implication that it would. That's not an analysis, it's a distillation of barbarities and broad discriminatory statements against Europeans.

No it isn't. Its the result of through research and analysis of european history and what would required to turn it into an unified and singular Nation. I did it as part of some research and theres nothing else as strong as the racial element present there. It is frightening and i did not expect to discover this. The potential of which, most contemporary nationalist aren't even aware or capable of to grasp, what is truly there.

Please, do present that extensive research and analysis, then.

The current European project was born in the aftermath of WW2 and sought to unite democracies to protect them from the threats of fascism and communism. It's frankly insulting to suggest, given the background that led to EU's creation, that Europeans are only able to cross their differences and unite under a fascist and racist ideology.

Are you familiar with Oswald Mosley and his concept of Europe a Nation? Or various former nazis who post-war turned to similiar concepts of an European Nation, abandoning their earlier nordicist ideology. They knew what they were doing.

And yes I am familiar with the creation of the current EU and it's history. But the EU is not going to be a Nation in any form or shape.

And? A lot of people dream about stupid shit. That doesn't make it EU policy. Even more considering that he was British.

[Saor Alba]

My point stands, if Europe were to become an unified nation (as opposed to a confederacy or some in-and-between thing like the EU) the strongest point would be rooted in an racial identity and history that can be traced back thousends of years and has imprinted and shaped the world in its own image over the past fivehundred years through ruthless conquest and exploitation.

This thread is about European federalism, not the idea of a "European nation". Nobody with any semblance of relevance advocates for Pan-European nationalism. It is a fringe idea held to by the far-right.

Original claim is that Kalergi (literally the winner of the Charlemagne Prize) and his Paneuropean Union are irrelevant, but somehow we should care what Oswald Mosley and fringe groups of Neo-Nazis had to say about Europe. Make it make sense.

I should add, i researched and reconstructed this as part of my worldbuilding efforts. What I came across happened by accident... I won't go into details, least not to give the far-right some appealing ideas.

How convenient. But yes, I know that there are Paneuropeanist, white nationalist strains in far-right thought. It doesn't mean they have any relevance to the modern day campaign for European federalism.

[Portzania]

This thread is about European federalism, not the idea of a "European nation"

Either way, a loose confederation would be much better than an even more centralised federation. We do not need any greater unity to protect Europe against Russian nor "American aggression". The EU right now is somewhat fine, although it could be even more decentralised.

[Saor Alba]

This thread is about European federalism, not the idea of a "European nation"

Either way, a loose confederation would be much better than an even more centralised federation. We do not need any greater unity to protect Europe against Russian nor "American aggression". The EU right now is somewhat fine, although it could be even more decentralised.

I'm not a federalist or a "confederalist" (though, I have never seen any papers detailing a confederal model) so not really my fight, I am just saying that this thread is about federalism rather than Pan-European nationalism.

[Durius]

This thread is about European federalism, not the idea of a "European nation"

Either way, a loose confederation would be much better than an even more centralised federation. We do not need any greater unity to protect Europe against Russian nor "American aggression". The EU right now is somewhat fine, although it could be even more decentralised.

Clearly it isn't just fine given that EU is also moving from crisis to crisis without having the proper powers to respond. During the sovereign debt crisis, we clearly needed a finalized fiscal union, during the pandemic it was a complete chaos until the EU finally decided on a common scheme to buy and distribute vaccines and later agreed on an unprecedented recovery plan, in this war is was shown that our defense is greatly dependent on foreign actors and some members aren't even defended by alliances like NATO (what a great confederacy that can't even properly protect its members!). Furthermore, the apparent democratic deficit and the Byzantine politics have to be fixed.

[Transsibiria]

Please, do present that extensive research and analysis, then.

I don't want to threadjack this into a discussion about racialism and not give fascists ideas either. But my point stands, the only thing that could and would unify Europe as a nation would be based in a throughly racialist identity, because racial identity can supersede national one if it comes down to it. Not just in difference to the other but also as self-identification.

This thread is about European federalism, not the idea of a "European nation". Nobody with any semblance of relevance advocates for Pan-European nationalism. It is a fringe idea held to by the far-right.

How convenient. But yes, I know that there are Paneuropeanist, white nationalist strains in far-right thought. It doesn't mean they have any relevance to the modern day campaign for European federalism.

[/quote]


No it is about the United States of Europe which implies Europe having a national structure at least resembling the United States of America. It isnt about european federalism. You do not

I have not claimed that they have any relevance for the campaign of modern day european federalism whatsoever. But the idea of Europe a Nation has some fascist roots and elements that cannot be denied, if we include the racial aspect as I mentioned earlier this gets up to eleven.

[Durius]

Please, do present that extensive research and analysis, then.

I don't want to threadjack this into a discussion about racialism and not give fascists ideas either. But my point stands, the only thing that could and would unify Europe as a nation would be based in a throughly racialist identity, because racial identity can supersede national one if it comes down to it. Not just in difference to the other but also as self-identification.

It absolutely doesn't. Do you seriously think you can simply claim that you have academic research that a European Federation will always be racist and fascist and use that to support your point without actually proving the sources? Without sources, your point is moot.

No it is about the United States of Europe which implies Europe having a national structure at least resembling the United States of America. It isnt about european federalism. You do not

The lead post: "This thread focuses on the federal idea. What do you think about it?".

And also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Europe

The thread is about the concept, even if OP is more keen on emulating the United States model than I would like.

[Transsibiria]

It absolutely doesn't. Do you seriously think you can simply claim that you have academic research that a European Federation will always be racist and fascist and use that to support your point without actually proving the sources? Without sources, your point is moot.

Now you are misinterpreting me. I never spoke about a European Federation(!) but about an European Nation and that the strongest selling point and identity for it would be one racial one. (strongest doesnt means ONLY one)

The lead post: "This thread focuses on the federal idea. What do you think about it?".

And also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Europe

The thread is about the concept, even if OP is more keen on emulating the United States model than I would like.

Are you unconfortable that aspects and perspectives are brought up that you rather not bother with?

[Durius]

It absolutely doesn't. Do you seriously think you can simply claim that you have academic research that a European Federation will always be racist and fascist and use that to support your point without actually proving the sources? Without sources, your point is moot.

Now you are misinterpreting me. I never spoke about a European Federation(!) but about an European Nation and that the strongest selling point and identity for it would be one racial one. (strongest doesnt means ONLY one)

Very well. Then please provide your sources that the strongest selling points of a European Nation are racism and fascism. And then explain why is that even relevant for a thread about European federalism.

The lead post: "This thread focuses on the federal idea. What do you think about it?".

And also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Europe

The thread is about the concept, even if OP is more keen on emulating the United States model than I would like.

Are you unconfortable that aspects and perspectives are brought up that you rather not bother with?[/quote]

I have no idea what the hell are you actually trying to ask. If it's about why uncomfortable with emulating the US model, it's simply because we can create our own model that serves European interests better than the two hundred year American model can.

[Portzania]

Either way, a loose confederation would be much better than an even more centralised federation. We do not need any greater unity to protect Europe against Russian nor "American aggression". The EU right now is somewhat fine, although it could be even more decentralised.

Clearly it isn't just fine given that EU is also moving from crisis to crisis without having the proper powers to respond. During the sovereign debt crisis, we clearly needed a finalized fiscal union, during the pandemic it was a complete chaos until the EU finally decided on a common scheme to buy and distribute vaccines and later agreed on an unprecedented recovery plan, in this war is was shown that our defense is greatly dependent on foreign actors and some members aren't even defended by alliances like NATO (what a great confederacy that can't even properly protect its members!). Furthermore, the apparent democratic deficit and the Byzantine politics have to be fixed.

There are proper powers to respond, it's just that those powers are undemocratic, and serves to benefit national governments, not the parliament or the people ACTUALLY living in the EU. Centralising it even further wouldn't fix any of these problems. On defense, I'm not sure what you mean, as if we were to merge into some super state, I also highly doubt we would actually act against Russian aggression on Ukraine, as no one wants a full on world war. Right now, as it stands, the EU currently has done a decent job of supporting Ukraine with weapon shipments.

[Durius]

Clearly it isn't just fine given that EU is also moving from crisis to crisis without having the proper powers to respond. During the sovereign debt crisis, we clearly needed a finalized fiscal union, during the pandemic it was a complete chaos until the EU finally decided on a common scheme to buy and distribute vaccines and later agreed on an unprecedented recovery plan, in this war is was shown that our defense is greatly dependent on foreign actors and some members aren't even defended by alliances like NATO (what a great confederacy that can't even properly protect its members!). Furthermore, the apparent democratic deficit and the Byzantine politics have to be fixed.

There are proper powers to respond, it's just that those powers are undemocratic, and serves to benefit national governments, not the parliament or the people ACTUALLY living in the EU. Centralising it even further wouldn't fix any of these problems. On defense, I'm not sure what you mean, as if we were to merge into some super state, I also highly doubt we would actually act against Russian aggression on Ukraine, as no one wants a full on world war. Right now, as it stands, the EU currently has done a decent job of supporting Ukraine with weapon shipments.

If the proper powers are undemocratic, then the EU needs a deeper reform to make them democratic. The fact that the Europarliament is often ignored is yet another reason why a reform is needed. And given that centralization is not desirable, then the answer is to transform the current pseudo-federation in an actual federation.

What I mean on defense is that there are EU, even with its battlegroups is not prepared to coordinate the defense of its own members. It can't even rely on NATO (ignoring the fact that it's not even a EU organization) because not all EU member states are NATO members. The EU is doing a decent job in supporting Ukraine with its unprecedented transfer of arms and money to an external state. The fact is the EU is getting new powers and its being praised for how they are using them. What's needed is to codify them, to ensure they are legal and that they aren't abused.

[Transsibiria]

Very well. Then please provide your sources that the strongest selling points of a European Nation are racism and fascism. And then explain why is that even relevant for a thread about European federalism.

If you are so afraid about the spectre of fascism and racial supremacism dilluting your beloved European federalism thread we can move it over to the fascism thread.