Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day. Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation. They call them national minorities. This is a robbery ploy. But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people? I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though.
As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem. The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition. If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve. Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled. This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.
I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.
Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.
BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.
I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's. This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations.
Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't. For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them. The French are assimilative too. But the German are not, the Spanish are not, ....
I meant that globalization corners away assets. Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions. The people move to the capital then. But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere. In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.
It is interesting why you consider the Germans as a non-assimilative nation.
About the capitals. It was quite common when the most prosperous and influential city became the capital of a certain country. And that is why the capitals still attract people and business activities. Though, it was not always the case. For example, Catalonia with its capital Barcelona is considered the most developed region in Spain; in Italy the northern provinces are more developed and richer that the other ones; in Germany the most powerful regions are situated in the western part. Also, similar examples can be found around the world.
No one says about closed borders. At least inside Europe. There should be borders, but they shouldn’t be closed.
I consider German non assimilative, because original German law declared that no matter where you are, you own tribal laws are applied to you, at any court. So, if you were a Roman, they applied Roman law on you, if you were Norse then Nordic law, if you were a Hun then Hunnic law, and so on, all in a German court. This is unimaginable in a modern nation state.
What kinds of borders do you envisage in Europe? The administrative language laws themselves create defacto borders that force ethnic conflicts along national borders, as is. How can a border be nondestructive if a different administrative language is used at its opposite side?
Because the people want was is not theirs, and when they get it they find it is not what they thought. Would you allow your neighbour to demolish you home so they could make their larger ? Without borders that is what will happen, and you will end up fighting
Stolen land is when an international dictate / decree forces you to hand over your villages to your enemy.
After that, all murder and robbery is fair game, by all national administrations.
If you restrict people's movements, then you just reinforce such military problems.
Especially when you put it back in the hands of national governments, which started this problem in the first place.
Also, under such a system, some of those closed nations must end up dirt poor and some others filthy rich, because trade always consolidates, and you have no central Brussels bureaucracy that can participate in this network to balance it.
National problems can flare up as long as nation exists. Will the EU be able to assimilate European nations and create the one nation of Europeans? I highly doubt that.
Yes, some nations will be poor, some will be rich. It will all depend on their competitiveness, creativeness, education systems, the quality of management, and so on. I don’t share the idea that say the Greeks should have the same social level that the Germans do. Of course, if they will develop their economy to Germany’s level then it is ok.
Balancing will do nothing good, because richer, hardworking nations will not be happy when their revenues will be sent not on resolving domestic issues but to somebody else while the poorer nations will be complaining that the more powerful nations treat them unfairly. The nations in the Soviet Union, by the way, experienced this stance.
Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day. Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation. They call them national minorities. This is a robbery ploy. But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people? I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though.
As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem. The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition. If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve. Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled. This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.
I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.
Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.
BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.
I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's. This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations.
Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't. For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them. The French are assimilative too. But the German are not, the Spanish are not, ....
I meant that globalization corners away assets. Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions. The people move to the capital then. But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere. In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.
NO as you dont send your money there unless you are getting a good return. Only a complete idiot would send their money out of the country and then go chaceing it to buy it back. That is as stupid as trying to borrow to get out of debt, it just erodes your buying powers and you end up broke. This is what killed the neo marxists in the UK when they tried to borrow to pay of the national debt after selling the family silver and then the gold.
National problems can flare up as long as nation exists. Will the EU be able to assimilate European nations and create the one nation of Europeans? I highly doubt that.
Yes, some nations will be poor, some will be rich. It will all depend on their competitiveness, creativeness, education systems, the quality of management, and so on. I don’t share the idea that say the Greeks should have the same social level that the Germans do. Of course, if they will develop their economy to Germany’s level then it is ok.
Balancing will do nothing good, because richer, hardworking nations will not be happy when their revenues will be sent not on resolving domestic issues but to somebody else while the poorer nations will be complaining that the more powerful nations treat them unfairly. The nations in the Soviet Union, by the way, experienced this stance.
Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day. Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation. They call them national minorities. This is a robbery ploy. But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people? I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though.
As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem. The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition. If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve. Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled. This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.
I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.
Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.
BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.
I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's. This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations.
Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't. For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them. The French are assimilative too. But the German are not, the Spanish are not, ....
I meant that globalization corners away assets. Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions. The people move to the capital then. But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere. In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.
It is interesting why you consider the Germans as a non-assimilative nation.
About the capitals. It was quite common when the most prosperous and influential city became the capital of a certain country. And that is why the capitals still attract people and business activities. Though, it was not always the case. For example, Catalonia with its capital Barcelona is considered the most developed region in Spain; in Italy the northern provinces are more developed and richer that the other ones; in Germany the most powerful regions are situated in the western part. Also, similar examples can be found around the world.
No one says about closed borders. At least inside Europe. There should be borders, but they shouldn’t be closed.
I consider German non assimilative, because original German law declared that no matter where you are, you own tribal laws are applied to you, at any court. So, if you were a Roman, they applied Roman law on you, if you were Norse then Nordic law, if you were a Hun then Hunnic law, and so on, all in a German court. This is unimaginable in a modern nation state.
What kinds of borders do you envisage in Europe? The administrative language laws themselves create defacto borders that force ethnic conflicts along national borders, as is. How can a border be nondestructive if a different administrative language is used at its opposite side?
What stolen land is that, be precise as to when and by whom it was stolen
You forgot the grin emoticon from your post.
The bible has already informed the entire planet 6000 years ago, that moving border stones is theft. And you are arguing for national borders?
But okay, let's play by your angle and consider the current map of Europe, just to keep it simple. It is entirely a single handed French design, adapted by the entente for ww1-2. Is there even one border the same as before ww1-2? Or even better, has the number of national borders ever been as high as it is since ww1-2? This is a dirty invention, and an integral part of the nation state ideology that came to dominate the world with ww1-2. Nobody knows this better and profits more from it than the communist.
what are you rambling about the borders are defined in international law, it is the neo marxists that want to use these to control the people. They draw a line on the earth and say this side is pollution free, that side is where we pollute to provide for this side. So they partition it into industrial and urban areas. True relaxation of borders would see heavy industry in the heartlands of France and Germany and farms in the big cities. As they want it the nuclear power would by in the former soviet bloc nations, then the heavy polluters next to them until finally you reach Germany which will be picture postcard perfect for the affluent champagne socialist to live in
I was talking about national borders. And international law defines them only as much as the number of people that they can kill for them. Has it ever occurred to you why international law always starts with the latest winning aggressor and never earlier? Hehe.
Because that is how international laws are formulated, so the lessons leared wont be repeated again. International laws define national borders because they are what all the other nations recognise as the borders of adjacent nations. If the nations cant agree on what is their border then the other nations step in and saw these have stood for decades and are recognised so these are your borders. Most are defined by cease fire or armistice lines
No, there are no lessons learned. Ever. Especially not with an all out robbery marauding like ww1-2. There is a good reason why international borders and international law work by the cease fires and armistices. Can you justify an international or national law that robs people because they lost the war you started on them? This is what is happening, but who should think that this is just? A communist?
Nations aggressively assimilate independents within their borders every day. Even if the independents are more indigenous than the nation. They call them national minorities. This is a robbery ploy. But if nations are okay to assimilate people, then why are super structures like the EU not okay to assimilate people? I realize though that both the EU and the Soviet Union have coasted by fueling ultra nationalistic institutional hatred though.
As for your economy argument, I think it is a bigger problem. The character of a nation decides how rich they get, and that character is to be relative to other nations. Globalization of finances pulls nations into a last guy standing style attrition competition. If there is no balancing act between them, then eventually Germany only will be livable and the rest of Europe will starve. Then half of Germany will starve too, and the whole thing will shrink to be smaller and smaller, until the entire European continent will be worth nothing but one single gated community from which everything will be controlled. This is how your own hard work destroys you, in a roundabout fashion.
I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.
Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.
BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.
I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's. This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations.
Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't. For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them. The French are assimilative too. But the German are not, the Spanish are not, ....
I meant that globalization corners away assets. Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions. The people move to the capital then. But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere. In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.
It is interesting why you consider the Germans as a non-assimilative nation.
About the capitals. It was quite common when the most prosperous and influential city became the capital of a certain country. And that is why the capitals still attract people and business activities. Though, it was not always the case. For example, Catalonia with its capital Barcelona is considered the most developed region in Spain; in Italy the northern provinces are more developed and richer that the other ones; in Germany the most powerful regions are situated in the western part. Also, similar examples can be found around the world.
No one says about closed borders. At least inside Europe. There should be borders, but they shouldn’t be closed.
I consider German non assimilative, because original German law declared that no matter where you are, you own tribal laws are applied to you, at any court. So, if you were a Roman, they applied Roman law on you, if you were Norse then Nordic law, if you were a Hun then Hunnic law, and so on, all in a German court. This is unimaginable in a modern nation state.
What kinds of borders do you envisage in Europe? The administrative language laws themselves create defacto borders that force ethnic conflicts along national borders, as is. How can a border be nondestructive if a different administrative language is used at its opposite side?
What kind? I don’t want razor wires and guard towers to be reinstalled on the borders. And I think there won’t be any necessity to do so. Though, it may be that there will be checkpoints on the main roads or something like that. As I said above, Europeans should travel freely between European countries and stay there through 90 days. It is more than enough for tourist purposes, business travels, visiting relatives, and so on.
What do you mean administrative language? The language which will be used in official documents between these countries? There will be a lingua franca common for all. Now it is English, maybe some time in the future it will be German or some other one.
You forgot the grin emoticon from your post.
The bible has already informed the entire planet 6000 years ago, that moving border stones is theft. And you are arguing for national borders?
But okay, let's play by your angle and consider the current map of Europe, just to keep it simple. It is entirely a single handed French design, adapted by the entente for ww1-2. Is there even one border the same as before ww1-2? Or even better, has the number of national borders ever been as high as it is since ww1-2? This is a dirty invention, and an integral part of the nation state ideology that came to dominate the world with ww1-2. Nobody knows this better and profits more from it than the communist.
what are you rambling about the borders are defined in international law, it is the neo marxists that want to use these to control the people. They draw a line on the earth and say this side is pollution free, that side is where we pollute to provide for this side. So they partition it into industrial and urban areas. True relaxation of borders would see heavy industry in the heartlands of France and Germany and farms in the big cities. As they want it the nuclear power would by in the former soviet bloc nations, then the heavy polluters next to them until finally you reach Germany which will be picture postcard perfect for the affluent champagne socialist to live in
I was talking about national borders. And international law defines them only as much as the number of people that they can kill for them. Has it ever occurred to you why international law always starts with the latest winning aggressor and never earlier? Hehe.
Because that is how international laws are formulated, so the lessons leared wont be repeated again. International laws define national borders because they are what all the other nations recognise as the borders of adjacent nations. If the nations cant agree on what is their border then the other nations step in and saw these have stood for decades and are recognised so these are your borders. Most are defined by cease fire or armistice lines
No, there are no lessons learned. Ever. Especially not with an all out robbery marauding like ww1-2. There is a good reason why international borders and international law work by the cease fires and armistices. Can you justify an international or national law that robs people because they lost the war you started on them? This is what is happening, but who should think that this is just? A communist?
What are you rambling on about the laws were made by both victors and losers after the formation of the UN. National laws are made by the nations for their own benefit, as in the laws of the UK that allowed us to vote on leaving the neo marxist controlled EU. Can you justify an unelected eurocrat making laws that take away a full nations human rights to make their own laws and sit in judgement of criminals. In WW1 the Germans strted the war, and again in WW2 they started the law so how did they make laws that robbed the British and Americans ?
what are you rambling about the borders are defined in international law, it is the neo marxists that want to use these to control the people. They draw a line on the earth and say this side is pollution free, that side is where we pollute to provide for this side. So they partition it into industrial and urban areas. True relaxation of borders would see heavy industry in the heartlands of France and Germany and farms in the big cities. As they want it the nuclear power would by in the former soviet bloc nations, then the heavy polluters next to them until finally you reach Germany which will be picture postcard perfect for the affluent champagne socialist to live in
I was talking about national borders. And international law defines them only as much as the number of people that they can kill for them. Has it ever occurred to you why international law always starts with the latest winning aggressor and never earlier? Hehe.
Because that is how international laws are formulated, so the lessons leared wont be repeated again. International laws define national borders because they are what all the other nations recognise as the borders of adjacent nations. If the nations cant agree on what is their border then the other nations step in and saw these have stood for decades and are recognised so these are your borders. Most are defined by cease fire or armistice lines
No, there are no lessons learned. Ever. Especially not with an all out robbery marauding like ww1-2. There is a good reason why international borders and international law work by the cease fires and armistices. Can you justify an international or national law that robs people because they lost the war you started on them? This is what is happening, but who should think that this is just? A communist?
What are you rambling on about the laws were made by both victors and losers after the formation of the UN. National laws are made by the nations for their own benefit, as in the laws of the UK that allowed us to vote on leaving the neo marxist controlled EU. Can you justify an unelected eurocrat making laws that take away a full nations human rights to make their own laws and sit in judgement of criminals. In WW1 the Germans strted the war, and again in WW2 they started the law so how did they make laws that robbed the British and Americans ?
No, pretty much everything is backwards from your post. Let me answer it one by one.
Laws are never made by losers, especially not after ww1-2. The "peace treaties" were laughed at even by the victorious French president Clemenceau. The UN doesn't change this, or the borders would be different.
National laws are not for a nations own benefit but for the benefit of the national majority only. And lately not even that but for those only who control the national majorities, such as for the Marxists.
An unelected King is proven by history to be capable to do more good for all his subjects than a national majority elected gang.
Even the ancient Chinese General Sunzu educated the world in his lessons, that wars are rarely started by those who start them. This is especially true when the "starter" loses it. This has been known for at least 2000 years.
The German didn't make laws to rob the British and the Americans. The entente made laws to rob the German and all other European countries that suited them.
I didn’t say that assimilation is okay or is not okay. I said that the EU won’t be able to assimilate the nations. I can hardly imagine how say Germans will assimilate French or Spaniards or even some smaller nations in their own countries.
Frankly, I haven’t completely understood what you tried to say by this. I don’t understand why only Germany will be livable while the others not. But even if this will be the case and if the others will do nothing to improve their abilities, then it is okay. The strongest will win as it has always been in the history.
BTW, I have asked my relative about written by you concerning travels inside the Soviet Union. It was called nonsense.
I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's. This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations.
Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't. For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them. The French are assimilative too. But the German are not, the Spanish are not, ....
I meant that globalization corners away assets. Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions. The people move to the capital then. But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere. In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.
It is interesting why you consider the Germans as a non-assimilative nation.
About the capitals. It was quite common when the most prosperous and influential city became the capital of a certain country. And that is why the capitals still attract people and business activities. Though, it was not always the case. For example, Catalonia with its capital Barcelona is considered the most developed region in Spain; in Italy the northern provinces are more developed and richer that the other ones; in Germany the most powerful regions are situated in the western part. Also, similar examples can be found around the world.
No one says about closed borders. At least inside Europe. There should be borders, but they shouldn’t be closed.
I consider German non assimilative, because original German law declared that no matter where you are, you own tribal laws are applied to you, at any court. So, if you were a Roman, they applied Roman law on you, if you were Norse then Nordic law, if you were a Hun then Hunnic law, and so on, all in a German court. This is unimaginable in a modern nation state.
What kinds of borders do you envisage in Europe? The administrative language laws themselves create defacto borders that force ethnic conflicts along national borders, as is. How can a border be nondestructive if a different administrative language is used at its opposite side?
What kind? I don’t want razor wires and guard towers to be reinstalled on the borders. And I think there won’t be any necessity to do so. Though, it may be that there will be checkpoints on the main roads or something like that. As I said above, Europeans should travel freely between European countries and stay there through 90 days. It is more than enough for tourist purposes, business travels, visiting relatives, and so on.
What do you mean administrative language? The language which will be used in official documents between these countries? There will be a lingua franca common for all. Now it is English, maybe some time in the future it will be German or some other one.
No I mean by administrative language, the language used in domestic government offices. All European countries need to adapt a single common domestic administrative language. This used to be Latin, then was German-ish, and now English would be the most practical. France will of course never accept any of this.
As for the border question, how can 90 days and no job/business rights be acceptable? People need to be able to travel and freely do any job in any of the towns they have ethnic brothers and linguistic brothers in. Most European borders cut across towns and you find that you can't go to your own town to get a job. Check the map of Europe. Your plan of border management is possible only if we redraw at least half of all European borders.
I was talking about national borders. And international law defines them only as much as the number of people that they can kill for them. Has it ever occurred to you why international law always starts with the latest winning aggressor and never earlier? Hehe.
Because that is how international laws are formulated, so the lessons leared wont be repeated again. International laws define national borders because they are what all the other nations recognise as the borders of adjacent nations. If the nations cant agree on what is their border then the other nations step in and saw these have stood for decades and are recognised so these are your borders. Most are defined by cease fire or armistice lines
No, there are no lessons learned. Ever. Especially not with an all out robbery marauding like ww1-2. There is a good reason why international borders and international law work by the cease fires and armistices. Can you justify an international or national law that robs people because they lost the war you started on them? This is what is happening, but who should think that this is just? A communist?
What are you rambling on about the laws were made by both victors and losers after the formation of the UN. National laws are made by the nations for their own benefit, as in the laws of the UK that allowed us to vote on leaving the neo marxist controlled EU. Can you justify an unelected eurocrat making laws that take away a full nations human rights to make their own laws and sit in judgement of criminals. In WW1 the Germans strted the war, and again in WW2 they started the law so how did they make laws that robbed the British and Americans ?
No, pretty much everything is backwards from your post. Let me answer it one by one.
Laws are never made by losers, especially not after ww1-2. The "peace treaties" were laughed at even by the victorious French president Clemenceau. The UN doesn't change this, or the borders would be different.
National laws are not for a nations own benefit but for the benefit of the national majority only. And lately not even that but for those only who control the national majorities, such as for the Marxists.
An unelected King is proven by history to be capable to do more good for all his subjects than a national majority elected gang.
Even the ancient Chinese General Sunzu educated the world in his lessons, that wars are rarely started by those who start them. This is especially true when the "starter" loses it. This has been known for at least 2000 years.
The German didn't make laws to rob the British and the Americans. The entente made laws to rob the German and all other European countries that suited them.
Spoken like the typical neo marxist stooge that is force fed this same information to repeat ad nauseum
I think too that the EU in its current form will not be able to assimilate the nation's. This would be necessary though to counter ultra nationalistic administrations.
Some nations are assimilative, some others aren't. For example Slavonic nations are assimilative, no trace of pre-Slavonic culture survives under them. The French are assimilative too. But the German are not, the Spanish are not, ....
I meant that globalization corners away assets. Like now most nation states have economic activities only in their capital city regions. The people move to the capital then. But money can move further and land in a nation elsewhere. In that case closed borders will prevent you from going after your money.
It is interesting why you consider the Germans as a non-assimilative nation.
About the capitals. It was quite common when the most prosperous and influential city became the capital of a certain country. And that is why the capitals still attract people and business activities. Though, it was not always the case. For example, Catalonia with its capital Barcelona is considered the most developed region in Spain; in Italy the northern provinces are more developed and richer that the other ones; in Germany the most powerful regions are situated in the western part. Also, similar examples can be found around the world.
No one says about closed borders. At least inside Europe. There should be borders, but they shouldn’t be closed.
I consider German non assimilative, because original German law declared that no matter where you are, you own tribal laws are applied to you, at any court. So, if you were a Roman, they applied Roman law on you, if you were Norse then Nordic law, if you were a Hun then Hunnic law, and so on, all in a German court. This is unimaginable in a modern nation state.
What kinds of borders do you envisage in Europe? The administrative language laws themselves create defacto borders that force ethnic conflicts along national borders, as is. How can a border be nondestructive if a different administrative language is used at its opposite side?
What kind? I don’t want razor wires and guard towers to be reinstalled on the borders. And I think there won’t be any necessity to do so. Though, it may be that there will be checkpoints on the main roads or something like that. As I said above, Europeans should travel freely between European countries and stay there through 90 days. It is more than enough for tourist purposes, business travels, visiting relatives, and so on.
What do you mean administrative language? The language which will be used in official documents between these countries? There will be a lingua franca common for all. Now it is English, maybe some time in the future it will be German or some other one.
No I mean by administrative language, the language used in domestic government offices. All European countries need to adapt a single common domestic administrative language. This used to be Latin, then was German-ish, and now English would be the most practical. France will of course never accept any of this.
As for the border question, how can 90 days and no job/business rights be acceptable? People need to be able to travel and freely do any job in any of the towns they have ethnic brothers and linguistic brothers in. Most European borders cut across towns and you find that you can't go to your own town to get a job. Check the map of Europe. Your plan of border management is possible only if we redraw at least half of all European borders.
If you recognise that France will never accept this then what is a point? It is highly doubtful that French will become the lingua franca for the EU to such extent that it fully sideline national languages in domestic administrative purposes. Actually, your idea is a non-starter whatsoever.
As to the borders and visas, I don’t know what to add to those I wrote above. I think that our disagreements lie between perceptions what is better – a big multinational federation or small (relatively) national states. I think that national states are better than the federation. I agree that this model has some disadvantages and one of them is a national issue when the representatives of one nation are divided by state borders and this may cause problems because some of them may try to redraw borders and that may end up in violent clashes. But I don’t think that a super-federation can resolve national issues; on the contrary – it can make them worse in the long run. Moreover, a super-federation is not convenient for democracy, because the more structures exist above ordinary people the fewer chances to control these structures, the weaker ties between the common people and the top level bureaucrats.
So, there are no unique good or bad choices, you should always chose between the lesser of two evils. I think that national states with deep cooperation is the lesser evil in compare with a multinational federation with huge bureaucratic apparatus.
Because that is how international laws are formulated, so the lessons leared wont be repeated again. International laws define national borders because they are what all the other nations recognise as the borders of adjacent nations. If the nations cant agree on what is their border then the other nations step in and saw these have stood for decades and are recognised so these are your borders. Most are defined by cease fire or armistice lines
No, there are no lessons learned. Ever. Especially not with an all out robbery marauding like ww1-2. There is a good reason why international borders and international law work by the cease fires and armistices. Can you justify an international or national law that robs people because they lost the war you started on them? This is what is happening, but who should think that this is just? A communist?
What are you rambling on about the laws were made by both victors and losers after the formation of the UN. National laws are made by the nations for their own benefit, as in the laws of the UK that allowed us to vote on leaving the neo marxist controlled EU. Can you justify an unelected eurocrat making laws that take away a full nations human rights to make their own laws and sit in judgement of criminals. In WW1 the Germans strted the war, and again in WW2 they started the law so how did they make laws that robbed the British and Americans ?
No, pretty much everything is backwards from your post. Let me answer it one by one.
Laws are never made by losers, especially not after ww1-2. The "peace treaties" were laughed at even by the victorious French president Clemenceau. The UN doesn't change this, or the borders would be different.
National laws are not for a nations own benefit but for the benefit of the national majority only. And lately not even that but for those only who control the national majorities, such as for the Marxists.
An unelected King is proven by history to be capable to do more good for all his subjects than a national majority elected gang.
Even the ancient Chinese General Sunzu educated the world in his lessons, that wars are rarely started by those who start them. This is especially true when the "starter" loses it. This has been known for at least 2000 years.
The German didn't make laws to rob the British and the Americans. The entente made laws to rob the German and all other European countries that suited them.
Spoken like the typical neo marxist stooge that is force fed this same information to repeat ad nauseum
Says you whose country has been robbing its neighbors for a 100 years. So what kind of borders do you want? Hehehe. (Edit for better answer.)
I am not sure what you mean by cantonization, but if it means creating single-nation independent cantons then this is not practically achievable.It is interesting why you consider the Germans as a non-assimilative nation.
About the capitals. It was quite common when the most prosperous and influential city became the capital of a certain country. And that is why the capitals still attract people and business activities. Though, it was not always the case. For example, Catalonia with its capital Barcelona is considered the most developed region in Spain; in Italy the northern provinces are more developed and richer that the other ones; in Germany the most powerful regions are situated in the western part. Also, similar examples can be found around the world.
No one says about closed borders. At least inside Europe. There should be borders, but they shouldn’t be closed.
I consider German non assimilative, because original German law declared that no matter where you are, you own tribal laws are applied to you, at any court. So, if you were a Roman, they applied Roman law on you, if you were Norse then Nordic law, if you were a Hun then Hunnic law, and so on, all in a German court. This is unimaginable in a modern nation state.
What kinds of borders do you envisage in Europe? The administrative language laws themselves create defacto borders that force ethnic conflicts along national borders, as is. How can a border be nondestructive if a different administrative language is used at its opposite side?
What kind? I don’t want razor wires and guard towers to be reinstalled on the borders. And I think there won’t be any necessity to do so. Though, it may be that there will be checkpoints on the main roads or something like that. As I said above, Europeans should travel freely between European countries and stay there through 90 days. It is more than enough for tourist purposes, business travels, visiting relatives, and so on.
What do you mean administrative language? The language which will be used in official documents between these countries? There will be a lingua franca common for all. Now it is English, maybe some time in the future it will be German or some other one.
No I mean by administrative language, the language used in domestic government offices. All European countries need to adapt a single common domestic administrative language. This used to be Latin, then was German-ish, and now English would be the most practical. France will of course never accept any of this.
As for the border question, how can 90 days and no job/business rights be acceptable? People need to be able to travel and freely do any job in any of the towns they have ethnic brothers and linguistic brothers in. Most European borders cut across towns and you find that you can't go to your own town to get a job. Check the map of Europe. Your plan of border management is possible only if we redraw at least half of all European borders.
If you recognise that France will never accept this then what is a point? It is highly doubtful that French will become the lingua franca for the EU to such extent that it fully sideline national languages in domestic administrative purposes. Actually, your idea is a non-starter whatsoever.
As to the borders and visas, I don’t know what to add to those I wrote above. I think that our disagreements lie between perceptions what is better – a big multinational federation or small (relatively) national states. I think that national states are better than the federation. I agree that this model has some disadvantages and one of them is a national issue when the representatives of one nation are divided by state borders and this may cause problems because some of them may try to redraw borders and that may end up in violent clashes. But I don’t think that a super-federation can resolve national issues; on the contrary – it can make them worse in the long run. Moreover, a super-federation is not convenient for democracy, because the more structures exist above ordinary people the fewer chances to control these structures, the weaker ties between the common people and the top level bureaucrats.
So, there are no unique good or bad choices, you should always chose between the lesser of two evils. I think that national states with deep cooperation is the lesser evil in compare with a multinational federation with huge bureaucratic apparatus.
Very interesting point and your point is well taken, albeit disagreed. Cantonization? That could be an alternative to national statehood. Cantons can be small enough to unite ethnic and linguistic islands with lesser border violations I think. Interesting that Cantonization is never mentioned as an alternative.
I am not sure what you mean by cantonization, but if it means creating single-nation independent cantons then this is not practically achievable.I consider German non assimilative, because original German law declared that no matter where you are, you own tribal laws are applied to you, at any court. So, if you were a Roman, they applied Roman law on you, if you were Norse then Nordic law, if you were a Hun then Hunnic law, and so on, all in a German court. This is unimaginable in a modern nation state.
What kinds of borders do you envisage in Europe? The administrative language laws themselves create defacto borders that force ethnic conflicts along national borders, as is. How can a border be nondestructive if a different administrative language is used at its opposite side?
What kind? I don’t want razor wires and guard towers to be reinstalled on the borders. And I think there won’t be any necessity to do so. Though, it may be that there will be checkpoints on the main roads or something like that. As I said above, Europeans should travel freely between European countries and stay there through 90 days. It is more than enough for tourist purposes, business travels, visiting relatives, and so on.
What do you mean administrative language? The language which will be used in official documents between these countries? There will be a lingua franca common for all. Now it is English, maybe some time in the future it will be German or some other one.
No I mean by administrative language, the language used in domestic government offices. All European countries need to adapt a single common domestic administrative language. This used to be Latin, then was German-ish, and now English would be the most practical. France will of course never accept any of this.
As for the border question, how can 90 days and no job/business rights be acceptable? People need to be able to travel and freely do any job in any of the towns they have ethnic brothers and linguistic brothers in. Most European borders cut across towns and you find that you can't go to your own town to get a job. Check the map of Europe. Your plan of border management is possible only if we redraw at least half of all European borders.
If you recognise that France will never accept this then what is a point? It is highly doubtful that French will become the lingua franca for the EU to such extent that it fully sideline national languages in domestic administrative purposes. Actually, your idea is a non-starter whatsoever.
As to the borders and visas, I don’t know what to add to those I wrote above. I think that our disagreements lie between perceptions what is better – a big multinational federation or small (relatively) national states. I think that national states are better than the federation. I agree that this model has some disadvantages and one of them is a national issue when the representatives of one nation are divided by state borders and this may cause problems because some of them may try to redraw borders and that may end up in violent clashes. But I don’t think that a super-federation can resolve national issues; on the contrary – it can make them worse in the long run. Moreover, a super-federation is not convenient for democracy, because the more structures exist above ordinary people the fewer chances to control these structures, the weaker ties between the common people and the top level bureaucrats.
So, there are no unique good or bad choices, you should always chose between the lesser of two evils. I think that national states with deep cooperation is the lesser evil in compare with a multinational federation with huge bureaucratic apparatus.
Very interesting point and your point is well taken, albeit disagreed. Cantonization? That could be an alternative to national statehood. Cantons can be small enough to unite ethnic and linguistic islands with lesser border violations I think. Interesting that Cantonization is never mentioned as an alternative.
No, there are no lessons learned. Ever. Especially not with an all out robbery marauding like ww1-2. There is a good reason why international borders and international law work by the cease fires and armistices. Can you justify an international or national law that robs people because they lost the war you started on them? This is what is happening, but who should think that this is just? A communist?
What are you rambling on about the laws were made by both victors and losers after the formation of the UN. National laws are made by the nations for their own benefit, as in the laws of the UK that allowed us to vote on leaving the neo marxist controlled EU. Can you justify an unelected eurocrat making laws that take away a full nations human rights to make their own laws and sit in judgement of criminals. In WW1 the Germans strted the war, and again in WW2 they started the law so how did they make laws that robbed the British and Americans ?
No, pretty much everything is backwards from your post. Let me answer it one by one.
Laws are never made by losers, especially not after ww1-2. The "peace treaties" were laughed at even by the victorious French president Clemenceau. The UN doesn't change this, or the borders would be different.
National laws are not for a nations own benefit but for the benefit of the national majority only. And lately not even that but for those only who control the national majorities, such as for the Marxists.
An unelected King is proven by history to be capable to do more good for all his subjects than a national majority elected gang.
Even the ancient Chinese General Sunzu educated the world in his lessons, that wars are rarely started by those who start them. This is especially true when the "starter" loses it. This has been known for at least 2000 years.
The German didn't make laws to rob the British and the Americans. The entente made laws to rob the German and all other European countries that suited them.
Spoken like the typical neo marxist stooge that is force fed this same information to repeat ad nauseum
Says you whose country has been robbing its neighbors for a 100 years. So what kind of borders do you want? Hehehe. (Edit for better answer.)
Who have we robbed then and how ?
What it cost to bail out Scotland alone in todays money would buy all of the US
I am not sure what you mean by cantonization, but if it means creating single-nation independent cantons then this is not practically achievable.What kind? I don’t want razor wires and guard towers to be reinstalled on the borders. And I think there won’t be any necessity to do so. Though, it may be that there will be checkpoints on the main roads or something like that. As I said above, Europeans should travel freely between European countries and stay there through 90 days. It is more than enough for tourist purposes, business travels, visiting relatives, and so on.
What do you mean administrative language? The language which will be used in official documents between these countries? There will be a lingua franca common for all. Now it is English, maybe some time in the future it will be German or some other one.
No I mean by administrative language, the language used in domestic government offices. All European countries need to adapt a single common domestic administrative language. This used to be Latin, then was German-ish, and now English would be the most practical. France will of course never accept any of this.
As for the border question, how can 90 days and no job/business rights be acceptable? People need to be able to travel and freely do any job in any of the towns they have ethnic brothers and linguistic brothers in. Most European borders cut across towns and you find that you can't go to your own town to get a job. Check the map of Europe. Your plan of border management is possible only if we redraw at least half of all European borders.
If you recognise that France will never accept this then what is a point? It is highly doubtful that French will become the lingua franca for the EU to such extent that it fully sideline national languages in domestic administrative purposes. Actually, your idea is a non-starter whatsoever.
As to the borders and visas, I don’t know what to add to those I wrote above. I think that our disagreements lie between perceptions what is better – a big multinational federation or small (relatively) national states. I think that national states are better than the federation. I agree that this model has some disadvantages and one of them is a national issue when the representatives of one nation are divided by state borders and this may cause problems because some of them may try to redraw borders and that may end up in violent clashes. But I don’t think that a super-federation can resolve national issues; on the contrary – it can make them worse in the long run. Moreover, a super-federation is not convenient for democracy, because the more structures exist above ordinary people the fewer chances to control these structures, the weaker ties between the common people and the top level bureaucrats.
So, there are no unique good or bad choices, you should always chose between the lesser of two evils. I think that national states with deep cooperation is the lesser evil in compare with a multinational federation with huge bureaucratic apparatus.
Very interesting point and your point is well taken, albeit disagreed. Cantonization? That could be an alternative to national statehood. Cantons can be small enough to unite ethnic and linguistic islands with lesser border violations I think. Interesting that Cantonization is never mentioned as an alternative.
I too think that it is difficult to achieve it, if even possible. So far only Yugoslavia achieved it and even that only partially.
Should be a better utopia though.
Enforcing current borders is backwards 50 years into the post ww2 communist era with walls, barbed wire fences, and ideological militia.
What are you rambling on about the laws were made by both victors and losers after the formation of the UN. National laws are made by the nations for their own benefit, as in the laws of the UK that allowed us to vote on leaving the neo marxist controlled EU. Can you justify an unelected eurocrat making laws that take away a full nations human rights to make their own laws and sit in judgement of criminals. In WW1 the Germans strted the war, and again in WW2 they started the law so how did they make laws that robbed the British and Americans ?
No, pretty much everything is backwards from your post. Let me answer it one by one.
Laws are never made by losers, especially not after ww1-2. The "peace treaties" were laughed at even by the victorious French president Clemenceau. The UN doesn't change this, or the borders would be different.
National laws are not for a nations own benefit but for the benefit of the national majority only. And lately not even that but for those only who control the national majorities, such as for the Marxists.
An unelected King is proven by history to be capable to do more good for all his subjects than a national majority elected gang.
Even the ancient Chinese General Sunzu educated the world in his lessons, that wars are rarely started by those who start them. This is especially true when the "starter" loses it. This has been known for at least 2000 years.
The German didn't make laws to rob the British and the Americans. The entente made laws to rob the German and all other European countries that suited them.
Spoken like the typical neo marxist stooge that is force fed this same information to repeat ad nauseum
Says you whose country has been robbing its neighbors for a 100 years. So what kind of borders do you want? Hehehe. (Edit for better answer.)
Who have we robbed then and how ?
What it cost to bail out Scotland alone in todays money would buy all of the US
Who did you rob? Had a look at the map of Europe lately? It was not designed by Germany. Hehehe.
I am not sure what you mean by cantonization, but if it means creating single-nation independent cantons then this is not practically achievable.No I mean by administrative language, the language used in domestic government offices. All European countries need to adapt a single common domestic administrative language. This used to be Latin, then was German-ish, and now English would be the most practical. France will of course never accept any of this.
As for the border question, how can 90 days and no job/business rights be acceptable? People need to be able to travel and freely do any job in any of the towns they have ethnic brothers and linguistic brothers in. Most European borders cut across towns and you find that you can't go to your own town to get a job. Check the map of Europe. Your plan of border management is possible only if we redraw at least half of all European borders.
If you recognise that France will never accept this then what is a point? It is highly doubtful that French will become the lingua franca for the EU to such extent that it fully sideline national languages in domestic administrative purposes. Actually, your idea is a non-starter whatsoever.
As to the borders and visas, I don’t know what to add to those I wrote above. I think that our disagreements lie between perceptions what is better – a big multinational federation or small (relatively) national states. I think that national states are better than the federation. I agree that this model has some disadvantages and one of them is a national issue when the representatives of one nation are divided by state borders and this may cause problems because some of them may try to redraw borders and that may end up in violent clashes. But I don’t think that a super-federation can resolve national issues; on the contrary – it can make them worse in the long run. Moreover, a super-federation is not convenient for democracy, because the more structures exist above ordinary people the fewer chances to control these structures, the weaker ties between the common people and the top level bureaucrats.
So, there are no unique good or bad choices, you should always chose between the lesser of two evils. I think that national states with deep cooperation is the lesser evil in compare with a multinational federation with huge bureaucratic apparatus.
Very interesting point and your point is well taken, albeit disagreed. Cantonization? That could be an alternative to national statehood. Cantons can be small enough to unite ethnic and linguistic islands with lesser border violations I think. Interesting that Cantonization is never mentioned as an alternative.
I too think that it is difficult to achieve it, if even possible. So far only Yugoslavia achieved it and even that only partially.
Should be a better utopia though.
Enforcing current borders is backwards 50 years into the post ww2 communist era with walls, barbed wire fences, and ideological militia.
Only if you are a neo marxist out to create a new Soviet from the remains of Europe. A pity that you jumped the gun and showed your back hand before you were ready to take control
No, pretty much everything is backwards from your post. Let me answer it one by one.
Laws are never made by losers, especially not after ww1-2. The "peace treaties" were laughed at even by the victorious French president Clemenceau. The UN doesn't change this, or the borders would be different.
National laws are not for a nations own benefit but for the benefit of the national majority only. And lately not even that but for those only who control the national majorities, such as for the Marxists.
An unelected King is proven by history to be capable to do more good for all his subjects than a national majority elected gang.
Even the ancient Chinese General Sunzu educated the world in his lessons, that wars are rarely started by those who start them. This is especially true when the "starter" loses it. This has been known for at least 2000 years.
The German didn't make laws to rob the British and the Americans. The entente made laws to rob the German and all other European countries that suited them.
Spoken like the typical neo marxist stooge that is force fed this same information to repeat ad nauseum
Says you whose country has been robbing its neighbors for a 100 years. So what kind of borders do you want? Hehehe. (Edit for better answer.)
Who have we robbed then and how ?
What it cost to bail out Scotland alone in todays money would buy all of the US
Who did you rob? Had a look at the map of Europe lately? It was not designed by Germany. Hehehe.
So you have no evidence to support your original claim then, is this why you are deflecting because you have been caught LYING again
I am not sure what you mean by cantonization, but if it means creating single-nation independent cantons then this is not practically achievable.If you recognise that France will never accept this then what is a point? It is highly doubtful that French will become the lingua franca for the EU to such extent that it fully sideline national languages in domestic administrative purposes. Actually, your idea is a non-starter whatsoever.
As to the borders and visas, I don’t know what to add to those I wrote above. I think that our disagreements lie between perceptions what is better – a big multinational federation or small (relatively) national states. I think that national states are better than the federation. I agree that this model has some disadvantages and one of them is a national issue when the representatives of one nation are divided by state borders and this may cause problems because some of them may try to redraw borders and that may end up in violent clashes. But I don’t think that a super-federation can resolve national issues; on the contrary – it can make them worse in the long run. Moreover, a super-federation is not convenient for democracy, because the more structures exist above ordinary people the fewer chances to control these structures, the weaker ties between the common people and the top level bureaucrats.
So, there are no unique good or bad choices, you should always chose between the lesser of two evils. I think that national states with deep cooperation is the lesser evil in compare with a multinational federation with huge bureaucratic apparatus.
Very interesting point and your point is well taken, albeit disagreed. Cantonization? That could be an alternative to national statehood. Cantons can be small enough to unite ethnic and linguistic islands with lesser border violations I think. Interesting that Cantonization is never mentioned as an alternative.
I too think that it is difficult to achieve it, if even possible. So far only Yugoslavia achieved it and even that only partially.
Should be a better utopia though.
Enforcing current borders is backwards 50 years into the post ww2 communist era with walls, barbed wire fences, and ideological militia.
Only if you are a neo marxist out to create a new Soviet from the remains of Europe. A pity that you jumped the gun and showed your back hand before you were ready to take control
No, the Soviet Union didn't work. Your proposal is to do a Soviet Union at national levels. You do this because you figure that trapping national minorities within new borders gives you new loot. I would hate to be you. Do you sleep with Satan frequently?
Spoken like the typical neo marxist stooge that is force fed this same information to repeat ad nauseum
Says you whose country has been robbing its neighbors for a 100 years. So what kind of borders do you want? Hehehe. (Edit for better answer.)
Who have we robbed then and how ?
What it cost to bail out Scotland alone in todays money would buy all of the US
Who did you rob? Had a look at the map of Europe lately? It was not designed by Germany. Hehehe.
So you have no evidence to support your original claim then, is this why you are deflecting because you have been caught LYING again
Don't worry about that because you can buy or download a Europe map any day free of charge. Are you afraid to face the evidence? Hehehe.
