Youtube comments of Hercules Koutalidis (@herculeskoutalidis1369).
-
140
-
100
-
98
-
67
-
54
-
40
-
35
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
23
-
21
-
21
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
13
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
1. Your problem with Hungary is that it is governed by a government that is not controlled by the Freemasons (or however they can be called) that want replacement of the better population. Hungary has fair elections, and maybe part of its Judiciary is controlled by Orban. The US, the UK and France do not have free elections (especially the US I admit), and their Judiciary is determined by the ruling Freemasons. There is no country where the Judiciary is independent from the government, or the Capitalists (the Freemasons). You must chose which of the two you like. In a '''''democracy'''''', that is. In the US, the banks are owned by the Freemasons, and therefore they can chose who does which job, by funding them, or by not funding them. No major MSM will tell you this, because they are Freemasons too. But you know it anyway, so far.
2. Your problem with Turkey is the same as with Hungary.
3. I challenge everyone here to persuade me that Germany, Sweden and the US will be better off than Hungary in 100 years.
4. Sorry but, Turkey is not a country in Europe! :D Maybe also make videos about Bangladesh and Uganda?
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@oerthling 1) and because there has never been 0% immigration in the past, it follows it also cannot happen in the future? (no). 2) we can limit immigration to a very small amount, but then questions like what kind of immigr. and how much of it, arize. 3) if there is no replacement, then why is Germany inhabited by only 75% people of german genetics, and not nearly 100%, like it was until 1960? :) And why is London inhabited by only 40% people of British origins, and not nearly 100%, like it was until 1960? And why is the center of my city, Athens, inhabited by only 70% people of greek orgigins, and not 100%, like it was until 1990? :)
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
What are you talking about, the US has the least reliable elections in the world, Democrats stole the elections last November, and a clique called Freemasons control who does what job, by woning the banks, therefore funding them, or not funding them. The Judiciary, politicians, and all important people must be approved by the Freemasons before they do an important job, otherwise the Fs make sure they are excluded from the job, one way or another. Whether this form of (secret) (and also global) government is bad, or in the end, good, is another topic :)
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It is not that simple Ferenc. For example, if your government signs a treaty with another country, your country must abide by it, otherwise the treaty is void. Another example: if your government signs a treaty with the British government, that the latter will henceforth do the finances of your country's government, for the next 50 years, then...that is it, it was you who chose to give this right to the British government. 😀 The issue is, that the policies of the EU are mostly determined by Germany, France, Italy, the NL, Spain, etc who are leaning to the political left. So you (and me) , a right winger, are usually not fond of them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Greece here.
But of course!Obviously!
There are no EU members that have and are benefiting more than Germany, and the NL.
There was a plan to have everything in ALL EU states imported from Germany (and the Netherlands). Greece has (since the 80s) the highest trade deficit in GDP terms in the EU (who profits from that? Bavaria of course).
But why did (the EU creators= the french) they want that so?
To contain and control Germany. Remember that (in case you do not already know it).
The more Germany exports (to the US, England, France, and the rest of the EU), the more politicaly DEPENDENT it becomes on their purchases.
What if in the future Germany does not comply with franco-british political demands? They impose big tariffs on german products, hereby destroying (a harsh word) german growth (economy as a matter of fact). So the UK (and France-although not allied now.., and the US) should not be afraid of having big trade deficits with germany. On the contrary.
Smaller economies (that are also forced to use a currency whose monetary role is to serve ONLY german interests) like Greece and Portugal (and all of the eurozone) however are suffering the biggest economic disaster since the war (wehave 25+% unemployment) exactly because of these german trade surpluses (we simply don t have enough economic space to put workers to work-all manufacturing/goods jobs have moved to southern Germany since the 1980s-2000s..we are left with lawers/law firms, language schools, cafeterias (haha!!!) , taverns, and everything that has actually no german/dutch/italian/french competition.
3
-
@LahtariFIN I believe you should listen to your older country men (and women) as you said. Giving away money to foreign countries, whose politics you have 0 influence in, is futile, and also stupid, saddly. I am only going to add something that you probably do not know. Greeks never voted for our government borrowing money. What happened is the following:
1. Party A promised to reduce our debt.
2. We voted party A.
3. Party A increased our debt.
4. Party B promised to reduce our debt.
5. We voted party B.
6. Party B increased our debt.
7. Party A promised to reduce our debt.
8. We voted party A.
9. Party A increased our debt.
10. Party C promised NOT to increase our debt, and do everything they could to reduce it.
11. We voted party C.
12. Party C was Syriza, the most left wing party of the 3, but was the only honest party of the 3, and did not increase our debt.
13. Party B promised to decrease our debt.
14. We voted party B (our current ruling party).
15. Party B increased our debt (by another 20%).
Sorry for the long story. But it could actually happen to everyone, like Finland, Sweden, Iceland, or Switzerland. This is because in our era of history you do not really control what your government is doing, by voting or not voting for them. The Freemasons are :) In this frame, you should never vote to financially ''''support'''' another country, be it Greece, Nigeria, or Germany. Greetings from Greece :)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@RJ-tr8vt I am saying he is mad because he wants to increase the non white percentage in the US (which makes it the great country it became) by importing immigrants (mostly from central America), because he will secretly fund anti-white groups like Antifa and BLM, and because he wants to take money away from the economically more competent (so mostly whites) and give it to the least competent, stupid, lazy (so mostly non white), so that they can make more incompetent, lazy children. He will also help relocate industries from the US to China, therefore helping a socialist and also civilizationally mediocre country, against the US, a country with superior moral values, culture, and beauty. These are the main reasons I believe he is ''''''mad'''''' (he is not mad, but let's call him like this for now).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mobmaniac I am an anti-nationalist, but, why not? Did you ever wonder why the nazis did not want ''''democracy''''? The reason is in my bi comment. Because in '''''democracy'''''', Freemasons govern the country, hiding behind their parties. Similarly, Freemasons do not want fascism, nazism, or any other conservative government, especially if it is dictatorial (because then they can do nothing at all), because such conservative government will halt the process of globalization, that is, the creation of a single nation upon Earth (which I am rather a fan of btw!! :D)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lashlarue7924 Greece here. Having the same experience with Italy, I will tell you this. It is not the Eurozone's fault that you have no growth. It is your governments' fault. Look a the other Eurozone countries. There is not only Germany and Italy. Look at Slovenia, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. All growing. Estonia and Slovenia have higher purchasing power than Italy! So it's not the Euro's fault. You have some of the highest taxes in the EU! Reduce your taxes! Why would someone invest to a company, if they know the state will take 70% of their income in taxes? Would you risk this investment? I would not. I would rather have a low paying job! Reduce your taxes. Nobody in europe devalues their currency.. Poland, CZ, Hungary, Sweden,Denmark, Romania, Bulgaria. Noone dvalues their currency. We in Greece did that in the 90s. Devaluing gives the incentives to your business people NOT to try HARD to make their products better. REDUCE. YOUR.TAXES!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
But what if the electorates of all other EU countries want to replace their populations, with populations of less quality (like Germans, French, Italians, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, Austrians, Greeks do for example)? What would you do, in a polish citizen's place?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@michamalina5530 are you aware that Germany is now 73% german, the rest being immigrants and their descendants from the south? are you aware that the same percentage is projected to be 50% by 2050? Would you like Warsaw be 50% turkish, afghan, nigerian, pakistan, algerian, moroccan, (spanish, italian, greek, portuguese, albanian, serbian, romanian), and then 0% polish, by the year 2200?
2
-
@milantoth6246 ''''' to corruption, tyranny, communism, the east, authoritarianism, and through the current government and/or its spiritual successors.''''' So let's see:
1. corruption : I believe V.Orban and his government has every reason to want to reduce corruption as much as possible. But even if there is some corruption, I believe Hungary is already currently ranked as one of the western world's least corrupt countries. So maybe you need to check if your measurement of corruption is a rational one. Namely, it is not wise to compare corruption in a state formed just in 1989 (like Hungary), with a state formed in 1707, like the UK, or Sweden, or Germany, or the NL, etc, and say, that 5% more corruption, is a failure of the government. Otherwise, as far as I know, corruption in Hungary should be the problem that least concerns one, right now.
2. Tyranny: how is your current government tyrannic? Tyrannic, means illiberal. Whom is your government iliberal to? Answer: not even one. I would be far less liberal than V.Orban, if I were the PM of Hungary, without being tyrannical at all. Your judgement is nonsensical at best, dishonest.
3. The east. What is wrong with the east? Is China or Russia buying serious parts of your economy? which ones? Explain. How does that compare to Germany and the US? Whose ideological influence is ultimately worse? My answer: the West's. (You must note here that the West's ideology used to be overall better than the East's. By 1989. Not anymore. Also note that Russia and China do not share the same ideology, and are also very different culturally, and obviously, genetically.)
4. Authoritarianism: authoritarianism is not fundamentally bad. Tyranny is. Go back to (2). Furthermore, our current parliamentarian systems do not allow for authoritarianism. Why? Because our governments are backed by our parliaments, who were elected by us. So if Orban wants to do A, he needs 51% of MPs to say '''''ok''''''. In which case he is obviously enough not authoritarian. In case he does not get 51% PMs to say '''''ok''''', then he CANNOT do A. In which case he is also obviously enough not authoritarian. So maybe what you in fact mean, that it is the majority of the hungarian PEOPLE, who in fact force some of their opinions to minority opinions (of 20% let's say), who want to not do A. In which case it is the legal system ITSELF that is authoritarian, and not the hungarian government, which is just following the law. I admit, that current parliamentarianism can leed to such inoptimal(?) situations, in which 51% of the public, CAN in fact, FORCE their opinion to any other minority. So this is not a perfect system maybe. But can you come up with a better one? :)
PS. I am greek. For a peculiar reason, your small country has the best government, together with that of Poland and Russia, when measured by the quality of the prospective civilizational state of your country/the respective countries, in 100 years from now. You know what I am talking about :)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ZugloHUN so Hungarians are leaving Hungary to Germany because they will be paid better there, but Syrians, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Somalis, Algerians, Tynisians, and the whole lot of Africa and Asia want to go to Germany just because of war (and not because they will also be paid better)? :) Who are you kidding, me or yourself? People do not need a war to become immigrants to Germany and the west in general. The motive is there anyways, as you very well know, and it is economic and cultural in nature, as described above (Germany and the West is a very wealthy and culturally beautiful land). But even if these peoples were fleeing from war, they could just stay in one of the dozens of countries they cross through, in their journey to Bavaria, or the "promised land" of their choice, for example Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, Kazakstan, Pakistan, etc. So their motivation when entering Germany, is purely economic and oportunistic in general, just like that of thousands of Greeks, Italians, Hungarians, Poles, etc. immigrating to the West for a better life.
2
-
@ZugloHUN I agree, some notes though. It is impossible for Europe (the West generally) to economically "help" the 3rd world, because of their respective (economic) sizes. The 3rd world accounts for some 70% of the world's economy. You have something like 1 person with an income of 3000€, and 1000 persons with an income of 10€ each. What kind of "help" ( = wealth redistribution) can you do? 3000/1000 = 3, so everyone would have an income of 13€ (instead of 1 having 3000€, and 1000 having 10€). This is why donating money to the 3rd world is a drop in the ocean, and all it does is make the West poorer. Investment in the 3rd world is another thing, but could very well be environmentally non-viable, just imagine every African driving a BMW, we would run out of oil and have 1000x more CO2 emmissions. Unviable. Not to mention the result of economic activity on the environment. The only solution I see, is 3rd world depopulation, and concentration of the human population in northern Europe and North America. There is no bombing in Northern African countries where 50% of immirants are coming from by the way.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brandonraid3112 you call a net immigation of 300k brown people a year (even though ''''educated'''') '''''good quality immigrants'''''? XD For an average stay of about 35 years, this means that after 35 years, you will have 300k * 35 = 10.5 million such immigrants in your country, additionally to the about 15 million that you have now. That is, about 20 million brown people in the UK. Meanwhile, the British are becoming fewer and fewer, because they have stopped reproducing, and are currnetly about 50 million in the UK. This means that in about 35 years, your country will be about 50% British/white, and 50% brown/Indian,Pakistani, Bangladeshi,Arab, etc. Immigration from the south to the north must therefore be forbidden.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@disappointedenglishman98 maybe I don't. I am not disagreeing with your concerns and arguments in principle. I do not see why the UK should pay 30bn€ to the EU (once? regularly?). Neither do many people of course. That does not mean that there is not a reason for it. What is your government's argumentation on it? Why does it believe that this money (and a lot of money that is) should be paid?
Canada does allow the US to set its regulations, by only allowing parties to exist, that are in '''at least some''' agreement with the prevailing interests of the US. Canada does allow the US to set all or most of canadian politics, without people knowing or noticing about it. It is a really long and complicated conversation. But I will give you the fact, that Canadians have the sense of ''''being free'''' from US politics. They are not. But they feel so. And this is what matters most.
What you do not know, is the fact that, as you saw, you cannot have free trade with a country, without avoiding it influence your politics. If there a moment comes in history, when Canada(that is the Canadian people) comes in actuall disagreement with the US
, Canada can do little about it, because the US will start imposing tariffs to canadian products, hurting Canada until they give up on their policy, that the US does not approve.
Obviously, Canadian politicians decided a long ago, that this is highly improbable to happen, and that the economic benefits of free trade with the US, will be greater, than this possibility of political contrast, while having free trade.
Have you ever wondered why AH wanted to terminate all trade with external nations? :) Because he knew, that when the time comes, external nations that do not agree with his policies, will cause trouble by disrupting this trade.
I believe you are right in wanting just free trade with the EU, without pooling your democratic system with ours. I myself am starting being critical against it. But not from the national interest -point of view. Again, I believe you are right in only wanting free trade. On the other side, if every country starts pursuing its own national interest, there is for instance no logical or moral reason why for example France and Germany (and others) will not ally against you, in order to make way for their alliance's/own interests :) What would be wrong with that? You would've previously done the same :)
You know what I'm saying? Just don't ask for too much for yourself :D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1neAdam12 simple '''''white educators'''''' are not of the intellect, of the german Chancelor, the President of the US, any other white (and non white!) nation's head of state and government. They can do it out of stupidity, just like there are 17-year-olds who actually believe CRT and the likes when they are completely naive yougsters, until they get 20 or 24, and realize what it is actually about, and turn.....'''''red pilled''''. But when you see the Chancelor of Germany, the British PM, the POTUS, and the WHOLE of their parties supporting what they support, then this should give you a second red pill, and you should start wondering how it can be, that so many whites of way bigger intellect than yours (yes man, they are more wise and intelligent than you :D) take part in the conspiracy.
Angela Merkel (and anyone similar) does not take part in the conspiracy because she was paid money. She takes part in the conspiracy, because she was PERSUADED to do so (with her own freedom of choice and opinion). :) This means that Angela Merkel knows things, that you do not yet know, and that, if you did know them, then maybe you would want to take part in the conspiracy as well :)
I also believe, that, the conspirators, although wanting people take part in the consp (because there must be enough persons to undertake the respective actions) and therefore know, they do not want MANY people to know. (otherwise they would just spread the important info I am talking about to everyone). So they want ONLY a few to know, and be part of it. (why only a few? Idk. But for some reason they want only a few).
I repeat. The whites/non js that take part in the consp, were not bribed, or forced to do so. They take part of it, because they want to. Because they believe in what they are doing. (obviously, the js too :) ).
You must also notice, that the conspirators, can only have the best of intentions for the Earth, and for mankind, because otherwise, it makes no sense. To put it otherwise, there is no reason to do a bad thing just for the sake of it. To put it otherwise, there is no reason to replace the beautiful creative Swedish people with Middle Esterners, just for fun :) There must be a GOOD reason (that we do not know) for it. :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@redyau_ if you let the '''''left'''''' rule, Budapest will immediately become 90% white in just 3-4 years, within an eyeblink. Then even less. In Athens, Greece where I live, the city center is already 30% non white. They are already spreading to the countryside and minor cities. There they will make children, and so on. And that was with mostly ''''''right wing''''' (that means Merkel/western type) governments. I believe any voting optimizations beyond this are ultimately useless. Hungary is Europes' most successful state for a decade now. Of course you should expect the Freemasons to hit back (at Orban) somehow (maybe with this coalition of anti-Orban parties that you have now I think). Be vigilant. Be smart. Europe is watching you, and if you do good, in 10-20 years, the UK, France and Germany will start wanting to become like Hungary, that is, white again. :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nocomment00 I believe you confuse the concepts of ''''the EU''''', '''''''the left'''''', and the '''''''EPP''''''' (european peoples party).
The EU, is not left wing.
The EU, is not right wing.
The EU does not want anything at all.
It does not want to preserve the nation-state.
it does not want to disolve the nation-state.
It does not want to replace the dutch people with non-dutch people.
It does not want to preserve the dutch people.
It does not want anything at all.
The EU is a political organization, that is governed by:
1. The (EU) Commission.
2. The (EU) Council.
3. The (EU) parliament.
(4. other EU institutions)
1,2 and 3, are elected, or somehow determined by the peoples living (voting) in the EU.
The peoples of the EU, have elected the parties called EPP, SD, RE to rule over these 3 major institutions.
It is these 3 parties that are responsible for the ''''''phenomena''''' and actions, that you describe as ''''''left wing''''' in your comment.
To put it clearly, it is not the fault of the EU, that your country, the Netherlands (or Belgium) is losing its cultural identity, and that the Dutch people are slowly being replaced by other peoples inside the Netherlands.
It is the fault of the Dutch people, because they systematically vote for parties like VVD, D66, PvdA, Volt, etc, etc, who want to undertake these policies.
I repeat.
The (negative) phenomena that you describe, must be debited to the peoples of Europe.
Not the EU.
One last example:
Hungary, is inside the EU.
Hungary is almost 100% hungarian, 100% white, and its people systematically vote against their slo replacement. And as a result, Hungary remains 100% hungarian today. But it is an EU member nonetheless.
So again, blame the Dutch people (who vote accordingly).
Not the EU. :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saikoujikan I am not excluding all evidence. I am excluding a handful of people, as compared to the total population (of the Earth, that has ever lived) that I keep in my dataset. What is the percentage of european scientists, artists, etc? And what is the respective percentage for Africa, for Asia, and South and Central America? Why is it considerably higher in Europe and N.America, than it is in all other places south of them? And even inside Europe, average creativity increases northwards, as the most developed nations are these mostly located in northern Europe, and not in S. Europe. I am not saying that creativity is determined by 100% by some metric of beauty. Latitude, and in fact climate, is what it seems to control it. Cooler, colder, and darker places of the Earth, seem to have a positive impact on creativity.
I must repeat, that beauty is not subjective (or at least that subjective as you describe it to be). Fatness could have been a sign of some positive attribute in the past, but has never been considered an attribute of beauty.
May I ask where you are from.
1
-
@saikoujikan I am aware of the achievements you mention, but I believe my point has been misunderstood. I never claimed that southerners are incapable of creating civilization. I said that this ability increases, as one moves northwards, and that this happens mostly because of the climate, and also geology (and geography).
That means that for each nigerian, or central African achievement you can think of, I can sort of think of 10x more achievements developed in the area of the Mediterranean, and for every ancient greek, or roman achievement, I can find 10x as many achievements developed or invented in central and northern Europe. The dozens of patents we use in daily life, were by 99% developed in countries with moderate temperate and oceanic climates, or as I call them for simplicity, northern countries. Europe, N.America, China, Japan, Australia &NZ. Again, I must remind you, that contrary to what you said above, central Africa is nonetheless a devastated piece of land, uncultured compared and uncivilized, compared to "the north" of the Earth. Also, I see noone speaking any African language in America, but English and Spanish and French.
I do not know where you come from, but from your subtle tone of guilt, I would say you sound like someone from the West, maybe western Europe. You sound quite English or British to me to be honest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Three score and ten you are very right on this, but if you look closer, you can see that this is in fact Merkel's party, which are responsible for most of the current Commission's politics. For instance, Viktor Orban's Fidesz party in Hungary belongs to the same party as Merkel's CDU, so when people in Hungary vote for Fidesz for instance, in the EU elections, they more or less promote CDU's politics. What I mean, you should not debit this non-white immigration to the Commission, but to CDUand Merkel. Apart from them, nobody in Europe voted for it to happen. Like you have the same in the UK or in the US :D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Thessaloz My relatives are from Bursa(Προυσα), and also from Pontus (Batumi, now in Georgia, then Russia). My opinion is, that we should not call ourselves Romioi (anymore :D) because, as you correctly said, there is no Roman Empire anymore, plus, Ελληνες is what we really are, (and how we identify ourselves) :D
It is like Germans calling themselves Romans ,because of the Holy Roman Empire :D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MDP1702 the only part of EU legislation that I (and Le Pen's party) find negative, is the ''''freedom of movement'''', which leads to a (very) higher immigration from eastern and southern Europe, to northern and western Europe. Le Pen might try to abolish this (only). Apart from this, I do not see much more needed. Like I can't imagine Europe going back to government controled trade, by imposing tariffs on foreign goods. Even the UK has no tariffs with the EU. Also, I would guess Le Pen would try to make immigration to any EU country harder, by starting some EU-wide conversation about this, which is also good.What I am saying, is that the EU is almost imposible to abolish as a whole. Some legal parts maybe. But free trade, common external policy, internal close cooperation, I don't think so..
1
-
@DenisHavlikVienna the (biggest) problem that Europe faces today, as far as I understand, is that in countries like France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and also the UK, indigenous population is projected to be less than 50% of their population, by 2050 (and then even less, 40%, 30%) as a result of immigration, and fertility rates lower than the replenishment rate of 2.1 . This is lowering the quality of the population of these countries day by day.. I am 27, have been always in favor of the EU. But I see that if the current EU-wide immigration system is not reformed, there will be no French people left in France, no German people left in Germany, no Dutch people left in the NL, no Austrian people left in Austria, etc.. I believe we have no other choice than to stop this, and fast..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tantecosenelmondo2350 two questions. First. In which aspect have Slavs damaged the countries they immigrated into? Second question. In which aspect have the Swedish, Germans, Danish, Austrians, British, Irish, Norwegians, Finns been "romanized", and why is this important. I would say that what is actually bad, is the replacement of beautiful Germans, Brits and Swedes, by black haired darker skined mediterraneans, like Greeks and Italians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertocalibancove8245 why is workers losing '''''trade power'''' a bad thing? For instance neo-liberal countries like the UK, the US, Ireland, or the Netherlands, are a lot wealthier than social democracies like France, Italy, or Spain. Apart from this, I believe wages in your country, Italy, are rising, which is mostly a result of Italy selling its products to even less competitive markets like my country, Greece, Croatia, or even France, thus having a huge trade surplus with the rest of the single market. If you exit the single market, Greece and France will impose tariffs on your products, and so you will lose income that you would then use to buy products from them, or other countries, like the US. You would therefore become way poorer.
Germany and the Netherlands are more competitive than Italy, and others , and will remain so whatever you do, just because their populations are more advanced technologically, and philosophically, Roberto. You can do nothing about it. Just in case german or dutch or swedish economic rivalry is your concern.
The single market, as well as the Euro, are very good for Italy, because they will accelerate your least competitive companies death, your GDP will fall by 3%, your population will decrease accordingly by 5%, and in the new equilibrium, you will be (1-3%)/(1-5%) = 2% wealthier, just by having your least competitive businesses closed to german competition. So the single market and especially the Euro will make Italy wealthier. Making spoons (or anything else) less efficiently than Germany, will add 3% to your GDP, but will increase your population by 5%, making you poorer per person.
Let me tell you what my problem about ''''''eu integration'''''' is. It is that Germans will slowly be replaced by less beautiful Greeks and Italians. :(
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Paul Vu how did England (and France) have '''no choice''' other than attacking Germany, after the latter invaded Poland? How about England (and France) NOT attacking Germany? :) Would that be so hard? Secondly, did you know that Hitler sent 20 or so peace proposals to Churchill, , in which he stated that he wishes no war with England and France (they were already attacking/bombing german civilians) and all of which were declined? I repeat, declined. But somehow Hitler started WW2? :) England and France started WW2, by declaring and making war to Germany. Then Germany repelled the french and invaded France, and France capitulated, and Britain just continued its war on Germany while declining more Hitler proposals for peace, until the US were dragged to enter the war just like the British were, and they made the Normandy landings as is well known. That is it. WW2 was the war of the UK, France and the US on Hitler. Not Hitler's war on the UK, France and the US as we are deliberately led to believe by our schools and ''''''Hollywood movies'''''.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sfp2290 the biggest MSM are obviously positively biased to the EU, because they are controlled by the same Freemasons that created and pull the strings behind the EU, its institutions (and also important economic sectors of Western countries like the UK, France, the US, Germany, etc.). The Freemasons are of course in favor of the EU (that they created) , because it is a chapter, and also a vehicle that will bring forth ''''''globalization'''''', the unification of the whole world, under one nation, one religion, one culture, and maybe under one state.
So obviously, MSM are positively biased against the EU. But it is not the duty of MSM, to politically educate the population :)
It is the duty of the population to be as much informed as possible, and make any political (and other) decisions accordingly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lilli4484 1) +2 to 5 is not a change?? This is 4.5% of the current population of France! 2) how many millions of native european french person's will be lost in the meantime, as a result of the fertility rate being less than what it has to be (2.1 children per person) , in order for the population to remain stable? The native european french population is therefore decreasing, because people have stopped reproducing themselves, but the population of immigrant Background makes children faster than the native european population, while new immigrants come. 3) In 1960, France was (as a result) 100% white (and 99% french). In 1990, it was only 93% white. In 2000 it was 89% white, and now it is 85%, and you tell me that white replacement is a hoax. Inform yourself. People of color are not only coming to these countries, but they are also born inside them, at a rate that is faster than that the white natives reproduce themselves. The US was 90% white in 1960, now it is 65%. But yeah, replacement is definitely a lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DeutschlandMapping you can't create ""Paneuropa"" with 27 different nations. It will last for 70 years and then it will collapse, because of the differences in nations' identities. You need to create a one nation continent first. The question is then, what this new nation's characteristics (language, phenotype, etc) will be.
This is not my own take. There is no such close political union, without a single nation supporting it. And what we are doing now, is just slowly remove northern Europeans from the face of history, replacing them with some southern europeans, and extra-europeans from Asia and Africa.
We must first depopulate southern Europe, and then if needed, recolonize it with northern Europeans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DeutschlandMapping their genetic differences are small, and also you don't have immigrant movements from one ethnic section to the other (probably because all three sections are comparably wealthy - this is also why there is immigrant balance between Germany and France).
But look at the UK, namely England and Scotland. One thousand years of common language, practically the same DNA (by now), and they still do not feel they belong to the same nation (which they more or less do by now!).
Belgium. Genetic differences are nearly non existent, yet they still dislike each other. Why? Because they are each stuck in two different identities (at the time they are pretty much the same people by now!). But the ones have one picture of themselves, and the others have a different picture of themselves.
Italy. The north is largely of germanic and cltic descent, while the south is largely of greek origins :) While they have managed to keep together until now, their identities are not 100% uniform sadly. Maybe in 200 years.
In the US, identity is mostly determined by ethnicity (white/black/brown/latino etc.) by now.
So we see genetics is very important in identity.
One interesting exeption to this, is France actually, I would say :) Maybe because, just like Switzerland, there are no significant immigrant movements in the south-north axis (except from Paris of course).
1
-
@DeutschlandMapping you are right, actually, I must admit. Yet with one exception. North and South europeans :) There, genetics are important. Or at least this is the minimum distance, in which genetics starts to become important, as a component of identity. Unfortunately.
Yes, Europe is on a way to become a nation, no doubt about that. But which sort of nation will that be? :) This is not necessarily positive. 30% south european, 10% north european, and 60% middle eastern and african? Is this what we get, after 2000 years of this history and toil? How do we know that these new people will be as creative as Germans, English, Dutch, French, Polish, Russians etc. have been?
I have the feeling that culture somehow gets intertwined in peoples' DNA. So you maybe can't transform a Nigerian baby, into a German, or a polish, or russian '''''soul'''''. I am afraid western civilization will therefore just lose the ''''''western''''' (or if you like, ''''northern''''') part.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1