PDA

View Full Version : EU Enlargement: Should Turkey Join the EU?



Pages : [1] 2

Hellenic Eagle
Monday, December 15th, 2003, 06:26 AM
In 2030 Turkey is going to have about 100.000.000 population, while at the same time most European nations are declining in their birth rates.

What is your opinion?

Should the political pigs of Brussels let Turkey suffocate the European continent with the hordes of Turanomongoloid Turks, and also give an advantage to the growing power of muslims in Europe?

yihequan
Monday, December 15th, 2003, 08:48 AM
Turkey shouldn't be admitted into Europe because the Turks are Jew lovers. And it will also flood too many Muslims into European countries and give the US more influence in Europe.

Gesta Bellica
Monday, December 15th, 2003, 08:56 AM
Never.
They are not Europeans and their culture is not compatible with ours.
I'll never consider them as Europeans.
They are a part of the problems actually and turks were one of the worse people that i've met.. just take a look at what they have done in Germany

Jack
Monday, December 15th, 2003, 11:40 AM
The Turk is what Europe contrasted itself against in the beginning. No, Turkey should not and never will be part of Europe.

Evolved
Monday, December 15th, 2003, 12:00 PM
The way to keep them out of Europe is to improve their country economically. They don't move to Germany for the tasty beer, probably not even for the better looking women. They move to Europe because Turkey sucks. Would it be worth sending a few billion dollars in aid to Turkey, if it meant fewer and fewer Turks would go to live in Western Europe?

Turkey was the first 'Muslim country' to kiss Israel's ass. Pretty pathetic, and I think they know that. I'd also recommend sending aid money to the Islamist political parties in Turkey, in order to get an anti-Israel majority in their government and drop all that secularist Jew ass kissing. http://www.forums.skadi.net/images/icons/icon11.gif

Nordhammer
Monday, December 15th, 2003, 12:22 PM
Only if their population was purged and then colonized by Northern Europe. : )

Ederico
Monday, December 15th, 2003, 02:48 PM
I voted never due to racial-cultural implications. Mind you I have seen Europid Turks in real life so the question of race might not be always put into consideration. Culturally though I see them as non-European although they've experienced some Westernisation, albeit minor and they'll still will not be European unless centuries of European influence is exerted, that being said most Turks are probably non-Europid by race and non-European by culture.

Mac Seafraidh
Monday, December 15th, 2003, 03:12 PM
No I am strongly against Turks even being considered Europeans. They cannot even stay in their own country never mind calling them a nation. Turks are heavily immigrating all over Europe, they make me sick. As far as I am concered that country is a wasteland and by the way their language looks pretty absurd looking too.

Ederico
Monday, December 15th, 2003, 03:39 PM
In fact I don't consider them Europeans.

Nordgau
Monday, December 15th, 2003, 04:52 PM
NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN!

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,5268,00.jpg

Ederico
Monday, December 15th, 2003, 05:39 PM
So Thorulf, are you against Turkey's entry or not? ;)
By the way I hate when the European Union is equated to Europe. They do it constantly here.

The European Union is ignoble, Europe is noble.

Nordgau
Tuesday, December 16th, 2003, 05:07 PM
So Thorulf, are you against Turkey's entry or not? ;)

I thought my highly differenciated and logical argumentation didn't let any questions open? ;)

Kebabträume in der Mauerstadt,
Türk-Kültür hinter Stacheldraht
Neu-Izmir ist in der DDR,
Atatürk der neue Herr.
Miliyet für die Sowjetunion,
in jeder Imbißstube ein Spion.
Im ZK Agent aus Türkei,
Deutschland, Deutschland, alles ist vorbei.

Wir sind die Türken von morgen.
Wir sind die Türken von morgen...




By the way I hate when the European Union is equated to Europe. They do it constantly saying that we have entered Europe and most of the time it is those Maltese people that look like Arabs stating this all the time, perhaps they think they are now Europeans by all accounts by virtue of the EU, so brainwashed.That's indeed a rhetoric trick which is used here all the time by the politicians and the press. Those who are against the way which Europoe goes with this system and who are against all that what the EU authorities do are stamped as "anti-European". So those who are agianst it are put from the beginning into a basical negative position where they have to justify themselves for their view. With the same logic one could call people, who are opposed to that what the multiculti-loving national government does, as "anti-German".
The truth is truly the other way round, as the EU system is a monstrous anto-folkish and anti-Occidential construct.

NormanBlood
Tuesday, December 16th, 2003, 05:21 PM
Most definetly NOT!!!! If Turkey enters the EU then who will be next? India? Pakistan? Who? By letting Turkey into the European Union it no longer is the "European Union"...it opens the door for the whole damn world being a part of the EU. It is a huge step further into globalisation as far as I'm concerned.

Vetinari
Tuesday, December 16th, 2003, 07:32 PM
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v69n5/013033/013033.text.html

The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East

In comparison with data available from other relevant populations in the region, Jews were found to be more closely related to groups in the north of the Fertile Crescent (Kurds, Turks, and Armenians) than to their Arab neighbors.

In other words, if you let in the Turks today you will be letting in the Israelis tomorrow since the Turks and the Israelis are closely related and the Turks will probably try to use their EU membership to get their Jewish cousins admitted.

More on Turkish genetics:

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/HG_2004_v114_p127-148.pdf

Razmig
Tuesday, December 16th, 2003, 08:28 PM
You DO know that Israelis came from European countries right? Either way Turks should never be admitted into Europe, I don't even think they should be recognizeid as a country.

cosmocreator
Tuesday, December 16th, 2003, 10:35 PM
Most definetly NOT!!!! If Turkey enters the EU then who will be next?


Israel.

NormanBlood
Wednesday, December 17th, 2003, 03:25 AM
You DO know that Israelis came from European countries right?

Yes...but not originally..originally they are from approximately the same region they returned to after WWII. And even if they lived in Europe for centuries as they did they are not of European origin or race and did nothing but poison our lands.



Israel.
and I believe that is truly what we all fear...of course the jew loving politicians would gladly admit them into the EU. Which is another terrifying thought.

Gladstone
Wednesday, December 17th, 2003, 03:43 AM
No. Turkey should not be allowed into the EU. Historically it was Turkey by way of the Ottoman Empire that was attacking Europe for centuries (ie siege of Vienna, 1689, and kidnapping and enslavement of Europeon children, the Jannisaries). Considering them part of Europe is the same difference as the UK being made part of the Arab League which would be absurd. No cigar for these clowns!

Razmig
Wednesday, December 17th, 2003, 05:41 AM
Jews are nothing but a religion. Leave it at that.

NormanBlood
Wednesday, December 17th, 2003, 04:27 PM
Jews are nothing but a religion. Leave it at that.

You deny the existence of a jewish race?! I'd say they are much more than a "religion" heh

Gladstone
Wednesday, December 17th, 2003, 11:26 PM
I'd say they are much more than a "religion" heh

That's for sure. The Jewish are certainly much more than a religion, specially as in Israel itself the vast majority are atheist. They as we do, have a genetic aspect they want very much to preserve; for them it's at minimum having a Jewish mother, tho the Jewish prefer a person to have both parents be Jewish if at all possible. Yes, a person can convert after a great deal of study (often taking years and passing difficult test); conversion is quite rare and if I am not mistaken more than a few Jewish will not accept the convert as true as they do not have that genetic component, and it may take several generations after conversion for that family to be accepted in general.

So, tho not technically a race, in behavior the Jewish in many ways act as one ("race light" if one will). Should you run into a person of a Jewish background claiming "race is not real"; you might challenge them to then give up that minimum of having the Jewish mother as the definition of Jewish which is their equivelant of race. Generally they won't as that's at the very core of what defines a Jewish person's Jewishness just as for us Europeons its having both parents define us.

Saoirse
Thursday, December 18th, 2003, 12:33 AM
You DO know that Israelis came from European countries right?.

...

Insane.

Razmig
Saturday, December 20th, 2003, 01:38 AM
I was countering Vetinarl's "Jews and Turkish" chromosone similarities. Jews took a hefty hand full of European blood back to Israel, as did the Turks from the Balkans and Anatolia. Perhaps those similarities have nothing to do with "non-europid" affiliation. In either case they both deserve annihilation, because they are both evil, as well as culturally and historically my enemies. They don't deserve Europe's table scraps.

btw Jew's own the world...we DO know that don't we? Something seriously needs to be done about Jews owning banks in Germany, and Turks arn't too far behind in taking over Germany as well as the rest of Europe. There are well over 70 million Turks, just in Turkey. =/ Anyone have spare nukes?

Awar
Saturday, December 20th, 2003, 02:42 AM
Turks are nothing but ex-Armenians, ex-Greeks, ex-Slavs and others who were ( more often than not ) forcedly Turkified and Islamized. There is nothing wrong with their DNA, it's the culture that can and will harm Europe.

On the other hand, I can see no extraordinary evil that will befall Europe if Israel joins the union. They already own our asses, they can do whatever they want, them joining the EU won't change this fact for the worse :-)

Glenlivet
Saturday, December 20th, 2003, 06:04 AM
I do not see the issue in terms of physical types (see attached photo of blond Turk Abdullah Ercan). I have never seen a non-Europid (if one does not count the not so frequent Turanids, whom are not unique for that land) Turk, and many are as European as most people in Eastern Europe.

USA want Turkey in EU. Everything to serve their interests.

I remember a documentary on Swedish Public TV (read about that, here: http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000176.html) about the new, prospective EU expansion countries who were negotiating during Denmark's EU presidency in 2002. One could see from the controversial behind the camera comments that Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen did not want Turkey in EU. He still had to meet a representative, and Bush had also made a call for Turkey. It also showed him meeting Putin regarding the situation of the Kaliningrad question.

Read more about the documentary mentioned above:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2948395.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/2967287.stm

Also read:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/2420697.stm (I saw this interview on BBC World, Valery Giscard d'Estaing is somewhat Nordid,

http://www.educ-pop.org/lesimages/862.gif

http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/assets/images/Val%E9ry-Giscard-d_Estaing180.jpg)


Culturally, Turkey is no more European than Armenia, Georgia or Iran. It is a strategical, geo-political and economical matter. Perhaps even less, as the secularism in Turkey is very superficial, which one can observe from the Turkish immigrants in Northern Europe, albeit many are from Eastern Turkey and not representative of all the country.

Personally, I do not want Turkey in Europe, for the sake of the Northern European (especially the youth, Turk is the same kind of swear word in Sweden, and perhaps Germany too, as Paki is in Britain) people. I could change my mind if I saw a behavioural change. I am being unfair though, as I am generalising from a few bad experiences. Northern European kids tend to be afraid of a group of Turkish boys with slicked back hair who stand in a corned and look tough. I do not blame them though, as they can often be dangerous. It is not a matter of religion, as Bosnians are also Muslim. We can see that Turkish secularism is in many ways something artificial.

What if a significant number of Turks are like Ercan?

Pugnox
Saturday, December 20th, 2003, 11:06 PM
Turks are nothing but ex-Armenians, ex-Greeks, ex-Slavs and others who were ( more often than not ) forcedly Turkified and Islamized. There is nothing wrong with their DNA, it's the culture that can and will harm Europe.

This is spoken as if by someone who themselves either HAS or FEARS the presence of Turkish blood in their veins. Turks themselves are quite racially diverse and it's pointless to argue about their actual racial components as the end result is something that is simply incapable of either advancing or even blending in with European Civilization.

In fact, the Turks, in their invations of Europe have left such a detrimental genetic mark on Europe that large portions, I'd even say a majority of the Balkan peoples, are also incapable of either advancing or even maintaining European Civilization.

In the Final Battle, that we can only pray will be fought at least by the time our grandchildren come, not only will Turkey itself have to be made a nuclear wasteland, devoid not only of human life, but probably all other forms of life as well, but the Balkans itself will have to be filled with a few thousand miles of trench, into which millions of racially mixed Turks will have to be machine-gunned...

Hellenic Eagle
Sunday, December 21st, 2003, 12:03 AM
This is spoken as if by someone who themselves either HAS or FEARS the presence of Turkish blood in their veins. Turks themselves are quite racially diverse and it's pointless to argue about their actual racial components as the end result is something that is simply incapable of either advancing or even blending in with European Civilization.

In fact, the Turks, in their invations of Europe have left such a detrimental genetic mark on Europe that large portions, I'd even say a majority of the Balkan peoples, are also incapable of either advancing or even maintaining European Civilization.

In the Final Battle, that we can only pray will be fought at least by the time our grandchildren come, not only will Turkey itself have to be made a nuclear wasteland, devoid not only of human life, but probably all other forms of life as well, but the Balkans itself will have to be filled with a few thousand miles of trench, into which millions of racially mixed Turks will have to be machine-gunned...


Hmm, you could write a science fiction novel about this horrible future wars

Awar
Sunday, December 21st, 2003, 12:20 AM
Pugnox, you outdo yourself each time. Why should I be afraid of having any Turkish blood? If I do have, that won't change me in any way, I am who I am, and I belong to where I belong ( ok, I might visit Kushadasi and Bodrum a couple more times :-D ).

In any case, I'll wait 'till I can get my hands on the 3.0 version of that ancestry test everyone is talking about, and we'll see.

According to phenotypes, there is a great difference between the Turks of Turkey and those of Turkestan. Also, I would hesitate to call Turks incapable of something, they have already proven their capabilities, there are millions of reasons on why they are what they are today, why they are a potential threat to Europe etc. I've already adressed this issues here at Skadi on a few occasions, and I'm not about to repeat myself.

Hellenic Eagle
Sunday, December 21st, 2003, 12:30 AM
In fact, the Turks, in their invations of Europe have left such a detrimental genetic mark on Europe that large portions, I'd even say a majority of the Balkan peoples, are also incapable of either advancing or even maintaining European Civilization.


The only mark the Turks left in the Balcans is a cultural mark, like for example the Muslim religion of the Albanians. The genetic mark was on the contrary left by South Europeans and people from all the Mediteranean area, to the Ottoman gene pool, this is the reason the present day Turkish nation is more progressive than other heavily muslim Asiatic countries. Turkeys difference with the other muslim countries is that Turkey had contact with Europe for some centuries of time but still it is not a country that can identify as "European".

Vojvoda
Sunday, December 21st, 2003, 05:12 AM
This is spoken as if by someone who themselves either HAS or FEARS the presence of Turkish blood in their veins. Turks themselves are quite racially diverse and it's pointless to argue about their actual racial components as the end result is something that is simply incapable of either advancing or even blending in with European Civilization.

What is "Turkish blood"? Type A,B,O? It's the emigration of more Turks,bringing along their cultural ways I assume, into European countries that people are against.


In fact, the Turks, in their invations of Europe have left such a detrimental genetic mark on Europe that large portions, I'd even say a majority of the Balkan peoples, are also incapable of either advancing or even maintaining European Civilization.

Why do you want to retire in Bulgaria then? You want to change their genetic mark? :-P

Pugnox
Sunday, December 21st, 2003, 06:19 AM
What is "Turkish blood"? Type A,B,O? It's the emigration of more Turks,bringing along their cultural ways I assume, into European countries that people are against.


A Turk may have any of the above blood types just as a Negro can, yet I wouldn't want either around MY sister, even if they were one of those "upper-middle-class-I'm-just-as-good-as-you-are" types of Negro or Turk. No, anyone who says that it's merely a cultural difference that they object to has simply not lived in close proximity to members of other races. Beleive me, you can SMELL the difference.

Why do you want to retire in Bulgaria then? You want to change their genetic mark? :-P


It's a strategic retreat to the hills...

Dr. Solar Wolff
Sunday, December 21st, 2003, 07:29 AM
I presume the question concerns the EU. As Coon points out, the only reason Turks even look remotely European is because of their preference for European women. Their basic racial make-up, language, and culture are not European. Cosmocreator correctly pointed out that if Turks are admitted there are no barriers to Isrealis and Gladstone nailed the coffin lid down on this idea. Iranians and Hindi speaking Indians are closer to Europeans than Turks. Where do you draw the line? On the other hand, who am I, an American, to talk? I have to learn Spanish just to buy a quart of milk or Arabic to buy a gallon of gasoline. But, as we have found out, pissing your culture away has consequences

Razmig
Sunday, December 21st, 2003, 10:41 AM
I presume the question concerns the EU. As Coon points out, the only reason Turks even look remotely European is because of their preference for European women. Their basic racial make-up, language, and culture are not European. Cosmocreator correctly pointed out that if Turks are admitted there are no barriers to Isrealis and Gladstone nailed the coffin lid down on this idea. Iranians and Hindi speaking Indians are closer to Europeans than Turks. Where do you draw the line? On the other hand, who am I, an American, to talk? I have to learn Spanish just to buy a quart of milk or Arabic to buy a gallon of gasoline. But, as we have found out, pissing your culture away has consequences

haha well said! its not integration that causes these problems its LIBERAL JEWS!

CelticofArabia
Sunday, December 21st, 2003, 04:54 PM
No Turks shoudnt be part of the EU. They need to forge some sort of Middle Eastern Union, or an Islamic Union.

Greece also shoudnt be a part of the EU cause the Greek population is not the same as the great past. Todays greeks have too much Arab, Persian, and Turkish blood in them.

Awar
Sunday, December 21st, 2003, 05:03 PM
No Turks shoudnt be part of the EU. They need to forge some sort of Middle Eastern Union, or an Islamic Union.

Greece also shoudnt be a part of the EU cause the Greek population is not the same as the great past. Todays greeks have too much Arab, Persian, and Turkish blood in them.

Yeah, Greeks are Vampires !

Hellenic Eagle
Sunday, December 21st, 2003, 07:46 PM
No Turks shoudnt be part of the EU. They need to forge some sort of Middle Eastern Union, or an Islamic Union.

Greece also shoudnt be a part of the EU cause the Greek population is not the same as the great past. Todays greeks have too much Arab, Persian, and Turkish blood in them.


Hey, your name is really funny sport.

What the hell is a CelticofArabia? Haha

Razmig
Sunday, December 21st, 2003, 09:55 PM
Hey, your name is really funny sport.

What the hell is a CelticofArabia? Haha

I double that, who the hell is this clown?

justify
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 01:44 PM
I am new here, in fact this is my first post. What do you think about EU enlargement? Where should it stop? Should Turkey join EU? Do you think Turkey's entry would strength or weaken EU politically and culturally? Best regards.

Marius
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 02:06 PM
Well, what I think is that only the Western 1/3 part of Turkey is really an European region. The other parts, at least after my knowledge, live in a completely Middle Eastern Muslim area of mentality and culture.

Historically speaking, Turkey was never a part of the European world, be it Western or be it Eastern. Remember just the case of Hungary and Transylvania under some years of Turkish control, when the Turks never melt with the religious disputes over the Reform. As well as with Orthodox, at least with Romanian ones, from the regions of Moldavia and Wallachia (which were for a period of vasals to Turkish Empire), the Turks did not melt with the local religious customs. And the incursion and assault of Vienna, Austria is also part from the conquest adventures of Turks in Europe. That Western third of Turkey became more Western after the arrival of Attatürk.

But I think the occidentalisation of Turkey was and is really a fashion thing for some elites there. If the Army looses grip, I'm afraid the country will quickly plondge into Islamism. And the army grip loose is the main request of the European Union Commission. But if this happens, what will Europe do with a Islamist country (virtually, the most populated and with the most representants in the EU Parliament) inside? I think this is on of the questions, of which clear and precise answer depends the integration of Turkey into the EU.

And second. Remember that with this enlargement, the EU borders will arrive at the Irak and Iran borders. We see even now what type of society is there. How will we be able to stop terrorist acts, which we all know, are done from pure jealousy on Western World richness?

And last, but not least, what will we do with the numbers of Eastern Turks workers which will surely go to the West for better living and working conditions, but without accepting to let lose their mentalities?

And I think, Turkey is the main one to give answers to these last two questions and also for the first one, in cooperation with EU Commission.

justify
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 02:27 PM
Where do you put Cyprus (Greek Part) geographically that joined EU two weeks ago. Is it geographically Europe? If Cyprus is geographically Europe, how come Turkey is not? In history, Turks may not melt in local customes where most countries they conquered. But, Turks have been adopting Western cultures and laws for almost 200 years. In fact, most Turks now live, dress and talk like Western people. In addition, Turkey is not an Islamist country, even though 99% of its population is Islam. Turkey is a democrathic republic and strengthened its democracy with EU adoption laws for last couple of years.

George
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 02:58 PM
I think that the E.U. should be aborted, but in the meantime no! Turkey must not join (although it will). Turkey is non-White and bringing it into the E.U. will hasten the destruction of the White race by bringing many non-Whites into Europe, sending more White money, technology, food, medicine etc. out to the non-Whites and further corrupting our culture and institutions.

If I remember correctly, Cyprus is technically in Asia; however I'd say that the Greek part is effectively European. A positive thing for the E.U. to do would be to arm and fund Greece and help her to kick the Turks out of Cyprus and the Turkey-in-Europe enclave.

Marius
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 03:04 PM
Where do you put Cyprus (Greek Part) geographically that joined EU two weeks ago. Is it geographically Europe? If Cyprus is geographically Europe, how come Turkey is not? In history, Turks may not melt in local customes where most countries they conquered. But, Turks have been adopting Western cultures and laws for almost 200 years. In fact, most Turks now live, dress and talk like Western people. In addition, Turkey is not an Islamist country, even though 99% of its population is Islam. Turkey is a democrathic republic and strengthened its democracy with EU adoption laws for last couple of years.

Come on. If in Turkey, army looses grip, then the country ploundges into Islamism. Remember the previous Prime-Minister. And the problems which arrived when his Islamic party gained elections. Just stating the fact "Turkey is a democratic republic" does not imply it is. First, we have to see and accept our own problems, their simple denial does not help in solving them.

Cyprus is not culturally Europe, but its Greek part is not too far from this. Greece is Europe. Like the old Byzantine Empire was, but it had the missfortune to be invaded. Well, living these apart, please try to answer clear and precise to the questions I posed in the first message.

Moody
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 03:16 PM
Of course, the current EU is NOT based on racial considerations.
There are millions of Africans, Indians etc., living in Europe as EU citizens now; therefore to suggest that Turkey should be barred from joining the EU on racial grounds is absurd.

If we imagine [and that's all we can do] a Union of European states based on race and culture, then clearly Turkey would not be allowed. But then I would hope that such a Union would do something about the Jews in its midst too!

But get this - the present reason for not allowing Turkey into the EU immediately is because of its bad 'human rights' record!
Turkey is not SOFT enough ... yet!

The EU is based on a set of liberal economic/political criteria, none of which I personally share.

Glenlivet
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 04:48 PM
Brits have never fully supported EU. I think that Britain should at least support Europe if not the EU. The dislike for Continental Europe is just a matter of selfish interests, what else?

As for Turks, they are at least in the western parts relatively fair for Southern European standards. An example is this years Eurovision song contest participants representing Turkey. They were as Europid as anyone else and fairer than many participants. They are generally speaking not compatible with Northern Europe, but so aren't many other non-Northern European people. That is of course just an example but still my argument is that they cannot be rejected solely because of not fitting in terms of race. There must be something else, maybe Turkish political allegiance towards USA instead of the rest of Europe?



I think that the E.U. should be aborted, but in the meantime no! Turkey must not join (although it will). Turkey is non-White and bringing it into the E.U. will hasten the destruction of the White race by bringing many non-Whites into Europe, sending more White money, technology, food, medicine etc. out to the non-Whites and further corrupting our culture and institutions.

Prince Eugen
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 07:05 PM
I think that the E.U. should be aborted, but in the meantime no! Turkey must not join (although it will). Turkey is non-White and bringing it into the E.U. will hasten the destruction of the White race by bringing many non-Whites into Europe, sending more White money, technology, food, medicine etc. out to the non-Whites and further corrupting our culture and institutions.

If I remember correctly, Cyprus is technically in Asia; however I'd say that the Greek part is effectively European. A positive thing for the E.U. to do would be to arm and fund Greece and help her to kick the Turks out of Cyprus and the Turkey-in-Europe enclave.
Turkish are not Europeans ,and yes maybe some of them look like Europeans but because a lot of Europoids,Greeks,Armenians,Slavs,incorpo rated to Islam to win priviliges.But i don't believe that thty feel or act like Europeans .But the east part of Turkey is mongoloid with arabic admixture!
As for the Turks as a German N.S skinhead ,friend of mine says :Turken Rauss!!

Glenlivet
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 08:13 PM
There's a problem if they have to act. It should be natural. Turkey is a big land, it is heterogeneous with reginal differences. Nevertheless, I maintain that they are as Europid as their western neighbours up to the Balkans. From what I have seen only Slovenia is somewhat different, with more Noric and East Baltid, and perhaps a little Nordid in the north.



But i don't believe that thty feel or act like Europeans

Mac Seafraidh
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 08:19 PM
Turkey should denounce itself from Europe as a whole. Not for the EU to decide, but their own government.:D

rusalka
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 08:29 PM
But the east part of Turkey is mongoloid with arabic admixture!

Actually, Eastern Turkey is more Armenoid to eastern proper and has a lot of Lezgi and Georgian stock (Southern Caucasian) to Northeast. A heavy Kurdish population to the Southeast with strong Levantine influence. Actual Mongoloid admixture is very, very slight indeed but Turanid types are common in the inland parts. As Volksdeutscher has stated, it's a very heterogenous country with great differences between regions.

Glenlivet
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 08:53 PM
You obviously know more, but that is what I have observed too. Also Turks have told me that Turanid is more in inner Anatolia. There is also a smaller Mediterranid (Cappadocian?) alongside a darker Pontid.

I have noticed that Turkish blondes (or red heads) are short headed and broad faced with somewhat upturned noses.

Northeastern Turkey is even the Armenoid centre. By Levantine influences do you mean Arabid type? I know that there is a small Arab minority in SE Turkey. I guess that is not the ones you referred to.



Actually, Eastern Turkey is more Armenoid to eastern proper and has a lot of Lezgi and Georgian stock (Southern Caucasian) to Northeast. A heavy Kurdish population to the Southeast with strong Levantine influence. Actual Mongoloid admixture is very, very slight indeed but Turanid types are common in the inland parts. As Volksdeutscher has stated, it's a very heterogenous country with great differences between regions.

Awar
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 09:29 PM
I hope EU totally effeminates Turks, so Greeks can take Byzant once again :P

justify
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 10:12 PM
The problem is most of the respondents are too much racist to think rationally. Marius, in the last Turkish elections, a political party won the elections, which claimed to be an Islamist party. However, in last two years, that party passed so many democratic and liberal laws that Turkey almost adopted all Copenhagen criterias for EU negotiations. The main problem of Turkey merging EU is very strong and historical military influence on the government. Hopefully this will be minimized if Turkey joins EU. All other cultural, religius and racist ideas are not justified. I have been in most Eastern European countries, I can say Turkey has much better economical infrastructure, cultural adaptation and possibilities than those ex-communist countries.

Speaking racially, most of you guys even cannot seperate between a Turkish and a Greek person. Because they look alike too much. Most people living on the east side of Turkey is Kurds and they have a seperate look than Turkish people living on the West Turkey. Finally, who cares about race anyways? EU is not based on racist values. It is based on human rights and economical development.

Awar
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 10:27 PM
The problem is most of the respondents are too much racist to think rationally. Marius, in the last Turkish elections, a political party won the elections, which claimed to be an Islamist party. However, in last two years, that party passed so many democratic and liberal laws that Turkey almost adopted all Copenhagen criterias for EU negotiations. The main problem of Turkey merging EU is very strong and historical military influence on the government. Hopefully this will be minimized if Turkey joins EU. All other cultural, religius and racist ideas are not justified. I have been in most Eastern European countries, I can say Turkey has much better economical infrastructure, cultural adaptation and possibilities than those ex-communist countries.

key-word: ex-communist
The Sahara desert has a better infrastructure than that of the nations which survived corrupt 'communist' rule.


Speaking racially, most of you guys even cannot seperate between a Turkish and a Greek person. Because they look alike too much. Most people living on the east side of Turkey is Kurds and they have a seperate look than Turkish people living on the West Turkey. Finally, who cares about race anyways? EU is not based on racist values. It is based on human rights and economical development.

1. Turks are primarily Islamized Greeks and indigenous Anatolians, Armenians, Kurds etc. The western part of todays Turkey has the greatest ammount of 'greek' DNA, and that's the reason the two ethnicities look alike... some millenia ago, they were one, Hellenic people.

2. A lot of people care about race, but that's not a relevant issue here. Turks are the same race as other Europeans, the only differences being sub-racial, ethnical and religious.

I certainly don't mind Turkey joining EU, I just hope that Turks and other nations, especially Bosnians, Albanians and Iranians abandon ISLAM.

Glenlivet
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 10:34 PM
Atatürk certainly helped Turkey in that sense. I wish the same for the others. The pre-Islamic cultural factors of modern Islam are a hindrance to cultural growth for all the populations that you mentioned. Why are they so poor and backward? Just look at little Albania. Compare it with even smaller Slovenia. The difference is huge, an ocean inbetween. Is Islam not one of the reasons? Can you tell me your opinion?

Why Turkey may now have a better economy is because of American support and working for more globalism and free trade. The textile industry is also large. Turks are in some ways Americanised in economy yet they want to be in Europe. They should make their decision. What do they want? In the end Europe should decide and Turkey should adjust. We shall see if they can.




I certainly don't mind Turkey joining EU, I just hope that Turks and other nations, especially Bosnians, Albanians and Iranians abandon ISLAM.

Marius
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 10:42 PM
...in the last Turkish elections, a political party won the elections, which claimed to be an Islamist party.

... The main problem of Turkey merging EU is very strong and historical military influence on the government. Hopefully this will be minimized if Turkey joins EU

... It is based on human rights and economical development.

For the first citate, I feal you have a bad idea over this. You think that it SAID it would be an Islamist party, but it proved not being one. You really feal bad over this and I find it extremely dangerous. If even guys like you, who pretend to be evoluated, who speak foreign languages and who know something else than only his interpretation of Coran, think like that, then Turkey should not join EU. I imagine how the simple Turk thinks.

For the second citate, it seems you are really disturbed by the influence of the Army. Well, of course, in any other real European country, this would not be a problem. But in a country which can easily go in the Wahhabist and extreme Islamist direction is not a problem, it's a benediction. At least there is one force who can control this Islamist madness which comprises at this moment the whole Middle East and the whole block of Islamic countries. Personally, I think the motivation of this madness is simply the jealousy over the success in life standards of Western culture.

And for the third one, this should really interest you. Human rights mean also the right to live and not to right to kill in the name of God/Allah. Have you seen the whole film where Berg is beheaded? Are you interested to see it? I can tell you that there is nothing to see besides some inhuman beasts attacking like fools another human being and crying "Allah Akbar!". And please don't start with what the Americans did in Irak now or Israelis in Palestine, cause actions like Zarqawi did, never happened, not even during the Middle Ages... Cutting somebody's throat with a kitchen knife and not having peace till you did not cut it completely...

As I told you before, it is not important the infrastructure of Turkey, which may be good, they never had communism, but the danger it may represent an uprisal of Islamism in a country, which could be a member of the EU. So, the mentality of the majority of Turks is the troubling problem, even if officially something else is said.

Awar
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 10:43 PM
Honestly, if the Turks hadn't adopted Islam back in the 10th century, it would have soon died out as a religion in most parts of the world. Of course, this is one of those highly complex crossroads in history that's too difficult to untangle in simple conversation.

The fact is that any country can easily fall into a religious delirium, for Islamic countries this holds extra dangers.

Glenlivet
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 10:57 PM
You may be right that it is a bit superficial because of a state that is more friendly towards Europe and values associated with the continent. The problem is that one must define what values we do share. There are great differences between countries, and sometimes inasmuch within a European country.

One should find out how big the said mentality really is. The Turks who emigrated to Northern Europe come predominantly from certain villages and smaller towns in Eastern Turkey. They are obviously more traditional there. They cannot represent Turks as a whole. I also doubt that they would be much of a competitive work force in their country of origin.



So, the mentality of the majority of Turks is the troubling problem, even if officially something else is said.

justify
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 11:40 PM
Marius, obviously you do not know Turkish people, or the Turks you met are extreme people who are migrated in Western Europe in the 60s. As Volksdeutscher mentioned, those Turks were villagers without any skills and education. When they went to work in West Europe, they held on their religion to protect their identity like all minorities do. You should not judge Turks based on this.

Extremist Islamists are very little percentage of Turkish population. I guarentee you most Turks (at least 90%) are not radically Muslim and do not support or want an Islamic nation. Military interventions of army generals are not based on the fears of Islamic nation. They use this fear as if they do not intervene politics, Turkey would be like Iran. These generals want to protect their strength and influence, and they use fundamental Islam threat over governments. Same thing is done in the US by Bush (war against terrorism) to implement his aggresive military politics. In Turkey This will be over soon with the merge of EU.

I do not know the intrepretation of Quran but I wish I do. Most of my peers do not know either. Do not think Islam is something to fear about, Islam is a religion of tolerance. Do not judge Muslims based on fictious scenes (Berg's murder) or some extreme terrorists who are paid by your governments actually. We are not like that.

One respondent asked why Muslim countries are poorer. Speaking of Turkey, historically, Turks stayed away from trade and left most trade to the Jews. And of course when their military power decreased and West Europe went through Reinance and Refom, Turks could not improve themselves because lack of economic power. In fact one of Turkish sultans in 19th century did not even know there is a huge amount of oil (lack of trade knowledge and education) in Middle East and left those soils to Brits to stay away from conflicts. And also Turks did not use economical infrastructure of countries they conquered as oppose Britain and France, Turks only collected taxes. They did not change religions or cultures of those countries. That's why most Balkan countries are not Muslims, even they lived 400 years under Turkish rule.

Glenlivet
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 11:56 PM
How did they become Muslims? Certain classes and regions became Muslim and others not. Are you claiming it was not because of Ottoman rule?



They did not change religions or cultures of those countries. That's why most Balkan countries are not Muslims, even they lived 400 years under Turkish rule.

Awar
Monday, May 17th, 2004, 12:09 AM
VD'er, the regions which became Muslims mostly belonged to the Bogumil and other sects, and they adopted Islam as some sort of liberation. Of course, there were other cases as well.

justify
Monday, May 17th, 2004, 12:51 AM
Look at the major Balkan nations. Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Macedonia, all ex- Yugoslavian countries (except Bosnia) were under the rule of Ottoman Empire for centuries. None of them Muslim, none of them speaks Turkish. Look at the British or French colonies, Tunus, Morocco - they speak French as their first language. Brits converted most African and island nations to Cristians with missionaries. In conclusion, even though Turks are blamed for barbarianism, rapes, and killings, which is quite understandable for war conditions (look at US soldiers in 21st century, supposed to be all trained and civilized) they did not force to change people's faith and life under their authority. This is important to show Turk's tolerance and understanding of other cultures.

Another response was about Turks are closer to America than EU. This used to be right but last year Turkey rejected relocation of American troops in Eastern Turkey during the Iraq war. America offered $8.5 billion for this but Turkish parliement rejected this money because majority of Turks were against this dirty war like all European citizens except Brits. I believe this brought Europe and Turkey closer in politics than Turks to America. Also, you should compare between American and European foreign politics strategies in world leadership. EU could not even come together for a united response for Iraq war. However, US is always united in terms of foreign politics.

catchmeifyoukhan
Monday, May 17th, 2004, 12:58 AM
[QUOTE=justify :Speaking racially, most of you guys even cannot seperate between a Turkish and a Greek person. Because they look alike too much. Most people living on the east side of Turkey is Kurds and they have a seperate look than Turkish people living on the West Turkey. Finally, who cares about race anyway? EU is not based on racist values. It is based on human rights and economical development.[/QUOTE]



I do not agree with you, most Turks are noticeably different from Greecs and, in average far more brunet than the most brunet regions of Andalusia or Greece. This is not only the case of the ethnic Kurds (officially 35% of the population, but in fact 50%), since most of the "ethnic Turcs" are in fact turkicised Kurds or Syrian Arabs. Just look at the Turks and Kurds that have settled into French and German cities. I admit that there is, in the west and in the elite, a strong minority (about 20%) of Turks who show (southern) European profiles. Most of them descend of civil servants of the former Pacha, whose ancestors were themselves enrolled (or enslaved) in Europe and the caucasus. It is a characteristic of oriental despotic regimes to offer social promotion to their slaves.



By the way, in making a distinction between western Turks and (eastern) Kurds, are you suggesting that a partition of Turkey would render the Turkish candidacy more acceptable ? This could be worth to consider.

;)


With regard racism, I do not think that Europe has anything to learn from Turkey, since this country has still not recognised the Armenian genocide and has transformed it's land from a 30% Christian country (in 1921) into a 99% Muslim country. Europe may be a "Christian club", as former Prime Minister Turgut Ozal claimed, but something is sure, Turkey is a "Muslim Club" too.



Rather than race, I would refer to "self identification". Maybe 20% of the Turks feel themselves more Occidental than Oriental, but the 80% remaining, whatever Turks or Kurds, do not share this opinion and feel themselves closer to Arabs than to Europeans (the current Iraki experience is a good test for such surveys) And since the demography of the latter is stronger than the former, it is easy to understand why the Turkish elite is now urging under Europe's gates. Again, "partition" of Turkey could be a good compromise. This country is going to implode in the 20 coming years.

Strengthandhonour
Monday, May 17th, 2004, 02:56 AM
Turkey has no place in the European union I believe. I never really thought of Turkey as an European nations. The ways of the people are none European. Even through it's probably the most civilized Islamic country, It still has no place in Europe at all.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Monday, May 17th, 2004, 05:03 AM
It is none of my business, but, it seems to me that Turkey's claim to the possiblity of being included into the EU stems from possession of territory within Europe. I say this because Turks are by no means Europeans, racially or linguistically. Even their territorial claim should be suspect since this territory exists by invasion. Let's review: Turks and not Europeans by race or language and they arrived on your shores via invasion, yet they are asking to be received with "sweets and flowers" as they find their way into your wallets.

Awar
Monday, May 17th, 2004, 05:13 AM
A lot of Turks are racially fully European. Both 'ethnic' Turks ( who are also a product of importing Slavic and other Balkans children, mercenaries etc. into Anatolia ), there are also lots of ethnicities within Turkey who also are European, or still remember their European origin ( ask Rusalka about that ).

Also, as much as I hate the fact that Turks invaded Balkans, destroyed our empire, ruined our economy, as much as I wish this never happened, and that Constantinople is back in Greek hands..... one has to honor the fact that they were capable of invading and holding on to that piece of land.

Turkey is definitely NOT Europe, but hopefully it will become more like the Europe we love and less of an ( islamic ) threat for us.

Who knows what future might bring :)

Marius
Monday, May 17th, 2004, 09:07 AM
Marius, obviously you do not know Turkish people, or the Turks you met are extreme people who are migrated in Western Europe in the 60s. As Volksdeutscher mentioned, those Turks were villagers without any skills and education. When they went to work in West Europe, they held on their religion to protect their identity like all minorities do. You should not judge Turks based on this.

And would you be so sure that those willagers cannot be easily influenced into Islamism by some extremist preachers coming from the neighbouring countries of Turkey?



Extremist Islamists are very little percentage of Turkish population. I guarentee you most Turks (at least 90%) are not radically Muslim and do not support or want an Islamic nation. Military interventions of army generals are not based on the fears of Islamic nation. They use this fear as if they do not intervene politics, Turkey would be like Iran. These generals want to protect their strength and influence, and they use fundamental Islam threat over governments. Same thing is done in the US by Bush (war against terrorism) to implement his aggresive military politics. In Turkey This will be over soon with the merge of EU.

It's not surprising the generals act like that using the Islamist menace in order to gain power and control, but how can you be so sure the mentality of the majority is so evoluated in order not to allow Islamism.



I do not know the intrepretation of Quran but I wish I do. Most of my peers do not know either. Do not think Islam is something to fear about, Islam is a religion of tolerance.

You know, in our countries, people who cut the throat of another one crying God is Great are considered lunatics and put in the mental illnesses treatment centres. In the Islamic world those are called saints, it seems.



Do not judge Muslims based on fictious scenes (Berg's murder) or some extreme terrorists who are paid by your governments actually. We are not like that.

I don't think the Romanian government actually affords to pay somebody... But I think the terrorist you speak about are paid by some representants and nationals of rich Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, ... in order to totally have the control over the oil resources in the Middle East. And in order to do war after this and try proselitism in other countries. Somehow, this seems to me the continuation of the old Ottoman Empire.



One respondent asked why Muslim countries are poorer. Speaking of Turkey, historically, Turks stayed away from trade and left most trade to the Jews. And of course when their military power decreased and West Europe went through Reinance and Refom, Turks could not improve themselves because lack of economic power. In fact one of Turkish sultans in 19th century did not even know there is a huge amount of oil (lack of trade knowledge and education) in Middle East and left those soils to Brits to stay away from conflicts. And also Turks did not use economical infrastructure of countries they conquered as oppose Britain and France, Turks only collected taxes. They did not change religions or cultures of those countries. That's why most Balkan countries are not Muslims, even they lived 400 years under Turkish rule.

Well, even if Romania is not too Balkanic, the Eastern and Southern Principates (fürstentums) of Moldavia and Wallachia were for a period of time under the vasality of the Ottoman Empire (because they were also under Hungarian, Polish or Russian vasality during time). After a fight, even during Rennaissance, a Wallachian pricce has been captured along with his family and taken to Istanbul, where it was proposed to become Muslim. He refused, so his family has been beheadead in front of him (so Berg's murder is a "custom" in the Islamic world?) and he was also eventually beheaded. So, please do not say the Turks did not want to impose their religion even on vasal regions. I see what happened to Bosnia, some parts of Croatia and Albania, they are even now Muslim, being under Turkish rule for over 400 years, as you said.

Moody
Monday, May 17th, 2004, 04:00 PM
I personally harbour no dislike towards Turks - the few I've met have struck me as fine people; BUT, I think the ancients had it right when they called that part of the world 'Asia Minor'.

I would ask Turks, do you REALLY class yourselves as 'Europeans'? - of course not.

This is not to say that Europeans and Turks cannot have friendly relations, but I see no real reason why Turkey should become part of Europe.

The Americans think that it's a good idea, but then they want an Islamic ally in their doomed 'war against terror'.

The Turks are very proud - I suspect they will want their OWN empire back one day.

Ultimately you cannot separate race-geography-culture; on that basis Turks aren't European whereas Greeks ARE.

Awar
Monday, May 17th, 2004, 04:08 PM
OK, let's say that Turks never invaded, and that Byzantium still stands as it did in the 12th century, it's teritory populated by Orthodox Greeks, Armenians and Hellenized peoples ( instead of Turkified ), part of it's teritory in the Balkans, other part in Asia Minor ( anatolia ).

Would you think Byzantium should be a part of the EU? :)

BTW. The word 'Asia' was once used only for present day Anatolia/Asia Minor, later the term was used for the entire Asian continent. In the same way, once 'Europe' was only the Balkans.

Razmig
Monday, May 17th, 2004, 10:25 PM
Turkey is/had always been European soil. Turks, are not European. The only motive behind the EU is a small portion of globalization. It does not matter what country joins the EU, it is bad for Europeans in every aspect.

Razmig
Monday, May 17th, 2004, 10:27 PM
OK, let's say that Turks never invaded, and that Byzantium still stands as it did in the 12th century, it's teritory populated by Orthodox Greeks, Armenians and Hellenized peoples ( instead of Turkified ), part of it's teritory in the Balkans, other part in Asia Minor ( anatolia ).

Would you think Byzantium should be a part of the EU? :)

BTW. The word 'Asia' was once used only for present day Anatolia/Asia Minor, later the term was used for the entire Asian continent. In the same way, once 'Europe' was only the Balkans.
Both have Greek origins. Europe was the West, Asia was the East...only the Greeks would consider themselves in the "middle." :D

Byzantium was a European nation, and it was the richest of them all...so therefor it WOULD be acceptable to join the EU. Europe is not a continent (hopefully we all know that), it's a culture and way of democracy.

Strengthandhonour
Monday, May 17th, 2004, 10:48 PM
OK, let's say that Turks never invaded, and that Byzantium still stands as it did in the 12th century, it's teritory populated by Orthodox Greeks, Armenians and Hellenized peoples ( instead of Turkified ), part of it's teritory in the Balkans, other part in Asia Minor ( anatolia ).

Would you think Byzantium should be a part of the EU? :)

BTW. The word 'Asia' was once used only for present day Anatolia/Asia Minor, later the term was used for the entire Asian continent. In the same way, once 'Europe' was only the Balkans.
If Byzanitum was still around it would rule Europe with an iron fist!!!
hehe..well, Actually, I am not sure. I mean, I think geographically Turkey is somewhat a part of Europe, But the only reason why I don't think it's a good idea for it to be part of the EU is that the people and the culture is way to different.

Razmig
Wednesday, May 19th, 2004, 12:19 AM
If Byzanitum was still around it would rule Europe with an iron fist!!!
hehe..well, Actually, I am not sure. I mean, I think geographically Turkey is somewhat a part of Europe, But the only reason why I don't think it's a good idea for it to be part of the EU is that the people and the culture is way to different.
Turkish "culture" is a rip off of Armenian, Greek and other peoples who originally inhabited the region. I attended a "Turkish history display" in Canada once, and all I saw was Greek and Armenian inscriptions, Armenian instruments and Islamic fashion.

Prince Eugen
Thursday, May 20th, 2004, 07:02 PM
The Turks killed,raped Greeks in Cyprus back in 1974!They believe that Aegian See belongs to them!For that reason they are my enemies.
Yesterday i have a all night talk with a German friend and comrade who is visiting Hellas now and he told me horouble people about Turkish immigrants.Frankfuft is almost a Turkish city.Do we allow to these scumbags to conquer the Europe ?
Long live the spirit of Prinz Eugen the destroyer of Ottomans!

Razmig
Thursday, May 20th, 2004, 08:18 PM
Cyprus got the shitty end of the stick, it's really disgusting to know that America has partaken in aiding Turkish troops (by the gods I hate the American government and the majority of it's ignorant people). Consider Cyprus Turkey, because it will be soon enough, along with Bulgaria, Germany, Caucasia, Syria.....they multiply like rabbits, and they will dominate Europeans.

racial_intellect
Monday, May 24th, 2004, 04:49 PM
i see nothing in common with europe, turkey is part of a continent called turkistan and armenians are in middle of it! i dont see how geography affects any turk, so if turkish become citizen of germany they become european? eastern turkey is not necessarily more asian, kurds, armenians, and others such subraces are aryan and they have strong holds in our eastern part, and they have created a war zone, western turkey is alot more homogenous turk than eastern part because NO ARYAN live in istanbul, we kicked them out in ww1 thanks to no small part to ataturk, your "blonde aryan" non turk :D

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Monday, May 31st, 2004, 11:02 PM
Turkey should be reconquered on the western side where Istanbul is. Other than that, I don't care for it.

catchmeifyoukhan
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2004, 10:35 PM
i see nothing in common with europe, turkey is part of a continent called turkistan and armenians are in middle of it! i dont see how geography affects any turk, so if turkish become citizen of germany they become european? eastern turkey is not necessarily more asian, kurds, armenians, and others such subraces are aryan and they have strong holds in our eastern part, and they have created a war zone, western turkey is alot more homogenous turk than eastern part because NO ARYAN live in istanbul, we kicked them out in ww1 thanks to no small part to ataturk, your "blonde aryan" non turk :D
True ! I've just read in Alexandre Del Valle last book about Turkey ("Turkey in Europe. An islamic troyan horse ?") that the blond Ataturk was not turk but Albanian (his real name was Risa) , hence aryan. But beside race or language, religion is a greater gap, especially when speaking about a holistic religion such as Islam.

rusalka
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2004, 10:50 PM
i see nothing in common with europe, turkey is part of a continent called turkistan and armenians are in middle of it!

The continent called Turkistan? And where did you study geography at? ;)


eastern turkey is not necessarily more asian, kurds, armenians, and others such subraces are aryan and they have strong holds in our eastern part, and they have created a war zone, western turkey is alot more homogenous turk than eastern part because NO ARYAN live in istanbul, we kicked them out in ww1 thanks to no small part to ataturk, your "blonde aryan" non turk :D
No Aryan live in Istanbul? And what, exactly is "Aryan" by your standards anyway? There are many who are of Serbian, Bosnian, Greek, Armenian, Circassian, Albanian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Romanian and Hungarian ancestry in Istanbul, not to mention the "Levantines" who are the Italians and the French who had been living in Western parts of Turkey for hundreds of years since the Genovese and Venetian colonies, most of them prominent families in society. In big cities such as Istanbul -the former capital of the Ottoman Empire-, Smyrna (Izmir) and Bursa there is a big "minority" element. Izmir is largely of -yes, still- Greek and Cretan stock with Balkan immigrants. To the North, on the Black Sea coast live the remnants of Pontus Greeks who got assimilated as well as Lezgis and Georgians.

I very much doubt that you know what you're talking about. :)

Razmig
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2004, 11:58 PM
True ! I've just read in Alexandre Del Valle last book about Turkey ("Turkey in Europe. An islamic troyan horse ?") that the blond Ataturk was not turk but Albanian (his real name was Risa) , hence aryan. But beside race or language, religion is a greater gap, especially when speaking about a holistic religion such as Islam.
half albanian jew and half armenian =)

Razmig
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 12:01 AM
He is referring to the region of Central Asia and Western China...called Turkestan.

http://www.taklamakan.org/uighur-l/et_faq_p1.html

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/Libs/PCL/Map_collection/middle_east_and_asia/china_ussr_west88.jpg

rusalka
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 12:06 AM
He is referring to the region of Central Asia and Western China...called Turkestan.


I know where Turkestan is, it's hardly a continent and has nothing to do with modern Turkey, however. ;)

Razmig
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 12:15 AM
I know where Turkestan is, it's hardly a continent and has nothing to do with modern Turkey, however. ;)
Continents are what you make of them...in reality, Europe is not a continent either. Turkestan has everything to do with modern Turkey, it is the homeland of the Turks.

rusalka
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 12:20 AM
Continents are what you make of them...in reality, Europe is not a continent either. Turkestan has everything to do with modern Turkey, it is the homeland of the Turks.
How many actual Turks live in modern day Turkey would you say? How many can trace their ancestry back to Turkestan?

That is not the point of course. Turkey is not culturally European, but ethnically it's not exactly "Turkic" either.

Razmig
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 12:26 AM
How many actual Turks live in modern day Turkey would you say? How many can trace their ancestry back to Turkestan?

That is not the point of course. Turkey is not culturally European, but ethnically it's not exactly "Turkic" either.

It depends on which regions of Turkey you travel to, because the Caucus itself (which broders Turkey) is home to many Turkic peoples and Turanids. The most asiatic looking Turks in Turkey, would of coarse, be those of the ancestors who settled in and around Istanbul. Istanbul itself, however, is a melting pot of all different peoples (as are all the major Turkish cities)...but if you travel outside into the villages that surround Istanbul on both sides, you will see the most asiatic looking people, those who still even dress the same, and carry on the same Turkic traditions. Most other Turks are just assimilants or converts...and you will find the darkest skinned Turks in Western Turkey, due to the mixing with Arab muslims that were brought into the empire around 1700's. So perhaps 20% of Turks are Turkic or carry Turkish traits, if not more. It is hard to say there are any "pure Turkics" because Turks themselves are a mixture, I'm sure the original Turks were not so diluted.

Turkish "culture" is nothing but derrivitants from Greek, Armenian and other Balkan/Anatolian traditians that has been spliced with Islam and Arabic ways. Much of Turkish food has Armenian origins with Turkish names...and much Turkish clothing is Anatolian or Caucasian. I wouldn't say Turkish culture is non-European, because there are those Turks who carry on European traditions, and those who do not...so there is no real "Turkish" culture. IMO

rusalka
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 12:39 AM
Turkish "culture" is nothing but derrivitants from Greek, Armenian and other Balkan/Anatolian traditians that has been spliced with Islam and Arabic ways. Much of Turkish food has Armenian origins with Turkish names...and much Turkish clothing is Anatolian or Caucasian. I wouldn't say Turkish culture is non-European, because there are those Turks who carry on European traditions, and those who do not...so there is no real "Turkish" culture. IMO
I completely agree. An artificial country of Ottoman remnants and a culture as mixed up as it was. The culture is just like the land, neither east nor west; if Turks had originally been Christians it would probably develop as a Western culture, however.

racial_intellect
Friday, June 4th, 2004, 05:16 PM
turkish culture is pure samurai shamanism, tengri= allah in turkish nothing about us is armenian or greek, greek is famous for gyros, gyros are not mediterrenean , no one in greece knows what their ancestors ate. a gyro is a kebab or hibachi in japan and ancient samurai food made with sticking meat to arrows :)

rusalka
Friday, June 4th, 2004, 05:23 PM
turkish culture is pure samurai shamanism, tengri= allah in turkish nothing about us is armenian or greek, greek is famous for gyros, gyros are not mediterrenean , no one in greece knows what their ancestors ate. a gyro is a kebab or hibachi in japan and ancient samurai food made with sticking meat to arrows :)
I think I'm losing you here. Samurais?

So you're Turkish and you think you are, in some way, related to Samurais? Samurais were a part of the Japanese culture, by the way, not Chinese or Central Asian and Japanese religion is -and has been for a long time- a mixture of Shinto and Buddhism (and more importantly of Zen).

Personally, as someone having lived in Turkey I failed to see any serious Asian influence on phenotypes or the culture. :)

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Saturday, June 5th, 2004, 03:37 AM
Turkey should give back Istanbul!

Ederico
Saturday, June 5th, 2004, 05:42 AM
I bet if they did a referendum all over the EU where only native Europeans are eligible to vote on Turkey's vote they would get a definite No vote, but the EU people know this and would never dream of making a popular vote of such type.

Personally I think Turkey would pose a serious problem Culturally and Spiritually, and yes, even Racially. With Turkish entry you would give all sorts of Turks access to all of Europe without restrictions so accepting Turkish entry because some of them look European is like amputating a leg because of a foot blister (damn yesterday's Guinness is not helping me come up with original and decent analogies). :D

Razmig
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 11:14 AM
I think I'm losing you here. Samurais?

So you're Turkish and you think you are, in some way, related to Samurais? Samurais were a part of the Japanese culture, by the way, not Chinese or Central Asian and Japanese religion is -and has been for a long time- a mixture of Shinto and Buddhism (and more importantly of Zen).

Personally, as someone having lived in Turkey I failed to see any serious Asian influence on phenotypes or the culture. :)
Pay him no attention, he's a clown. Hes going to claim that Samurais ate Lamb Kebabs called Gyros...He cant tell the difference between an Islamic Turkic warrior (the Turks who dominated Iran for quite some time) and a Samurai.


Turkey should give back Istanbul!
Constantinopolis*

Razmig
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 11:15 AM
I bet if they did a referendum all over the EU where only native Europeans are eligible to vote on Turkey's vote they would get a definite No vote, but the EU people know this and would never dream of making a popular vote of such type.

Personally I think Turkey would pose a serious problem Culturally and Spiritually, and yes, even Racially. With Turkish entry you would give all sorts of Turks access to all of Europe without restrictions so accepting Turkish entry because some of them look European is like amputating a leg because of a foot blister (damn yesterday's Guinness is not helping me come up with original and decent analogies). :D
LOL Point taken...at least you have good taste in drinks!

Aristotle
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 04:21 AM
ΕΥΤΥΧΕΙΤΕ!

Before to see exit I had in my mind to reply "never"! After, there is no point!
Reply is already given!

Έστωσαν οι Θεοί αρωγοί Υμών!

In 2030 Turkey is going to have about 100.000.000 population, while at the same time most European nations are declining in their birth rates.

What is your opinion?

Should the political pigs of Brussels let Turkey suffocate the European continent with the hordes of Turanomongoloid Turks, and also give an advantage to the growing power of muslims in Europe?

hyelander
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 12:28 AM
Turkey is VERY far from the time when he can be in Europe. All that theater what they are trying to show today (democracy?, human rights, religious freedom) is nothing but to close people eyes. Culturaly they they are not in the Europe and cannot be there.

Tancred
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 01:11 AM
This is spoken as if by someone who themselves either HAS or FEARS the presence of Turkish blood in their veins. Turks themselves are quite racially diverse and it's pointless to argue about their actual racial components as the end result is something that is simply incapable of either advancing or even blending in with European Civilization.

In fact, the Turks, in their invations of Europe have left such a detrimental genetic mark on Europe that large portions, I'd even say a majority of the Balkan peoples, are also incapable of either advancing or even maintaining European Civilization.

In the Final Battle, that we can only pray will be fought at least by the time our grandchildren come, not only will Turkey itself have to be made a nuclear wasteland, devoid not only of human life, but probably all other forms of life as well, but the Balkans itself will have to be filled with a few thousand miles of trench, into which millions of racially mixed Turks will have to be machine-gunned...


I agree. The fact that there might be some Turks with white physical features doesn't take away the fact that most of them look profoundly alien to me. And I also do not agree that Turks are just a mixture of Slavs, Greeks, Armenians, etc. The Turks are a Mongoloid race, originally very much like the modern Kazakhs. In the course of time they absorbed considerable Semitic blood from the native Anatolians, as well as some Persian and Greek blood as well. This helped to change the basic Turkish physionomy to a substantial degree. When the Turks invaded the Balkans they took away tens of thousands of handsome and strong male children from their families to be brought up as Janissaries, the elite guards of the Sultan. Any 'blond' Turks can be traced to the descendants of the Janissaries; however these are a tiny proportion of the Turkish population.

I have seen many Turks and I can assure you: they are NOT Europeans and do not belong in Europe. Infact, Turks and Jews look surprisingly similar, and I'm sure they have much in common besides. The Turks have committed hideous crimes against Europe since the middle ages and they deserve to be brutally punished once and for all. Speaking for myself, I would very much like to see the Turks eliminated from the planet.

rusalka
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 01:51 AM
I agree. The fact that there might be some Turks with white physical features doesn't take away the fact that most of them look profoundly alien to me. And I also do not agree that Turks are just a mixture of Slavs, Greeks, Armenians, etc. The Turks are a Mongoloid race, originally very much like the modern Kazakhs. Actually, no. First of all, "white" is a very unscientific term and does not mean anything. Do you mean Caucasoid? Turks are Caucasoid and so are the Iraqis and Indians, for example. Do you mean Europid? Actually most of western and northern Turkey is Europid. The Turks, as they had first came out in the scene of history, tribes such as the Uyghurs etc. were heavily Central Asian and Mongoloid (though not akin to the Chinese and were described as alien by the Chinese themselves). It took a while for these Turkic peoples to move west and by the time some of them did, such as the Huns and the Avars, Pechenegs and the Bulgars; their ethnic make-up had changed greatly. When the Bulgars and Avars moved to the Balkans they had already left their Mongoloid features behind a great deal. The same is true for the Seljuks, the Oghuz Turks and the others who got control of Anatolia in late 9th and early 10th centuries. By the time they made their way to Anatolia proper they did not have much of their Central Asian genetics. Besides, the Anatolian population at the time of the Turkish invasions was 12 million (Yes, TWELVE million) so it is not only unscientific, it is also utterly illogical to claim that today's Anatolian peoples are a "Mongoloid" bunch.

The "ethnic" Turks of modern Turkey today are largely of Roman and Levantine descent. By Roman, that is Eastern Roman which was itself highly a Hellenistic culture and ethnos. If one looks at Turkey by regions it is very clear as one can see the direct similarities between the Western Turks and the Greeks and Bulgarians; Northern Turks and the Georgians and the Lezgi (both of whom still actually live there as a seperate people, by the way regardless of their nationality, which is different from "ethnicity"); Southern Turks who resemble Mediterraneans to the west and Levantine peoples to the Southeast; not to mention the Kurds who are themselves are seperate people -and consist 20 million strong of the 68 million Turkish population. To the East proper the Turkish people show great similarity to the Armenians and to certain extent the Iranian peoples, especially those of the Northwestern part of Iran. Inner Anatolia is the most "Turkic" part, those who were settled by the Turkmens of Central Asia but they live rather seperately from others as they still more or less live a semi-nomadic life. Inner Anatolia consists of a mix of people, Islamized Greeks included. Slavic immigrants are usually populate cities of Turkish Thrace and Eskisehir, Adapazari, Istanbul, Bursa and other urban centers. Greek and Cretan influence is still very strong in Smyrna (Izmir) culturally and ethnically. Displaced Caucasian peoples who are not Turks (such as Circassians, Abkhaz, Chechens, Dagestanis, Ossetes etc.) sum up to about 6-8 million in total and are situated in big cities (Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir) and other "imigrant centers" such as Bursa, Izmit, Eskisehir, Duzce, Bolu etc. as well as Kayseri -where the largest Kabardian population -even larger than in Kabardino-Balkaria- lives in Uzunyayla.

The Kazakh people, along with the Kyrgiz, Uzbek, Turkmen and Tajiks are almost completely different from Turks of Turkey and they only show kinship in terms of language.

For more detail refer to Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia by Cinnioglu et al. published in 2003 in reference to previous studies by Cavalli-Sforza et al. According to latest studies the Central Asian genetic influence on modern day Turks (those who do identify as ethnic Turks in, and not the immigrants) is <9%


haplogroup R1b3 emanates from Turkey towards Southeast Europe and Caucasia and; (7) high resolution SNP analysis provides
evidence of a detectable yet weak signal (<9%) of recent
paternal gene flow from Central Asia. The variety of
Turkish haplotypes is witness to Turkey being both an important source and recipient of gene flow.

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/HG_2004_v114_p127-148.pdf




In the course of time they absorbed considerable Semitic blood from the native Anatolians, as well as some Persian and Greek blood as well. This helped to change the basic Turkish physionomy to a substantial degree. When the Turks invaded the Balkans they took away tens of thousands of handsome and strong male children from their families to be brought up as Janissaries, the elite guards of the Sultan. Any 'blond' Turks can be traced to the descendants of the Janissaries; however these are a tiny proportion of the Turkish population. Native Anatolians were not Semitic, they consisted of Indo-European peoples such as the Hittites or the Ionians who were more or less Greek as well as Armenian which was situated in Eastern Anatolia. Lydians, Lycians and Carians were native to Southern, Western and to an extent central Anatolia and they spoke an Indo-European language as well. In later times Anatolia was inhabited by Persians, Greeks and later the Romans, of which the Roman Empire lasted until the arrival of the Turks. You may refer to this site about the Indo European languages in Anatolia (especially Armenian)

http://www.armenianhighland.com/homeland/chronicle120.html


The Janissaries, by the way, were not allowed to marry until they finished their serving terms -which meant until they were VERY old, or crippled or dead and were not allowed to have families; so that's not a sound theory. It wouldn't mean that they never had any children, as they might well have with local women etc. but they usually served in the European part of the Ottoman Empire anyway and those children would have been by the local populace in the first place.



I have seen many Turks and I can assure you: they are NOT Europeans and do not belong in Europe. Infact, Turks and Jews look surprisingly similar, and I'm sure they have much in common besides. The Turks have committed hideous crimes against Europe since the middle ages and they deserve to be brutally punished once and for all. Speaking for myself, I would very much like to see the Turks eliminated from the planet. It is true that most Israelis and most Turks (especially those of the Southern coast) do resemble each other remarkably but that is the Levantine influence to a great extent, I believe. Furthermore, no matter what one would want to believe the Jews are not exactly a "race" (at least not anymore) so it would be unrealistic to compare a religious group (no matter how they would like to refer to themselves as a nation) and a linguistic group consisting of a very complex heritage.

The question of whether Turkey is a part of Europe culturally or politically is a wholly different matter but to try to base it on unscientific theories and false comparisons such as those between the Central Asians and Turks destroys your case's credibility.

Tryggvi
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 02:49 AM
Actually, no. First of all, "white" is a very unscientific term and does not mean anything. It's an American construct but it meant a lot historically. It meant indigenous to Northern or Central Europe; with subracially compatible deviations permitted from the rest of Europe, and subracially incompatiable deviations being declined. That are very fair borders not to be crossed.


Do you mean Caucasoid? No, I mean Europid proper which is a synonym for what all reasonable "racialists" consider "white."


Turks are Caucasoid and so are the Iraqis and Indians, for example. So what? That is based on physical classifications and groupings prior to the genetic age.


Do you mean Europid? I do.


Actually most of western and northern Turkey is Europid. True, but that does not suffice. Most means more than 50%. That means that a very important minority (49.9% or less) is absolutely inassimilable by Europid proper terms. And we are not talking about a population of a size of Liechtenstein here. We are talking about Turkey, and that means millions of people that are racially not assimilable to any degree. And they shall not be permitted into our genetic pool. There are borders not to be crossed, and it is obvious that race has no precise borders (by definition.) It is a slippery slope -- once the Turks are admitted, who is next? The Syrians? Then the Israelis and Palestines? Then the Jordanians? Then the Saudi Arabians? Then the Egyptians? No, thank you. Again, there are reasonable borders not to be crossed. And it is not exclusively a racial issue. One has to see the whole picture -- we shall not forego to acknowledge the picture the forrest presents to us because of clinal gradients concerning trees; that includes all the historical, ethnic, linguistic, religious, political, subracial and other parameters. Turkey is a political unity, mostly non-Europid proper, and thus it shall be excluded. That means, in consequence, that 98% of Turkey shall stay outside -- beyond negotiation. Everything but Constantinople that is. And as Turkey doesn't plan on foregoing its sovereignty over it, it shall stay outside as well. It offers us little, and does a lot of harm. That is the bottom line.


And we are not talking about The Turks, as they had first came out in the scene of history, tribes such as the Uyghurs etc. were heavily Central Asian and Mongoloid (though not akin to the Chinese and were described as alien by the Chinese themselves). It took a while for these Turkic peoples to move west and by the time some of them did, such as the Huns and the Avars, Pechenegs and the Bulgars; their ethnic make-up had changed greatly. When the Bulgars and Avars moved to the Balkans they had already left their Mongoloid features behind a great deal. The same is true for the Seljuks, the Oghuz Turks and the others who got control of Anatolia in late 9th and early 10th centuries. By the time they made their way to Anatolia proper they did not have much of their Central Asian genetics. Besides, the Anatolian population at the time of the Turkish invasions was 12 million (Yes, TWELVE million) so it is not only unscientific, it is also utterly illogical to claim that today's Anatolian peoples are a "Mongoloid" bunch. Listen to yourself. Turks, Uyghurs, Central Asian, Chinese, Huns, Avars, Pechenges, Seljuks, Oghuzs, and so forth. They are far beyond the Europid proper consensus.


The "ethnic" Turks of modern Turkey today are largely of Roman and Levantine descent. Right. Levantine. Levant is the former name for the geographical area of the eastern Mediterranean that is now occupied by Lebanon and Syria and Israel. That is not Europe and has never been overwhelmingly Europid proper in recent times.


By Roman, that is Eastern Roman which was itself highly a Hellenistic culture and ethnos. If one looks at Turkey by regions it is very clear as one can see the direct similarities between the Western Turks and the Greeks and Bulgarians; Northern Turks and the Georgians and the Lezgi (both of whom still actually live there as a seperate people, by the way regardless of their nationality, which is different from "ethnicity"); Southern Turks who resemble Mediterraneans to the west and Levantine peoples to the Southeast; not to mention the Kurds who are themselves are seperate people -and consist 20 million strong of the 68 million Turkish population. To the East proper the Turkish people show great similarity to the Armenians and to certain extent the Iranian peoples, especially those of the Northwestern part of Iran. Inner Anatolia is the most "Turkic" part, those who were settled by the Turkmens of Central Asia but they live rather seperately from others as they still more or less live a semi-nomadic life. Inner Anatolia consists of a mix of people, Islamized Greeks included. Slavic immigrants are usually populate cities of Turkish Thrace and Eskisehir, Adapazari, Istanbul, Bursa and other urban centers. Greek and Cretan influence is still very strong in Smyrna (Izmir) culturally and ethnically. Displaced Caucasian peoples who are not Turks (such as Circassians, Abkhaz, Chechens, Dagestanis, Ossetes etc.) sum up to about 6-8 million in total and are situated in big cities (Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir) and other "imigrant centers" such as Bursa, Izmit, Eskisehir, Duzce, Bolu etc. as well as Kayseri -where the largest Kabardian population -even larger than in Kabardino-Balkaria- lives in Uzunyayla.

The Kazakh people, along with the Kyrgiz, Uzbek, Turkmen and Tajiks are almost completely different from Turks of Turkey and they only show kinship in terms of language.

Native Anatolians were not Semitic, they consisted of Indo-European peoples such as the Hittites or the Ionians who were more or less Greek as well as Armenian which was situated in Eastern Anatolia. Lydians, Lycians and Carians were native to Southern, Western and to an extent central Anatolia and they spoke an Indo-European language as well. In later times Anatolia was inhabited by Persians, Greeks and later the Romans, of which the Roman Empire lasted until the arrival of the Turks. You may refer to this site about the Indo European languages in Anatolia (especially Armenian)

http://www.armenianhighland.com/homeland/chronicle120.html

The Janissaries, by the way, were not allowed to marry until they finished their serving terms -which meant until they were VERY old, or crippled or dead and were not allowed to have families; so that's not a sound theory. It wouldn't mean that they never had any children, as they might well have with local women etc. but they usually served in the European part of the Ottoman Empire anyway and those children would have been by the local populace in the first place. Again, just listen to yourself. Do you actually reflect upon what you say?


It is true that most Israelis and most Turks (especially those of the Southern coast) do resemble each other remarkably but that is the Levantine influence to a great extent, I believe. Absolutely. And that's why they shall remain outside of Europe. And that's why a certain Turk with whom you sustain a relationship, being predominantly Armenoid, is not assimilable to an extent.


Furthermore, no matter what one would want to believe the Jews are not exactly a "race" (at least not anymore) Arguably. The Jewess Salcia Landmann differs. The extremities are, again, not really important. The bulk is. That's what race is all about.


so it would be unrealistic to compare a religious group (no matter how they would like to refer to themselves as a nation) and a linguistic group consisting of a very complex heritage.

The question of whether Turkey is a part of Europe culturally or politically is a wholly different matter but to try to base it on unscientific theories and false comparisons such as those between the Central Asians and Turks destroys your case's credibility. It can be answered in the negative. Beyond a question.

rusalka
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 03:51 AM
Again, just listen to yourself. Do you actually reflect upon what you say? Yes, I do actually. I am merely speaking based on scientific data, not on a cultural or historical basis; which is a completely different matter as I have stated above.


Absolutely. And that's why they shall remain outside of Europe. And that's why a certain Turk with whom you sustain a relationship, being predominantly Armenoid, is not assimilable to an extent. And why, pray tell, do you have to bring that up? :)

Let's not get sentimental. Again, as I said, my criticism was based on scientific data only. Such unscientific theories discredit one's stand, you should know it better than anybody else.



It can be answered in the negative. Beyond a question. Contrary to what you believe we are pretty much agreeing here. My point is not that the Turks are European; my point is they are not Central Asian.


It's That means, in consequence, that 98% of Turkey shall stay outside -- beyond negotiation. Everything but Constantinople that is. And as Turkey doesn't plan on foregoing its sovereignty over it, it shall stay outside as well. It offers us little, and does a lot of harm. That is the bottom line.
Slightly faulty assessment here I'd like to address. Considering the recent immigration to Constantinople -aka Istanbul-, the city's population, with the newly arrived (by newly I mean in the course of 10-20 years minimum) population mainly from Southeastern Turkey, Istanbul is not exactly the most Europid city and has a considerable Kurdish population. Of course, if one somehow got the city rid of the recent immigrants -which would displace some 7-8 million people at least- one would get a different picture. Today, the most Europid part of Turkey is eastern Thrace (authocton Thracians -undoubtedly Europid) and the perimeter of Smyrna (Izmir) including Halikarnassos (modern day Bodrum), Pergamum (Bergama), Ephesus (Selcuk) etc. consisting of mostly Greeks, Cretans and some European proper families (who had settled there during the Ottoman times, mostly Italians and French and interestingly enough they are referred to as "Levantines") as these parts have received a much less number of immigrants in contrast to Istanbul.

As for population statistics of those other than ethnic "Turkish" (Europid and non-Europid):

* 20% of the Turkish population is Kurdish.
* An estimated number of 7 to maybe 8 million are Northern Caucasians (Northwestern Caucasians such as Circassians and the Abkhaz and also Dagestani, Chechen, Osset and other minor groups from Caucasus and Transcaucasia)
* 2 to 3 million Georgians and Adjars
* 2 to 3 million Lezgi (Mingrelians)
* Assimilated Pontus Greeks, as estimated number of 500.000 to a million (a lucky guess)
* Cretans (seperate from the official Greek population) a majority of the ethnic make-up in extreme Western Turkey
* Recent Bosnian immigrants (during the 90s) close to 500.000 (according to a 96 census)
* 2 to 4 million Albanians (another estimate, not an official census)
* Descendants of Pomaks (from Bulgaria) and Macedons
* 19th century immigrations from the Balkan regions of the Ottoman Empire -mainly Serbia, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Croatia and Romania to an extent. I am guessing their descendants would estimate to maybe 1 to 2 million (counting full and half heritage)
* An insignificant number of "White Russians", those that ran away from the October Revolution -mainly settled in Istanbul and Izmir
* The Zaza people, akin to Kurds, themselves probably nearing to around 2 million
* Assyrians (Assyrian proper and Syriac -Christians), numbers not certain but probably no more than 400.000
* Arabs and Syrians, almost the whole population in Antioch and in good numbers in extreme Southeastern Turkey

I might have missed some other minor populations.

And official numbers of Greeks, Armenians and Jews -the only three minorities according to the Lausanne Treaty. These official minority statistics can be obtained from anywhere.


Well, you do the math. ;) But I'd like to stress once again that my argument is not about Turkey's "Europeanness" or lack thereof -I think at least culturally and politically it is an inarguable concept; it is merely scientific and statistic data.

Tryggvi
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 09:16 AM
Yes, I do actually. I am merely speaking based on scientific data, not on a cultural or historical basis; which is a completely different matter as I have stated above. Reading alone your introduction sentence to this paragraph ("By Roman, that is Eastern Roman which was itself highly a Hellenistic culture and ethnos."), you are definitely talking about history and culture. Not that I believe that the dichotomy between science on the one hand and history and culture on the other is a good one regarding this topic.


And why, pray tell, do you have to bring that up? :) Exemplum docet stultos, rusalka. :)


Contrary to what you believe we are pretty much agreeing here. My point is not that the Turks are European; my point is they are not Central Asian. Last time I checked Turkey was still mostly in Asia Minor, for sure. I haven't read the whole thread. Maybe someone confused it with Turkmenistan. ;)

By the way ... is this intelligible to Turks? "Halk! Watan! T&#252;rkmenbashy!"


Slightly faulty assessment here I'd like to address. Considering the recent immigration to Constantinople -aka Istanbul-, the city's population, with the newly arrived (by newly I mean in the course of 10-20 years minimum) population mainly from Southeastern Turkey, Istanbul is not exactly the most Europid city and has a considerable Kurdish population. Same as with Berlin. ;)


Of course, if one somehow got the city rid of the recent immigrants -which would displace some 7-8 million people at least- one would get a different picture. Ja, that has been my argument.


Today, the most Europid part of Turkey is eastern Thrace (authocton Thracians -undoubtedly Europid) and the perimeter of Smyrna (Izmir) including Halikarnassos (modern day Bodrum), Pergamum (Bergama), Ephesus (Selcuk) etc. consisting of mostly Greeks, Cretans and some European proper families (who had settled there during the Ottoman times, mostly Italians and French and interestingly enough they are referred to as "Levantines") as these parts have received a much less number of immigrants in contrast to Istanbul.

As for population statistics of those other than ethnic "Turkish" (Europid and non-Europid):

* 20&#37; of the Turkish population is Kurdish.
* An estimated number of 7 to maybe 8 million are Northern Caucasians (Northwestern Caucasians such as Circassians and the Abkhaz and also Dagestani, Chechen, Osset and other minor groups from Caucasus and Transcaucasia)
* 2 to 3 million Georgians and Adjars
* 2 to 3 million Lezgi (Mingrelians)
* Assimilated Pontus Greeks, as estimated number of 500.000 to a million (a lucky guess)
* Cretans (seperate from the official Greek population) a majority of the ethnic make-up in extreme Western Turkey
* Recent Bosnian immigrants (during the 90s) close to 500.000 (according to a 96 census)
* 2 to 4 million Albanians (another estimate, not an official census)
* Descendants of Pomaks (from Bulgaria) and Macedons
* 19th century immigrations from the Balkan regions of the Ottoman Empire -mainly Serbia, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Croatia and Romania to an extent. I am guessing their descendants would estimate to maybe 1 to 2 million (counting full and half heritage)
* An insignificant number of "White Russians", those that ran away from the October Revolution -mainly settled in Istanbul and Izmir
* The Zaza people, akin to Kurds, themselves probably nearing to around 2 million
* Assyrians (Assyrian proper and Syriac -Christians), numbers not certain but probably no more than 400.000
* Arabs and Syrians, almost the whole population in Antioch and in good numbers in extreme Southeastern Turkey

I might have missed some other minor populations.

And official numbers of Greeks, Armenians and Jews -the only three minorities according to the Lausanne Treaty. These official minority statistics can be obtained from anywhere.

Well, you do the math. But I'd like to stress once again that my argument is not about Turkey's "Europeanness" or lack thereof -I think at least culturally and politically it is an inarguable concept; it is merely scientific and statistic data. Thanks for the data. I shall spare you my synthesis of nearly all of these groups into one related category. ;)

Kamangir42
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 08:00 PM
As defined by Baker (Race), Europid is a synonym for Caucasoid. Thus, at least 90% of Turks are Europid (and probably an even greater proportion).

rusalka
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 08:31 PM
Reading alone your introduction sentence to this paragraph ("By Roman, that is Eastern Roman which was itself highly a Hellenistic culture and ethnos."), you are definitely talking about history and culture. Not that I believe that the dichotomy between science on the one hand and history and culture on the other is a good one regarding this topic. Are you saying that the Greek and other Indo-European peoples in Asia Minor would not "qualify" as Europid? Were the Romans (or the Byzantines, as the Eastern Romans were called by later historians) not European? The stress was on ethnos in that sentence, by the way, which you seem to have missed. I merely stated culture because it's largely the culture, religion and history, and not its genetics that makes Turkey so un-European -not excluding the non-Europid peoples, of course. If the Byzantine Empire were to stand, no matter how much land it had in Asia Minor it would undoubtedly be considered a part of the European heritage -because it was a part of the European heritage no matter how much dispute happened between the East and the West and no matter how it was largely Western Europe's fault that the Eastern Empire fell.


Exemplum docet stultos, rusalka. :) I believe the traditional form is "experientia". And thanks for calling me a stultus; cave quicquam incipias quod paeniteat postea, Njord. :)


Last time I checked Turkey was still mostly in Asia Minor, for sure. I haven't read the whole thread. Maybe someone confused it with Turkmenistan. ;)

By the way ... is this intelligible to Turks? "Halk! Watan! Türkmenbashy!" Someone equated it to Kazakhstan actually and my reply was aimed at the Central Asia - Anatolia comparison, which is false by any stretch of the imagination. No one here is doubting that Turkey is largely made up of Asia Minor, having its land from Thrace to Transcaucasia.

It is, since you're so interested. Means ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer. They are your allies, by the looks of it. ;)


Thanks for the data. I shall spare you my synthesis of nearly all of these groups into one related category. ;) I would be delighted to read your synthesis, actually. Perhaps you can send it via PM? Should be interesting as piling up all these groups into one single category would be a courageous pseudo-scientific feat indeed. ;) Then of course maybe your stress was on "nearly all".

hyelander
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 09:07 PM
[QUOTE=rusalka]Are you saying that the Greek and other Indo-European peoples in Asia Minor would not "qualify" as Europid? Were the Romans (or the Byzantines, as the Eastern Romans were called by later historians) not European? The stress was on ethnos in that sentence, by the way, which you seem to have missed. I merely stated culture because it's largely the culture, religion and history, and not its genetics that makes Turkey so un-European -not excluding the non-Europid peoples, of course.



As you mentioned, there are a lot of people of Indo-European descent, and even you can find some blond and blue eyes people between them also, but the culture of this country is not European, theyr mentality, the way how they think.

[QUOTE=rusalka]It is, since you're so interested. Means ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer. They are your allies, by the looks of it. ;)

I dont trust them, even if they look European. We can compare them with the same Yenicheri's. They were the kids of European people, but they were rasen by turk to destroy theyr own nations.

There was a turkish guy, who used to work for me, he was blond, had the blue eyes. I asked him, if he is turkish, he said: my grandparents from Former Yugoslavia, but a am turkish. So its perfectly shows, that as a Europeans they are almost lost.

morfrain_encilgar
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 09:24 PM
Are you saying that the Greek and other Indo-European peoples in Asia Minor would not "qualify" as Europid?

Most people in Asian Turkey had ancestors who spoke Indo-European or Anatolian languages at some point.

rusalka
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 09:26 PM
I dont trust them, even if they look European. We can compare them with the same Yenicheri's. They were the kids of European people, but they were rasen by turk to destroy theyr own nations. I think this is one of the saddest parts in Eastern European history; how the Janissaries did fight against their own people and in some cases their own families. There are cases of some Janissaries, who still remembered their hometowns and relatives, helping them and sparing them for unjust taxing etc. by influencing the officials. There is the case of Sokolovic, the Grand Vizier who did so much for his former land and never forgot where he was from, even appointing his brother as a patriarch of the region (who of course remained an Orthodox Christian).


There was a turkish guy, who used to work for me, he was blond, had the blue eyes. I asked him, if he is turkish, he said: my grandparents from Former Yugoslavia, but a am turkish. So its perfectly shows, that as a Europeans they are almost lost. This is very true, and equally sad. Assimilation is the biggest problem in Turkey if you ask me, and only recently the underground societies were able to come up legal, forming NGOs or cultural associations, trying to speak up for their cultural rights (ethnic is still a rather dangerous word in Turkey). Your colleague's situation is very similar to mine, apparently. My grandparents are from the former Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Northern Caucasus and although I (have to) consider myself as a Turkish national, I do not consider myself an ethnic Turk -that would be downright assimilation on my part; something which the Turkish Republic since its founding has been trying to do, and with great success. As I said, only the traditional three minorities are granted minority rights but recently (as Turkey tries very hard to meet EU standards) a lot of reforms in terms of cultural rights, broadcast in ethnic minority languages etc. have been made. What is appaling is some of the ethnic minorities were *against* these reforms themselves, fearing they would be equated with the Kurds -for reasons everyone would guess. The Circassians who spoke up for such minority rights recently were duly reminded of their association with the Greek rebels during and after the WWI and were called traitors.

Alkman
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 11:16 PM
In Turkey today, there are two Greek-speaking muslim groups. One of them continues to occupy the territory washed by the Black Sea, the Pontians, who converted to Islam in the 18th century. The other group is comprised of the Cretan muslims who were resettled along the Asia Minor coast. The Turkish state began a process of turkification and today most of them claim to be Turks.
The group speaking Pontian lives in 5 or 6 villages in the Tonya and Trabzon regions and in nearly 50 villages in the Yukari Solakli valley. Although they speak Greek, they refuse to refer to themselves as such and prefer to be called 'Turkoi' and their language 'Romaiika' (Rumce, in Turkish). They view Greek-speaking christians as a separate people, whom they call Romioi (Rumlar). The dialect is still spoken fluently by the young generation and most women can only speak Pontian Greek. Their population is estimated to be around 300.000.
The muslim Cretans living in Turkey numbering over 300.000, reside in villages along the western coast, which were vacated of their christian populations after 1922. There are muslim Cretans living in the large seaside towns of Izmir (Smyrna), Antalya and Ayvalik, where the old generation still speak Greek.
However, the young generation can only speak Turkish and identify themselves as Turks.

rusalka
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 11:32 PM
In Turkey today, there are two Greek-speaking muslim groups. One of them continues to occupy the territory washed by the Black Sea, the Pontians, who converted to Islam in the 18th century. The other group is comprised of the Cretan muslims who were resettled along the Asia Minor coast. The Turkish state began a process of turkification and today most of them claim to be Turks.
The group speaking Pontian lives in 5 or 6 villages in the Tonya and Trabzon regions and in nearly 50 villages in the Yukari Solakli valley. Although they speak Greek, they refuse to refer to themselves as such and prefer to be called 'Turkoi' and their language 'Romaiika' (Rumce, in Turkish). They view Greek-speaking christians as a separate people, whom they call Romioi (Rumlar). The dialect is still spoken fluently by the young generation and most women can only speak Pontian Greek. Their population is estimated to be around 300.000. Great post, Alkman and very accurate too. I see that you are pretty knowledgeable in terms of modern Turkey's ethnography. Although I know quite a lot about the Cretans (as I'm from the West coast myself) the Pontians are a more remote people, also because their area is more or less unvisited in terms of tourism. Of course this is one of the reasons they were able to keep to their native language; they remind me of the Kabardians of Uzunyayla, who even to this age speak fluent Kabardian amongst themselves the old generation and the young. It's usually the fate of those who live in urban centers to lose their own ways and language is the first thing that is lost. My friends, whose families are from the easternmost Black Sea coast, from the seperate Georgian villages, still can speak fluent Georgian with their families and Georgian is the only language spoken in villages. In Turkey the village structure is usually ethnically based. Georgian, Lezgi, Pontian, Abkhazian, Circassian etc. villages are usually seperate and although they keep good relations with the others, they keep to themselves in their own villages (each village having its own native name no matter what it is called officially) and a micro-culture is lived within. Of course living in a small village is not exactly what the young generations are looking forward to so most younger generations move to the city for school and remain there. The villages are more or less impenetrable by official propaganda and assimilation and young people are pretty much Georgian, Circassian, Pontian etc. until they start school where the only language of education is Turkish and of course official Turkish history is taught and then they become "Turkish" proper.


The muslim Cretans living in Turkey numbering over 300.000, reside in villages along the western coast, which were vacated of their christian populations after 1922. There are muslim Cretans living in the large seaside towns of Izmir (Smyrna), Antalya and Ayvalik, where the old generation still speak Greek.
However, the young generation can only speak Turkish and identify themselves as Turks. You might be happy to hear this and I am talking purely of my own experience but I do have friends and acquitances of Cretan ancestry who do identify as Cretan. Sure, they are Turkish nationals, but the first thing they say is that they are Cretan. It's true that the new generations (especially those brought up in larger towns like Izmir) do not speak the language but they use special vocabulary for everyday things and their cuisine is significantly different. It is encouraing after all. :)

Axelrod
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 11:52 PM
i'm not in favour of turkey in e.u but not because they arent caucasoid. they were proven having the lowest tat-c of southern europe or something. its just that 80 milion muslims in europe is hardly necessary.

morfrain_encilgar
Sunday, August 15th, 2004, 11:57 PM
i'm not in favour of turkey in e.u but not because they arent caucasoid. they were proven having the lowest tat-c of southern europe or something. 80 milion muslims in europe is hardly necessary.

Theres a mongoloid contribution to some Turks, but Turks are Caucasoid. Most Turks don't appear to have Mongoloid admixture, at all.

xakep
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 12:56 PM
Rusalka,

Correct me if I'm wrong but your point of view on ethnicity, culture, and geography seems to be "It's ok, we are all the same", is it not?

rusalka
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 03:34 PM
Rusalka,

Correct me if I'm wrong but your point of view on ethnicity, culture, and geography seems to be "It's ok, we are all the same", is it not?
Xaker,

Yes it seems like you did get it wrong. Where'd you get that idea?

As for "it's ok, we're all the same", I do not think that one group is necessarily better than the other -so maybe that's what ticked you off. They are just different. And everyone has a right to stick with their own in-group (and not to stick with it if they so choose, it's not like I'm going to discipline people for their personal choices). In the end it all depends on the personal preference of individuals. I'd do what I can as an individual.

My main interest is cultural. Firstly, preserving and promoting the minority cultures -of which I'm a member of- and seeing European (and related) cultures preserved, as opposed to globalization and cultural imperialism. I'm not a sub-racial fanatic but I'm not a naive new-age tree hugger either. :)

So in short, no, I do not think people are the one and the same. But they do have the same basic rights, being people. Like everyone else I have my personal likes and dislikes.

Tore
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 10:32 PM
They are just different.

Are such differences biological in origin, in your opinion?

Razmig
Sunday, August 29th, 2004, 02:12 PM
[QUOTE=rusalka]Are you saying that the Greek and other Indo-European peoples in Asia Minor would not "qualify" as Europid? Were the Romans (or the Byzantines, as the Eastern Romans were called by later historians) not European? The stress was on ethnos in that sentence, by the way, which you seem to have missed. I merely stated culture because it's largely the culture, religion and history, and not its genetics that makes Turkey so un-European -not excluding the non-Europid peoples, of course.



As you mentioned, there are a lot of people of Indo-European descent, and even you can find some blond and blue eyes people between them also, but the culture of this country is not European, theyr mentality, the way how they think.

[QUOTE=rusalka]It is, since you're so interested. Means ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer. They are your allies, by the looks of it. ;)

I dont trust them, even if they look European. We can compare them with the same Yenicheri's. They were the kids of European people, but they were rasen by turk to destroy theyr own nations.

There was a turkish guy, who used to work for me, he was blond, had the blue eyes. I asked him, if he is turkish, he said: my grandparents from Former Yugoslavia, but a am turkish. So its perfectly shows, that as a Europeans they are almost lost.

I'm assuming that as an Armenian you know about the mass immigration of Giligian Armenians into Yugoslavia and back into Turkey? And that of the German-Armenian Axis in Giligia and of the Legionares? Many Giligians returned to Turkey and added OGLU to their names, but still identify with Anatolia as being their homelands...Every Turk is an exception, because Turk means as much as "Jew" does.

Razmig
Sunday, August 29th, 2004, 02:27 PM
Rusalka,

Correct me if I'm wrong but your point of view on ethnicity, culture, and geography seems to be "It's ok, we are all the same", is it not?
Correct ME if I'm wrong, but arnt you the same Xakep that doesnt even have a grasp of what ethnicity or culture means...or what geographical affiliation has to do with human immigration patterns?

Razmig
Sunday, August 29th, 2004, 02:30 PM
In Turkey today, there are two Greek-speaking muslim groups. One of them continues to occupy the territory washed by the Black Sea, the Pontians, who converted to Islam in the 18th century. The other group is comprised of the Cretan muslims who were resettled along the Asia Minor coast. The Turkish state began a process of turkification and today most of them claim to be Turks.
The group speaking Pontian lives in 5 or 6 villages in the Tonya and Trabzon regions and in nearly 50 villages in the Yukari Solakli valley. Although they speak Greek, they refuse to refer to themselves as such and prefer to be called 'Turkoi' and their language 'Romaiika' (Rumce, in Turkish). They view Greek-speaking christians as a separate people, whom they call Romioi (Rumlar). The dialect is still spoken fluently by the young generation and most women can only speak Pontian Greek. Their population is estimated to be around 300.000.
The muslim Cretans living in Turkey numbering over 300.000, reside in villages along the western coast, which were vacated of their christian populations after 1922. There are muslim Cretans living in the large seaside towns of Izmir (Smyrna), Antalya and Ayvalik, where the old generation still speak Greek.
However, the young generation can only speak Turkish and identify themselves as Turks.
Spoken as someone born and raised in Turkey as a Galac Armenian, you are very correct sir. :D The Rumaika, like the Hamsheci Armenians speak their tongue and write in their alphabets, but call themselves TURKS, nationally speaking. In a way, it has to do with the ties those people have to their LANDS. They are not Greeks, because Greece is a country far away, they are not Armenians, because Armenia is inhabited by people of the Colchis...do you get my point?

There are thoulsands of tribes in Anatolia, still, today...just because it doesn't appear to exist doesnt meant its not there! The majority of Asiatic Turkish people would be AROUND the city of Istanbul (in small towns)...and those in the larger cities are a mixture of all the people in the empire...most people assume that because Anatolia was Byzantine that it was Greeks in Turkey, and forget that there were Armenian (with their many sub categories), Galatians, Giligians, Bythanians, and so fourth inhabitting the lands before Rome was even founded...not to mention the ancient armeno-thraco-phrygians, the ancient hellenes, etruscans, illyrians, hittites...urartus...kurgans...

In my opinion, the region and its surroundings are a puddle of lost hope...and that includes the Armenians and their cultures, their original distinct racial subcategories by geography (which is literally destroyed)...as well as the Turkish region as being considering anything other than "NEW WORLD." So I dont see how it can be annalysed racially, culturall, or nationally as being "european." Not to forget that the word "Europe" has no meaning what so ever. :)

hyelander
Monday, August 30th, 2004, 03:06 AM
OK, lets think whats gona hapen if Turkey will be in EU. Hmm...Very dark future.

Open borders, few million emigrants (Not only from Turkey, but from all Middle East, especialy if we count that todays Turkeys government is very corrupted) will apear Europe. With the average of 4-5 kids they have, and Europeans 1 or 2, some intermarriages and couple of decades later theyr populatation will be multiplied and after a while they'll dominate in Europe. Take a look to Anatolia: couple hundred years, and and there are no Christian population left (only about 100 000 people out of 6-7 million.) When they predominate, will hapen the same, what hapened in the beginning of the 20-th century: Armenian genocide, genocide of Pontic Greeks is the best example of "tolerant" and "democratic" government of Turkey. They've been promised reforms, but they were systematicaly massacred. And here we go. They dont need no war, no money. Very smooth and sneaky they'll take over the land and the Panturkist dream will come true.

Razmig
Monday, August 30th, 2004, 10:57 AM
OK, lets think whats gona hapen if Turkey will be in EU. Hmm...Very dark future.

Open borders, few million emigrants (Not only from Turkey, but from all Middle East, especialy if we count that todays Turkeys government is very corrupted) will apear Europe. With the average of 4-5 kids they have, and Europeans 1 or 2, some intermarriages and couple of decades later theyr populatation will be multiplied and after a while they'll dominate in Europe. Take a look to Anatolia: couple hundred years, and and there are no Christian population left (only about 100 000 people out of 6-7 million.) When they predominate, will hapen the same, what hapened in the beginning of the 20-th century: Armenian genocide, genocide of Pontic Greeks is the best example of "tolerant" and "democratic" government of Turkey. They've been promised reforms, but they were systematicaly massacred. And here we go. They dont need no war, no money. Very smooth and sneaky they'll take over the land and the Panturkist dream will come true.
LOL wake up you fool, it's already happening...and think of it this way...it Turkey does not get in the EU, there goes the hopes of Serbia, Macedonia, Bulgaria...ARMENIA, GEORGIA so fourth. The EU in my opinion can be a quick solution to the problems of these small nations SURROUNDING Turkey, not to say that out of 70,000,000 Turks you will find that at least 25% of them will come out in the open and proclaim their origins (I would know, I am FROM Turkey). If more European influence is in Turkey, of coarse this would give Turks the advantage of social influence and propoganda much like the Jews in America, but what difference will that have on Turkeys effect on European lineage? They are still mass immigrating to Europe, do you think they do so legally? Ive seen buses come back from Germany full of Muslims and Kurds, beind rejected and they hop on a boat the next day...please.

You have no idea how many lost tribes are still in Turkey today. So many people who know deep in their heart theyre Armenians, or Giligians...but since theyve been deported and moved around, and threatened ETC, what choice do they have? You think that green eyed, light skinned fellow sirnamed Varegoglu is a Turk!? BAH. The EU is controlled by the same people who controll the UN, and all the of the world markets, and they are EVIL...unifying Europe does more damage than good, ESPECIALLY economically (what are these people STUPID or just completely blind?) What Europe needs today, is a crusade to Bosnia, a Crusade to Albania, and a CRUSADE TO TURKEY. After that, they can strengthen their borders and KICK OUT FOREIGN INFLUENCE FROM AMERICA! If Europe wanted liberal corruption and inter-mingling with foreign people they would have renamed their continent Neo-America.

I think the question on the poll should be:

Should Anatolia be admitted to Europe? :D No one needs to be calling Anatolia, Turkiye...Turkestan is in Central Asia, not Anatolia. ;(

hyelander
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 03:52 PM
LOL wake up, it's already happening...

I didn't say it's not hapenning, I mean whats gona hapen by the end.


I'm assuming that as an Armenian you know about the mass immigration of Giligian Armenians into Yugoslavia and back into Turkey? And that of the German-Armenian Axis in Giligia and of the Legionares? Many Giligians returned to Turkey and added OGLU to their names, but still identify with Anatolia as being their homelands...Every Turk is an exception, because Turk means as much as "Jew" does.

One of the best examples is founder of the Macedonian dynasty of Byzantia, Basil I.

born 826, –835?, Thrace
died Aug. 29, 886
byname Basil The Macedonian Byzantine emperor (867–886), who founded the Macedonian dynasty and formulated the Greek legal code that later became known as the Basilica (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=13793).
Basil came of a peasant family that had settled in Macedonia, perhaps of Armenian origin. He was a handsome and physically powerful man who gained employment in influential official circles in Constantinople and was fortunate enough to attract the imperial eye of the reigning emperor, Michael III (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=53757).

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=13775&tocid=0&query=basil&ct=eb

John Julius Norwich in his "Byzantium: The apogee" perfectly described the the history of Byzantium from the beginning till fall.

Kamangir42
Wednesday, September 1st, 2004, 05:33 PM
The Turks are like the Borg. Once you become one there is no going back and there is an imperative to spread the identity as far as possible.

Those Turks who are aware of their previous identities (Greek, Armenian and so on) are happy to claim being "White" or "Aryan" but they still cling proudly to their Turkish identity.
If there are all these Turks who will stop claiming to be Turks if the country joins the EU where were they when the Armenians and Greeks were being genocided/ethnically cleansed? Sometimes you can't turn the clock back.

Razmig
Thursday, September 2nd, 2004, 01:43 AM
One of the best examples is founder of the Macedonian dynasty of Byzantia, Basil I.

born 826, –835?, Thrace
died Aug. 29, 886
byname Basil The Macedonian Byzantine emperor (867–886), who founded the Macedonian dynasty and formulated the Greek legal code that later became known as the Basilica (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=13793).
Basil came of a peasant family that had settled in Macedonia, perhaps of Armenian origin. He was a handsome and physically powerful man who gained employment in influential official circles in Constantinople and was fortunate enough to attract the imperial eye of the reigning emperor, Michael III (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=53757).

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=13775&tocid=0&query=basil&ct=eb

John Julius Norwich in his "Byzantium: The apogee" perfectly described the the history of Byzantium from the beginning till fall.
LOL well that would be ancient, when there were still some "armens" living in macedonia and illyricum...youll have to realize that the state of armenia once had two divisions much like phrygia and thracia (both of which are what armenian is decended from, linguistically and so fourth)...also the illyrians of anatolia (also related) settled the balkans and probably took armens back with them...so whoever was of the armen tribe was called "armenian"...i know about basil, indeed he WAS an armenian, someone told me that he set up the "slavic" macedonia for succession

anyways i was referring to the 1880's when the revolutionaries in cilcian armenia (mediterannean regions spanning from antiochus, syria, to Alanya Turkey for the most part) began to mass murder muslim infestations of cilician villages (especially when government had ordered so many houses had to be built for the tatars/turks)...after the battles at musa dagh, and mush, as well other heroic cilician proclamations of nationalism, many cilician armenians relocated in parts of serbia, probably montenegro mostly because it resembled their homelands so much, as well as a similarity in culture and what not...most of these armenians were forced to be in the turkish army (aka jannisaries) and much of them had their weapons taken away, so they were 10 on 1000 with hunting rifles, when turks had german artilery and mousers...yet they managed to hold them off (what good did that do)

tell me hylander what are your armenian origins etc?


The Turks are like the Borg. Once you become one there is no going back and there is an imperative to spread the identity as far as possible.

Those Turks who are aware of their previous identities (Greek, Armenian and so on) are happy to claim being "White" or "Aryan" but they still cling proudly to their Turkish identity.
If there are all these Turks who will stop claiming to be Turks if the country joins the EU where were they when the Armenians and Greeks were being genocided/ethnically cleansed? Sometimes you can't turn the clock back.
Sometimes its hard when its the only thing your used to...my grandfather was a diehard nationalistic Cilician, and he was part of every Armenian revolutionary federation you can think of, as well as a member of the French Legionares, and served in the Armenian battalion of the Axis (Nazi Germany, fled after 6 months, thought Hitler was a lune). But since he was from Turkey, he would go home sometimes (in his old age, before he died) and put on Turkish records, cry like a baby, and throw them against the wall for making him cry. *shrug* It's just somethings that you're around, that trigger emotion in you, be it good or bad, for or against that thing its still familiar to you. How can an Armenian, or Galatian, or Rumaika, Laz etc come out and say HEY IM ARMENIAN, when Armenia is hundreds of miles away from the lands their ancestors have been living on for thoulsands of years. How can a Rumaikan come out and say that hes a Greek, when hes not? These people are tied to these lands, theyre tied to Turkey, and theyre tied to Turkish culture...why? Because that culture belongs to them, and not to Turks.

I dare you to research Turkish pastry and culinary artisans, and you will see that 80% of them were ARMENIAN, and strangely enough the other minority was Hungarian, then Italian, then Greek and Serbian, then Bulgarian. Turkish music? The Kajda is not a Tukrish instrument, the bagpipe has been used in Anatolia more than any other nation in the world (most recently: Ireland, they THINK theyre the real Celto-Illyrians). The Zurna tip, or the Duduk (Kavala). Sure many of them have Turkish names, like the world Kufte (which is a traditional grinding of meat into bulgur wheat, served to shepherds)...or dolma which means wrapped, the grape leave and grapes originated in eastern anatolia, and not Turkestan, sarma which means stuffed. Serbs call the Anis (licorice) flavoured apperatif Rakija after the Turkish Yani Raki (yenee rekee), which was tradtion for christians in the Ottoman Empire as Mohamedans are not allowed to drink alcohol out of pleasure...and so fourth...

rusalka
Thursday, September 2nd, 2004, 02:05 AM
But since he was from Turkey, he would go home sometimes (in his old age, before he died) and put on Turkish records, cry like a baby, and throw them against the wall for making him cry. *shrug* It's just somethings that you're around, that trigger emotion in you, be it good or bad, for or against that thing its still familiar to you. How can an Armenian, or Galatian, or Rumaika, Laz etc come out and say HEY IM ARMENIAN, when Armenia is hundreds of miles away from the lands their ancestors have been living on for thoulsands of years. How can a Rumaikan come out and say that hes a Greek, when hes not? These people are tied to these lands, theyre tied to Turkey, and theyre tied to Turkish culture...why? Because that culture belongs to them, and not to Turks. This is too true of probably all minorities but I can only speak for those I am familiar with and the above statements explain the situation perfectly. The minorities in Turkey, especially after the founding of the new republic, have more or less existed in oblivion under a new and boldly nationalistic regime and the minority identity was (and still is) even a more divided one for those who are not accepted as minorities legally. I don't know if what has happened is completely irreversible or not but it is worth a try for those who are still trying to exist as both Turkish nationals (because at the end of the day, they are, and that land is now called "Turkey") and claim their hereditary identity. Someone born and raised in Turkey, no matter what they are, be they from the small Italian population in Istanbul, Armenian, Greek, Circassian, Laz or one of those few "white" Russians will always pine after those cultural tastes such as the local food, sights and sounds. It's very easily explained with the behaviorist approach, it's all about familiarity and not that much about one's preference. One can consciously prefer something to the other but intrinsic values win over, sometimes right away, sometimes with time when people get old and nostalgic. And like Razmig says, it's about familiarity, not about good and bad. I think the saddest thing is how those authochtonous people became the minorities in their own lands and are now forced to live a semi-schizophrenic identity.

zeno
Thursday, September 2nd, 2004, 03:27 AM
I think the saddest thing is how those authochtonous people became the minorities in their own lands and are now forced to live a semi-schizophrenic identity.


This is very true; which is why I think it is important to support the trend towards ethno-cultural autonomy for these peoples.

Razmig
Thursday, September 2nd, 2004, 10:08 AM
This is very true; which is why I think it is important to support the trend towards ethno-cultural autonomy for these peoples.
How do you plan on doing that, Zeno? When the world is focused on marketed culture...people dont care about the pockets of dying ancient cultures which have been the building blocks for modern society, they would rather absorb a ficticious culture that makes them feel good and numb about the reality of what is happening to the world. People shrug off the idea of globalization (as long as they gets they cookies, yo).

So ultimately, Zeno, the responsibility lies in the hands of the minority, hence why the minority is enlightened, and educated, and why the majority will follow what is given to them. Yet in most cases, those who lead them will not necissarily be enlightened or care about those matters, but will have a stronger strive for greed (the organizations that fund the UN, EU and the mass immigration of mexicans into California, thus creating balkanization and the destruction of local authority, yet again feeding the same organization that feeds your children their culture).

If you understand what I'm saying, and you have the tools to fight it, then may the gods be with you. Knowing these truths can sometimes be disturbing and cause for imbalance of the psychy. Non-the-less I would rather not be ignorant and have to suffer the consequences.

My proposition lies within the family, like ever moral, just and sane answer to the problems we face as a corrupt society. They cannot be answered by ficticious authority, laws or forced beleif (liberal media being allowed to brainwash when those who are intelligent enough to avoid it sit there and say its ok, knowing the majority will always be less than non-conformists). It lies in what you teach your children and in what you hold strongly inside your heart, otherwise that lesson can not be passed on to generations.

If all else has been taken, the last thing that you can hold on to and cherish is your pride.

goidelicwarrior
Thursday, September 2nd, 2004, 10:29 AM
[QUOTE=Pugnox][QUOTE=AWAR]Turks are nothing but ex-Armenians, ex-Greeks, ex-Slavs and others who were ( more often than not ) forcedly Turkified and Islamized. There is nothing wrong with their DNA, it's the culture that can and will harm Europe.

QUOTE]

This is spoken as if by someone who themselves either HAS or FEARS the presence of Turkish blood in their veins.Yes Americans know exactly what they have in their veins.. :D In fact, the Turks, in their invations of Europe have left such a detrimental genetic mark on Europe that large portions, I'd even say a majority of the Balkan peoples, are also incapable of either advancing or even maintaining European Civilization... bs.. Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia is a million times purer and more able to further a European civilization thatn the US.. who already are lost for the cause..
bniaIn the Final Battle, that we can only pray will be fought at least by the time our grandchildren come, not only will Turkey itself have to be made a nuclear wasteland, devoid not only of human life, but probably all other forms of life as well, but the Balkans itself will have to be filled with a few thousand miles of trench, into which millions of racially mixed Turks will have to be machine-gunned... how many millions of miles of trenches do you think we have to dig in the US then ?

Razmig
Friday, September 3rd, 2004, 11:54 PM
[QUOTE=Pugnox][QUOTE=AWAR]Turks are nothing but ex-Armenians, ex-Greeks, ex-Slavs and others who were ( more often than not ) forcedly Turkified and Islamized. There is nothing wrong with their DNA, it's the culture that can and will harm Europe.

QUOTE]

This is spoken as if by someone who themselves either HAS or FEARS the presence of Turkish blood in their veins.Yes Americans know exactly what they have in their veins.. :D In fact, the Turks, in their invations of Europe have left such a detrimental genetic mark on Europe that large portions, I'd even say a majority of the Balkan peoples, are also incapable of either advancing or even maintaining European Civilization... bs.. Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia is a million times purer and more able to further a European civilization thatn the US.. who already are lost for the cause..
bniaIn the Final Battle, that we can only pray will be fought at least by the time our grandchildren come, not only will Turkey itself have to be made a nuclear wasteland, devoid not only of human life, but probably all other forms of life as well, but the Balkans itself will have to be filled with a few thousand miles of trench, into which millions of racially mixed Turks will have to be machine-gunned... how many millions of miles of trenches do you think we have to dig in the US then ?

This post is very confusing...but who ever made those comments about the Balkans is a blithering baffoon...obviously someone who hasen't a clue what Turkey is, or has never stepped foot in either of these regions. If the Turks were still pure blood Turks, they would resemble Turkmens in China, or Mongols of the steppe...obviously they don't...true there are some Arabs probably mixed in Turks but those kinds hardly ever seep into other people as they know their identity is purely mohamedan...It's a known fact that the overwhelming majority of Turks are Janissaries, non-Turks or simply people who moved to the Ottoman Empire.

I dont understand what a European Civilization is, considering that Europe is a very diverse region with many different civilizations with different originations. Does the fact that Europeans use algebra make them less European than they should be? LoL

America is by far, the most European of nations (that is, LIBERALism AND ADVANCING) because advancement was what Europe used to be about (that is in the west, Rome..Italy, Germany, France and Liberalism, Dutch and trade, Spain and travel ETC)...the rest were too busy battling off hordes. In modern times, civilization and culture is more global than it is local, and Serbia is starting to suffer from this "westernization" which is a corrupt scheme of globalization in disguise. The Balkans is torn between their struggle for identity and holding on to their origins, major influx of westernization and a massive foreign immigration crisis.

hyelander
Sunday, September 5th, 2004, 01:44 AM
tell me hyelander what are your armenian origins etc?
I was born in Yerevan, but my father's side is from Artsakh, and my grandfather from mother's side from Lori region in Armenia, and grandmother from Mush (descendant of Amatuni family) During the massacres they could manage to escape and move to Armenia. How about you?

Razmig
Monday, September 6th, 2004, 12:19 AM
I was born in Yerevan, but my father's side is from Artsakh, and my grandfather from mother's side from Lori region in Armenia, and grandmother from Mush (descendant of Amatuni family) During the massacres they could manage to escape and move to Armenia. How about you?
My father is a Giligian Armenian (great grandfather was the mayor of Giligya in the time of the Empires, before settlement by Mohamedans). My mother is Galatian Armenian from Polatli (where I was born). Both my Armenian parents are Tashnag's/Dashnak, nationalistic and active in the Armenian scene as am I. My father was in Nagorno-Gharapagh for a year and 2 months, he was also in Yugoslavia (in both Kosovo and Bosnia), Cyprus and Lebanon. My fathers modo is that wheras there are Armenians, he will raise a gun. My grandfather was also the principle of many Giligian Armenian schools in Syria, a member of the French Foreign Legionare, a soldier in the Armenian battalion of Nazi Germany, and a contractor. It's funny that Armenians prosper in every nation but their own...I suppose being comfertable to be free and alone makes Armenians content enough and relax as opposed to striving for exelence elsewhere.

ogenoct
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004, 06:50 PM
I say yes! Onwards Eurasia!

Constantin

Nehaj
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004, 08:30 PM
The day Turkey joins the EU is the day I become the mortal enemy of the EU. Luckily by the time it happens, the EU will already be predominantly populated by the muslims, and I will not have to feel bad about it.

Theudanaz
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004, 08:36 PM
Nah. We already got enough of em in every other country already in the EU, what's the need to actually make their country officially European? We got their food, told em to make it cleaner and healthier. That worked. Maybe it was Europa thousands of years ago, but until the Turks ship out to Africa or are wholly slaughtered, let em have their stinking crap country. PS we don't need their workers anymore either.

Japetos
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004, 08:38 PM
Yes,but not today!

Prince Eugen
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004, 08:43 PM
Absoletely NO!

Vestmannr
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004, 08:49 PM
Once Turkey was the 'Old Man of Europe', now it is the rotting corpse: best to set the torch to the funeral pyre before the corruption spreads too far. Amputate a limb to save the life, eh?

Ederico
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004, 09:35 PM
No.

Tommy Vercetti
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004, 10:23 PM
Hell no!

Deling
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004, 10:25 PM
But then, what's Europe? I must admit I don't know. Spengler said that Europe is an illusion, an idea and image. I agree it is. Then, could one say that Turkey IS NOT Europe, or that it is.

The problem with the Europe question is the nation-state. Without it Europe would exist as a political reality. Therefore; the Turkish nation-state is as much and little Europe as any other nation-state in the part of the world called "Europe".

Hagalaz
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004, 10:26 PM
Ogenoct... you are very strange...

rusalka
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 01:25 AM
Nah. We already got enough of em in every other country already in the EU, what's the need to actually make their country officially European? We got their food, told em to make it cleaner and healthier. That worked. Maybe it was Europa thousands of years ago, but until the Turks ship out to Africa or are wholly slaughtered, let em have their stinking crap country. PS we don't need their workers anymore either.
We? It just sounds strange to me, given the fact that your location is the USA. ;) You may be there temporarily of course, that I do not know but the EU, basically, was formed to counter USA's domination in world politics by forming one strong state.

Anyone read the Economist lately, by the way? The polls show that even though Turkey is an official ally of both the USA and Israel, the (great) majority of the Turkish population are very anti, to both. Looks like the US foreign office may be re-shaping its endorsement policy of Turkey, in terms of the latter's joining the EU. What the US had to gain from it was that (supposedly) Turkey would be a good pro-American and pro-Israeli force within the EU, however, if the Turks do make it to the EU, they would most likely not be siding with Israel, or with USA for that matter, anymore.

In the long run it might work for the European Union to have Turkey as an ally, and sever Turkey's ties with Israel. Turkey's armed forces are over half a million strong, larger than any European country's and having the Turkish military on their side would give the EU much bigger freedom in world politics, be it standing against US foreign policy or Israel's situation in the Middle East.

Be realistic people. The EU is not a "brotherhood". International policy is always based on benefits -economic or ideological advantages, not goodwill or historical ties or anything of that sort. Sad, but true.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 01:51 AM
We? It just sounds strange to me, given the fact that your location is the USA. ;) You may be there temporarily of course, that I do not know but the EU, basically, was formed to counter USA's domination in world politics by forming one strong state.

Thats what it hopes to become. I doubt it ever will. There are several reasons for this, and sadly Ive not been in the best of moods lately to evaluate on this in detail(a recent bout of depression, among other things, is draining me of energy). For example, just look at how long its taking the EU to develop plans for its own military strike force independent of NATO.



Anyone read the Economic lately, by the way?

Yes I do :)




Be realistic people. The EU is not a "brotherhood".

Hence why I oppose the EU. I dont know why so many people here do. And I think many people overplay the role of free-trade is doing in bringing Europe together.


"This historical record also makes clear that even when states are comfortable enough with each other to allow high levels of economic interdependence to emerge, the resulting ties are no guarantor of lasting harmony. International communities knit together by their integrated economies can unravel with surprising speed. Consider Europe during the decade prior to World War I. Trade and investments inside Europe were, in relation to the size of national economies, greater one hundred years ago than they are today. Germany was Britain’s second-most-important trading partner(after the United States), and Britain was the top market for German exports…Borders in the early 1900s were permeable. Europeans moved more freely from country to country, without passports and without having to bother with border controls.

Such intense levels of interdependence, however, did not avert Europe’s rapid descent into World War I…. If economic interdependence could not save Europe from war in 1914, there is no compelling reason to be confident that globalization would do any better at preserving a stable peace today."
--Charles A. Kupchan The End of the American Era: US Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-First Century pg.103

Indeed many parallels can be made between Europe in the early 20th century and early 21st century.

“Despite all the differences of class, region, occupation and even sex, Europeans were becoming more alike….State frontiers seemed to have lost most of their significance. Men crossed them freely and so did ideas. There was never been a time when European culture was so truly one. Tolstoy was the most highly regarded novelist in every European country. Shaw’s plays were more widely performed in Germany than in England, and Germans spoke of ‘unser Shakespeare’ without provoking a smile…..For this miraculous age of prosperity and security ended abruptly in 1914 with the outbreak of the greatest war ever known…Old Europe perished, and much of new Europe perished also. New differences arose, and Europe was not to know unity again.”
--APJ Taylor The Last of Old Europe pg.29

It's amazing how often old ideas and notions keep repearing throughout history long after they've been discredited. Globalization and free trade are perfect examples of these ideas.




International policy is always based on benefits -economic or ideological advantages, not goodwill or historical ties or anything of that sort. Sad, but true.

Yes and no. Do not underestimate the power of ideals on the course of history.

"The recent breakup of multiethnic states provides further evidence of the capacity of political passion to prevail over economic expediency. Throughout the 1990’s, economic interdependence meant little in the face of awakened nationalist yearnings. The Slovaks wanted out of Czechoslovakia despite the certainty of facing economic hardships. Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia all sought to secede from Yugoslavia despite the economic dislocation that would follow. Since the end if the Bosnian war, the country’s Serbs, Croats, and Muslims have shunned rebuilding economic links with each other. They prefer poverty to trading with the enemy. Many of the former Soviet republics have faced severe hardship as they distance themselves from the Russian economy. They have nonetheless proceeded in their search for autonomy."
--Charles A. Kupchan The End of the American Era: US Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-First Century pg.104

Preuße
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 11:00 AM
In my point of view, entry of Turkey to the EU would be a demographic and economic disaster. Throughout the EU most citizen do not think, that Turkey is a part of Europe, or should belong to the EU. A plebiscite would bring clear positions, but particularly the German Government is against a plebiscite about Turkey. The reason for that: Mr Schröder and his Red- Green coalition become more and more unpopular in Germany and so they want the votes of Turkish eligible voters. Today majority of Turkeys in Germany already vote for Mr Schröders Party and as more and more acquire German citizenship (thanks to Mr Schröders citizenship reform), they become a powerful position of influence. That’s the reason why the Social Democrats want Turkey in the EU. For Green Party in Germany the reasons are simpler. They hate Germany and they want to create a bastard race – a mixture of Germans and Turkeys. Turkeys in Germany have a higher birthrate than Germans and it will take a few decades, until Turkeys take power in Germany, with Turkey in EU, it will only take a few years. And last but least George W. Bush is a supporter of Turkeys entry into EU. Mr Bush wants to weaken Europe, with a country, whose economic power is like that of a developing country. A potential rival would be eliminated just before it exists really.

Turkey does not belong to Europe, because of its geography. 97 percent of its country belongs to Asia and only three percent to Europe. The cultural background is like that of a middle east country, such a Syria or Iraq. Ottoman Empire was always a threat to occident, if they had conquered Vienna, Europe would be Islamic and the situation in west Europe would be similar to the Balkan with its civil wars. And of course Turkeys do not belong to any European race. Their next racial relatives are living in central Asia (Turkmenistan etc.).

To let Turkey into EU, would cause the biggest invasion of the barbarians, that Earth had seen.

Darius
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 06:15 PM
Of course Not! Who would I be to accept the slaughtere and enslavers of my ancestors. Turkish geography is not to be mixed with race. Racially turks are from the Bosphorus, and its there were they should be, sent back!

Bischöff
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 06:31 PM
Despite what we could say about what does E.U. stands for in our racialist opinion, on the Turkish question I will always say NO... NEVER!!

walfiler
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 07:11 PM
We have enough turks in germany. When they get the possibility to travel freely to germany we'll have top use weapons to keep them from flooding us.

Marius
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 07:41 PM
No.

Ok, I will put away the historical reasons, which do not show a quite European country, but only perhaps through some elites, formed in the West.

1. The majority of the Turkish population has the same mentality as any of the Muslim countries in the world. The laïc system existing now is kept by the army. Without it, you may have a social bomb.

2. The way of life and the customs based on all sorts of tricks of one another, existing in the Oriental societies and which contacted also the Balkans.

3. Perhaps the only advantage is the economical one: high number of population, very cheap working hand => important gains for the interested companies. And it is not far from Europe.

So, Turkey in the EU is a trojan horse, in my oppinion.

Aistulf
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 08:18 PM
NEVER! :cuss

Mac Seafraidh
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 08:26 PM
Tod zu Nord-Tuerkland, Welche ist Sued-Deutschland!!! Turks are ignorant fools tha have no decency, but to n/99erize Europe. They are not white(mongol and possible negro traces) and even if they are legal, they should out of respect, leave the Fatherland. They are part of Eurasia and being part of mostly Asia. Turks are really dumb people and do not deserve to be part of Europe.

Odins_Erbe
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 08:29 PM
No. It's better when Turkey stays out of the EU.

Marius
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 08:34 PM
For the ones just saying "No" or "Yes": you may only vote, you are not forced onto publishing your oppinion, if it is not an argumented one.

White Falcon
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 08:55 PM
For the ones just saying "No" or "Yes": you may only vote, you are not forced onto publishing your oppinion, if it is not an argumented one.
And who are you to tell them what they can or they can't?

Vlad Cletus
Thursday, September 16th, 2004, 12:27 AM
Western Turkey deserves to be incoporated into the EU, once it has been liberated by Greece.

Marius
Thursday, September 16th, 2004, 09:41 AM
And who are you to tell them what they can or they can't?

I said: "you are not forced to publish your oppinion". It was a suggestion and not an imposal.

ogenoct
Thursday, September 16th, 2004, 12:33 PM
I demand: TURKEY INTO THE EU NOW!!! Ha! I am not worried. I already read the Koran. Plus, I would not mind witnessing some public executions here and there (the Sword of Allah at work)... What is wrong with Sheesh Kebab up the ass, anyway? I certainly like it better than Bratwurst! What will the German redneck neo-Nazis say? Blabbering typical German redneck talk, of course. All talk and no show. ACTA NON VERBA! More Turks to Germany! We'll get lots and lots of DONER KEBABS (maybe even a personal Harem for the next right-hand man of the Caliph of Cologne)!!!

The more Turks there are in Germany, the more competition between Doner Kebab stores. The result: lots of better tasting ones! Yum-yum... Also, the Germans need to be punished for their defeatism! Plus, a lot of Turks (at least 90% of the ones in Germany) are semi-fundamentalist and hate the Jews. I doubt that this is in the interest of the hook-nosed tribe. HAIL Islamic Communism (in the original spirit of Muhammed, the militant and mystic guerilla leader of Mecca)! This is the choice: Arab (Islam) or Jew (Christianity), the Chandala desert cult or the glory of the One true God. What will you choose, White man?

For geopolitical reasons, a great and united Eurasian Empire is essential for the survival of all races on this grandest of all continents.

Constantin

Preuße
Thursday, September 16th, 2004, 01:40 PM
Mohammed as an early exponent of a middle-east communism? Mohammed was a caravan merchant and also a bandit. And Mohammed first supported Jews were ever he could. Did you know that the first Muslims prayed into the direction of Jerusalem and not of Mecca? Did you also know, that Jews are praising religious tolerance in Cordoba during Arabian reign even today? Muslims did not hate Jews until Jews occupied the so called Holy Land. Before that, they lived in harmony, and only Christian Occident persecuted Jews.

And it is not only Germany, that has problems with Muslims, also France, there Muslims are not of Turkish origin but of Algerian, in Britain the same with Pakis and in lieu of Pakis in Spain they have Moroccans. Enjoy your Kebab and pray to Allah! Also asks the Serbs, the Greeks, the Bulgarians, what Turkish mastery mean. Enjoy it!

Seijuro
Thursday, September 16th, 2004, 05:02 PM
Only if you are interested in the destruction of Europe.

I voted No.

Jack
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 07:45 AM
I demand: TURKEY INTO THE EU NOW!!! Ha! I am not worried. I already read the Koran. Plus, I would not mind witnessing some public executions here and there (the Sword of Allah at work)... What is wrong with Sheesh Kebab up the ass, anyway? I certainly like it better than Bratwurst! What will the German redneck neo-Nazis say? Blabbering typical German redneck talk, of course. All talk and no show. ACTA NON VERBA! More Turks to Germany! We'll get lots and lots of DONER KEBABS (maybe even a personal Harem for the next right-hand man of the Caliph of Cologne)!!!

The more Turks there are in Germany, the more competition between Doner Kebab stores. The result: lots of better tasting ones! Yum-yum... Also, the Germans need to be punished for their defeatism! Plus, a lot of Turks (at least 90% of the ones in Germany) are semi-fundamentalist and hate the Jews. I doubt that this is in the interest of the hook-nosed tribe. HAIL Islamic Communism (in the original spirit of Muhammed, the militant and mystic guerilla leader of Mecca)! This is the choice: Arab (Islam) or Jew (Christianity), the Chandala desert cult or the glory of the One true God. What will you choose, White man?

For geopolitical reasons, a great and united Eurasian Empire is essential for the survival of all races on this grandest of all continents.

Constantin
Interesting that you want to piss megalitres of European blood and history down the drain which was spilled to prevent us from being dominated by a foreign race and culture 'for geopolitical reasons'. Admittedly Christianity was not European in origin but it has been so thoroughly Europeanised that Europe only came into existence through it. For over a thousand years Christianity was Europe. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches were the twin institutions which held East and West Europe against the foreign hordes. Why not let Africa become part of the European union while we're at it? Why not just drop the European Union altogether and hand our home continent over to the UN and its cosmopolitan culture-destroyers?

Aistulf
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 10:08 AM
Mohammed as an early exponent of a middle-east communism? Mohammed was a caravan merchant and also a bandit. And Mohammed first supported Jews were ever he could. Did you know that the first Muslims prayed into the direction of Jerusalem and not of Mecca? Did you also know, that Jews are praising religious tolerance in Cordoba during Arabian reign even today? Muslims did not hate Jews until Jews occupied the so called Holy Land. Before that, they lived in harmony, and only Christian Occident persecuted Jews.

And it is not only Germany, that has problems with Muslims, also France, there Muslims are not of Turkish origin but of Algerian, in Britain the same with Pakis and in lieu of Pakis in Spain they have Moroccans. Enjoy your Kebab and pray to Allah! Also asks the Serbs, the Greeks, the Bulgarians, what Turkish mastery mean. Enjoy it! This is such an amazing post! Especially after this particular post, I don't think I have anything else to add to this thread.

We need more people like you.

ogenoct
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 01:26 PM
Interesting that you want to piss megalitres of European blood and history down the drain which was spilled to prevent us from being dominated by a foreign race and culture 'for geopolitical reasons'.
Just because Turkey will become a member of the EU does not mean that the integrity of the European race is fundamentally more threatened than it is already. If there were laws against miscegenation (as there should be, in this age of death), there would be no problem at all. Unfortunately, it is "modern" Europeans themselves that have zero problems destroying the purity of their ancestors' blood by sanctioning mixed-race couplings (not to mention the promotion of such unholy unions in the Western media). From a geopolitical perspective, a Euro-Asiatic Empire is a necessity to counter the hegemonic threat from across the Atlantic. Also, I do not see how Turkey would dominate Western Europe by becoming part of a strategic alliance (which the EU essentially is).

Constantin

Preuße
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 02:08 PM
Alas EU defines itself to be more than just a strategic alliance, but as a federation with directional grid of a political unity. Where else exists an alliance of different nation with one currency and where else do members of an alliance gave such great parts of their sovereignty to a supranational organisation?

Today Turks, who are living in EU countries, breed like rabbits – with their alien culture, medieval and totalitarian religion and their racial diversity they just bother our positive development. With Turkey a developing country would became part of European Union. Turkey would be the country with weakest economy but with the biggest influence on EU committees, as they are going to have the biggest population in a few decades. Most of EU money would flow to Ankara and after several years of membership Turkey would get liberality of moving, that they can settle don where ever they want. A result would be convergence out of developing country Turkey into industrialised countries of west and north Europe. This would be the biggest migration of people, that world have seen so far. And with Turkeys also Kurdistan-conflict, fanatic Muslims, who want Sharia for everyone and other Psychopaths will come to Europe. At the End, West Europe will get similar problems as Balkan states have throughout Turkish influence for many generations. I am sorry, but this has no appeal for me.

Jack
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 03:01 PM
Just because Turkey will become a member of the EU does not mean that the integrity of the European race is fundamentally more threatened than it is already.
Adding a few dozen million more Turks into the EU certainly is a greater threat than the millions already in it.


If there were laws against miscegenation (as there should be, in this age of death), there would be no problem at all.
Do you know what the EU does? Who gives a damn about 'marriage' laws if they can take over your own streets and push drugs to the youth of your own nation, hijack your own 'democratic system' and force their own laws and way of life on you?


Unfortunately, it is "modern" Europeans themselves that have zero problems destroying the purity of their ancestors' blood by sanctioning mixed-race couplings (not to mention the promotion of such unholy unions in the Western media).
You want to bring them into Europe proper, what are you complaining about? And since when does a pseudo-nationalist Islamophile Bolshevik employ terms such as 'holy'? You do realise the same Islam you were praising earlier in this thread sanctioned and encouraged marriage and interbreeding between Arabs and slaves, who Muhammed well and truly recognised were black Africans?


From a geopolitical perspective, a Euro-Asiatic Empire is a necessity to counter the hegemonic threat from across the Atlantic.
There is no reason why the 'Atlanticists' should be opposed. Both the extra-European West and Europe itself suffer the same diseases. Europe and its colonies face the greater problems of stopping themselves from being submerged by cultural and racial foreigners while their own civilization collapses from low birthrates, cultural degeneracy, aging populations and the economic collapse that will result from it, given the extent of their own welfares states. We simply do not have the time or the blood to piss about with another intra-racial war on the scale of world war two.


Also, I do not see how Turkey would dominate Western Europe by becoming part of a strategic alliance (which the EU essentially is).
NATO is a strategic alliance. The EU is more comparable to the United States of America in relation to its individual states (e.g. Florida, Tennessee, North and South Dakota, etc.). In the US it doesn't matter what individual state you were born in. You can move anywhere. Do you get the picture? Letting Turkey join the EU is effectively letting in millions more Turks into Europe. It is a massive step to making Europe TURKISH and MUSLIM, undoing over a thousand years of fighting in preventing our continent from being dominated by towel-headed barbarians. FYI Turkey is already a part of NATO.

Here's a better idea: Let Russia join the EU. Millions of workers, massive economy, military might, nuclear weapons, and they aren't Muslims.

Marius
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 03:55 PM
I wouldn't have so much afraid of Turks and their possible influence in Europe. If they would be able to do all the things many spoke about, then us, the rest of the Europeans are completely weak. The problem should be seen differently, imo. Why don't we ask ourselves whether we are capable on inducing and imposing our culture, the EU one to only ONE country. The fact that many Turks are the shame citizens of Germany or Austria is that nobody cared and now we see the consequences.

So, imo, if Turkey is to be let inside the EU, then an important and strong politic must be taken to europenise this country. Imo, it is the most simple to europenise country from all the muslim states. This would be a show of force and coherence of Europe in front of the whole muslim world. Of course, the way politics towards the Turkish or other muslim migration was done in Western Europe mainly, must change, in order to accomplish what I have previously said.

Concerning the acception of Russia into the EU, this is a much more difficult problem: it has a much higher population and a much higher surface than the EU itself. And it already is a conglomerate of culture and races, many of them, very further one another. So, imo, Russia may be an allied country for the EU, but not an EU part.

But beyond all these rather idealistic points of view, I am afraid too that the acception of Turkey in the EU is not at all seen like that by the EU leaders, which may lead to dangerous situations, as some of you exposed here, becoming a trojan horse, as I previously said.

Oskorei
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 04:06 PM
And of course Turkeys do not belong to any European race. Their next racial relatives are living in central Asia (Turkmenistan etc.).

I'm not so sure about this, the language may be Turkic but racially many Turks are Islamized Greeks from what I've read, and that part of the population does not look different from other Mediteranneans. Also, the fears about massive migration each time a poor country is allowed into the EU have failed to realize several times, and this may also be the case with Turkey.

I'm undecided, since I'm skeptic about allowing an Islamic country into the EU at the same time that we have a major Muslim population in our homelands already. Conflict with these Muslims will probably start quite soon, and then we dont need a Muslim memberstate to take their side.

If this wasnt the case, I'd have no problem with Turkey joining. In a way we'd be reclaiming old parts of our racial and cultural lands.

Aristotle
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 04:11 PM
EYTYXEITE!

Dear Fellows, following phrase of Marius is prophetic! It is the only fits in the question!
Furthermore, I would like to reply all these who vote for "yes":
Do you like to open the door of Europe, to Mongols?
Do you like to spit on the sacrifice of Prinz Eugen?
Kindest Regards!



So, Turkey in the EU is a trojan horse, in my oppinion.

Aristotle
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 04:19 PM
EYTYXEITE!
Dear JAPETOS, presumably ...tomorrow???
Do you expect to turn Mongols in ...European, in a few or more time???
Refering to EC you are using Racial terms. Think about racial differences concerning this question!
Kindest Regards!
Yes,but not today!

war
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 06:27 PM
No way! Never! They don’t belong to Europe, not geographical and not cultural!

Japetos
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 06:51 PM
EYTYXEITE!
Dear JAPETOS, presumably ...tomorrow???
Do you expect to turn Mongols in ...European, in a few or more time???
Refering to EC you are using Racial terms. Think about racial differences concerning this question!
Kindest Regards!Τhe Turks are not Mongolian.They are mainly Alpinid/Armenoid Caucasian.The nonwhite admixture is not so much to them as we imagine.

rusalka
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 07:14 PM
Τhe Turks are not Mongolian.They are mainly Alpinid/Armenoid Caucasian.The nonwhite admixture are not so much to them as we imagine.
Obviously. Because the "Turkish" inhabitants of modern day Turkey are mainly previous Thracian and Anatolian populations rather than the Turks, just as the Hungarians are not really Huns. It is about cultural and linguistic dominance in such cases, the genetic and ethnic make-up changes only very minimally.

Aistulf
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 07:15 PM
Τhe Turks are not Mongolian.They are mainly Alpinid/Armenoid Caucasian.The nonwhite admixture are not so much to them as we imagine.You're wrong there.

Read all about Turks here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks).

Oskorei
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 07:24 PM
You're wrong there.

Read all about Turks here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks).
You mean this? :


Turkic peoples

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page).

(Redirected from Turks (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Turks&redirect=no))
The neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute) and factual accuracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute) of this article are disputed.

Oskorei
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 07:28 PM
Physical Appearance

Turkic peoples often differ in physical appearance. The majority of Turkic people from western China to eastern Europe seem to possess certain caucasian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian) characteristics. Many have very light features including blue eyes and blondish/reddish hair although most Turkic people look Mediterranean, having brown or black hair and eyes, and olive to dark skin features. In some Turkic areas, the existance of peoples who have light skin features as well as light hair and eyes with a Mongolian facial structure is common (like some Uzbeks and Tatars). The majority of Turkic people seem to have high cheek bones, round heads, and straight hair.

There has been much debate about the racial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race) origin of Turkic people, with some assuming a Ural-Altaic race comprising of Hungarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian), Finns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finn), Estonians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian), Turkic peoples, Mongolians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian) and Tungus (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tungu&action=edit), others assuming a separate Turkic race, partially mixed with Mongols. Others again point out that many languages have commonly been adopted either by choice or by force by racially diverse people. The current common understanding is to assume at least a partial separation of linguistic and racial heritage, based on the multitude of invasions, wars, empires, population movements in the region and the general disrepute all racial origin theories have fallen in recent times.

Jack
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 02:16 AM
If this wasnt the case, I'd have no problem with Turkey joining. In a way we'd be reclaiming old parts of our racial and cultural lands.
I would prefer we took our lands back by force, ejecting the Turks from everything between Greece and the far side of Constantinople as a temporary measure, forcibly enculturing the 'white' Turks and ejecting the rest to Turkmenistan and the Caucasus, hand north east Anatolia over to the Armenians, south east to the Kurds, and let the Greeks and other Europeans who wish to colonise it do so.

rusalka
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 03:18 AM
and ejecting the rest to Turkmenistan and the Caucasus
Excuse me but the Caucasus doesn't belong to the Turks. Are you asking for bad rep again Jack? ;) :D

Oskorei
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 10:56 AM
I would prefer we took our lands back by force, ejecting the Turks from everything between Greece and the far side of Constantinople as a temporary measure, forcibly enculturing the 'white' Turks and ejecting the rest to Turkmenistan and the Caucasus, hand north east Anatolia over to the Armenians, south east to the Kurds, and let the Greeks and other Europeans who wish to colonise it do so.
A nice thought.

While we are discussing utopias, Id like us to reclaim Lebanon and Tunisia too, and enforce a migration-system in which we from Europe would be free to move to their lands, while they would not be allowed in ours. This would up-breed these old "European" lands I think.

Jack
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 06:12 AM
Excuse me but the Caucasus doesn't belong to the Turks. Are you asking for bad rep again Jack? ;) :D
Sorry. To Turkmenistan :D

Damnit, you remind me of an old schoolteacher I had when I was 11 years old :P

rusalka
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 06:16 AM
Sorry. To Turkmenistan :D

Damnit, you remind me of an old schoolteacher I had when I was 11 years old :P
:lol

Glad that I made an impression. ;)

Veturliði
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 10:36 AM
What has the EU to do with the Europe we stand for? The EU is dominated by money and media, so it's nothing I care for.

Darius
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 11:13 AM
Just because Turkey will become a member of the EU does not mean that the integrity of the European race is fundamentally more threatened than it is already. If there were laws against miscegenation (as there should be, in this age of death), there would be no problem at all.
ConstantinWhat if the so called laws of miscegenation's time, never comes?

Do we have any guarantee 100%, that Europe is to become a Magna Europa?

No I don't think so. I can't understand why you should allow an non-racial compatibile country into Europe, just for it's Geography. I bet it should be better if the so called Magna Europa comes into life. It's then, when we should push eastwards. Not assimilating non-whites though. Instead sending them back to where they belong. That Peninsula was all ours, we all came from those areas. It's them that made us deadlocked in the Europa Peninsula. If, let's say the so called Magna Europa rises, it is then that we should take back what was once ours. It is only then that I risk to say, Onwards Eurasia.

The caucasus should be ours again!

hyelander
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 07:31 PM
[QUOTE=ogenoct]Just because Turkey will become a member of the EU does not mean that the integrity of the European race is fundamentally more threatened than it is already.

O, ye? May be you should read more history books about Anatolia (modern day Turkey) What hapened to aboriginal population of Anatolia: Greeks, Armenians? From 6 million Christians in the beginning of the 20-th century only 100 000 left. There are may be some more, but they will not talk about theyr national identity, afraiding possible persecutions. Its not funny when you live in your moterland and live there in fear. Look what hapened to Armenians and Pontic Greeks, Assirians (Also Christians). 1.5 Armenians and abot 600 000 Pontic Greeks were massacred in theyr motherland, were they lived for thousands of years! They Hang up the Greek Patriarkh on the gates of Istambul, openning up pregnant women stomack to see is that boy or girl. This people, who are trying to change the history of those people, who used to live there, converting churches to mosqes (St. Sophia Cathedral in Istambul and many others) and now you want to let them into Europe?! You just dont even know what you are talking about, you never lived betwen them and you dont now them enough well (at least if you are not a turk and trying to defend them).
Yes, now there are many people, who have Greek, Armenian, Bulgarian, Assirian blood in theyr venes (people whose grandparenst were massacred and they were taken and converted to muslims). If they were enough old to realise theyr national identity, may be still remember something, but it's dificult to expect it from somebody who was an infant kid. I have a little hope, but...

[QUOTE=ogenoct] From a geopolitical perspective, a Euro-Asiatic Empire is a necessity to counter the hegemonic threat from across the Atlantic. Also, I do not see how Turkey would dominate Western Europe by becoming part of a strategic alliance (which the EU essentially is).

Part of a strategic alliance? Turkey is not ally, and will never be an ally. I dont see any perspective for Europe, if they become a part of EU. It just will make it worst for Europeans. Euro-Asiatic? It not sound really attractive. Turkey will support only his own interest, using geopolitical situation of country they will play between Europe and US, but there will be no use for nether of them. Open your eyes, they belong to muslim world.

King Yngvar
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 05:57 AM
I might say yes, concidering the EU will be to widespread and easier fall apart if it starts including muslim states in adittion to those slavic states newly joined :D

In the name of freedom (boho, I do not mean personal liberties, marked economy or any other americanized versions of freedom, I mean national freedom) I stand against the EU. I believe in a Nordic union, and for it to come true, EU's failure will only be helpful.

Deling
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 11:11 AM
Turkey mustn't be allowed to join, according to me, for three reasons:

1) It will destabilize the 'balance of power' with the EU.
2) If joining, it will be another Yankee trojan horse (like U.K), and also for large-scale migration.
3) Why should Turkey be allowed join the EU before Croats, Rumanians and Serbs? It's insulting for the European integrity to prioritize Turkey before these!

Jack
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 07:33 PM
A nice thought.

While we are discussing utopias, Id like us to reclaim Lebanon and Tunisia too, and enforce a migration-system in which we from Europe would be free to move to their lands, while they would not be allowed in ours. This would up-breed these old "European" lands I think.
We never pretended Lebanon or Tunisia were our own lands. Anatolia was lived in and colonised by Galatian Celts and Hellenes who later fought the Turkish invaders. Europe should, from her own perspective, have these lands back. Simple, really. Drive the Turks back to Turkmenistan.

Vestmannr
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 07:41 PM
We never pretended Lebanon or Tunisia were our own lands. Anatolia was lived in and colonised by Galatian Celts and Hellenes who later fought the Turkish invaders. Europe should, from her own perspective, have these lands back. Simple, really. Drive the Turks back to Turkmenistan.

I don't know, I might agree with him on Lebanon and Tunisia. Tunisia, in fact the whole Maghreb *and* Cyrenaica used to be extremely Roman/Greek. Lebanon had a cultural continuity with Anatolia, and was Crusader territory as well (many Lebanese count descent from Crusaders who married with local Christians, esp. the Armenians.) Part of Lebanon - Christian 'Syria' is still in Turkey (the city of Antioch/Antakya), as well as in the coastal/mountain area of Syria in between Antakya and Lebanon (which, again, is the primarily Greek Orthodox region of Syria.) Those parts of Turkey and Syria today, including Cilicia, are still mostly Armenian, Syrian (Aramean), Greek, and Roum (Roman). I somewhat like the idea of taking back the territory or the old Roman and Greek Empires - or is that too greedy? ;)

Oskorei
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 08:25 PM
I don't know, I might agree with him on Lebanon and Tunisia. Tunisia, in fact the whole Maghreb *and* Cyrenaica used to be extremely Roman/Greek. Lebanon had a cultural continuity with Anatolia, and was Crusader territory as well (many Lebanese count descent from Crusaders who married with local Christians, esp. the Armenians.) Part of Lebanon - Christian 'Syria' is still in Turkey (the city of Antioch/Antakya), as well as in the coastal/mountain area of Syria in between Antakya and Lebanon (which, again, is the primarily Greek Orthodox region of Syria.) Those parts of Turkey and Syria today, including Cilicia, are still mostly Armenian, Syrian (Aramean), Greek, and Roum (Roman). I somewhat like the idea of taking back the territory or the old Roman and Greek Empires - or is that too greedy? ;)
Of couse not ;)

The main reason I chose Lebanon is the many Christians there, who are noticeably more "European" in their look than other arabs, and who also would be more open to assimilation.

Tunisia I have heard has a "European" look as well, and anyway there are not that many Tunisians so they wont be able to hurt us genetically either :D

Right now this is only utopias, but one must have dreams :)

Bischöff
Tuesday, October 5th, 2004, 09:39 PM
Just because Turkey will become a member of the EU does not mean that the integrity of the European race is fundamentally more threatened than it is already.
ogenoct, you're very odd every each type something...

Of course the racial integraty will be threatened. Remember that in this present condition, Turks are already the main gangrena of German society. The inmigrant Turk population is more than 50% in many villages. Isn't that enough.

Image how it would be with no national borders... The same week, Turks and other muslins would be running freely across Europe.

Dorian
Thursday, October 7th, 2004, 12:03 AM
Geographically yes, but only after the demise of turdey.

Aistulf
Thursday, October 7th, 2004, 11:31 AM
We never pretended Lebanon or Tunisia were our own lands. Anatolia was lived in and colonised by Galatian Celts and Hellenes who later fought the Turkish invaders. Europe should, from her own perspective, have these lands back. Simple, really. Drive the Turks back to Turkmenistan.Better: Drive the Turks back to Mongolia! Since they're so proud of their "Gray Wolves" herritage.


The "Gray Wolves" MHP party




http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/426/re1.jpg






Protest against the "Gray Wolves", probably by Kurds, in the Netherlands


http://www.indymedia.nl/img/2001/12/1254.jpg





"Gray Wolves", MHP party, leader




http://www2.egenet.com.tr/mastersj/mhp-leader--devlet-bahceli.jpg





Turkish family forming forming the "wolf" (with their hands)*

http://bernard.pitzer.edu/~nboyle/ps302002/mhp.jpg









The Gray Wolf*, the symbol of the Mongoloid race



http://www.coldsiberia.org/index.htg/wolf.gif



*
The wolf is the legendary ancestor of all Mongols, and is a symbol of what qualities they possessed: an inclination towards the regions of the North, Dark and Cold, as well as limitless endurance, great intelligence, intuition and perspicacity.(By the way, I didn't make this up. I forgot from which site I quoted it)

cultofodin
Thursday, October 7th, 2004, 03:33 PM
Besides the fact that it would make it legally even easier than it already is for Turks to swamp other EU countries to pollute the gene pool and be an economic drain, they aren't white. If your not Aryan get out of Europe.

Hugin
Thursday, October 7th, 2004, 08:28 PM
No,because if Turkey becomes a member of the EU the battle of Vienna 1683,against the Turkeys and the Islam, would be worthless.

Europe must be fight for his traditions and his tradition,his culture are built up from the white race.

Tommy Vercetti
Thursday, October 7th, 2004, 10:27 PM
Hell no!

on the other hand, if Turkey is accepted to EU, it will most likely happen against will of European people, by corrupted politicians.This would rock the foundation of this artificial union big time, and in the best case, break it down

Gil
Friday, October 8th, 2004, 01:43 PM
I break down this question into two parts.

1st: It would be a tremendous stab at the European economy for two reasons:

Mass imigration of turks within the EU. That would mean they would offer low-quality but very cheap labour force and also that they would become strong minorities (which might happen already in certain countries). Also, like many underdeveloped countries, it would leech the already weak public funds given to developing nations.

2nd : Though for many years the militaristic government of Turkey remained apart from the religion the actual rulers as of now are pro-islam and therefore the EU would be composed of a league of countries where one is an islamic republic, which for me simply a BIG MISTAKE.

So, the answer to your question is NO.

Sorry for any mistakes/errors but while i'm typing this i'm getting seriously drunk (small birthday party)...

Cheers

Evolved
Friday, October 8th, 2004, 03:50 PM
I say yes. It isn't as if EU represents old European values anyway. If it helps develop their economy to the point where they have no reason to emigrate to Germany and other European countries, it is a win-win situation.

Stríbog
Friday, October 8th, 2004, 03:55 PM
I say yes. It isn't as if EU represents old European values anyway. If it helps develop their economy to the point where they have no reason to emigrate to Germany and other European countries, it is a win-win situation.

It gives them free passes to live/work in any EU member country indefinitely. The ramifications of this should be quite obvious. It is utter insanity to allow Turks into Europe like this.

Aistulf
Friday, October 8th, 2004, 07:39 PM
on the other hand, if Turkey is accepted to EU, it will most likely happen against will of European people, by corrupted politicians.This would rock the foundation of this artificial union big time, and in the best case, break it downThat would indeed be the only good thing about it if Turkey ever managed to join the EU. But it's too big of a risk, I mean, what if the EU wouldn't fall for some reason?

Combatent
Saturday, October 9th, 2004, 08:43 AM
Not in my life!

trajan70
Saturday, October 9th, 2004, 03:11 PM
It will happen anyway.

Aistulf
Saturday, October 9th, 2004, 05:26 PM
Not if a big country like Germany will oppose it, which is surely going to happen (since the SPD is losing).

anti-climacus
Monday, October 11th, 2004, 07:15 AM
They might as well allow Syria, Jordan, and Mexico to join

goidelicwarrior
Monday, October 11th, 2004, 11:01 AM
No ! Never ! They try to overrun our countries, these alien hordes. They must stay out of EUROPE, and should go back to the trees !
I agree.. we who have fought for centuries to defend Europe and its values and way of life.. for us its NOT negotiable...

xakep
Tuesday, October 12th, 2004, 04:28 AM
Rusalka,

I believe that everyone has the same rights and that any one ethnic group is not superior to other. What I meant to say was that certain people at this and other message boards seem to intermix the meaning of "Caucasian" and "European" ethnicity, which carry a number of similiar traits, thought are not exactly the same.


Correct ME if I'm wrong, but arnt you the same Xakep that doesnt even have a grasp of what ethnicity or culture means...or what geographical affiliation has to do with human immigration patterns?
Ramziq,

Why is it always that when I ask a question about something related to Caucasus, your only answer comes out to be a hidden insult? Is this the best you can do?

Razmig
Tuesday, October 12th, 2004, 05:55 AM
Ramziq,

Why is it always that when I ask a question about something related to Caucasus, your only answer comes out to be a hidden insult? Is this the best you can do?
Your comment had nothing to do with the Caucus. Yet again your stuck to that "Razmig's Armenian so he affiliates with the Caucus and therefor hates me because I'm Russian" BS that I'm sick of getting. You have no right to comment on race. You have never made a productive statement, all you do is post on boards to fulfill some kind of personal agenda that you have. You have never given any truthful facts, or posted any relevant data pertaining to the threads you posted on. In short, I don't like seeing ****** posting on boards I belong to.

The next time you adress me in a post, spell my name right...*****

Joe000
Monday, October 18th, 2004, 09:38 PM
Though I am no European, I don't understand why Turkey is even being considered for entrance into the European Union. What makes the Turks European? How does their entrance into the EU benefit Europe?

Stríbog
Tuesday, October 19th, 2004, 01:38 AM
Though I am no European, I don't understand why Turkey is even being considered for entrance into the European Union. What makes the Turks European? How does their entrance into the EU benefit Europe?

Ask LadyGoeth. :|

Telperion
Tuesday, October 19th, 2004, 02:32 AM
An argument often used in favour of Turkish admission to the EU (by The Economist in its articles on the issue, for instance) is that Turkish admission would demonstrate that the EU is not a club that excludes Muslims, but rather an economic and geographic arrangement that includes them as fellow-Europeans.

It seems to me that to admit Turkey to the EU on these grounds would legitimize the presence of Muslim immigrants in other EU countries generally, and might pave the way to the final defeat of those who oppose mass immigration (much of which is Muslim) into the EU, in so far as it would seem incongruous to halt or restrict Muslim immigration into the EU at the same time that tens of millions Turkish Muslims would have unrestricted mobility and settlement rights within EU territory.

Having said that, it seems unlikely that Turkey will ever actually be admitted to the EU, because it would only take a rejection of Turkish membership candidacy by one EU member state to kill Turkey's application, and several countries (including France) are already contemplating public referendums on the issue.

Odhinnskriger
Tuesday, October 19th, 2004, 03:40 AM
Absolutely not, Turkey has no tie with Europe geographically, historically and culturally. Keep Europe European. Like one person mentioned in here, there are enough of them already as it is.

Waldgeist
Tuesday, October 19th, 2004, 12:48 PM
No, absolutely not. We have enough problems with Turks in our society today, being unable (or unwilling) to integrate into our society properly. Turkey is just too different culturally, historically and economically.

So I'd say a big "NO".

ogenoct
Thursday, October 21st, 2004, 11:13 AM
Why Turkey must join the European Union:

1. The enemies of Europe are the United States of America ("Great Satan") and Israel (artificial Zionist construct). If Turkey does not join the European Union, it will continue to play the agent of disintegration, manipulated by Washington and Tel Aviv. This is why Turkey must be firmly integrated into the European political union.

2. Turkey is the Eurasian bridge, connecting Europe and Asia. A Eurasian power block is the only force powerful enough to withstand the Atlantic (American) hyperpower and its plans for forced multiculturalization.

3. The Ottoman Empire was the last incarnation of Rome (after the Muslim takeover of Byzantium).

4. The European Renaissance was in large part triggered by Islamic science.

5. The borders of Europe are at the Caucasus, not at the Bosporus.

6. Islam, through the Koran, has already integrated the cultural concept of Christianity.

For Race and Socialism!

MAGNA EVRASIA EST MATER NOSTRA!

Regards,
Constantin

http://www.highwaygold.co.uk/images/downloads/flags/reduced/turkey.jpg

http://www.goodart.org/abguard.jpg

Jack
Friday, October 22nd, 2004, 03:30 AM
Why Turkey must join the European Union:

1. The enemies of Europe are the United States of America ("Great Satan") and Israel (artificial Zionist construct). If Turkey does not join the European Union, it will continue to play the agent of disintegration, manipulated by Washington and Tel Aviv. This is why Turkey must be firmly integrated into the European political union.
The United States of America faces all the problems Europe does. West Europe was not 'innocent' prior to its post-WWII occupation by American forces. French use of black troops to occupy Germany, discussed by Hitler in Mein Kampf, is just a part of the evidence.


2. Turkey is the Eurasian bridge, connecting Europe and Asia. A Eurasian power block is the only force powerful enough to withstand the Atlantic (American) hyperpower and its plans for forced multiculturalization.
Accepting Turkey into the EU is promoting multiculturalism. In fact, your entire 'Eurasianism' is built on the concept.


3. The Ottoman Empire was the last incarnation of Rome (after the Muslim takeover of Byzantium).
Actually, St. Petersburg was. The Ottoman Empire was the last Islamic Imperium of any significance.


4. The European Renaissance was in large part triggered by Islamic science.
'Islamic science' was largely a rehashing of Aristotelian philosophy, which had Hellenic origins. The Renaissance could not have happened without North Europe. It could have easily happened without Aristotelian philosophy, empiricism was a West European epistemological model that worked fine.


5. The borders of Europe are at the Caucasus, not at the Bosporus.
That's debatable. Some might argue that the borders of Europe are at the Volga. Or the Dardenelles.


6. Islam, through the Koran, has already integrated the cultural concept of Christianity.
ROFL. Islam contradicts Christianity on so many levels it's simply not funny.


For Race and Socialism!
Why is socialism a good thing, Ogenoct?


MAGNA EVRASIA EST MATER NOSTRA!
Traitor.

Fraxinus Excelsior
Friday, October 22nd, 2004, 04:35 AM
For Race and Socialism!I respect you and all that, but, sometimes, I wonder which Race you care more about: our Race, or every other Race on Earth but our's.

Mohammedanism hasn't done much (rather, ANYTHING AT ALL) for the EAST, so what makes you think it could help us in the WEST?

Frans_Jozef
Friday, October 22nd, 2004, 12:36 PM
I say yes. It isn't as if EU represents old European values anyway. If it helps develop their economy to the point where they have no reason to emigrate to Germany and other European countries, it is a win-win situation.

Right, pumping millions of euros in a stalled economy, while unemployment and bankcrupty in all sectors of the Western economy are phenomenally in the rise, not to mention the drain of compagnies to the East to dive social expenditures and environmental regulations.

If the EU fails to represent, protect and enable to flourish European values and culture, it should be brought down and replaced.
It's not a prostitute that takes any client as long money rolls.

Drömmarnas Stig
Friday, October 22nd, 2004, 08:28 PM
1. Turkey will become an EU-member.

2. Turkey should never ever become part of the EU.
I am a strict opponent of the artificial construct called EU, but I could live with it if it would only consist of supreme nations.
Turkey is not even a european country.

Evolved
Friday, October 22nd, 2004, 10:49 PM
Turkey is a secular country.

Johnson
Tuesday, October 26th, 2004, 12:16 PM
Admitting an Asian country defeats the purpose of a Union of Europeans. Might as well let India, Malaysia, and Zimbabwe join too.

The Blond Beast
Tuesday, October 26th, 2004, 03:47 PM
My fathers [sic] modo is that wheras there are Armenians, he will raise a gun.

Has your father considered moving to Armenia, where he can raise all the guns he desires in support of Armenians?


My grandfather was also ... a soldier in the Armenian battalion of Nazi Germany...

Didn't he desert?


Both my Armenian parents are Tashnag's/Dashnak, nationalistic and active in the Armenian scene as am I.

It seems that Armenians have a marked tendency to disloyalty towards those nations in which they find themselves; just look at this unmitigated chutzpah:

http://www.armeniansofcolorado.org/index.asp


It's funny that Armenians prosper in every nation but their own...

Prospering in your own country means you wouldn't be able to do it at the expense of someone else...

Marked pretension and disloyalty; relentless complaining over past injustices; overtly arrogant and insular parasitism (...) -- it's not in the least suprising that considering you share the same genes as "God's Chosen", your lot would have similar behaviour patterns...

Razmig
Tuesday, October 26th, 2004, 08:26 PM
Has your father considered moving to Armenia, where he can raise all the guns he desires in support of Armenians?
The nation of Armenia is not our motherland, it has no ties with our ethnic identity. We share a language and a flag, so therfor he has been in the enclave of Gharabagh, there for 2 years and shot 3 times, and also has participated in ethnic struggles in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Cyprus. What has your father done besides escape his nation and feed off of Canada?


Didn't he desert?
As did all other former Legionares. Hitler was a crazed baffoon...Guderian, General Dro and Karekin Njdeh are the only reason why Armenians (Giligians) joined the German party. They were promised their retaliation against the Turks, but realized Hitler's personal plot was more important than benefiting fellow Europids.


It seems that Armenians have a marked tendency to disloyalty towards those nations in which they find themselves; just look at this unmitigated chutzpah:
Our number one cause is to survive. Armenians have always been the victim of foreign influence and have faught it from day one. Do you find it offensive that Armenians hold on to their identity? The Armenians are some of the most loyal people and most active in EVERY nation they inhabit. For example, Russian Armenian presidents, Generals, scientists....Persian Armenian governmental officials despite its Islamic state, Lebanese Armenian presidents and Generals, TURKISH OTTOMAN ARMENIAN scientists, scholars, chefs, poets, generals and governmental officials. The Turks reffered to the Armenians as the "Loyal Ones" untill Russia decided to take Eastern Armenia off of Persias hands. We were the only other "citizens" of the Ottoman state...Or did you over look that like in the past people have overlooked that Russ was not a Slavic tribe. :D I don't know how pride leads to disloyalty, thats just your personal plot to group Armenians with Jews, whome you obviously don't like and cant seem to realize a religion does not tie in with Ethnic Armenians.


Prospering in your own country means you wouldn't be able to do it at the expense of someone else...Marked pretension and disloyalty; relentless complaining over past injustices; overtly arrogant and insular parasitism (...) -- it's not in the least suprising that considering you share the same genes as "God's Chosen", your lot would have similar behaviour patterns...
I have reason to beleive you are the Jew here, all of your comments have been propoganda rubbish.

Armenians HAVE prospered in their own nation, they have fought off thoulsands and thoulsands of invading hordes, Islamic enforcement...and have still remained their own distinct identity. This is something that Western Europe did not have to fear due to its geographical location. If Armenians have a tie with Jews (Black Jews, White Jews from Norway, Persian Jews) then that would mean that we also have ties to Christian Norwegens, Christian Somalians, etc. Perhaps you should consider traveling a bit before you make up your own personal agenda. Name one group in this world that has not been marked LOYAL by one nation, and UNLOYAL by another. We all have our enemies and allies...for a Canadian such as yourself (of mixed race and herritage) to make these claims about Armenians is rather silly. Armenians are surrounded by an opposing culture (Islamic, Turkic, etc) and to the West they are denied, as is Serbia...because its easier to look the otherway when the enemy is crawling in through your backyard.

Armenians were not done an injustive on someone elses soil, they did not DENY their overlords (a group who was 10x more populous then them, and have 10x more in Islamic allies). We did not feed off of any nation we inhabited, because we were there against our own will, and we did what we had to to gain the respect that we have. Our injustices were done right in our own homes...I'll never stop complaining about the lands that were taken from us, and if you had enough brain to research yourself, every production of Genocidal propoganda is published by JEWS, and not Armenians, WHY? Because it strengthens the Jewish push/cause for Hollocausts. So shut your mouth before your offensive comments get you banned. :)

The Blond Beast
Tuesday, October 26th, 2004, 10:21 PM
What has your father done besides escape his nation and feed off of Canada?

Actually, my mother and father are multi-generation citizens, whose ancestors came to Canada well before this age of pluralism (i.e. no hand-outs). "Feed off of"? :eyes

Historically, Canada has always encouraged European immigration; the same could not be said of admitting Hither Asiatics though...


I have reason to beleive you are the Jew here...

So says a genetic relative of the Sephardim? ;)


...for a Canadian such as yourself (of mixed race and herritage) to make these claims about Armenians is rather silly.

Actually, my parents are in no way greatly subracially dissimilar; such an accusation is all the more remarkable coming from a Turk/Armenian straight from the heart of the planet's nexus of race, Central Asia.


... every production of Genocidal [sic] propoganda is published by JEWS, and not Armenians, WHY? Because it strengthens the Jewish push/cause for [sic] Hollocausts.

Have you seen Ararat? ;)

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/ ("'Instructional' videos")
http://www.theforgotten.org/intro.html ("Take Action!")
http://www.armeniangenocide.cjb.net/ ("Sign the Petition!")
(ad infinitum)

Armenians would be just as whiney and insidious as the Jews if only they were as numerous...

Razmig
Thursday, October 28th, 2004, 02:31 AM
Let me just start out by saying, it's often times hard for me to take you seriously, as it has been for other members of this forum.


Actually, my mother and father are multi-generation citizens, whose ancestors came to Canada well before this age of pluralism (i.e. no hand-outs). "Feed off of"?

Historically, Canada has always encouraged European immigration; the same could not be said of admitting Hither Asiatics though...
Wrong...Russian immigrants into Canada were looked down upon by the European (remember European has a meaning, and it means French, German, Norweigen, Dutch etc) settlers. There was a point in time where Canada and America wanted to block any form of Russian or East European immigration which they considered a cloud of poverty. But, you can beleive whatever you want, after all it's your little fantasy. :D


So says a genetic relative of the Sephardim?
If you're going to misinterpret y-chromosome testing, which obviously you have...the Sephardic Jews are closer to Southern Italians, Greeks, and Spaniards then they are to Armenians. Lets not forget the overwhelming amount of Eastern European (not including Russian) blood they have absorbed creating a similarity with South European types. Remember child, Judaism is religion.


Actually, my parents are in no way greatly subracially dissimilar; such an accusation is all the more remarkable coming from a Turk/Armenian straight from the heart of the planet's nexus of race, Central Asia.
If you actually think Turkey is Central Asia, then I'm going to have to ask you to please stop poluting this board. If Turkey is the nexus of race, where are our Ladogans? Where are our Mullatos? Please, think before you say something, it will save you the embarassment and the embarassment of intelligent Russians, who aren't of mixed race and herritage such as yourself, posing to be a Russian. :)


Have you seen Ararat?

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/ ("'Instructional' videos")
http://www.theforgotten.org/intro.html ("Take Action!")
http://www.armeniangenocide.cjb.net/ ("Sign the Petition!")
(ad infinitum)

Armenians would be just as whiney and insidious as the Jews if only they were as numerous...
Ararat was a flop, Atom Egoyan isn't that great. There have been far greater movies written by Armeinans about our historical defeats and successions.

Sandra Cunningham .... co-producer (most probably)
Atom Egoyan .... producer
Robert Lantos .... producer
Julia Rosenberg .... associate producer
Simone Urdl .... associate producer

Like I said, produced by Jews...the points you have been trying to make, and in the past, have always proven to be wrong. Yet another holier than thou effort gone to waist, eh? You're a JOKE. :|

Razmig
Thursday, October 28th, 2004, 02:36 AM
such an accusation is all the more remarkable coming from a Turk/Armenian straight from the heart of the planet's nexus of race, Central Asia.
I find this comment most especially hypocritical, considering the heavy influx of CENTRAL ASIANS (Turkemens, Uzbeks) into mainland Russia, the absorbtion of Turkic and Finnic elements into the modern day Ladogan Russian phoenotype...the Bashkirs and Tatars, Mongolian tribesmen and others that give the Russian people their stereotypical look. Turk is one thing, Armenian is another. When you learn the difference, and I know its hard since you can barely discern the difference between a Russian and a European, then you can try again to offend me.

Pomor
Thursday, October 28th, 2004, 03:51 AM
It seems that Armenians have a marked tendency to disloyalty towards those nations in which they find themselves; just look at this unmitigated chutzpah:

http://www.armeniansofcolorado.org/index.asp

Ha-ha, what a funny site, they are offering to PURCHASE their own photos!


Just click "photos" on the main page

In fact I might order a couple, in case I ever have an upset stomach it will help me to empty it :D

http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=24378

http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=24379

The Blond Beast
Thursday, October 28th, 2004, 04:18 AM
Wrong...Russian immigrants into Canada were looked down upon by the European (remember European has a meaning, and it means French, German, Norweigen, Dutch etc) settlers. There was a point in time where Canada and America wanted to block any form of Russian or East European immigration which they considered a cloud of poverty.

Mostly false (though Anglo-Saxons historically discriminated against everyone but themselves, particularly the French and those of disparate Christian faiths); and Canada was populated by poor European immigrants.


If you're going to misinterpret y-chromosome testing, which obviously you have...the Sephardic Jews are closer to Southern Italians, Greeks, and Spaniards [sic]then they are to Armenians.

Armenians and Jews remain closely related, regardless:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v69n5/013033/013033.text.html

Both also being noted for their marked tendency toward "Armenian Disease" (Mediterranean Familial Fever)...


If you actually think Turkey is Central Asia, then I'm going to have to ask you to please stop [sic] poluting this board.

And I thought it was only your poor linguistic skills that suggested inveterate mental deficiency...

http://www.imb.org/centralasia/Images/Map.jpg


If Turkey is the nexus of race, where are our Ladogans?

The Caucasus/Middle East/Eastern Mediterranean has far more gradations in race -- mixtures of overtly dissimilar Armenoid, Arab, Irano-Afghan, Asian, and Europid (...) types -- than does northwestern Eurasia.

And "snub-nosed mongrel Finns" are bereft of significant East Asian admixture; indeed, the vesitges of the Caucasoid-Mongoloid bifurcation need not be deemed of mixed race.

And again, ethnic Russians are not mostly Ladogan (a subtype said to be most prominent in Poland, though all of the Poles on this forum and others have never seen it).


Ararat was a flop, Atom Egoyan isn't that great.

Regardless of Ararat's commercial success, an Armenian nonetheless made a film espousing Armenian victimization.


Sandra Cunningham .... co-producer (most probably)
Atom Egoyan .... producer
Robert Lantos .... producer
Julia Rosenberg .... associate producer
Simone Urdl .... associate producer

Like I said, produced by Jews...

Jews don't promote their putative Holocaust by advocating their brothers' (i.e. Armenia's) victimization. ;)


You're a JOKE. :|

So says one of those, conveniently inconspicuous, "Western Armenians"? :lol

You're in fact the biggest joke, typified by your claim that Europeans "stole" Christianity from Armenians; that in the ebb and flow of peoples across Anatolia that magical little enclave of "Western Armenians" remains immaculate and in no way related to their brothers in Armenia proper; that all smart Russians are invariably Armenian; that the proto-Slavic race was Dinarid; that you, as an American soldier, were stationed in Russia (an overt lie)...

Perhaps you should adopt the title "Razmig the Fatuous"...

Razmig
Saturday, October 30th, 2004, 09:42 AM
Mostly false (though Anglo-Saxons historically discriminated against everyone but themselves, particularly the French and those of disparate Christian faiths); and Canada was populated by poor European immigrants.
Right...


Armenians and Jews remain closely related, regardless:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJ...13033.text.html

Both also being noted for their marked tendency toward "Armenian Disease" (Mediterranean Familial Fever)...
Did you bother to read the site before posting it? It only proves the dissimalarity between Jews and their neighbors (who people often confuse as their "brothers) the Arabs. It shows more congruency between Jews, Anatolians and Europeans...gee I wonder why (could it be because Judaism is a religion that spread into those regions and has been there for thoulsands of years?) There is no proof on that site that points to the Religion of Judaism to be closely related to ARMENIANS.


And I thought it was only your poor linguistic skills that suggested inveterate mental deficiency...
If I were you, I wouldn't rely on mistakes on behalf of the many baffoons on the internet to further making an ass out of yourself. WWW.MAPS.COM ...Please, I grow tired of your ignorance, and stop making up your own geography, please. :D
http://www.uwec.edu/grossmzc/map-central-asia.jpg
I'm to assume this map which has its file named "CENTRAL ASIA" is correct, because I found it on the stupidnet and cuz I says so? :P



The Caucasus/Middle East/Eastern Mediterranean has far more gradations in race -- mixtures of overtly dissimilar Armenoid, Arab, Irano-Afghan, Asian, and Europid (...) types -- than does northwestern Eurasia.

And "snub-nosed mongrel Finns" are bereft of significant East Asian admixture; indeed, the vesitges of the Caucasoid-Mongoloid bifurcation need not be deemed of mixed race.

And again, ethnic Russians are not mostly Ladogan (a subtype said to be most prominent in Poland, though all of the Poles on this forum and others have never seen it).
Yada Yada Yada?


Regardless of Ararat's commercial success, an Armenian nonetheless made a film espousing Armenian victimization.
Produces by Jews...Jewish claims for Holocaust related issues increases...Armenian struggle for recaliming their lands and identity belittled....it's as simple as that and has been since the 70's and the destruction of Armenian Revolutionary Federations involvement in political Armenian retaliation against the Turkish ministry (America's #1 buddy).


Jews don't promote their putative Holocaust by advocating their brothers' (i.e. Armenia's) victimization.
You gotta hate those Ethiopian/Russian/Armenian/Sephards...greedy propoganda filled mongrels, always helping each other out like the Ottoman Jewish treaty to ethnically clense Smyrna of its Armenian and greek population.


So says one of those, conveniently inconspicuous, "Western Armenians"?

You're in fact the biggest joke, typified by your claim that Europeans "stole" Christianity from Armenians; that in the ebb and flow of peoples across Anatolia that magical little enclave of "Western Armenians" remains immaculate and in no way related to their brothers in Armenia proper; that all smart Russians are invariably Armenian; that the proto-Slavic race was Dinarid; that you, as an American soldier, were stationed in Russia (an overt lie)...

Perhaps you should adopt the title "Razmig the Fatuous"...
Shows what deaf ears I'm screaming into...I'm not Western Armenian, I am Galacian and Giligian (paternal). But I wouldnt expect you to understand what that means, you dont even know what your own ethnicity is. LOL

Who stole Christianity from who? HUH!??! No, you're right and I'm wrong...The Armenians are a horrible people who have been destroying what the brave pure Russian blonde hair and blue eyed viking super-race has been creating for the 10 thoulsands of years it's been a non slave'ish, superior Empire.

I was a missionary, if you read my posts, I was stationed in Russia. When I was in the NAVY I was in Bosnia, Japan, and Fort Knox. I was dishonorably discharged for "racially motivated conduct." Figures since he was a black with an ego. It would do you a great good in life if you would learn to read what information is provided for you...

Hey but enough of the BS, when are we going to be honoured with your classification...still can't find a working camera? I wonder what similarities you have with your favorite religion, Judaism, besides your lame efforts to push outragous porpogandic ideals and oddly grouped generalizations.

Selchuk
Saturday, October 30th, 2004, 10:30 PM
No. Turkey should not be a member of EU.

I wonder what Turkey will get after membership. Will we work for elderly people of EU? It is just like a retirement campus.

EU is in a clear decline; economically and politically. They can not even form and operate an army. Will we fight all around the world for the EU interests?

Turkey will be much much better by getting into alliances with Turkic republics, Russia and India. The future is there. We should get better relations with US as far as our interests met with them. With EU we will stick to their interests. This is unacceptable and out of logic. Europe is there but the future of Union is very vague. We should not built our strategy for artificial political dreams. Let make them dream about it.

And finally we, Turks, are different. Who has a little information of history knows this clear fact.

The sun goes up from the east.

Aistulf
Saturday, October 30th, 2004, 10:43 PM
No. Turkey should not be a member of EU.

I wonder what Turkey will get after membership. Will we work for elderly people of EU? It is just like a retirement campus.

EU is in a clear decline; economically and politically. They can not even form and operate an army. Will we fight all around the world for the EU interests?

Turkey will be much much better by getting into alliances with Turkic republics, Russia and India. The future is there. We should get better relations with US as far as our interests met with them. With EU we will stick to their interests. This is unacceptable and out of logic. Europe is there but the future of Union is very vague. We should not built our strategy for artificial political dreams. Let make them dream about it.

And finally we, Turks, are different. Who has a little information of history knows this clear fact.

The sun goes up from the east.
I thought Turks hated Russians? :confused

Stríbog
Saturday, October 30th, 2004, 10:53 PM
Turkey will be much much better by getting into alliances with Turkic republics, Russia and India.

I don't think Russia and India would show much interest in having anything to do with Turkey...

Razmig
Sunday, October 31st, 2004, 06:53 AM
I don't think Russia and India would show much interest in having anything to do with Turkey...
You're right...Russia is more interested in Iraq, Palestine and Egypt, and India is busy with American business opportunities in which they can exploit. :D

The Great
Sunday, October 31st, 2004, 11:55 AM
Turkey has nothing to do with Europe, if turkey joins EU , iraq , japan and angola can also join...

AryanKrieger
Sunday, October 31st, 2004, 12:05 PM
Instead of debating whether Turkey should be permitted to join the EU we should be discussing how the EU can be overthrown. It is a left of centre fascist superstate that imposes it rule upon Aryans and its ultimate objective as part of the Zionist global conspiracy is our biological destruction.
Therefore why debate extending this monster? Away with it I say.

Marius
Sunday, October 31st, 2004, 01:55 PM
Instead of debating whether Turkey should be permitted to join the EU we should be discussing how the EU can be overthrown. It is a left of centre fascist superstate that imposes it rule upon Aryans and its ultimate objective as part of the Zionist global conspiracy is our biological destruction.
Therefore why debate extending this monster? Away with it I say.

In a sense you are right. This would be the fact the a lower brain usage uniformity would be imposed by the modern society. This is debatable too, the measure in which human really like that: "it's simpler this way, not too much brainthinking for ourselves". Still, even taking into account that, the human society evoluated during the last decades, nobody can deny that.

In another sense, you are drifting away, with all the respect. I understand the human society as a permanent evolution and not a permanent stagnation. If somebody comes out now and says that we should get back to the tribal way of life, with tribes hating one another and easily getting to war one another, I kindly invite him to join Afghanistan or Somalia, there is the place where such tribal way of life still exists. :)

Übersoldat
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 03:02 AM
Turkey shouldn't join EU, and the Turks shouldn't settle in Europe anymore, yet I think this is a good country to forge a military alliance with. Turks are numerous, and they have a strong army, and they proved to be good allays in ww1. and ww2.

AryanKrieger
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 08:37 PM
In a sense you are right. This would be the fact the a lower brain usage uniformity would be imposed by the modern society. This is debatable too, the measure in which human really like that: "it's simpler this way, not too much brainthinking for ourselves". Still, even taking into account that, the human society evoluated during the last decades, nobody can deny that.

In another sense, you are drifting away, with all the respect. I understand the human society as a permanent evolution and not a permanent stagnation. If somebody comes out now and says that we should get back to the tribal way of life, with tribes hating one another and easily getting to war one another, I kindly invite him to join Afghanistan or Somalia, there is the place where such tribal way of life still exists. :)
Marius I am not advocating tribalism.I am merely making the point that the very existence of the fascist dictatorship called the EU should be called into question.
We do not need such a structure and I do not see this as part of some sociological evolution either!

Marius
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 08:40 PM
Marius I am not advocating tribalism.I am merely making the point that the very existence of the fascist dictatorship called the EU should be called into question.
We do not need such a structure and I do not see this as part of some sociological evolution either!

You wrote in your description you were NS. Then you must be in love of a "fascist dictatureship".

AryanKrieger
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 08:42 PM
You wrote in your description you were NS. Then you must be in love of a "fascist dictatureship".
And? I am a National Socialist not a fascist. I resent being referred to as such.
National Socialism is an entire world view. It is not power for power`s sake. I find any form of fascism repulsive: it is contrary to my Germanic spirit.

Marius
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 08:44 PM
And? I am a National Socialist not a fascist. I resent being referred to as such.
National Socialism is an entire world view. It is not power for power`s sake. I find any form of fascism repulsive: it is contrary to my Germanic spirit.

That's the first time I ever heard there was more than a slight insignificant difference between fascism and national-socialism... :)


The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that

* exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
* uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
* engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and
* espouses nationalism and sometimes racism (ethnic nationalism).

In an article in the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana, written by Giovanni Gentile and attributed to Benito Mussolini, fascism is described as a system in which "The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad.... For the Fascist, everything is within the State and... neither individuals or groups are outside the State.... For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative."

Mussolini, in a speech delivered on October 28, 1925, stated the following maxim that encapsulates the fascist philosophy: "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato." ("Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State".)

Nazism is usually considered as a kind of fascism, but it should be understood that Nazism sought the state's purpose in serving an ideal to valuing what its content should be: its people, race, and the social engineering of these aspects of culture to the ends of the greatest possible prosperity for them at the expense of all else. In contrast, Mussolini's fascism held to the ideology that all of these factors existed to serve the state, and that it wasn't necessarily in the state's interest to serve or engineer any of these particulars within its sphere as any priority. The only purpose of the government under fascism proper was to value itself as the highest priority to its culture in just being the state in itself, the larger scope of which, the better, and for these reasons it can be said to have been a governmental statolatry.

While Nazism was a metapolitical ideology, seeing itself only as a utility by which an allegorical condition of its people was to be achieved, fascism was a squarely anti-socialist form of statism that existed by virtue and as an end in and of itself. The Nazi movement spoke of class-based society as the enemy, and wanted to unify the racial element above established classes. The Fascist movement, on the other hand, sought to preserve the class system and uphold it as the foundation of established and desirable culture. This underlying theorem made the contemporary Fascists and Nazis see themselves and their respective political labels as at least partially exclusive to one another.

Today, however, this difference is not made often in terminology, even when used historically. This is mostly because both ideologies have ceased to be society-driven movements of their own anywhere in the world today. Outside of their internal reasoning, their own opposing ideas have no part to play in modern politics, and could be said to be arbitrarily alien to the liberal states currently dealing in defining political concerns.

As a political science, the philosophical pretext to the literal fascism of the historical Italian type believes the state's nature is superior to that of the sum of the individuals comprising it -- individuals exist for the state, rather than the state existing to serve them. The resources that individuals provide from participating in the community are conceived as a productive duty of individual progress serving an entity greater than the sum of its parts. Therefore, all individuals' business is the state's business, and the state's existence is the sole duty of the individual.

In its Corporativist model of totalitarian but private management, the various functions of the state were trades, conceived as individualized entities making up that state. Further, it is in the state's interest to oversee them for that reason, but not direct them or make them public because such functioning in government hands undermines the development of what the state is. Private activity is in a sense contracted to the state so that the state may suspend the infrastructure of any entity in accordance with their usefulness and direction, or with health to the state.

Fascist movements have historically been composed of small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats, and the middle classes. Fascism also met with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, the lumpenproletariat. A key feature of fascism is that it uses its mass movement to attack the organizations of the working class - parties of the left and trade unions.

Unlike the pre–World War II period, when many groups openly and proudly proclaimed themselves fascist, in the post–World War II period, the term has taken on an extremely pejorative meaning, largely in reaction to the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis.

Today, very few groups proclaim themselves as fascist, and the term almost universally is used for groups for whom the speaker has little regard, often with minimal understanding of what the term actually means. The term "fascist" or "Nazi" is often ascribed to individuals or groups who are perceived to behave in an authoritarian manner; by silencing opposition, judging personal behavior, or otherwise attempting to concentrate power. More particularly, "Fascist" is sometimes used by members of the Left to characterize some group or persons of the far-right or neo-far-right, or the far left activists as a description of any political or cultural influences perceived as "non-progressive," or merely not sufficiently progressive. This usage receded much following the 1970s, but has enjoyed a strong resurgence in connection with Anti-globalization activism.

Fascism, in many respects, is an ideology of negativism: anti-liberal, anti-socialist, anti-Communist, anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian, etc. As a political and economic system in Italy, it combined elements of corporatism, totalitarianism, nationalism, and anti-communism.

Source: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)

AryanKrieger
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 09:03 PM
That's the first time I ever heard there was more than a slight insignificant difference between fascism and national-socialism... :)



Source: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)

From your quote you have demonstrated the clear differences between National Socialism and fascism. The way in which the function of the state is perceived is integral to this. I would also contend that fascism has no natural racial basis unlike National Socialism which places race above all every other concept, including that of the state itself.
Hitler made it abundantly clear in his speach in "Triumph des Willens" that it us the Volk that has created and shaped the state and not the other way around. The state is merely a vehicle for the advancement of National Socialism and the improvement of the race: it does not exist for itself as it does in the EU.

Marius
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 09:11 PM
From your quote you have demonstrated the clear differences between National Socialism and fascism. The way in which the function of the state is perceived is integral to this. I would also contend that fascism has no natural racial basis unlike National Socialism which places race above all every other concept, including that of the state itself.
Hitler made it abundantly clear in his speach in "Triumph des Willens" that it us the Volk that has created and shaped the state and not the other way around. The state is merely a vehicle for the advancement of National Socialism and the improvement of the race: it does not exist for itself as it does in the EU.

Theoretically, as affirmed in the quote, Nazism is a form of Fascism, a little bit more than a subset.
Practically, as affirmed in the quote, the use of the words is similar nowadays.

Second, all this things with only Germanics, only Nordids... means tribalism. If I add the worship pagan divinities, I really start to think to the Stone Age. If Germany wants to take this direction (which I deeply doubt) then it will be sure not only its migrants would leave, but also the majority of its natives will also flee.

Third, the European Preservation, in all senses has nothing to do with Nazism. The latter is a deviation of the former.

AryanKrieger
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 09:18 PM
Theoretically, as affirmed in the quote, Nazism is a form of Fascism, a little bit more than a subset.
Practically, as affirmed in the quote, the use of the words is similar nowadays.

Second, all this things with only Germanics, only Nordids... means tribalism. If I add the worship pagan divinities, I really start to think to the Stone Age. If Germany wants to take this direction (which I deeply doubt) then it will be sure not only its migrants would leave, but also the majority of its natives will also flee.

Third, the European Preservation, in all senses has nothing to do with Nazism. The latter is a deviation of the former.
Remember that you are quoting from a politically correct scource.If you want to learn more about National Socialism free from its trappings in the Third Reich then I would recommend theInternet writings of David Myatt.
Odinism is not for the masses but for a spiritual elite. We are not concerned with the conversion of the masses.Our gods live in our blood and speak to us.

Marius
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 09:24 PM
Remember that you are quoting from a politically correct scource.If you want to learn more about National Socialism free from its trappings in the Third Reich then I would recommend theInternet writings of David Myatt.
Odinism is not for the masses but for a spiritual elite. We are not concerned with the conversion of the masses.Our gods live in our blood and speak to us.

Oh? Ok... whatever.

AryanKrieger
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 09:27 PM
Oh? Ok... whatever.
I accept your graceful surrender!:D

Odin Biggles
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 12:38 AM
Are be blowed, 100 votes for no to 10 for yes !

Be interested to see the nationality of the biggest slice of the votes.

Razmig
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 01:05 AM
It's funny, because people don't seem to realize that the EU has nothing to do with "EUROPEAN IDENTITY." It is just another globalization scheme to ruine the higher class, and uproot the lower class, immoral and corporate trend buying groups. All this EU stuff needs to stop, its going to, and is, destroying Europe, and European cultures. If Turkey joins, it would make all the more sense...if Russia joins, it would make all the more sense...anti-European, communist and zionist ideals is what the EU and UN are made of, cmon guys. =)

I think Turkey should be allowed to join the EU, as well as Iraq, Iran, China, Mexico...Guatamala....But in return, every self respecting, self defending European Christian (in culture) Nation should leave it for what it is...Trash.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 03:33 AM
I accept your graceful surrender!:D

Yeah marius really surrended to you.....hell the whole world bows before you. :eyes

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 04:00 AM
I see a fight coming on! At least I'm hoping for one. :D

Jack
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 06:43 AM
From your quote you have demonstrated the clear differences between National Socialism and fascism. The way in which the function of the state is perceived is integral to this. I would also contend that fascism has no natural racial basis unlike National Socialism which places race above all every other concept, including that of the state itself.
Hitler made it abundantly clear in his speach in "Triumph des Willens" that it us the Volk that has created and shaped the state and not the other way around. The state is merely a vehicle for the advancement of National Socialism and the improvement of the race: it does not exist for itself as it does in the EU.
Should we start a new thread on this topic? I'll argue in favour of fascism, AK can argue in favour of the primative NS view of the State. I'll start a thread now.

Odin Biggles
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 07:20 AM
I see a fight coming on! At least I'm hoping for one. :D
Im not.

Im hoping to observe a civil discussion ;).

AryanKrieger
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 06:37 PM
Yeah marius really surrended to you.....hell the whole world bows before you. :eyes
Its called a "sense of humour".

Odin Biggles
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 06:58 PM
Heh only us Englanders possess such a thing Aryankrieger ! :D

AryanKrieger
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 07:33 PM
Heh only us Englanders possess such a thing Aryankrieger ! :D
Cool, unfortunately I am only part English but I suppose I qualify?:D

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2004, 04:03 AM
Cool, unfortunately I am only part English but I suppose I qualify?:D

I am part English as well. If being Anglo-Saxon and prowhite doesn't make you a true Englishmen I don't know what will!


Im not.

Im hoping to observe a civil discussion ;).

That's where you and I differ! There's a reason I like to watch English Soccer games or "football" as you Englanders refer it as. And it's not because of the civility of the game.

SS Charlemagne
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 03:19 PM
No way ! for several reaons :
- Turkish culture is too different of the european culture
- 99 % of Turkish population is muslim and the main religion of Europe is Christianity
- Geographicaly Turkey is not in Europe but in Asia
- Turkey have never recognized the genocide of the armenians in 1916 and today Turkey always don't take care of the human right.
- The enter of Turkey in EU would cause a great Turkish immigration in Europe, in Germany there is already 7 million of Turks ;(
- The entry of Turkey would curb the growth and economy of european countries because Turkey have a big economic backwardness
- THe entry of Turkey will open the door of the entry of other non-european countries as Tunisia, Algeria and Israel :flame
- USA want Turkey enter because Turkey is the best ally of USA o the entry of Turkey would permit at USA to have a better control of EU
- If Turkey enter in EU their population who is one of the most big of europe ( 67,8 millions) would permit at Turkey to have more seat in the European parliament and in this way could permit to Turkey to vote laws of Europe.


With all this reasons anybody have only one good reason for let enter a non-european country in our Europe ???

Prince Eugen
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 07:07 PM
And after Turkey maybe Israel is next to enter EU!Some others says that even Maroco has the right to enter Europe!

Japetos
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 07:11 PM
Ιn the case of Israel,I think it should join EU.

Dasbuck
Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 11:37 PM
I think the obvious answer here is no, as one needs only to look at what the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) has done to my country.
Mexican mestizos and Central American Amerinds are flooding into the country, and demanding rights. Everyday I see hordes of them loitering in public in order to perhaps be picked up for day-labor jobs. Meanwhile they pollute the area, urinate in public, and cause all manner of crime. They have invaded even the most remote of areas, and have set roots that will be difficult if not impossible to eliminate. They syphon the wealth out of this nation and transplant it into third-world mudholes while our own people must compete with them for even the most demeaning of jobs, and this is in times of prospertity. They are mongrolizing our American culture that was once based upon the values of the European immigrants who came here decades ago, and now one can hear the obnoxious Mariachi "music" blearing from cars and houses where once quiet white folks had lived. One cannot turn on even broadcast (free) TV without encountering at least one station chattering in Spanish.
What causes this is the political machine that runs this nation and its kosher masters who aspire to not only breed our race into oblivion, but to also destroy the classic Aryan values and culture that made this nation a world power in the first place. There is no mention of keeping these uncivilized morons out of our country, but only that of "tolerance" and of making "cross-cultural understanding" (whatever that means), and other such Orwellian buzzwords designed to distract the white American mind from the fact that our country is being taken from us and our heritage is being compromised; that our very genetics are targeted for extinction.
Now these same masters in Europe have the same nightmare in store for you, and in some nations (England, the Netherlands, Germany) they have such an effective start that we may never be able to reclaim our lands without such bloodletting and woeful violence that could in its own destroy our race in a funeral pyre of racial strife, and that is only if our people can overcome this forced culture (propaganda, really) of racial suicide.

Razmig
Monday, November 22nd, 2004, 10:07 PM
No way ! for several reaons :
- Turkish culture is too different of the european culture
There is no such thing as Turkish culture

- Geographicaly Turkey is not in Europe but in Asia
Eurasia is the name of the continent...Europe is a term that has fluxuated throughout time, for many centuries it was just the lands West of Greece.


- Turkey have never recognized the genocide of the armenians in 1916 and today Turkey always don't take care of the human right.
What about the Smyrnian genocides? Cypriot, Macedonian, Albanian, Bulgarian genocides? How about the Lebanese persecutions? On one hand you have common sense that it was wrong, on the other you will have people calling those asking for recognition dirty Jews.


- The enter of Turkey in EU would cause a great Turkish immigration in Europe, in Germany there is already 7 million of Turks ;(
Not admitting them wont stop them...Its the UN and the existance of the EU to begin with that destroys Europe, they are both evil organizations, globalists and DUH theyre going to incorporate Turkey!!


- The entry of Turkey would curb the growth and economy of european countries because Turkey have a big economic backwardness The EU is a backwards attempt to boost Europeas economy in the first place...in fact its doing the opposite...its destroying it with the Euro.


- USA want Turkey enter because Turkey is the best ally of USA o the entry of Turkey would permit at USA to have a better control of EU Turkey and Isreal control the United States foreign affairs...The EU loves Turkey and is just prolonging their entrance for show.


- If Turkey enter in EU their population who is one of the most big of europe ( 67,8 millions) would permit at Turkey to have more seat in the European parliament and in this way could permit to Turkey to vote laws of Europe. Well DUH, these major organizations that have a foot hold in the EU and the UN want civil unrest in Europe, its what gives them the upper hand in economic matters...wake up dude...Europe is ALREADY Turkey.



With all this reasons anybody have only one good reason for let enter a non-european country in our Europe ???
It's like the issue here in America. Voting is not whats going to help...a reform and a revolution is what this god damn world needs...but everyones too much of a coward to do something about it when us middle men are doing all the preaching and organizing. This doesn't just limit itself within the boundries of USA UN or EU, its a worldwide pan-Europid effort that will help solve this degrading culture thats destroying what our ancestors died for.

Odhinnskriger
Friday, December 17th, 2004, 02:04 AM
I do agree with SS Charlemagne. The EU has become a farce with its multi-ethnicity policy. Western Europe has a cultural identity (thanks to our ancestors) but it is losing it as we speak. If Turkey becomes part of Europe, European nations will be flooded with immigrants and the European economy will sink even further due to the (poor) economy of Turkey. And the fact that Turkey is a Muslim country enrages me even more. Europe doesn’t need a gateway to Muslim, or for that matter, Jewish states. Drastic measures need to be taken to prevent such things.

As for the Euro being a cause of Europe’s downfall, it’s wrong, knowing that the U.S. actually controls the world economy. Bush does not want to raise the dollar to the Euro because they would have to export less and would have to import more, thus destroying the U.S. economy. Obviously, it’s all a matter of priority. In any case, everything is controlled by Zionists.

Deling
Friday, December 17th, 2004, 02:15 AM
Turkey being part of the EU won't occur. Neither will the EU expand much more; except for Croatia, Bulgaria and probably Rumania. It just isn't possible to keep such a large multi-lateral superstructure with so many players involved. It will crush decision-making inside the union.