Stanley, Author at Our Continent

Being pro-European is an expression of patriotism

Stanley — Wed, 06 Dec 2017 22:12:00 +0000

Whether one is aware of it or not, we are currently witnessing a kind of European awakening, the rise of a pan-European collective identity. Such an awakening is not a revolution, not a sudden shift, but a gradual, decades-long process in which average inhabitants of our continent identify more and more as Europeans. It does not mean that Europeans will lose their national identities, just as the rise of nationalism in previous centuries did not mean the eradication of regional identities. It simply means that an increasing number of people will realize that they are, besides members of a local and a national community, part of a vast, diverse, millennia-old civilization called Europe.

There is not one single type of Europeanism. People’s ideas on Europe differ as much as people’s views on other issues. Some left-leaning people are only pro-European because they are anti-nationalist and see the EU as a springboard to a globalized, borderless world. Some right-wingers are pro-European only in a cultural sense, but call for the very destruction of the European Union. Both extreme positions are harmful, both would inevitably lead to the destruction of our European community, either by fading away in the chaos of unrestricted globalization or by breaking up in ever smaller, rivaling fragments.

We, in the meantime, try to promote an enlightened middle way, a type of Europeanism that is indeed truly pro-European. We do promote open borders, but strictly inside the EU; Schengen cannot function without strong outside borders. Furthermore, we would never argue against Europeans’ national identities, but instead, want to complement these identities with a macro-national, civilizational layer. We are fiercely pro-EU, not because the EU is perfect, but because it is the largest, most peaceful, political embodiment of our civilization in history.

European unity is not only beneficial for our continent as a whole, it also boosts our individual countries, their wealth and their position and influence in the world. Slowly but surely, people are starting to realize that being pro-European is in fact an expression of patriotism. The European Union needs much improvement, that is certain, but it can never be abandoned, because, in the 21st century, it is the only chance at greatness we have, for our countries individually and for our civilization as a whole.

The post Being pro-European is an expression of patriotism appeared first on Our Continent.

Independent Kurdistan: a tragic fate

Stanley — Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:52:41 +0000

The struggle for an independent Kurdistan reminds me a bit of the situation in Catalonia. People around the world are sympathetic to their cause, but all surrounding governments oppose any step towards independence. For a moment, both nations had hoped for outside support, but as the only thing they found was deafening silence, the Catalans, like the Kurds, grew bitter and disillusioned. The similarities stop when we compare the political contexts of the Kurdish and Catalan cases. Where Catalonia has been the economic ‘power house’ of Spain – a peaceful, wealthy and democratic country – Kurdistan’s men and woman have known nothing but war for many generations; against Saddam, against ISIS and now against the Shiite-Arab-run government in Baghdad.

Like in the case of Catalonia, I am not unsympathetic towards an independent Kurdistan, but I have some serious concerns about the possible consequences of independence. The Kurds deserve a homeland of their own, especially after the courage Kurdish men and women showed in the face of ISIS’ onslaught. However, decades of conflict have raised tensions between ethnic groups in the region, and the creation of an independent state could move some Kurds to try to avenge past grievances on non-Kurdish minorities. Already there have been reports of Kurds expelling Arabs in the regions which are under their control, and independence might increase even more the wish for ethnic homogeneity. In that way, it is not unimaginable, not even very unlikely, that we will see large-scale ethnic cleansing taking place as soon as Kurdish independence is achieved.

If we think then of the fact that there is also an Iranian, a Syrian and a Turkish Kurdistan, brutal conflicts raging between Shiites and Sunnis, and many political tensions between those and other groups across the region, we can start to imagine why any type of independence is such a delicate issue. The re-drawing of Middle Eastern borders along ethno-linguistic or ethno-religious lines could set in motion massive forced population transfers, similar to what happened in Eastern Europe after 1918. In addition, given the myriad of ethnic and religious fault lines, any newly-declared state is at risk of immediately being invaded by a hostile country. Because of these possible consequences, we must be careful when lending our support to any such movements in the Middle East. We must observe the situation attentively, and, at the same time, realize that we in Europe have come a long way. Perhaps we can rejoice, for a short while, about the fact that we Europeans, today, solve our differences in a more peaceful manner.

The post Independent Kurdistan: a tragic fate appeared first on Our Continent.

Catalan independence: what does it mean for Europe?

Stanley — Wed, 04 Oct 2017 19:04:34 +0000

Unlike many political issues today, the question of Catalan independence does not play out in left versus right. There are people from both ends of the political spectrum that support Spanish unity and praise the tough response of the Spanish police during the referendum, just like there are left- aswell as right-wing supporters of Catalan independence, who call for a quick secession from Spain and who accuse the Spanish government of dictatorial behavior.

The pro-European camp is equally divided on the issue; some say Catalan independence would be a pure expression of democracy on our continent, others want EU leaders to ignore the referendum and follow the line of Madrid in order to prevent further division. There is something to say for both positions. Ideally, European nations should be equal partners under a democratic administration in Brussels. There is no principle reason, from our perspective, to keep nations imbedded in an intermediary administrative structure (in this case Spain), if the majority of their members do not wish so. On the other hand, Catalan secession would not only mean the break-up of a major European country, it would also mean the further division of the EU itself – just at a time when pro-EU forces are making a comeback and support for Brexit has hit an all-time low.

Any weakening of Europe means a relative victory for its adversaries; Putin, the far right and far left, and the forces of Radical Islam. Moreover, it is hard to imagine that Catalonia itself would benefit from leaving Spain (and the EU) because it would suddenly be disconnected from the largest single market in the world. The Catalans then must start a tiresomely long and difficult process of EU entry negotiations – which have become much stricter after the entry of Romania and Bulgaria in 2007 – and would likely be blocked by Spain from ever becoming a member. In the short term, Catalonian secession means a severe escalation of the political chaos in Spain, and perhaps even more violence. And considering the fact that only 42% of voters showed up – or were able to enter voting stations – arguing that Catalonia’s regional government now has an overwhelming mandate for independence would be an overstatement.

Concluding, we principally believe the Catalans have the right to self-determination in the framework of a united Europe. However, with only a minority of voters taking part in the (officially illegal) referendum, the current tense situation in Spain, Europe and the world, and the prospect of a major political calamity, we believe Catalonia would be wise to steer towards de-escalation. We acknowledge that Spain’s response has not helped to ease tensions, neither has the silence of most EU leaders, but all eyes are now on Catalonia. It is for the Catalans to show the rest of Europe some common sense and try to negotiate a peaceful compromise.

The post Catalan independence: what does it mean for Europe? appeared first on Our Continent.

Do you speak European? – Language and Identity in a United Europe

Stanley — Fri, 22 Sep 2017 12:18:17 +0000

One of the ways in which the magnificent cultural diversity of Europe manifests itself, is in the multiplicity of languages. A vast range of language variants are native to our continent, tens of them are standardized into written form – in at least three different alphabets; many of these serving as the national language for one or more European countries. The European Parliament uses 24 different official languages, which all need interpreters to translate in real time during parliamentary sessions, and translators for all written documentation. More than 9 in 10 Europeans speak a language from the Indo-European language family, most belong to either the Germanic, Romance or Slavic branch. Then there are also smaller Indo-European branches, like Baltic, Celtic or Greek, and languages like Finnish or Maltese, which are part of other families. And finally Basque, which is an isolate with no proven connection to any other language on the planet.

In such a complex linguistic environment, how can we achieve the effective communication that is essential for a strong, united Europe? According to critics, the main obstacle against European integration is the lack of a common European language. According to them, the absence of a unifying language demonstrates that there is no such thing as a ‘European people’. However, a look at other diverse peoples around the world, shows us that multilingualism can go perfectly hand-in-hand with a strong sense of identity. Indians, for example, feel unmistakably Indian; but speak many different languages. The same can be said about Chinese and Indonesians. And one does not even have to look outside of our continent’s borders. Within every European country one finds different subgroups with different regional language variants, sometimes not understandable by their co-nationals from other regions. This does not mean that language is not an important unifying factor for groups of people, but simply that communities are rarely limited to one single language.

Nonetheless, it is true that societies around the world generally have a dominant language, a so-called lingua franca, which helps people of different language backgrounds work and live together. In India that language is Hindi, in Indonesia it is Bahasa Indonesia, and in China it is Mandarin. In Europe, now and in the foreseeable future – whether we like it or not – that language is English. When Europeans with different native languages meet, in the vast majority of cases, they will converse in English. Little more than half the European population speaks English at a conversational level – almost the same percentage of Indians knows Hindi. The percentages of people in China and Indonesia that speak their respective dominant languages are higher, but nowhere near the level of any European nation-state. Even if the UK leaves the European Union – which seems increasingly difficult – English will continue to be Europe’s lingua franca, and, as younger generations inherit our continent, the number of English-speakers will grow exponentially.

While future Europeans will mostly speak English with their peers from other corners of the continent, they will never forget their native tongue. Governments, schools and parents should continue to stimulate – besides teaching children to master their national language – education in one or more major EU languages – German, French, Italian, Spanish, Polish- or any other European language. Moreover, we must continue to value and protect all those hundreds of regional languages that compose the cultural treasure that is our continent.

The post Do you speak European? – Language and Identity in a United Europe appeared first on Our Continent.

Enlightenment Values: Ideas that shape our Civilization

Stanley — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 12:06:15 +0000

Central to our idea of pan-Europeanism are the values of the Enlightenment. These values not only differentiate Europe and the West from other civilizations, they also distinguish our political vision at OurContinent.EU from both the far-right and the far-left. Each fringe of the political spectrum has its own particular reason not to embrace the Enlightenment’s legacy. For the far-right, Enlightenment values are the outcome of a process of cultural degeneration, of a Europe that went astray, betraying its primordial spiritual roots. While for the far-left, the Enlightenment is an over-rational, Eurocentric ideology created by privileged white men, which does not take into account the sensitivities of other cultures.

Before listing and defining the most important Enlightenment values – which is the scope of this article – I will first shortly define the Enlightenment itself. The period which bears this name, most historians would agree, started in the early modern age; 17th or 18^th century, depending on whom you ask. It was an era of great technological and intellectual development, a shift of focus from faith to reason, from religious dogmatism to rationalism and from collectivism to individualism. Indifferent of the Enlightenment’s inception, it is generally accepted that the French Revolution, in an intellectual sense, was both the result of, and a catalyst for the spread of Enlightenment values. In the centuries that followed the 1789-Revolution, these values took firm root in all European societies, be it with different speeds and intensities.

What follows are, in my opinion, the most important values of the Enlightenment, values that are, and should remain at the core of Europeans’ political consciousness.

Citizenship – People are not mere subjects, but citizens of a political community. Citizens are bestowed with certain rights, but also have duties towards their community.
Rule of Law – Society is governed according to a set of established rules that apply uniformly to every citizen. These rules work to avoid randomness and arbitrary use of power and make sure people are treated equally in equal cases.
Democracy – Governing society takes place at the hands of representatives who are chosen for a limited period by adult citizens in free and fair elections.
Freedom of Conscience – Every citizen is free to publicly express his or her views, as long as they don’t lead to harm for others (Freedom of Speech) Citizens are also free to practice any religious, spiritual or philosophical tradition of their own choice (Freedom of Religion)
Secularism – A clear separation between organized religion and government. The enforcement of religious doctrines is not a task for politicians. The enforcement of laws is not a task for members of the clergy.
Gender Equality – Men and women enjoy equal rights and are treated according to the same standards as far as biological gender differences allow.

Despite the fact that this is not a complete or definite list of all Enlightenment values – and some people might use other definitions or typologies than the ones used above – this overview can function as a guideline for the values that shape the political consciousness of our continent. Of course, there are many ethnic, religious and cultural elements, which often predate the Enlightenment, that play an equally important role. We dealt and will continue to deal with these in other articles. My intention here was to give an insight into the Enlightenment values that are theoretically universal, but were born and cultivated by Europeans over the past two centuries and could therefore justifiably be called: European values.

The post Enlightenment Values: Ideas that shape our Civilization appeared first on Our Continent.

Denial and Apathy during Germany’s Elections

Stanley — Tue, 05 Sep 2017 15:37:48 +0000

The official economic stats on Europe’s largest economy look as good as ever, but Germany has changed, some would say unrecognizably, after more than a decade under Chancellor Angela Merkel. I recently visited several German cities and indeed felt the confusion, the fear and also the anger in the air. Especially the large urban areas bore little resemblance to the easy-going, pleasant Germany I knew from numerous vacation trips in my youth. To be perfectly frank, my surprise was mostly due to the discovery that mass migration from the 3rd world has had a much greater impact on the demographics of the country than I had anticipated.

Some places, like Dortmund or Hannover, appear to have become more than half Middle Eastern; headscarves are all around, and Arabic is heard with almost the same frequency as the German language. Groups of migrant men hang in front of the train station, stroll through the center, or sleep on the grass of the parks. The original population, meanwhile, is clearly not at ease with the situation. Faces full of worry move through the streets, or nostalgically observe, from behind a glass of beer on a terrace, how their city is not the same anymore. The demographic fears are, moreover, enhanced by growing economic inequality, which is linked to Germany’s neo-liberal austerity dogmatism, and one does not have to search far to see its effects. It was particularly shocking to encounter so many homeless older Germans, begging for money and even looking for food in public garbage bins.

More than one million migrants came to Germany in the year 2015 alone, after an open invitation by Chancellor Angela Merkel, without consulting the population or even her political allies at home or in Europe. In fact, warnings from politicians, academics, journalists and ordinary citizens were not simply ignored, but often branded with the stamp of “selfishness”, “xenophobia” or “racism”. Overnight, Merkel had decided that Germany should embrace a so-called welcome culture, and most media outlets uncritically followed this narrative. The mass sexual assaults in Cologne, a terror attack on a Christmas Market in Berlin, and numerous other incidents of unthinkable brutality seem to have done little to change the public discourse. Actually, the imported violence has driven the supporters of Merkel’s “welcome culture” into the realm of denial and irrational belief in which an alleged moral duty to help those in need overwrites any national security concerns. In this worldview, humanitarianism is the highest virtue – not for the people of Germany, but for the world as a whole – a virtue that is personified by Angela Merkel. It is therefore that criticism of Merkel can easily be bent by her supporters as ‘anti-humanitarian’, ‘anti-immigrant’ and ‘far-right’. Given Germany’s brutal history, making such accusations against opponents is politically highly effective.

Despite the terror attacks, the socio-cultural tensions and inequality on display, there are still few Germans who publically dare to go against Merkel. Even Martin Schulz, Merkel’s only real competitor in the September 2017 German elections, has not dared to criticize what many now consider a historic mistake, namely Merkel’s ‘refugee invitation’. In the election debate, the one critical point Schulz could bring up with regards to Germany’s immigration policy, was the fact that Merkel did not coordinate well with other European countries. For the rest, Schulz even tried to ‘out-virtue’ the Chancellor in xenophilia by quoting Islamic poetry and repeating an earlier statement saying: ‘refugees bring to Germany something more valuable than gold’. The Alternative for Germany, or AfD, is the one party that does criticize Merkel on migration, but it is small, plagued by internal division and scandals, and has alleged links with the Kremlin and far right groups abroad. Equally important, the AfD rejects European integration while Germans are among the most pro-EU people one can find.

All this leaves ordinary German voters with a sense of utter powerlessness. A new demographic reality has been forced upon them, sparking new cultural tensions, increasing crime and even bringing along horrors Germans had no longer thought possible in their country. But public criticism of this new reality is still a massive taboo maintained by most media, most politicians and many public institutions like schools and universities. With the choice in the 2017 German elections being between Merkel and Schulz, who differ close to nothing when it comes to immigration, a general sense of apathy has taken hold of Germany. Apparently, Germany’s prominent politicians have learned nothing from the discontent that caused the popularity of both Brexit and Trump in the UK and US. They seem determined to continue on the current path, which will bring enough voters to the voting booth, but will leave many others at home feeling betrayed. Without the prospect of change, Germany’s anger will linger and grow, and I am afraid it might one day come back with a vengeance.

The post Denial and Apathy during Germany’s Elections appeared first on Our Continent.

Defend Europe: Nazi-hipsters or concerned citizens?

Stanley — Fri, 25 Aug 2017 13:24:57 +0000

They have regularly made the news headlines lately: the youngsters of Defend Europe. “Far-right”, “anti-immigrant” and “Nazi-hipsters” are some of the unflattering terms used by commentators to describe the participants of this ambitiously named project. Defend Europe is an initiative to counter illegal mass immigration to Europe and was set up by Generation Identity, an organization of self-proclaimed patriots from several European countries. Because the project is concerned with some of the same issues that we frequently write about, the time has come for us to subject Defend Europe to a frank analysis.

To be clear from the start, we are no friends of the far-right. We have consistently written to denounce Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen in the run-offs to the Dutch and French elections, and have also spent many hours on social media debating Alt-right “Frogmen”, Brexiteers and Putin-apologists. Besides their illiberal tendencies and flirtations with authoritarianism, we also detest the anti-Europeanism that is inherent to most far-right groups. The fringes of the right tend to think that only the complete breakup of the European Union can solve our continent’s problems, including the problem of mass immigration. What is different about Defend Europe is that, on the topic of immigration, it does not share the self-harmful ‘solutions’ of the far-right; reinstating national borders, secession of member states, reversal of European integration. Instead, the founders of the Defend Europe-project seemingly realized that the only sustainable solution for the Migrant Crisis is to work together and collectively enforce the outside borders of our continent. We cannot but agree, we need strong European borders, not national ones, because illegal mass migration is a threat to Europe as a whole, not just to our individual nations.

Defend Europe acquired a ship which it uses to patrol the Mediterranean Sea around the coast of Libya, the area where many migrants are picked up by ‘humanitarian’ NGOs and taken to the European mainland. The Defend Europe-project has three straightforward objectives: 1 – Monitor the activities of the NGOs and report if they are doing anything illegal. 2 – Destroy any empty migrant boats that they find so they cannot be re-used. 3 – Save any migrants that are in danger at sea, but bring them not to Europe but back to Africa. Regardless of the overall worldview of the people of Defend Europe, we cannot think of any reason to disagree with these three objectives. We are less enthusiastic about the fact that private citizens’ groups, instead of government institutions, are pursuing these aims. However, we think it is understandable nonetheless. Wherever governments fail to protect the rule of law and public safety, citizens step in. This is true across the world, including in Europe.

The organizers of Defend Europe can congratulate themselves. With the help of only one ship and their social media accounts, they managed to get the attention of most major European news outlets. Even if many reporters depicted Defend Europe as a creepy racist vigilante group, they nevertheless got Europeans talking about the issue of illegal migration. Meanwhile, the Italian government has started supervising and even criminally investigating certain NGOs for helping human traffickers, and Libyan authorities have increased their efforts to prevent more people from crossing the sea. The result is that the number of migrants arriving in Europe has actually started to drop. The degree of influence Defend Europe had these developments is debatable, though it is excellent PR for them. More important is that wheels have been set in motion. Action is being taken against mass migration on both sides of the Mediterranean, and we are confident in saying that this is exactly what the vast majority of Europeans wants.

The post Defend Europe: Nazi-hipsters or concerned citizens? appeared first on Our Continent.

The Jihad Apologist Agenda

Stanley — Tue, 22 Aug 2017 22:03:12 +0000

After the Putin Apologist Agenda, we present to you: the Jihad Apologist Agenda. Find out what are the favourite agenda points, arguments and ways of reasoning used by apologists of Radical Islam. Handy, when you need to debate an obnoxious Jihad apologist!

The Jihad Apologist agenda:

Not true Islam – Islam is a religion of peace, period. Islamic terrorism is not ‘true Islam’ and its perpetrators are not ‘true Muslims’. Even if Jihadists cite the Koran while literally enacting the violence from its pages, they are simply misinterpreting the text and perverting the faith. ‘True Islam’ is not the actions of Islamic believers, nor the words from the Islamic scriptures, but Islam is an ungraspable, spiritual essence of peace, goodness and love. If someone fails to understand this, he or she is bigoted against Muslims, and therefore against brown people, and is thus an Islamophobic racist.
Not all Muslims – Falsely accuse any critic of Islam of being against all Muslims. “You cannot put away an entire religion!” “Not all Muslims are terrorists!” “You are painting everybody with a broad brush!” If they deny generalizing, say that their words are nevertheless felt like they are against all Muslims. Now, having informed them of this fact, continuing their criticism would confirm that they are actually the anti-Muslims bigots you claimed they were.
Muslims are victims – Because of colonialism, imperialism, racism and other forms of Western oppression, Muslims around the world are, and always will be victims. Global followers of Islam are ‘underdogs’ who, lacking power and privilege, cannot actually be held accountable for their own bad decisions and actions. If a Muslim country violates human rights, it is because the West has created the conditions for it. If a Jihadist blows up children, it is because Western Islamophobia has driven him to radicalization. One’s primary response after any act of Jihadist violence in the West must be to worry about the public image of Islam and its adherents. Only afterwards, one can look at the victims to see if there are any Muslims among them, who one can use to strengthen one’s argument.
The West is just as bad – Portraying Islam as tolerant and peace-loving, is not an easy task given the frequent terror attacks. It is much easier to deflect the attention by stating that “the West is just as bad”. For every injustice committed in the name of Islam, come up with an injustice by any Western person, country or entity, real or perceived, now or in the past.
Minimize Islamic terrorism – Besides arguing that the West is no better than ISIS because it invaded Iraq, or repeating that most terror victims are Muslims themselves, one can try to minimize the problem of Islamic terrorism altogether. Invoke all kinds of comparisons with other, unrelated causes of death, and employ crafty statistics to argue that the death toll from Islamic terrorism is negligible and, thus, there is actually nothing to worry about. “Way more people die of car crashes, and you hear nobody being angry about that!”
The ‘right wing’ is the true enemy – The true enemy of our free and peaceful society is not Radical Islam, but anything ‘right wing’. The ‘right wing’ is against all Muslims, and all foreigners for that matter, and should be countered and stopped. Therefore, it is necessary to launch pre-emptive (verbal) assaults on ‘the right’ after every act of Islamic terrorism. We cannot let them abuse tragedies for their own political gains!
Against hate and division – Finally, emphasize being “against hate and division” and “pro-diversity and tolerance”. However, any possible “hate and division” coming from Islam is none of our business because we must look at ourselves first (and forever) before we can lecture others. If anybody dares to suggest otherwise, he or she is the one spreading hate and division, and should shut up. “Stop dividing society! This is exactly what the terrorists want!”

(The idea to create these “agenda’s” of our political opponents, like the Jihad Apologist agenda and the Putin Apologist agenda, was inspired by the “Regressive Agenda”, which critically outlines the view points of the regressive left and was created by video artist Devon Tracy)

The post The Jihad Apologist Agenda appeared first on Our Continent.

The Putin Apologist Agenda

Stanley — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 18:51:01 +0000

OurContinent presents: the Putin Apologist Agenda. Find out what are the most common agenda points, arguments and ways of arguing used by apologists of Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Very handy, if you need to debate them!

The Putin Apologist agenda:

1- There is no such thing as truth – Accepting certain things as facts is a question of loyalty, not of truth seeking. If the facts speak against Putin’s Russia, create confusion. It’s not about proving Putin right, but about convincing people that there is no right. “What can one really know? Nothing is certain. No one will ever find out what is true anyway.”

2- “The West is just as bad” – Portraying Putin’s Russia like a free and peace-loving country would be an almost impossible task. It is much easier to deflect the attention by stating that ‘the West is just as bad”. For every injustice committed by the Russian regime, you come up with an injustice by any Western country, real or perceived, now or in the past.

3- Selective suspicion of the media – Because most Western media report on Putin’s crimes, label them ‘mainstream’ and ‘fake news’, and only trust media that claim to be ‘against the mainstream’, like unofficial online outlets, social media accounts and media owned by the Russian state, like RT and Sputnik. The only criteria is that they have to be pro-Putin.

4- Complain about “Russophobia” – Despite their country’s size and nuclear arsenal, Russians are actually an oppressed minority in the world, misunderstood and stigmatized by everyone. Russia is the eternal victim of the West, of the media, and of history. All of Putin’s transgressions are justified because of this victimhood. To make this clear, constantly complain about bigotry and prejudice against Russians, so-called “Russophobia”.

5- Forget Putin’s friends – Whether you are politically left or right, there is always a way to align Putin’s position with your own, just forget about all those friends of his that you don’t like. If you are right-wing, you see Putin as an enemy of Islamism and the left, conveniently forgetting his alliance with Iran, Hezbollah and Venezuela. If you are a leftist Putin apologist, you depict the Russian president as heading a struggle against Western “fascism” and “imperialism”, but ignore his far-right friends in Europe and the US.

6- “Not pro-Russia, just anti-war” – Instead of admitting that you are an apologist for a dictatorship that invades its neighbours, you claim that your defence of Putin’s Russia has, in fact, very noble intentions. Your goal is simply to prevent further escalation between Russia and the West. You are nothing less than a hero who jumps in to protect the scared Russians who feel threatened by Western imperialism. You are “not pro-Russia per se, but just anti-war”.

If you think it is unfair to single out Putin fans, we promise to upload soon a similar agenda about jihad-apologists.

(The idea to create this “agenda” of our political opponents was inspired by the “Regressive Agenda”, which critically outlines the points of the regressive left and was created by video artist Devon Tracy)

The post The Putin Apologist Agenda appeared first on Our Continent.

The Columns of the Parthenon towering above Athens, one of the cradles of European civilization

Stanley — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 18:27:08 +0000

For more than two millennia, the columns of the Parthenon have been towering above Athens, one of the cradles of European civilization. The people who erected this and similar marvellous structures during Classical Antiquity were the founding fathers of modern day science, law and philosophy. Their legacy has been mediated and passed on by generations of Europeans throughout the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, onto us, the 21st century inhabitants of this great continent. Ancient Greek Temples, of which the Parthenon is the most famous, do not belong to Greece alone. Not only Italians are justifiably overwhelmed by pride at the sight of the majestic Roman colosseum. The Era of Classical Antiquity constituted the genesis of our civilization, and therefore, belongs to every European, now and in the future.

The post The Columns of the Parthenon towering above Athens, one of the cradles of European civilization appeared first on Our Continent.