Thank you, I didn't have time at the moment to reflect on this, but I read your pointers.

As far as I understand then, Soros and some other influential people think that a more federalized and mixed world without strict ethnical or national borders would be a good thing.

In fact, in their opinion then, it seems that Europe should become something much more like the US, would you agree?

While that was news to me (as I mentioned, I haven't been following the global politics), at least I see that their agenda and ideas are not intrinsically hidden. Of course, there would be some obscure ways on how they try to influence those in the power, however, the direction seems to be reasonably clear.

To be frank, I have to learn more before I decide for myself, whether such a goal is a bad or good idea.

My recent considerations on the movement, which by definition opposes the perceived Soros' way: nationallism, -- have led me to suspect that nationalism is valuable for preservation of a society and culture, while it is an underdog. If we take the example of Latvia, I think nationalism and the Awakening movement were principal in providing an opposition to the occupation and guiding Latvia towards self-determination.

However, after regaining independence, it seems to me that Latvian nationalism has turned rather ugly. The nationalists of today frequently emphasize external enemies, unreasonable levels of bigotry -- it has become more of an ideology of fear than survival.

Therefore, I am in two minds about the whole thing of federalization vs sovereignity, and would still need to absorb much more information.

At any rate, thank you for the extensive reply, it was quite interesting to learn a bit more about the stance of those people.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I agree and thanks for your thanks - I am as wary of some nationalist groups as I am suspicious of federalists (or globalists).

But, I am quite rigid on one thing: I despise the commonly held assumption among the intelligentsia (and wanna-be-considered educated) that there is a point of view that is indicative of intelligence, rationality and erudition - and an opposing point of view that is suggestive of stupidity, paranoia and being conspiracy-theory prone.
I mention this because you can see the Brexit campaign (federalism vs nationalism) as a clear example of this. Considering a Leave Vote? you must be thick or racist (and clearly white). The migrant crisis debate is similar here in Latvia - if the articles in Satori are anything to go by.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

That seems to be quite true, yes.

Instead of rational consideration of arguments, intelligentsia too frequently seems to be just as prone to ritual discourse as the rest of us. Unfortunately.

(Reply to this) (Parent)