George 2: "In the 20th century, socialism was one of the forces which helped to liberate and advance people in Europe. For me, the relatively high levels of almost free education and health care are result from this...As a European I am proud that Europe differentiates itself with these 'free' systems compared to the rest of the world."
 
According to hardline socialists, these developments occurred for less noble reasons, namely: (a) to kick-start Western economies in the spirit of Keynesianism, and (b) to ward off a potential revolt by the low or working class which seemed very possible in the 1930s and which had already occurred in Russia, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc. Socialists regarded "social democracy" as merely a ploy by the bourgeois to retain control rather than a wholehearted attempt at social justice.
 
George 2: "The USSR tried to push socialism to the extreme. It went bankrupt. The same counts for...China..."
 
I find this inaccurate. Both the Russian Empire and China were underdeveloped states according to the standards of the industrialized West, and their economies remained largely agrarian. Secondly, their economic weakness resulted in their vulnerability to foreign powers e.g. military inferiority, foreign intervention. Thirdly, their internal political systems were incredibly corrupt and autocratic. Fourthly, and most importantly of all, their socio-economic structures left little room for a middle class. The only reason that Russia and China chose "scientific socialism" was because it was not expansionist: the goal of each Communist Party was to secure their respective territories, develop and defend them. After the Japanese invasion and Civil War, Chinese peasants could not have suffered through or even mounted a war of expansion; intervention in North Korea, etc. notwithstanding. Indeed, even a modicum of socio-economic improvement, combined with the certainty of peace "won the hearts and minds" of Soviet citizens and enabled them to endure horrific internal repression.
 
George 2: "Extreme socialism does not survive because it ignores a basic fact of human nature: not all people behave in the same way. Some of them want to be followers, a few want to be leaders and express themselves accordingly with big cars and other adornments. Capitalism allows this type of behavior. In Western Europe, this type of behavior is allowed to some degree."
 
All forms of egalitarianism ignore basic human nature. Social democracy or its admixture to liberal (capitalist) democracy works when redistribution is out of charity or luxury rather than an end in and of itself i.e. people want to ensure there are as little homeless people as possible on the streets and are willing to pay higher taxes for it, or cleaner cities, etc., etc.

"In the 20th century, socialism was one of the forces which helped to liberate and advance people in Europe."

Like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic?

Socialist governments murdered millions of people in the 20th century... and you think it "helped" and "liberated" people?

Nuts!

In the 20th century, socialism was one of the forces which helped to liberate and advance people in Europe. For me, the relatively high levels of almost free education and health care are result from this. I admire the US for being what it is. As a European I am proud that Europe differentiates itself with these 'free' systems compared to the rest of the world. The abuse of these 'free' systems is also obvious besides the benefits.

The USSR tried to push socialism to the extreme. It went bankrupt. The same counts for North Korea, China, Eastern Europe etc. They are all moving away from communism, the extreme form of socialism. Extreme socialism does not survive because it ignores a basic fact of human nature: not all people behave in the same way. Some of them want to be followers, a few want to be leaders and express themselves accordingly with big cars and other adornments. Capitalism allows this type of behavior. In Western Europe, this type of behavior is allowed to some degree.

The behavior that came along with the achievement of these socialist goals was one with a highly sexual (under)tone, lots of noise etc. It basically said: here I am. The guy with the big car is not saying anything different.

In the mean time, it has become clear that Europe too has gone too far with socialism, simply because it is not payable. Some countries like France and Italy seem to be very slow in realizing this. So the socialist goals have to be turned back. The only thing that is left for the socialists is their behavior. It is the behavior that has become the goal now: sex and big (supra) state projects like the EU, and fighting CO2.

I think most Europeans agree on some (smaller) form of the EU. Isn’t it time that those leftist and/or political correct politicians start to adjust their behavior to the current socio-economic situation in Europe, one of less socialism and more responsibility. The time of flower power, overt sex and emo-politics is over. These people are not leading. They are lagging behind with their type of behavior. They are as ridiculously out of sync with the European population as the guy with crocodile leather shoes, white satin socks, expensive dark pin striped suit, orange shirt and green tie in a black Rolls. And Wallstrom is probably also trying to express that she is way past her prime sexual attractiveness. If she can’t express it in bed, why not screaming it out in a video.

Amsterdamsky: "Damn, I am sold now.  MORE EU PORNO PLEASE!! This is the best thing the EU has ever done with my tax money although 2 euro a bottle EU subsidized French wine is probably a close second."
 
If it wasn't for readily available porn and cheap alcohol, I'd blow myself up.

Elaib Harvey: "...a recent example being that film about suicide bombers in Palestine, Paradise Now."
 
I remember that film quite well. Though I thought the latter segment was interesting, I disagreed with its overall theme, namely that Palestinians turn to suicide bombing when they have limited or no opportunities i.e. economic (employment) and social (friends, family, girlfriends, wives, etc.). Neither of the brothers seemed to vehemently hate Israel, they came across as merely being bored and restless. Moreover, the film fortunately did not depict at length Israeli 'atrocities' against Palestinians.
 
I does bother me that Brussels funded a film which is not European at all, although it does promote Brussels' perspective with regards to violence - that its cause is solely socio-economic inequality. Unfortunately, this is false. Disorganized violence is perpetrated by individuals from all possible situations and backgrounds; furthermore, the organized variety is usually instigated by social actors above the teeming masses, who merely use the latter as cannon fodder. The Imams are not quick to take their own advice, anymore than the National Socialist leadership was prepared to fight on the Eastern Front, though many middle and upper class youths from the napolas were hastily drafted into Goebbels' ill-fated Volkssturm. Moreover, every single rebellion or revolution is led by disaffected individuals from the middle and upper classes e.g. Europe's peasant rebellions, the English Civil War, the French Revolution, etc. Thus, socio-economic inequality does not necessarily breed major violence if this cause is not adopted by those with enough intelligence and ambition to mobilize the masses. Yugoslavia, World War II, Rwanda, etc., had little to do with economics, even if they shaped the course of events...
 
 

'although 2 euro a bottle EU subsidized French wine is probably a close second.'

Bet it tastes like piss.

Kapitein " Thirdly, the nature of the video would be offensive to all religious fundamentalists, and Muslims in particular."
 
Damn, I am sold now.  MORE EU PORNO PLEASE!! This is the best thing the EU has ever done with my tax money although 2 euro a bottle EU subsidized French wine is probably a close second.

Sorry about this my dear but you are wrong.
The film is to promote the EU, in this case the EU's MEDIA project. This is a project by which the EU gets itself, or at least tries to get itself, covered in glory by the state funding of film projects. A recent example being that film about suicide bombers in Palestine, Paradise Now. Of course as I am sure you are aware the "Lets come together" strapline has nothing to do with promoting films, rather it is a (pretty naff) attempt to make a sexualised joke around the EU's 50th birthday slogan "Together".
Is is disgusting? No of course not. Is is cheap, tawdry and tacky? Yes. Does it pander to the progressive dumbing down of society? Yes. Does it show the desperation of those who place themselves over us and govern us? Yes.
Is it a waste of my money? Yes absolutely.
 
 
Elaib Harvey

Firstly, the video is to promote European films rather than the European Union itself. Secondly, the clips are all derived from European films. Thirdly, the nature of the video would be offensive to all religious fundamentalists, and Muslims in particular.
 
Western Europe is renowned abroad (i.e. in North America) for its greater freedoms with regards to sex (incl. homosexuality), drugs and alcohol, especially the Netherlands and Germany. Though I am decidedly opposed to the 'browning' and 'Islamization' of Europe, by West and South Asians and Africans, am supportive of increasing European birthrates beyond replacement levels, and am against Western Europe's rampant political correctness and multiculturalism policies and programmes, I have no problem with their moral compass.
 
Fortunately, European prudes have a homeland - the New World...not that American 'morality' has prevented its annexation by one of the most unworthy sub-civilizations ('sub' - see Huntington) ever to grace the globe...

I read somewhere that the Hungarians are up in arms about this,too.A destinct absence of mating Magyars is not "going down" well with the angry  denizens of their  come-together Capital city of  Budapest and its environs and who can blame them?

As far as I understand present EU regulations, this campaign is to be considered as objectionable and disgusting, of course not because of its showing particular bad taste, for in that view it might be quite PC indeed, but because it turns out to be a racist campaign. Among the people having sex as well as among the onlookers shown, I couldn't detect but white crew, oops, caucasian people only participation. This must be violating present day EU's equal opportunities regulations as well as different EU member states' criminal laws.

Please file a complaint with your local Thought Police Agency, Racism Hotline, Antidiscrimination Bureau or whatever it might be called at your country. Filing a complaint with your local police station might do, too. Have Margot Wallstrom put where she belongs : behind bars.

Sorry, Ms. Margot Wallstrom, for your EU antidiscrimination legislation seems to be backfiring indeed. Of course, you, too, should have thought about prominently showing at least some f*cking coloured people, too.

Even if mediocrity were a quality, many EU  commissioners still seem to have rather a long way to go and reach it.
The poor taste, perhaps resulting from a lack of originality and spirit, could rouse someone's pity, but then again taking those commissioners salaries into consideration, pity is not exactly the right feeling to approach them. Nevertheless it's obvious that they need some help.  But how ?
I'll start with some prayers...

Agree that there could be more elegant ways to promote filmmaking, but your comments are, to say it gently, beyond reason.
Or you're more pious than the Pope, or you're an addict of XXX-movies, or you're both.

I honestly didn't believe it but here it is on CNN  http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/04/eu.film.reut/index.html

"I guess this means citizens of the EU are going to be fucked."
Has been for a LONG time now.
Defend Christendom. Defend Jewry. Oppose socialism in Europe.

Just one thought: what a waste of money.

I guess this means citizens of the EU are going to be fucked.