Will there be war in Europe before 2050?

Orbie · January 16, 2015, 2:26am

Correction: in the next to the last paragraph, the wordage should read ‘Russia is no match for Germany’

Arminius · January 16, 2015, 2:54am

The Austrians WANTED the Anschluß. There are many stereotypes (clichés) which have made you blind for some historical facts. The Soviet “revolution” (b.t.w.: it was paid) caused a reaction; so fascism emerged, and most of the fascists were former communists (the best known examples: Mussolini, Hitler, Goebbels); and the Second World War was a reaction to the (results of the) First World War and to the Soviet “revolution”, the danger of communism (“red danger”). What is currently said about this time has not very much to do with that what really happened.

Merkel was a communist. Did you know that? ? ?

The European Union is dominated by Germany. Yes. Why not? There is no other possibility. Otherwise the European Union would already be dead. Is that what some powerful Europeans and their folowers could want? Yes, obviously, because many of the currently powerful Europeans are like the former Soviets, and this Neo-Soviets become more and more and say that the reverse would be true, but it is not. B.t.w.: Some of the former communists said that the communism will come anyway - with or without a “revolution”, with or without a “Soviet Union”. Now, everyone in the West thinks the communism has vanished, but it has not; the communsim has never been stronger than today.

Learn from history!

Orbie · January 16, 2015, 3:14pm

I knew Angela Merkel was a communist, howcould she help it? She is East German and was raised a Communist. But Mussolini and Hitler were not. The were socialists,money held to socialist views, this was implicit in their view of the organization of their own party, National Socialism. As far as Communism was concerned, they were along with the whole nation, afraid of Communism. The distinction has to be made here, because of the reaction consisting of the centrist displacement of authority. Socialism places the ideal state within the perimeters of group endeavor, whereas Communism places the authoritarian nature of government there. Since in Germany prior to the National Socialism, the Dictatorship of Bismarck consisted of an entirely different organization, where the authority was made up of a totally different hierarchy. The conventional sources of Capitalism mixed with the aristocratic feudal remnants of holdings, made the Kaiser a conventional ruler. The fascists made the country into an absolute dictatorship. Communism was feared, because both the capitalists, and the fascist feared the loss of conventional governance, which may have been ushered in a purge similar to the one in Russia.

Jakob · January 16, 2015, 3:46pm

Orb:

On the most basic level let us not forget that the Roma Empire came through the Holy Roman Empire, and this derivation directly attributed toward the Enlightenment in Italy. however, it is through Germany, that the neo Classic revival began as the form of Romanticism. Culturally, this revival would have been impossible without Germany. That this revival lead to seek the roots of it’s transformative powers, the myth, unleashing upon the world this awesome and tragic power, presents the persona of German cultural enigma, whose mask, almost destroyed the world. this unmasking was such a sudden phenomena, that it took the world by wild surprise, the perceptive double power of the Dasein,
A critic said of Slojterdijk (not an American one), that his works are the other bookmark, the other end of which belongs to Heidegger. I mention this, in lieu of trying find the proper role for a postmodern role for Germany, in terms of it’s intellectual course,rather than trying to find patterns within the historicity of an Heideggrian intentionality. things are obviously different in Germany today, although, some things do remain the same.

This is why I keep pressing for a shift in focus in German power.

Arnimus - it seems you know little of Prussian power to me, but you could also simply get that misunderstanding out of the way by saying something substantial about it.
You seem to also know little of Austrians. I lived there, and have seen how closely knitted the Austrian and North Italians are. But maybe you have very different experiences.

Jakob · January 16, 2015, 3:53pm

Arminius:

Orb:

Arminius, You are right but only about Austria. In the first world war, they went along for the ride, but in the second they were Anschluss …

The Austrians WANTED the Anschluß. There are many stereotypes (clichés) which have made you blind for some historical facts. The Soviet “revolution” (b.t.w.: it was paid) caused a reaction; so fascism emerged, and most of the fascists were former communists (the best known examples: Mussolini, Hitler, Goebbels); and the Second World War was a reaction to the (results of the) First World War and to the Soviet “revolution”, the danger of communism (“red danger”). What is currently said about this time has not very much to do with that what really happened.

Merkel was a communist. Did you know that? ? ?

The European Union is dominated by Germany. Yes. Why not? There is no other possibility. Otherwise the European Union would already be dead. Is that what some powerful Europeans and their folowers could want? Yes, obviously, because many of the currently powerful Europeans are like the former Soviets, and this Neo-Soviets become more and more and say that the reverse would be true, but it is not. B.t.w.: Some of the former communists said that the communism will come anyway - with or without a “revolution”, with or without a “Soviet Union”. Now, everyone in the West thinks the communism has vanished, but it has not; the communsim has never been stronger than today.

No one thinks it has vanished. The EU is a soviet type system, with 5 year plans and no economic (=political) sovereignty except for Germany, which is in bed with the big American banks, to raid and plunder Greece.

Communism was always perfectly suited to the Germans, who are a proletarian worker people. This is not at all bad, but it is a bad sort of perspective to hold sway over european politics. I know for a fact that Austrians have a very different mindset. Yes they are Germanic, and this is nice as Germania is awesome, but they aren’t Prussian, myopic, dangerous to the rest of us. Bismarck caused the world wars.

Arminius · January 16, 2015, 9:50pm

Which “shift”?

You seem to have problematic prejudices. Stop driving a peg into something which does not need a peg.

Do you know Metternich? Obviously not. He was Prussian, although from Koblenz - but during Metternich’s time Koblenz was Prussian); he was a kind of an “Austrian Bismarck”, but without Metternich Austria and the rest of Germany would have become more Prussian than the German Federation (Deutscher Bund) was: Prussia and Austria did a good work together (b.t.w.: Prussia and Holland too); and this alliance lasted from the terrible Napoleonic Wars (more than 50% of his soldiers were Germans) till the the end of the Second World War or probabaly even till the end of the “Cold War”.

Do you know Bismarck? Obviously not. Bismarck was the last Kanzler (chancelor) who governed as if he was the father of the House Habsburg. What he did was right. He would have occupied Austria after the German War (Austria vs. Prussia; 1866), if he had wanted to, but he did not want to.

I don’t follow your prejudices, because they are false.

You are always playing “X” off against “Y”. France against Germany, Austria against Prussia: that is what you want, and it is - of course - nonsense! Stop whining about Prussians like Contra-Nietzsche and his alter ego Cezarboy.

Your “statements” do not help when it comes to constructively say something about the current European problems. The reverse is true: your „statements“ increase those problems very much.

B.t.w.: I have lived in Austria.

You are an agitator, a bater! And you want war! It is not Germany but merely its politicians who are in bed with bankers - but they are not in bed to raid and plunder Greece. Your agitation is evil. Greece wanted the Euro. Greece itself had the choice, and the German politicians (i.e. Waigel) did not want Greece to become a member of the Euro system, but Greece and the other members of the Euro system wanted Greece to become a member of the Euro system. Now the Greek are bankrupt - caused by themselves. (And b.t.w.: one of my children is genetically 50% Greek; so I don’t say anything against Greece because of agitation - I am often in Greece and I know many Greeks!)

My contribution to your hateful agitation: Jakob, your are not a Dutchman (Deutschmann = German), you are a Slav(e).

That is (again and again) nonsense - your agitation! Very evil! Do other West Europaen people not work? Shame on you!

If someone hates Jewsih people, then he / she is called “Anitisemite” (although Arabs are also Semites); if someone hates US people, then he / she is called “Antiamerican” (although i.e. Argentinians are also Americans); but if someone hates Prussians (like Jakob), then he / she is not called “Antiprussian” or “Antigerman” or “Antigermanic” (although i.e. Englishmen and many other humans are also Germans or Germanics). That is not fair but full of hate!

History is not fair, thus: learn from history!

What a nonsense! You seem to feel very inadequate. Bismarck did not cause the World Wars. It would be more right, if you said: The French “revolution” and Napoleon caused the World wars. Stop whining about Prussians like Contra-Nietzsche and his alter ego Cezarboy.

Orbie · January 17, 2015, 12:52am

I sense a whole lot of repressed nationalism in all this, and that is ok, because we, ilp members may be representative of intellectual varience into the questions surrounding national identity. NFurther, under the veneer of national identity, hovers the far deeper question of social and individual identity,all contingent and changing in a world looking towards less and less borders. How the individual can relate to the social and national, which, heretofore, were cutting edge issues surrounding studies dealing with social change, international trade and greates, and personal issues relating to psychological issues.

  To derive into the no man's land of pride of heritage and power vis a vis other nations,is truly 19th century stuff, and I thought by now, members of the intellectual community,mould be beyond that by now.  These derivations are old, and the reactionary acts set off by such view are old.  Even now we can hear cries of blame on other countries that the U.S. is responsible for the fact that they have large Arab and Muslim populations.  Was this all of it the US's fault?  Do not nations capable of determining their own destiny?  And is the US singularly resonsible the way things are going, rather it be a true international effort to save the world from premature ending?  Are not some of these decisions, done not by individual bias, but based on accurate studies and computerized simulations? NHave we not arrived at the world where all events, can very accurately predicted? Unlike in the 20 and even the 19 th century, where decisions were made on the singular actions of the reigning monarch?  these and other questions are factored in in major policy decisions, and the German scientfic community is at par with all the leading nations, on top of that knowledge sharing equivocates the differences in viewpoint among them. Therefore, Nationalism can not be compared, with what came before, since both quantitative and qualitative changes have altered the dynamics of the world.  it is very difficult, not to let these newly emerging factors not effect any outcome.  that is wh i voted against the likelihood of war on the Continent of Europe.  The

Arminius · January 17, 2015, 2:08am

The question is: Why is there so much hate, envy, and esentment in the world? Look, you are speaking about science, Obe. Germany had been the leader in science for centuries. The Second World War was - whatever it was in other senses - the chance for the enemies of Germany, especially USA and USSR, to become richer, thus more powerful by robbing and plundering Germany, the Germans, their wealth, their Gold, their patents, their scientists, their technicians, thus their main production factor: intelligence !

Now we have the same situation as we had just before the World Wars. It starts with lies, then threats and declarations follow, and in the end there is war as the instrument for the goals.

Arminius:

Yes, I have. And there are also documentary films and the fact that all these Germans came to the US in May 1945 and lived there in a city which was founded just for that reason. Google for example this: Operation Paperclip or Operation Overcast.

104 German rocket scientists (aerospace engineers): Wernher von Braun and his scientists and engineers at Fort Bliss in Texas, USA, 1945.

Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program in which more than 1,500 German scientists, technicians, and engineers were brought from Germany to the United States for employment after the World War II. It was conducted by the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA). In other words: It was a criminal act, one criminal act of the other crimninal acts of the greatest raid of all time.

Nearly similar is the number of the German scientists, technicians, and engineers who were brought in the Soviet Union (USSR) after the World War II.

|=> #

If we are not careful, we will soon experience a Third World War or something like a civil war which is even beastlier than a world war.

The harbringers, the heralds are already everywhere, the agitators are on their “stage”. “Will there be war in Europe before 2050?” - that is my question of this thread, and sometimes I think I should have asked: “Will there be war in Europe before 2030?”

Jakob · January 17, 2015, 3:52am

A more European politics.

Do you know Metternich? Obviously not. He was Prussian, although from Koblenz - but during Metternich’s time Koblenz was Prussian); he was a kind of an “Austrian Bismarck”, but without Metternich Austria and the rest of Germany would have become more Prussian than the German Federation (Deutscher Bund) was: Prussia and Austria did a good work together (b.t.w.: Prussia and Holland too); and this alliance lasted from the terrible Napoleonic Wars (more than 50% of his soldiers were Germans) till the the end of the Second World War or probabaly even till the end of the “Cold War”.

Do you know Bismarck? Obviously not. Bismarck was the last Kanzler (chancelor) who governed as if he was the father of the House Habsburg. What he did was right. He would have occupied Austria after the German War (Austria vs. Prussia; 1866), if he had wanted to, but he did not want to.

Because then France would have turned against Prussia, you naive old cow.

I have not heard of Herder. But of course I have read Kant and Schopenhauer.

I see, you are a Schopenhauer-Kantian. A rather fanatical one. I think Kant is strictly redundant and misguided at that. For Schopenhauer I have a certain respect. And perhaps even more for Bismarck. But I oppose both of their views and interests. Schopenhauer is not a Buddhist, he is a pseudo-Buddhist, he does not aspire to the same physical standards as are implicit in Buddhism.

Yes, all criticism of the German state must be silenced, etc, etc. You are running ahead of matters. I don’t think the Germans are quite as fanatical as you are, I think they have a systemic compulsion. What Bismarck did right was build the properly working real rifles. He is the father of the war industry. You may call this good work, it was effective. To what end? He changed politics to a weaponizing competition. This is what forged the German unity. Is it bad? Not an sich but it is myopic. It simply is. And as Europe’s industrial leader it can not afford this attitude, the rest of the continent is crumbling under its centralized severity based focus and a lack of powerful measures against reckless profiteering and such people and organizations as those that perpetrated the frauds that plunged an already corrosive Greek economy into bankruptcy.

Jakob:

No one thinks it has vanished. The EU is a soviet type system, with 5 year plans and no economic (=political) sovereignty except for Germany, which is in bed with the big American banks, to raid and plunder Greece.

You are an agitator, a bater! And you want war! It is not Germany but merely its politicians who are in bed with bankers - but they are not in bed to raid and plunder Greece. Your agitation is evil. Greece wanted the Euro. Greece itself had the choice, and the German politicians (i.e. Waigel) did not want Greece to become a member of the Euro system, but Greece and the other members of the Euro system wanted Greece to become a member of the Euro system. Now the Greek are bankrupt - caused by themselves. (And b.t.w.: one of my children is genetically 50% Greek; so I don’t say anything against Greece because of agitation - I am often in Greece and I know many Greeks!)

My contribution to your hateful agitation: Jakob, your are not a Dutchman (Deutschmann = German), you are a Slav(e).

Here’s what I mean free speech. So you see what you’re dealing with.
You have even fallen for the simplistic story told to you by the US bankers and the EU government, old rusty can of worm muck.

Control yourself please. Study the history of Marxism and Communism. Why do you think Hitler called his party the National Socialist party?

Spoken like a true religious fanatic. “If you don’t want Prussian leadership, you hate Prussians.”

Congratulations.

Arminius · January 17, 2015, 4:28am

The national parliaments have no power anymore because they have given their power to the dictators of the EU. The problem is the EU itself.

Ah, you mean this:

Okay, if yoou want …

Stop insulting me! And you are - as usual - wrong. The war against France was already discounted at that time: the German War was in 1866 and the French-Prussian (a.k.a French-German) War was in 1870-1871. The French were too weak and too stupid, oh sorry: too naive old cows.

Are you sure that you are an ILP member? Have you ever heard of philosophy?

Nonsense. I am not a Kantian and not a Schopenhauerian.

Other famous Prussian German philosphers are Christian Wolff, Johann Gottlieb Fichte (more Brandenburgian than Prussian), Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (more Prussian-Saxon than mere Prussian) Oswald A. G. Spengler (also more Prussian-Saxon than mere Prussian). Do you know them? Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a Swabian, not a Prussian, but he became a “Swabian in Prussian commission”.

Agitation! - I am merely interested in science and philosophy and especially in the history of science and philosophy. That’s all.

You have no idea. That’s typical for agitators.

Therefore I said he was a “Euro-Buddhist” - but you did not notice that.

Yes, all criticism of the German state must be silenced, etc, etc. You are running ahead of matters. I don’t think the Germans are quite as fanatical as you are, I think they have a systemic compulsion. What Bismarck did right was build the properly working real rifles. He is the father of the war industry. You may call this good work, it was effective. To what end? He changed politics to a weaponizing competition. This is what forged the German unity. Is it bad? Not an sich but it is myopic. It simply is. And as Europe’s industrial leader it can not afford this attitude, the rest of the continent is crumbling under its centralized severity based focus and a lack of powerful measures against reckless profiteering and such people and organizations as those that perpetrated the frauds that plunged an already corrosive Greek economy into bankruptcy.

Agitation!

I do not know what you mean by that.

It was before you were born , when I studied that. It was the time when almost everybody and anybody of the students studied it.

It was called “National Socialistic” because of the emphasis that there was a national instead of an international socialistic party - it was directed against the Soviet “revolution”. Fascism is the reaction to the Soviet “revolution” and the propaganda of internationality. So “national” in “National Socialist party” means “against internationalism”, “anti-internationalism”. “Socialist” in “National Socialist party” is also referring to the Soviet “revolution” and the internationalism. “We don’t need a Marxistic, communistic, internationalistic socialisms, because we have our own socialism, a national one” - that was meant.

Hitler was a Mussolini fan, Hitler was an Austrian, not a Prussian (there were not many Prussians but many Bavarian (Austrians are also Bavarians) fascists. Again: Fascism was a strong response to the Soviet “revolution”, to communism (Marxism, Leninism) or any other egalitarianism. Most of the fascists were former communists, thus: they knew exactly what they were fighting against.

Did you finally get this, young man?

Are you paranoid?

No, you are confusing something: George Bush said: “Those who are not with us are against us”.

Thank you.

Jakob · January 17, 2015, 7:03pm

As I kept saying for years and years and years. Here on ILP as well as elsewhere.

Actually I mean the process opposite and have made this clear. The EU is part of the problem as I have always said.

Maybe you can stip behaving like Hitler and calling everyone that displeases you “agitators”.
You apparently have no idea about the German unification and how Bismarck pulled that off, and how tricky it got after he had defeated Austria.
That’s fine, you seem sentimental and simplistic.

…

And now please cite any of these philosophers with respect to Prussian and European politics.

No, you are a racist asshole who can’t be bothered to read and yet has the nerve to claim intellectual consistency.

Empty, idiotic lie. Test me about Kant if you wish but stop fucking lying, you McCarthyan accuser, dishonest freak.

Which suggests that Europeans have no physical discipline, which is idiotic.

Yes, all criticism of the German state must be silenced, etc, etc. You are running ahead of matters. I don’t think the Germans are quite as fanatical as you are, I think they have a systemic compulsion. What Bismarck did right was build the properly working real rifles. He is the father of the war industry. You may call this good work, it was effective. To what end? He changed politics to a weaponizing competition. This is what forged the German unity. Is it bad? Not an sich but it is myopic. It simply is. And as Europe’s industrial leader it can not afford this attitude, the rest of the continent is crumbling under its centralized severity based focus and a lack of powerful measures against reckless profiteering and such people and organizations as those that perpetrated the frauds that plunged an already corrosive Greek economy into bankruptcy.

Agitation!

Bravo. It’s clear enough you have not studied history, neither Prussian nor modern European, at least not while employing some form of rational thought. It appears that you’ve been spoon-fed some fables that you wish to protect for emotional reasons. The similarities between you and a certain religious group become quite striking.

That’s clear enough.

Then it is unbelievable that you do not know the history of Marxism in Europe.

No. It is on record that Hitler wanted to sway communist voters to his party.

Do you know the history of Hitler in Austria? Do you know why he went to Bavaria? No, and no.

I don’t like religious fanatics is all.

Yes, I am comparing you to GW Bush, you got that right.

Arminius · January 17, 2015, 8:46pm

No, the EU is not “part of the problem”, the EU is the problem!

YOU are behaving like Hitler - always searching for scapegoats (“Prussian ethics, Bismarck, Merkel”). That’s crazy.

YOU have no idea about that. And b.t.w.: You also have no idea about the history of the EU, how and why it was formed after “they” had defeated …

Are you paranoid or megalomanian? Don’t take too much drugs, young man!

Seriously: You can not give any constructive contribution to the theme of this thread.

Please search for another thread.

Stop insulting me! Uccisore! Do I have to put up with that? Warn him!

Jakob, you can not give any constructive contribution to the theme of this thread.

Please search for another thread.

Nonsense.

I studied history, before you were born, young man. And a main part of that study was the time of Bismarck and Wilhelm II… B.t.w.: I studied in Austria!

You don’t know nothing about Marxism and the time around that.

Yes. I know it. But you don’t know it. That’s clear.

Ah, so you don’t like your “value ontology”. … I see …

How childish.

Jakob, I please you to look for another thread!

What you are saying is no contribution but only agitating, in ILP words: derailing and trolling!

Jakob · January 17, 2015, 9:48pm

Another anti political saboteur who thinks all of this is a joke.

The sublime idiocy of thinking that holding a head of a powerful state responsible for things is scapegoating - this alone is too ridiculous to believe you were serious at all.

Arminius · January 17, 2015, 10:11pm

Don’t take too much drugs, young man.

Jakob · January 17, 2015, 10:29pm

I saw we can come to a reasonable dis/agreement in the other thread. I deleted my response to your accusation here.
The bottom line is that I hold the Germans to higher standards than the Dutch or the Spanish because they are stronger.
But Germany is not stronger than Italy or France. These states are qua nation states more center of the world, Paris and Rome are old Europe, and in these cities the future splendor must come to lie again. Unity is a matter of pride. Pride of being European requires a great symbolic center that applies to a more general European or even human taste.
Germany must relax in that it must realize that all European capital is also German capital. If Germany is truly the leader, it can afford to make a whole lot of friendships.
The thing is, for the first time in history, people are starting to agree that Germany is a good country. This probably means that it is ready to take on a classical leadership role which would be an “imperial solution” to the problem.

Arminius · January 17, 2015, 11:12pm

Germany is stronger than Italy or France, even stronger than Italy and France together. Jakob, see, the problem is that the economical and political power is not equally distributed. So the most powerful one has to manage it. Okay, “Germany should relax a bit now”, you wrote in another thread, but there is definitely no alternative - except the end of the Euro system and probably even the end of the EU. Okay, as far as I’m concerned.

Jakob · January 18, 2015, 12:11am

That might not be a bad option but we’re not at the precipice yet, a bridge can be conceived, but not if the material is strict functionality. I do not see Germany as intellectually and culturally stronger than these nations, and that is a large part of what I am talking about when I speak of European culture. Italy, its splendid natural and crafted beauty, the bizarre Church that inspires the fear of American politicians - it is immensely powerful in ‘will and imagination’. France possesses as has been seen always a popular power, a surplus spiritedness of the people when it coms to political matters. A public conscience in a sense that would represent much of what I think Europe ought to stand for. Where Germany is, in a more ‘mechanic’ sense, what Europe is. Clearly we are closer than ever to bringing those in harmonic tension to each other. England would necessarily join the dance of nations if it occurred.

The end of the EU is certainly preferable to the EU as it is now, even though NATO will still present a large problem…it may force the problem in more rational, empirical terms. From our confrontation this agreement then was forged; that if possible, Germany should relax, shift a few degrees to the he generous king, at the cost of being the pure enforcer of discipline. Surely Berlin can afford a great new building, a cathedral to European diplomacy. A symbol of its good will to hold sway over a confident union. Gestures are important, and Germany had been good at making them. I think that much of its military energy has been compressed into industrial energy, much like what happened in Japan. But France has a versatile and sophisticated industry and is good at building for time, it has also made some of the most impressive bridges. A great bridge near Strasbourg, an economic center across the Rhine, built with a sense of friendly competition on either shore, that sort of thing. Economy is about inspiring citizens to participate in potential dynamics to make them real. The rhineland could be host to a historic statues of Bismarck and De Gaulle, two Realpolitiker who both secured their nations interests under very dire circumstances. It is good that they are not directly opposed in time, that they represent different epochs. But both represent the instinct to self preservation, as well as the aspiration to honor. So they are surely both respectable men, sure of their responsibility to their people. And alas now we are for the moment one people under one fate, and certainly France and Germany are not at arms. This can be more than just a softening of danger - it can be an advantage. In fact now that the danger has been overcome, it is ‘supposed’ to grow into an advantage. I have some reason to believe the French youths are quite ready to accept overt Germanic influence, if it comes in the form of a ‘we’. The power of Germany is unmistakable. Now it must become ‘the good’ - that is how power survives.

Arminius · January 18, 2015, 1:28am

Okay, I don’t want to take your illusions about Italy and France away. But they are not able to do what you want them to do. And what will happen after the end of the Euro or even the EU? I guess: War! Maybe there will be war anyway. But I don’t like wars, especially civil wars. Maybe I will not experience it, but my children and all the other occidental humans who are now young will probably experience it, and I don’t want them to experience it.

Maybe one of the more peaceful solutions which can lead to the end of the Euro system or even to the end of the EU could be that either Germany or France would leave the Euro system or even the EU. France will not do it because its insolvency will soon lead to war, probably civil war. Germany will not do it because the German government as the enemy of the most German people will punish - for example: jail - all those Germans, and then something like a civil war will happen as well as it will in the case of France. Maybe the best solution for the end of the Euro system or even the end of the EU would be, if we started there where it currenly suffers: at the Euro system. Greece should leave the Euro system, but that would not be enough; some other countries should follow, for example also Italy, and that would propably lead to a rethink in the “heads” of the EU rulers. So, step by step, this could lead to the complete end of the Euro system, and maybe to even more. At least, this would be a more peaceful way than most of the other ways. But I guess that the EU dictators will “help” those “deserters”, thus - in reality - they will kill them.

Jakob · January 18, 2015, 1:46am

Arminius:

Okay, I don’t want to take your illusions about Italy and France away. But they are not able to do what you want them to do. And what will happen after the end of the Euro or even the EU? I guess: War! Maybe there will be war anyway. But I don’t like wars, especially civil wars. Maybe I will not experience it, but my children and all the other occidental humans who are now young will probably experience it, and I don’t want them to experience it.

Maybe one of the more peaceful solutions which can lead to the end of the Euro system or even to the end of the EU could be that either Germany or France would leave the Euro system or even the EU. France will not do it because its insolvency will soon lead to war, probably civil war. Germany will not do it because the German government as the enemy of the most German people will punish - for example: jail - all those Germans, and then something like a civil war will happen as well as it will in the case of France. Maybe the best solution for the end of the Euro system or even the end of the EU would be, if we started there where it currenly suffers: at the Euro system. Greece should leave the Euro system, but that would not be enough; some other countries should follow, for example also Italy, and that would propably lead to a rethink in the “heads” of the EU rulers. So, step by step, this could lead to the complete end of the Euro system, and maybe to even more. At least, this would be a more peaceful way than most of the other ways. But I guess that the EU dictators will “help” those “deserters”, thus - in reality - they will kill them.

Without my “illusions”, these are the only options.

Will and representation. War is merely a symptom. Europe can be a symptom. Production does not need to grow to have a thriving economy in these times, food is produced without much labor, and most of it is thrown away. Economies have to be reformed, this is why Germany must relax if there is not to be a tragic scenario of victory of the banker lords. The English concept economic growth is unsound. Germany operates by a different standard; production. What needs to happen is a re industrialization of Europe. This means, realistically, creating wholly original, new “needs”. But this is how it’s always been done, from Jesus Christ to Eddie Bernays, and this is how real politics must be contemplated, especially in a time where the absence of values is the most notable problem the creation of values is the most eminent task.

Orbie · January 18, 2015, 8:15pm

I agree. Nietzche has been declared politically bankrupt,so,return to Schopenhauer, and follow that route through as if Neitzche was an unpleasant but necessary sideline for that time, his existential detour has not offered any hope of being able to
make the quantum leap into the current world. Risk taking is not affordable this time, since the margins of error is very thin. A proper way to go, if war is to
be avoided. The feeling You have Arminius,of
imminent war, is shared by many, your’s truly included. parrallel universe’s very probable outcome of different courses of action is still possible if, this
retracing into the will as re presentation, becomes a necessary tool. Therefore, seriously, if this iwere to be accomplished, it would consist of a monumental realignment of ontological reassessment and

revision…using prioritized functional reduction toward a plane of imminence, consisting of minimalism as a map or a goal would be required.How it can be
accomplished, is by no means simply a regional
solution, but of the widest scope possible. It has been tried, before, after world wide, significant global transfers of power.

The Napoleonic wars come to mind, and the two
world wars. Now it is time to see what is going on in
the world as requisite of another drastic change, effected by a silent war but profoundly universal struggle , which needs soon, to be urgently addressed, if catastrophe is to be avoided.