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.
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. 
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.
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.
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.
I agree with most of that, but the solution as I perceive it (value ontology) is not unlike a Nietzschean angle to Schopenhauers basic stance. Subjectivity and character and particular-ness are required, are to be approached in a way more akin to Nietzsche, but the global vision is more skeptical, as there are no more Napoleons, if there is to be no war in Europe. But the future is taking on strange shapes. This does not sound trivial. Who knows what kind of armed conflicts will erupt in Europe. In Germany, the Pegida protest of tomorrow has been prohibited because of a terrorist threat. The current tension may still be put down by government coldness and force, but I am sure the Germans can use some wisdom in how they are going to deal with the pressure as it increases. But it will be behind the scenes, engineered solutions, it will not come from the populace as such, but from the mastermind of German efficiency.
The solution is indeed an ontological revision, an ontology that combines ethics and being, and which thus predicates “the world” and this world in the sense of differences and border-zones. I just came to the insight that border zones are energetic and formative ‘wellsprings’, that the place where one ethos/nation/religion collides with another, the potential for the exaltation of both occurs. This is a matter powerfully balancing the valuing the other in terms of selfvaluing against the selfvaluing in terms of the other, and this on both sides, to produce naturally synthetic terms of moral advance. The problem is not difference, but blind difference, which is caused by an absence of knowledge of the ground of the difference – and this is encouraged by preventing all justification in terms of difference, enforcing similarity as a basis, thus drawing a curtain between the citizen and himself.
“War is the father of all things” - but it can also be the threat of war, as we saw in the cold war, that is that kernel. But we can even go beyond. We can employ the differences against each other in a fierce competition under an umbrella of mutual interest - a ‘capitalism of states’ wherein capitalism does not pervade the states in the sense of eroding borders, but rather capital as a way to assert rigidity and difference, as all successful industrial states do. In any case the concept of natural enmity needs to be gradually re introduced into European politics - in order to prevent a blind war, the adversaries will have to face one another undiplomatically and honestly, which is what Russia has been pushing for. A pan-European rivalry, rather than some sly artificial ‘union’, would bring us to an effective industrial economic and cultural unity. We can have benefits among each other but no pretense to have equal interests in each other.
To be plentiful and produce, our nations must be able to freely choose their partners; one party’s freedom of choice is the others incentive. Capitalism has embodied this principle, pan-national politics has not yet attained to it. But it is inevitable, the only other alternative is breakdown and that will most likely lead to the sort of violences described. So Germany needs to economically engage at its borders Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria, Switzerland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark. All of these connections could lead to industries. It’s not entirely unlike microprocessor architecture, I imagine; the intelligence goes into isolating the different processes so that they do not melt together, and the progression is in isolating without taking space. Territorial conflicts will not be the norm in such an economy, war is in terms of shared or not shared interests, and the difference between a sick and healthy Europe is in secretive strife versus open competition. Revokation of game theory.
Yes, but if you have too many laws, then the probability of anarchy is also very high. Thus: no law = anarchy, too many laws = tendency of anarchy.
There are some ILP members who are indirectly declaring war on Europe, especially on Germany, without any rationale and justification. I don’t know whether, and if yes, which drugs they take, but their statements are based on their envy, resentments, inferiority complexes, and - of course - stupidness. That is merely good for those who become rich by war - who are few but all the more misanthropic.
So maybe we will have war in Europe before 2050, and some ILP members will then be proud of being a tiny part of the cause. Shame on you!
Yes, the United States, Europe, Japan, and Canada against the rest of the world initiated by Russia and China simultaneously in sync.
The question is who will fire first. Western or Eastern Bloc?
It will be a world war all about global consolidation of power and creating an international governing body.
Of course it will be parroted as something else for propaganda purposes in order to keep the majority of dumb animals also known as the majority of the world’s population from the knowing the true aims of such an intended war.
Africa and Latin South America is China’s playground. Might as well revise that chart.
Africa and Latin America are the prey of the others anyway. They have been being it since the 15th/16th century.
That chart refers to the Trilateral Commission.
As I see it, there cannot be any full scale war not only in Europe but anywhere in the world between major countries. Yes, that may happen to smaller level in some areas. For the rest, threatening and posturing is the name of the game now, as so will be in the future too.
The wars have been changed shape from the past. It is more like tension and tussles than ful scale military operations, unless the scenario is something like that US is attacking Iraq of Afghanistan.
We are now in the era of cultural, political and economic wars, not a military one. There are far too many power centres now in the world than the past. And, their number will only grow, not decline. That will lessen the possibility of any military was continuously. China has been emerged as a new power centre, and India is on its way, though behind by 10 years or so.
As per predictions of IMF and all other major institutions, the power scenario is going to change quite upside down merely in next five years. By 2020, China will replace US to become no 1 and India at no 3. The only European country within top five would be Germany.
euromonitor.typepad.com/.a/6a013 … ae3970c-pi
google.co.in/url?sa=t&sourc … waclxLC5kg
And realize, that I have quoted only European studies.
The one and only reason of all confrontations is gaining power or supremacy. And, that leads war to power centres, because that is the only place where one can get something by winning. There has to some prize for a winner, otherwise why he will fight in the first place?
The situation is such that European countries will loose their present status. Their leaders are well aware of that too. That is precisely why they are trying to form a singular, unified and powerful Europe, which would be able to withstand the future challenges. They know that they cannot compete with Asian nations like China, India and even Indonesia by size. They have to as big as US and these Asian countries. That is why they cannot let Grece out at any cost, though their ways of helping are not helping much.
Though, i cannot predict 2050, but keeping all that in the mind, it looks to me that there will be no war in Europe, because there would be nothing much to fight.
The only possibility of military war lies in North Korea. But, not for long but for some years only, a decade at a maximum. As the things are going there, the present leadership will not last long. And, the war has to happen before that fall, or the war may cause that fall.
With love,
Sanjay
Economic wars lead into hot active wars.
Never underestimate full blown idiocy and greed backed by thermonuclear retaliation.
That whole human collective hubris thing.
This is the current top 5 rank of GDP:
- US.
- Japan.
- Germany.
- China.
- UK.
[size=90]If the EU were considered, then it would be: 1) EU.[/size]
And this is the current top 5 rank of of GDP PPP:
- China.
- US.
- India.
- Japan.
- Germany.
[size=90]If the EU were considered, then it would be: 1) EU.[/size]
Please do not confuse the GDP with the GDP PPP or even the growth with the GDP or with the GDP PPP.
Economically Europe is still much bigger than US, China, India, Indonesia (cp. my last post).
Demographically Europe (750 millions) is much bigger than US (317 millions) and Indonesia (238 millions) but much smaller than China (1370 millions) and India (1210 millions).
The main reason why the EU does not let Greece out of the Eurozone is angst: if Greece gets out of the Eurozone, then it is very probable that the Eurozone or even the EU will collapse, at least the Euro will lose its worth, and the EU will lose its reputation.
Would you mind going into details, Zinnat?
Arminius,
I am well aware of the difference between the two. That is why I said that India will be at 3 by 2020, not before that. Otherwise going by ppp, it is there even now.
And, European countries can be in that race only as a Eurozone, not individuals. There are many new such entrants, which are very eagar to make a cut: Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico and South Korea.
With love,
Sanjay
But nevertheless: we should not forget that it is based on abstraction, that the link to the real world is not always given.
The European Union (EU) and the Eurozone are also obstacles for some countries, for example for Germany, Austria, Holland. In other words: there is also a brake in the EU and in the Eurozone, and this brake brakes as a motor brake, and the motor of the EU and Eurozone is Germany. So Germany could probably do better without any EU and Eurozone. Like Japan, and Japan is economically comparable with Germany. The EU and especially the Euro is a huge burden for Germany. From the German point of view the EU and the Eurozone have never been economically necessary. The EU and the Eurozone were politically forced - by dictatorship, thus without any democratic processes. Until the early 1990s the economical rank of the top 3 was: 1) US, 2) Germany (until 1990: only West Germany), 3) Japan. And it was not Germany’s so-called “reunion” but the EU that forced Germany into that huge burden. This burden grows and grows, and there is no other country in Europe or elsewhere that is capable of bearing this burden. But some states, especially the United States, are interested in the economical destruction of Europe.
Yes, and most of them are banded together.
Between whom?