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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is true that Europe is not small but it is Europe that is not small, individual European countries are small. And, even having EU and Eurozone, Europe is far away from being a singular entity, at least for now, though that may happen.
War needs reasons to happen. It cannot happen out of the blue. And, I do not see any reasons whatsoever in Europe. Social unrest can cause only rebellion in that country. It cannot be enough reason for manifesting full scale military war.
Can you tell me any reason why Europe will have to face wars?
No, not at all. I never said that larger or more successful nations would be more rational by default. If that was true, US would have been the most rational nation since last 100 years but it has not behaved in that way at all.
Secondly, the elevation of counties like China and India does not entail that their citizens also become richer and more prosperous that their western counterparts. That is not going to happen, at least in next five decades.
But, we are not discussing that but only who will be bigger to whom. It is the matter of individual countries only, not individual citizens. The fate of the two could be quite different quantatively, though both will be in the same direction quality wise.
Means, if Chinese economy becomes no 1, it does not mean that the life or living standard of all Chinese citizens also become the best in the world. No, not at all. But yes, elevation of Chinese economy to certainly affect its all citizens also in positive way to some extent.
I think that you slightly tapped the crux of the issue.
I may be wrong, but as I see it, the real issue is neither economical nor even political. The roots lies somewhere else.
And, that is human psychology, to be precise, frustration and ego.
As we know that US was basically formed by European immigrants some centuries ago and was also a colony of UK initially. Those colonies later not only freed themselves but united and made progress even faster than the parent countries.
Perhaps, some posters disagree or even may not like it, but If you look at the polital history of US, and the behavior of its leaders especially after ww2 and when it got elevatedelevated to no 1, you will find a kind of arrogance, which persisted throughout its history till Obama. Things have changed slightly since then, but not much. That arrogance is still very much there in bureaucracy too, though has been lessened quite a lot in citizens now. But, one can still see its hints here and there.
US leaders and top administration have been provoking or rather bullling its European counterparts since long with its activities. Though, no political leader from either side will accept that.
Take spying. It is understable that one country may spy on its enemy. But, when a country spies on the leaders of friend countries, it is a sign of dominance and arrogance, not mere intelligence gathering.
This feeling of getting bullied slowly creeped up in the mind of European leaders. Secondly, it must have crossed in their minds at some point of time that the migrants from their countries are now bullling their own parent countries.
EU and Eurozone are the reaction of these two basic reasons, besides the challenge coming from China and India. They want to create and establish a second US, both economically and politically. And, they can do it too, if done wisely, which is not the case so far.
You are right in claiming that Germany could have done better alone. There is no doubt about it. But, the issue is that major European countries, especially their leadership, want to be bigger more than the better, thus the compromise.
Ideally, the unification of the Europe should have started with three countries only, Germany, France and UK, by opening their borders, both economically and politically, and accepting a single currency. Such arrangement would have played as a backbone of the unification and served the purpose more. Then, they can include more adjoining countries like Holland, Belgium, Finland, Norvey, Austria, Poland and so on.
There is one very basic contradiction in the unification of the Europe. The problem is that European countries want to be one, but at the same time, they also want to maintain their personal identity alive. But, both of these things cannot get along. If they want to be one, they have to lose personal identity, both politically and economicaly, just like the different states of America. Yes, they can maintain cultural identity.
But, UK is not only not the part of Eurozone, it had faced the near possibility of spilt of late. With this mentality, the future of Eurozone is bleak. UK must be in the Eurozone to make it successful but its leadership is under the influence of US, and it will never let UK to be a part of Eurozone.
The case of Japan is different. It has reached to its maximum potential long ago. It cannot grow futther on its own, unless it looks for some kind of arrangement with its neighbors and try to form a regional allience like Eurozone, acting as the centre of it.
On the other hand, other Asian countries like China, India and Indonesia are far far away from reaching their potential. Besides that, they have size in their favor too. That is why they will continue to go up and up. This list includes Brazil and Russia too.
But, I do not agree with that Germany is forced to bear the burden. It willingly bore that. If you want to be leader, you should be ready to pay the price. It is as simple as that.
With “banded together” I meant that they are not merely economically but also militarily banded together, for exanple in the so-called “Shanghai Cooperation Organisation” which is a political, economic and military organisation and was founded in 2001 in Shanghai:
Germany is the leader - it did and does not want to be the leader but had and has to be it because of the economical and political facts (that is what I meant by the word “forced”). But okay, now we have this facts that have been making and leading to the scapegoat role for so long.
The “price” you mentioned could be paid in another, namely a better way. That was my main point. No EU, no Eurozone, no NATO but nonetheless a powerful political, economic and mliitary organisation of European countries without any influence of the USA. It is namely a contradiction that there is a military parrtnership with an economic enemy (“competitor”) like the USA, because this means the contradictional politics between Europe and the USA.
First of all, the reasons for wars to happen are always given just because of the nature of living beings in general and of human beings in particular. Secondly, econimical wars as several forms of extreme “competitions” are typical doe the modern “humanity” and always accompanied by media wars (you can even see it here on ILP). Thirdly, the kind of war I am most afarid of is the so-called “civil war”, and this kind of war is what Europe will probably have to face. The contradictional politics between Europe and the USA are one of the main reasons why Europe will probably have to face a civil war. I just said “probably”, thus not “certainly”. But the probability is not low.
If you can’t defeat your enemy economically, then defeat him demographically. And if you will have defeated him demographically, then it will soon be easy to defeat him economically too. This implies the high probability of a civil war.Again: I am not saying that it is certain but merely probable that there will be war in Europe before 2050. Hence the title of this thread as a question.
By the way the current US debt:
US national debt: $ 18 320 000 000 000.
US debt per taxpayer $ 154 500.
US debt per citizen: $ 57 000.
(Cp. US Debt Clock)
