Europe's Pool Members

Europe surely is multifarious and nevertheless so unable to learn.

This is obviously owed to the fact, that we face a territory of petty states, ever since equipped with just small-minded leaders of the propagated megalomania, similar in warlike habits and competing in meanness and despise of mankind and particularly even in exporting such pseudo-culture into the world by merciless subjection, exploitation and destruction.

Religions and ideologies traditionally are grafted upon humans and are causing masses of followers by adequate propaganda and disinformation stirring up the slaughtering of each other by feeble ideas of values and honors.

Last World War II has never been ended correctly under international law, there is no peace treaty, Germany, “made happy” by foreign troops, doesn't possess a legally passed constitution though the valid “Grundgesetz” can be interpreted quite well.

Ever since there is the enemy state clause of the UN Charter, and the whole post-war-order of Europe is based on the dictation of the divided victorious powers. Deliberate silence prevails on this and so there is no common awareness of the peoples' actual living on a powder keg. Germany, like the far away Japan, doesn't even have the full sovereignty under international law.

All this has to be recognized when struggling for a liberal and peaceful Europe which, as the initial European Union, of course portrays enormous but often underestimated advantages.

But now this all is tottering again considerably, not least because of power-strategic behaviors concerning new additional members to the overstretched and really unable construct for democratic voting.

Is there, at all, any European identity?

Perhaps you are a European by chance because you were born on this continent. But this doesn't mean identity. You must spend time with culture that has grown in Europe (literature, art, music, lifestyle, infrastructure and so on). Being fixed just on one country will lead automatically to nationalism with just this fixed and narrow horizon. The same is true with religion and ideology which inevitably turn into the faith of being chosen and to the delusion of being superior.

Considering such background it is clear that the imagination of a “Europe of Fatherlands” is absolutely unsatisfying because of its regards of domestic “separating” interests that are inferior in international competitions from the outset.

A “Europe of Fatherlands” is neither fish nor fowl, it bears in it, like a time bomb, the germ of nationalistic swing outs or of predominance over weaker states.

Such a deficiency may be tolerable as a transitional arrangement but only with a clear perspective to found the “United States Of Europe”.

It appears significant how such option is actually out of discussion or rather refused from the beginning.

It fits with the misery as the uprising Green Party – with their pseudo-religious neurosis of climate change – is claiming a “check of climate compatibility” before the adoption of any new law. This is describing the unity voting for an ideology which the loosing parties of the latest elections want to follow now. You may call it enforced conformity: “Green” defines the direction, in some former times it was “Brown” or “Red”.

Can this really become standard!

At the same time they are celebrating in unison scientifically and otherwise unsuspecting children on street demonstrations as “politically interested and engaged youth”, recently accompanied by unsettled elderly people.

The tragedy increases, as there seems to be opposition by nationalistic parties only against this nonsense which stands in contradiction to any serious science. But this fact serves as reason for the stupid audacity to defame critics on the climate mania as nationalistic.

Meanwhile: Nature protection is needed urgently which stands for human protection as well. It has to be performed on the basis of clean and ideology-free science and technology.

Conclusion: The “Europe of Fatherlands”, under cosmonomic aspects, is facing difficult times, because it shows, in this conflict situation, a lack of world-openness that could be applied by a united state structure only, by the sum of all its cultural resources – in a balanced partnership with mighty but not so enlightened and not always fairly acting competitors on the globe.

Cosmopolitan, Pacifist, European – Daydreamer?

Another question: Nationalist, militarist?

Additional question: Which indoctrinated ideology is compatible with the principles of emancipation and democracy, with the logic of humanity and non-violence?

Insistence: Which nationalism is getting on without deceitfully constructed hate figures, without callous racism? Which army does not lead any human intelligence ad absurdum by blind obedience?

Inexorability: Which delusion of being chosen by any “God” is getting on without slavery, torture and murder?

Conclusion:

The history of the world, up to the very present day, is, because of immaturity and the lack of education and because of manifold indoctrination, a document of mankind in the error of violence.

Humanity and emancipated human rights are out of government because of totalitarian ideologies and religions.

By far, most people of mankind live in intellectual distress and, arising from this, in physical suffering.

Accordingly to this, the philosophical enlightenment, as a possible alternative, appears modest and powerless, and apart from this doesn't have any official and social recognition in any state of the globe, let alone a ruling position. There are only few regions on Earth where enlightened opinions can be expressed without danger for heart and soul of the enlightened authors!

Facing rapid technological achievements mankind has to give answer very frankly: Continuing as before, with open eyes right into the abyss or perhaps better, reflection on new orientation?

For the latter option only enlightenment is coming into question, maybe similar to the Cosmonomic Manifesto.

But first we have to clear up fundamentally a misunderstanding: “Religious freedom” as, for example, guaranteed by UN Human Rights, cannot mean “arbitrary religious despotism” within the state publicity. Religion exclusively has to be limited to the private sphere, considering the private sphere of others. Consistent religious neutrality or rather independence of state from religion appears as a mandatory reorientation for a peaceful human togetherness. This applies likewise to ideologies similar to religion and to pervasive esoteric pseudo-sciences.

The mental reorientation never can succeed by warlike aggressiveness. For example, a Cosmonomic social system does not need any arsenal of offensive weapons, because of the self-understanding, any aggressive war maintains forbidden. But pacifism doesn't intend to watch an aggressor's disgraceful work of destruction and remain uninvolved, instead it means actually to be prepared for superior defense. This explicitly includes proactive, consistently honest politics of deescalation and further more, a most modern arms technology that doesn't have anything in common with foolish and traditional militarism but could as well serve as a general and common civil protection. In future, for instance, there is no need of nuclear rockets, of submarines and tanks to paralyze the complete energy supply and infrastructure of an aggressor and to blight his attack.

Any liberal value society is obliged to resist inner as well as outer destruction, if it will not, from the start, open the door for its own extermination: It has to defend itself undeniably, but it doesn't need to be able to attack or even conquer. Pacifism still doesn't represent patient defenselessness but intellectual superiority and material preventive measures for a preferably unbeatable self-determination, in other words, defense and nothing else.

European Perspective?

Before speaking of a European perspective Europe first has to define itself to identify with itself.

The European Union, as a blown up and flighty loose alliance, can exist rather badly so far only because there is much more devastating hullabaloo on the big international stage as mankind is remaining mentally in the primitive middle ages, despite scientific and technological innovations.

The small European single states don't have the lowest prospect of a cultural and economical success against the mass populations of China and India or against the power centers of the USA and Russia.

The European alliance of the EU, consisting of partly small-minded nationalistic and unworldly strangers and of some slightly more potential medium-power states which are spoiling their possibilities by historical retrogression, has to recognize at last that there is only one way to bring security, wealth, self-confidence and international competitiveness to the people of this continent: The consistent founding of a new European state as “The United States of Europe” with a liberal, democratic and federal constitution.

There is no lost of culture and identity of the member states by federalism but definitely the contrary: Bundling the rich heritage and the power of all facets while knowing about peace among each other and trusting in the international force to the outside world.

From the diversity within such a state open mindedness is derived , cosmopolitan self-consciousness is justified as well under the awareness of being part of the whole globe. This participation encourages to preserve and develop cultural and scientific acquis and, for the benefit of the total globe, not to misplay them in a provincial manner but to assert them internationally and work with them forward-looking against any attempts of destruction in favor of peace, non-violence and the fulfillment of the Human Rights.

Daydreams?

Maybe – for just a sleepy and religious and ideologically constrained society with egoistic demands.

As a cosmopolitan, as pacifist and German European I do see this different, that is to say: We have the consistent option of becoming more humane in the name of humanity.

The Cosmonomic Manifesto is my contribution in this sense.